How would you rather game?

[Papahyooie]

I'll play at 720p if I have to, if it means 144hz. More would be better, but I can't justify spending a grand on a 240hz monitor.

1080p at 144hz is my sweet spot. I think monitor size also should be a factor in this discussion. I game on a 24 inch monitor at 1080p, which is perfectly fine. If it were 32 inch or larger, I'd probably be yearning for more pixels, but anything past 1080p to me is just icing at 24 inches. And personally, I don't care to get anything bigger, because anything past 24" starts to get outside the acceptable range of my peripheral vision, which is bad for shooters. Games other than shooters are fine for larger screens, but an average size screen doesn't take anything away from them. So there really isn't any point for me to get anything bigger. I've got a steam link and a 55" TV, or the Oculus rift if I want something more immersive.

In short... to me, Hertz is king.

 

[neatfeatguy]

5760x1080 (with bezel correction it's actually 6000x1080). As long as I can pull 30fps+ is great at this resolution. I'll generally tank down settings to get higher; such as shadows, grass, AA/AF so I can get it closer to 60fps.

Any game that doesn't support 5760x1080 I resort to 1920x1080 The biggest issue that I come across on 5760x1080 is the issue with menus not fitting the resolution correctly, during gameplay or at the menu screen.

 

[WhiteNoise]

I love big screens so gaming at 4K is really important to me since I use a 55” curved screen on my desk. 4K just looks crazy good when close up.

 

[Durvelle27]

I love big screens so gaming at 4K is really important to me since I use a 55” curved screen on my desk. 4K just looks crazy good when close up.

You are so right
All my displays are 4K but the best by far in terms of experience is the 55” Curved 4K display. It simply just immerses you

 

[AsRock]

I am happy at 1080P, in no rush for higher refresh rates. Although would not mind a 1080 or alike performance, but still no rush for that. BUT what would bother me is less than 40" TV.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Every single TV with Ultra HD Premium certification - which is the only HDR TV's you should buy - will get VESA's DisplayHDR 1000. Compare the requirements and you'll see.

"Ultra HD Premium" is about peaknits, black level, resolution, 10 bit color depth, color space etc. No TV that can't fulfil those minimum requirements won't get the certification and this certification is like a DisplayHDR 1000 stamp. It was made because there were tons of TV claiming HDR, even tho they were using 8 bit panels and/or didn't have the nits to show HDR properly. PC needed DisplayHDR because HDR was (and still is) a mess on PC monitors.

Ultra HD Premium has nothing to do with HDR standards like HDR10, HDR10+ or Dolby Vision. It's all about panel and hardware.

It is supposed to create clarity for customers, just like DisplayHDR. TV market does not need a guideline like DisplayHDR, because it's already present and have been for a long time now. If it has the logo, HDR experience will be good. DisplayHDR 400 is practially useless, 600 is "bad HDR", 1000 is needed for a decent HDR experience.

That OLED you linked will easily deliver better HDR than any DisplayHDR 1000 monitor - Because it's OLED. Nits requirement is for LCD tech. Please don't compare LCD with OLED. OLED has crazy blacks and contrast, they don't need those peaknits. Because of self emitting pixels.

Ultra HD Premium nits requirement is only 540 nits on OLED. Because black levels are simply night and day difference compared to backlit LCD (also much better than FALD LCD).

VESA's DisplayHDR is for PC ONLY and LCD TECH ONLY.
From their own homepage: "Creating a specification for the PC industry that will be shared publicly and transparently"

VESA simply took Ultra HD Premium requirements for LCD and called it DisplayHDR 1000, then created 400 and 600 for a crappy HDR experience. Probably because monitor manufacturers could call their monitors "HDR". Take a look at member participants on DisplayHDR.org. Hardware and PC monitor manufaturers.



Not really... Basicly both are bad. Needs at least 100+ Hz to be much better than 60. I prefer 120 Hz minimum tho.

60 Hz does not give you headache, it was probably the monitor itself; Not flicker free. This can give some people headache.

Here's what DisplayHDR 1000 would look like on a PC monitor:

Lots of games (like Talos Principle) start with a blindingly white screen like that. Like I said, Samsung could have made their FreeSync 2 monitors 1000 nit but decided against it because it is *too* bright for most PC use cases.


Also looked at a conversation a guy that makes monitors had with someone else about HDR. TV HDR is slow (causes input lag in games) where computer HDR is fast because of the simple fact that GPUs have a crapload more compute power than TVs do. One of the reasons why AMD created FreeSync 2 was to move that HDR processing to where it belongs (the GPU). Watching a movie or TV, sure, it's not going to matter if the TV does all of the HDR work. Gaming, it's better for the GPU to handle it.

 

[Frick]

If it were like VR in the Movie Ready Player ONE then I'd game like that but till then a Mouse+Keyboard

View attachment 104668

Read Otherland by Tad Williams for more VR goodness.

I chose "other", meaning "any way I can enjoy the game", which has been anything from 25FPS to 100+ FPS on any resolution.