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.

 

[Vayra86]

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.

This idiotic distinction between 'PC and TV HDR' only exists because we lack widely available OLED. Realistically, HDR is too early to market for the current quality and tech in our panels. Achieving some set of values to classify something as HDR while in fact all we did was put a brighter backlight and a new filter in there. Screw the end user experience, screw pleasant viewing. The panel tech's limitations are what created the current 'standards'.

Don't buy into it. Wait. Let the market adjust and panic as their current iteration of HDR won't sell.

 

[AlienIsGOD]

Voted other as I own a 1440p 60hz monitor now. My next upgrade will probably be 1440p/144hz screen

 

[John Naylor]

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..

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

While I want to say 144 Hz, IPS at 4K and at least 120 ppi (27 - 36") w/ ULMB, i don't think the next generation of GFX cards will be able to handle that. So for right now, its 165HZ, AUOptonics IPS Panel, using ULMB. And while Im not about to appoint hertz as king, I do want to be at 80+ fps so as to never have to get away from ULMB

55" ? ... no thanks, to me it's like looking at pen and ink drawings w/ 80 ppi. I played on a large curved monitore for about 2 hours and i did like the sense of immersion. But going back to a quality IPS panel was like getting hit with a brick ... like seeing a color TV for the 1st time after growing up with B & W.

 

[WhiteNoise]

@John Naylor for bringing up B&W let me go off topic a sec.


I grew up with black and white, no remotes and no cable tv. More times than I care to admit my dad had me standing next to the tv holding the antenna w/tin foil so he could get a better picture. Where I grew up there was no such thing as cable TV. We had 4 channels on a good day. I'm a 70's kid and let me tell you...the advancements we have made since then are staggering.

Back then we had just local stations and most people owned a single TV. Now we have hundreds of channels, streaming etc and it is not uncommon to find multiple TV's in one house. Hell I have a TV in almost every room.

 

[John Naylor]

I grew up with black and white, no remotes and no cable tv. More times than I care to admit my dad had me standing next to the tv holding the antenna w/tin foil so he could get a better picture. Where I grew up there was no such thing as cable TV. We had 4 channels on a good day. I'm a 70's kid and let me tell you...the advancements we have made since then are staggering.

Wow, I lived a priviledge life in NYC.... Channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 ... I remember the "Movie of the Week" would be on Channel 5 and I remember watching "Forbidden Planet", each night Monday thru Friday and twice on Saturday . ABC picked up using the name in the late 60s and played made for TV stuff.

I recently sat down with my 27 year old son to watch Forbidden Planet thinking a kid who grew up on Star Wars and other CGI megamillion empty blockbusters would find it amateurish ... at the end he commented, "Well that will certainly remain on my "Top 5 SciFi movies".

 

[WhiteNoise]

Wow, I lived a priviledge life in NYC.... Channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 ... I remember the "Movie of the Week" would be on Channel 5 and I remember watching "Forbidden Planet", each night Monday thru Friday and twice on Saturday . ABC picked up using the name in the late 60s and played made for TV stuff.

I recently sat down with my 27 year old son to watch Forbidden Planet thinking a kid who grew up on Star Wars and other CGI megamillion empty blockbusters would find it amateurish ... at the end he commented, "Well that will certainly remain on my "Top 5 SciFi movies".

WOW! 6 channels!! I'd have fainted from the staggering amount of choices you had. lol

We had ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. I spent most of my childhood watching PBS. I had kids late in life (I'm 45 with a 9 year old and a 3 year old) and the 9 year old has this glazed over look in her eyes when I talk about how we had no cell phones, internet and only several TV channels. She doesn't get it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

My 2 cents, I greatly enjoy my current gaming rig, 1440p@120hz. UHD is just not compelling enough to justify the expense of all new equipment.

 

[Divide Overflow]

1440p 144Hz.

 

[Deleted member 50521]

VR, ,my go to for all gaming

 

[Liquid Cool]

I voted other...1080p @ 60hz is enough for me.....

I'm usually happy if the game I'm playing can hold 60 FPS, if it can't...I just start turning down settings until it can. Dell 24-inch monitors are my go-to brand/size...I've been buying them since the Dell 2407 WFP came out and I don't plan on changing any time soon. I usually go with the P models, but I've been eyeing a Dell S2419HM "ultra-thin" recently that caught my fancy. I don't usually like glossy monitors, but this one I do like...well, I like the infinity edge bezels.....

Best,

Liquid Cool

 

[Ruru]

4K.

 

[GoldenX]

The best I can without spending stupid amounts of money.
Right now that means 1440x900 @ 75Hz.

 

[John Naylor]

WOW! 6 channels!! I'd have fainted from the staggering amount of choices you had. lol

We had ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. I spent most of my childhood watching PBS. I had kids late in life (I'm 45 with a 9 year old and a 3 year old) and the 9 year old has this glazed over look in her eyes when I talk about how we had no cell phones, internet and only several TV channels. She doesn't get it.

Oops 7 ... i forgot about 13 (PBS).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Didn't get a Fox affiliate here until 1999. Only ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS until then. Today, still only have the five but they all have subchannels now. Off topic though...


I'm hoping not to change monitors until after Navi launches.

 

[droopyRO]

WOW! 6 channels!! I'd have fainted from the staggering amount of choices you had. lol

We had ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. I spent most of my childhood watching PBS. I had kids late in life (I'm 45 with a 9 year old and a 3 year old) and the 9 year old has this glazed over look in her eyes when I talk about how we had no cell phones, internet and only several TV channels. She doesn't get it.

We had one channel(state television) here until 1990, because communist-dictatorship In certain parts of the country you could pick up transmissions from Bulgaria or Yugoslavia and watch their programs, they had cartoons like The Flintstones even. Here in Romania there were cartoons ony on Sundays and holidays IIRC. Up to about 1995 the number continued to grow and then cable TV hit, i was about 10 when i first watched Cartoon Network, i can even remember that it was Tuesday and Birdman was running.
The experience felt like growing up in the desert and than eating ice cream for the first time or seeing snow.
Trying to explain that s**t to kids is not easy :B

/sorry for offtopic
PS: this could be an interesting topic to discuss though.

 

[27MaD]

Can i understad why @Tatty_One & @MrGenius voted for 30 FPS ?

 

[AlwaysHope]

Minimum 1080P & preferably @ 75Hz or more with free sync.
They say 60Hz is satisfactory for vast majority of human eyes to not detect screen flicker, but it's definately not one size fits all. Everyone's different.

 

[eidairaman1]

75Hz or Greater for me, otherwise forget it