What's the primary resolution/refresh rate you're gaming at on your PC (2022)?

[GerKNG]

Main Monitor switched between a G7 and M32U
now i am back at 1440p 165Hz. 4K/144 looks great for a week or two and after that you just wonder where your FPS went.

 

[Frick]

4k 60Hz.

1080p, mainly because I've lost interest in a lot of modern AAA's + multiplayer and often play more classic titles than new games, and a lot of older games UI's designed around traditional 90-95ppi don't scale that well on HiDPI screens (ie, icons, text, HUD elements, etc, become abnormally small). Example - Dragon Age Origins at 1080p vs 1440p vs 4k (note the size of the quickbar at the bottom, map at the top right, etc, shrinks as resolution increases). 1080p is optimal for maintaining non-scaling UI sizes, 1440p is playable (though more enjoyable at 32" than 27") but 4k is simply unusable on typical 28-32" screen sizes (and I don't want to sit 2ft in front of a glorified 40-48" TV turning my head like a damn owl trying to "see" everything). 2560x1080 Ultrawide or 32" 1440p or is probably the next "older game friendly" upgrade that perfectly matches 1080p @ 24". I have the same absolute zero interest in the 4k, 8k, 65536k pixel rat race though as I do with 'flagship' phone cameras Megapixel number chasing.

I agree with basically all of this, but I will say that 4k on 32" is really nice in some games. Freelancer with the HD mod is one example. Far from all games benefit from it though, and as you say the hassle of not all games supporting scaling makes it probably not worth it.

 

[Fluffmeister]

I have still memory of my SONY 19" top Tier CRT. But with a price tag of 1000 + USD, the people which have the chance own these, they were a tiny group of 2D graphics developers or digital photographers or civil engineers. My current DELL its the most acceptable compromise.

Yeah I had two 24" widescreen SONY GDM- FW900's, amazing pieces of kit.

 

[Keullo-e]

1080-144.
might consider 1080-240 or 1080-360, but i dont really see a point in higher pixel density.
if i were to upgrade, refresh rate'd be my target, not pixels.

I have the opposite opinion even a 1khz monitor won't make me a better gamer, but having a better resolution would be fine. 1080 Ti can still push in 4K with lower settings in new games.

 

[WhiteNoise]

I've been gaming at 4K since 2017 and the entire time with my current Samsung screen in my specs. It's a 60Hz screen and I have thought about moving to a samsung odyssey g9 just for the wow factor and a slight drop in res. but I doubt I would. I'd love to run a 1440P screen at 144Hz or more but for the most part I would be looking at 32-34" screens. I currently run a 55" 4K screen that I am happy with (performance-wise and even more so visually) but I admit the 55 is a bit large. My RTX3090 seems to push 4k without issue.

 

[ratirt]

4k above 75hz from the poll

 

[Shrek]

2560x1440@60Hz

 

[Flogger23m]

2560x1440 at 120 Hz (or 144).

 

[Space Lynx]

My screen depends on the game I play.

Some games love 21:9, other times I want 1920x1080 165hz 23.8" because its the max PPI acceptable for 1080p and some AAA games need that rez to run very high frames. Older games I prefer 27" 1440p high refresh as it breathes new life into them and allows me to enjoy the max smoothness of high refresh still.

If I am playing on Playstation 5, I want to play on a 4k OLED big screen only.

 

[Blaeza]

1080p 60hz, although I'd like a 1440p 75hz but then I'd have to upgrade my 1660 super.

 

[kapone32]

My main Gaming screen is 1440P 165Hz but I have a 4K 120HZ TV that is a joy to Game with.

 

[alpha007org]

Ultrawide 3440:1440 above 75Hz. I play simracing titles only. In a simrig, with the wheel and pedals. ACC is the most demanding, but with Freesync, I hover in the range 100-144Hz.

 

[NotHereMan]

1080p@120Hz ELMB ... If that's a thing. My monitor can go up to 165Hz, but I try to get the lowest input lag, and I believe it's suggested to use ELMB for such a thing.

 

[chrcoluk]

4k isnt the most popular, but I think reviewers give it so much attention because (a) its the supposed reason the high end cards exist and (b) its where the hype is.

I usually play at 1440p full screen or a lower res windowed (if I want to multi task). Most of the time 60fps, occasionally 30. I might increase the refresh rate for the game (but not framerate) if there is a specific benefit to it, such as in Tales of Vesperia 120hz fixes stuttering issues.

However I do often either enable SGSSAA (for DX9 games) or downscale from higher resolutions such as 4k (on newer games).

 

[arni-gx]

UltraWide/2 displays above 75Hz​

3440x1440 144hz.... but, for all of the pc games that i have been playing this so far, only a few of them can achieve 144 fps on 3440x1440..... WOT PC, War Thunder, DOOM eternals, etc.... even armored warfare fail to achieve 144 fps, mostly average is under 90 fps.... their eye candy its much worse than WOT PC and war thunder....

 

[Gmr_Chick]

Refresh rate depends on the game for me. I usually like to stay between 120 and 140hz even though my monitor (AORUS CV27F) can do 165 hz. My monitor is 1080p.

 

[Bobmitmen]

2560 x 1440 @ 170 HZ

 

[wheresmycar]

I've got 3 at the moment: 1080/144, ultrawide 1080p/144 and 1440/144

1440/144 wins!! Haven't looked back at the other 2 for over a year.

4k would be nice when the 9090 ti comes out in 2030. Unfortunately for me still not enough time to save up to match Nvidias contrived and formulated
MSRP of $999,499.99. If I'm lucky in 8 years a used and abused 3090 ti for $1990 might do the job.

 

[Jetster]

1440/74

Always wanted to try /144 but never have

​

 

[Bobmitmen]

Fixed it...thanks

 

[birdie]

Almost the same results as a year ago.

 

[Hyderz]

Ultrawide 3440x1440 100hz