Gaming at 4K is stupid!!! 

1440p looks great on that tv

i sold my 2080ti and went console only for a while, but couldnt stay away. i bought a 6800xt and couldnt get it to play nice with my LG b9 2020 tv. where as my old Nvidia card worked perfectly with it.

I’ve seen lots of videos of people using 21:9 resolutions on the C1. Since the blacks are real black, the black bars don’t stand out. I’ve been trying to do this but can’t work out how to do it properly without the display or the GPU trying to stretch it. Not sure of the right process for creating the custom resolutions and retaining full HDR10 support, if that’s possible

@@Natedaskate I just did it now with my G1 and GTX1650 and it worked fine, I had scaling set to aspect ration.

Yeah, I have a 3080ti, actually two. They can’t push my C1 to 120 but I’m pretty solid around 70-80 fps. That’s where the benefits of G-Sync come in. When the frame rate drops drastically you don’t notice really.

There's always a link in my description and it's currently on sale ;) but seriously make good financial decisions and only purchase I'd you can afford it lol

@@danielowentech I think that it is too much money for the return. Also the 6800XT isn't nearly as great at ray-tracing as what Nvidia has to offer. I'm using a 1440p/144hz G-Sync monitor with an RTX 2080 Super and it works great for RT, when using DLSS.

Sorry but having 2 4k monitors and a RTX 3080 (previously a 1080), I completely disagree, its the same thing as getting a 144hz monitor and never wanting to go back. In competitive games I find myself noticing enemies from across the map that don't even register on 1080p. And at least for me, a regular dude who's never going pro, 60hz is plenty for my reflexes and flicks, and a higher refresh rate really won't fix my aim haha. And running 1440p on a 4k monitor looks worse than 1080p for some reason, unless you have a specific thing like DLSS. Just my experience. Once a cheaper 4k 144hz comes out, I'll definitely jump on it. But for $300, I'd always go 4k 60hz over any 1440p monitor.

@@00000005547 same, i have a 5k 120hz VR headset right now and its simply stunning and its simply so stunning that 1080p is just dead and old to me, i also pre ordered another VR headset that has according to reviewers and the people from varjo themselfes human eye resolution with a PPD of 70 while the avarage human eye has 65 so when i try that kind of crazy resolution i will probably never go back to something under 4K lol

If you have the horsepower to run the game the way you like at 4K, then if course by all means do it. But just don't write off going sub 4K on a 4K display if you need the performance. It's not terrible these days between upscaling tech and internal res scalers.

@@00000005547 it's the math of how you divide the pixels. 1080p goes evenly into 4k. 1440p does not. Letting the display decide how the pixels are split (setting the actual screen resolution to 1440p) is different from letting the game engine decide (setting to 4k but using a lower render resolution). Because the game can still anti alias to a 4k grid instead of the 1440p grid.

@@shashumga6766 varjo Aero?

I like doing the same things. Really feel the difference rather than minor improvements

That's the right way to do it.

Used the same strategy! went from a GTX 970 to a 4090 recently, wont be tempted to upgrade anytime soon. ..unless for some reason the almost meme number generation is gonna be a banger (6090, unlikely though.)

I have 38 curved dell monitor, and LG C2 by side.First I thought I will use C2 only for gaming and movies, but more and more I use it daily. I think only on tv can one appreciate 4k, 38 ultrawide has way less area, it's incomparable. I don't think it will last for 10 years in terms of technology, it will definitely outdate in 5 years

Sounds like me, 1080 Ti and a high-end 1440p monitor for the past 6 years. (and it still slays in 1440p). Now have a 4090, and shopping for the right 4k monitor (harder to find).

Completing agreed! I went from 4k 60hz to 1440p 165hz and instantly regretted. Now I'm on CX 4k 48 OLED.

Try dldsr to 4K…

I would chose 1440p 144hz over 4k every day of the week

​​@@Alex-bl8uhresolution means nothing without the high native framerates to back it up. Framerate response and smoothness are much more important than extra fancy graphics and gimmick tech demos effects that can't even be run at high framerates natively on a $2000+ highest end GPU lol.

@@leanlifter1 so you agree with me?

This guy is the whiter than Casper the ghost 😂

​@@bazle64Got a problem with Whites, woman?

Absolutely and i think on 1,5x 1440 p it looks better than 4k without AA. 4k is no holy grail, it still pixels at the edges if you dont use AA or DSR.

That's how you count pixels. If you can't count pixels, you ain't close enough.

@@dra6o0n with a 27" 1440p or 32" 4k monitor you don't see any pixels regardless of distance. :)

​​​@@seizonshaYou also can't even see your crosshairs or even simple text lol. To high PPI is losing details because you cannot see them as they are to small. 4k was designed as a cinema resolution for big screen TVs 50"+. 1440p was designed for use with computer monitors of much smaller sizes than that of their big cinema 4k TV counterparts.

Yeah this is the first time I disagree with dr. Owen here. Basically I just wanted to game at 4k. That was all I wanted for the 30/600 series. That was also my main goal for this year, all I wanted was just an affordable entry to 4k gaming, and, but well here we are lol so much for 40 series looking remotely attractive. 1440p looks MUCH better than 1080p. Can't say for certain 4k, but heard it's not as big an uplift 1440 to 4k as 1080 to 1440, but yeah, I refuse to use FSR or DLSS. If I have to use an upscaler is saying "this hardware can't do that." Upscaling has been a thing for decades; it wasn't a standard before for a reason. So. To me is about running native. I don't see the point to upscale for literally the same exact reason I see zero reason for using RT+DLSS because why would I pay out the ass to slash my framerate for pretty lights, only to blur/smudge/artifact/ghost the entire rendered scene only to get some not all fps back? So now it looks worse and gets lower fps, great much wow. So to me, it's literally the same type of thing, why would I pay so much for 4k, just to completely ruin the experience with upscaling??? High fidelity is the whole point. And yes I am willing to pay for this kind of experience, it's just this year was supposed to see the $400-450 7700XT match 6800XT so you can game at 4k with a midrange card. If I can't game at 4k I have literally no reason to upgrade GPU right now otherwise.

@@drek9k2 4k vs 1440p depends A LOT on the size of the screen and how close your face is to it and I don't see that being mentioned here

6900 XT… 4k 60fps ultra? I doubt it man my 4070ti OC struggles most games.. high settings yes, DLSS 3.0 getting much better like cyberpunk runs well at high. What other specs you running?

@richie231186 At the time, I was running an X570 am4 board / 5950 / 32 gigs with 6900 XT reference water cooled with a decent OC. On bf 2042. I would get easily over 60 fps in ultra mode (no RT).

@@drek9k2 seems like you don’t have experience with modern upscalers, it’s absolutely as good as native and in some areas better. Most issues with DLSS can be fixed with a simple dll swap.

Same with flying. Once you have been on a trans atlantic flight in business class you can't go back to economy.

You're better off using a higher resolution with a lower DLSS setting too if you can, than just playing at the lower resolution. The extra clarity actually can help a lot in some games.

because 50% render from 4k IS indeed a higher resolution than 1080p. 1080p would be 25% from 4k.

@@mydroidx1013 50% scaled at 4K is 1080p. The scaling factor is applied to both dimensions of the resolution, since 4K is 3840x2160 that gets you 1920x1080. That's even on nvidia's DLSS chart showing the effective render scale at 50%.

That's because 50% isn't 1080p.

@Lurch that's pretty good scores but those are just benchmark scores and don't represent what you would get during actual gameplay with any game. Ive had Xfx cards in the past too never had them fail in anyway. I usually undervolt my cards and keep the fan speeds down typically stay around 900rpm and my temps stay super low with the Xfx rx 6800. I enjoy it and I got it for a steal right during the crypto boom so I'm happy with it and most of my games I play run over 60fps on my c1 at 4k. I mostly play the Assassin's Creed franchise and other aaa single player games. Otherwise I play on my Dell S27dgf 1440p 165hz monitor.

absolutely correct

Yep. I HAVE to game in 4K because I have a 65 inch tv and anything less looks blurry. I have a 5600x and 6800xt. I just usually run low settings in games to get the highest frames possible because it still looks great at low settings. I avg over 150fps on most games like destiny 2 and battlefield so 4K low seems to be my sweet spot.

@@thatsamazin- Well, I'm running a 3080 with an 10850k on a 48 LG 120 hertz and yes 1440 looks blurry and almost like 1080p. So I rather lower the setting at high or medium and enjoy the crisp details of 4k.. By the way, where and how did you get the 6800xt?

I use a 27" 170hz 1440p IPS display with a 5900X and RX 6800 XT. It's perfect. I tried to aim for a 4K card but use it in a 1440p setup and have plenty of hardware fuel for a high fps playstyle with maxed out settings natively first. I don't think I'm ready for a 4K display but if I do it won't be bigger than 40". Anything above that on my desk just feels too big. I don't want to have to turn my head to look at mini maps etc. It just doesn't appeal to me personally.

Most people don't even have the monitors or tv for a side by side comparison. I thought my IPS was excellent until I got my OLED CX 48".

4070Ti will struggle at 4k; you made the right choice.

​@@HappyHubrisYou literally missed the point of the entire video

same card and resolution as you, agree on all points.

Well yeah it's 65 inches? 45 inch would be sharp with 1440p.

​@@portman8909yeah exactly. This giy doesn't know what he talking about stay a little bit close to 4k 65" and you will start to count pixels. 1k, 2k or 4k are just marketing numbers ppi is the true metric for monitors since you will be closer to your monitor most of the time.

4k gaming is for dudes who were facebook “bacon” guys. They went from cat memes to barely grasping the most basic concepts when it comes to gaming peripherals

​@portman8909 1440p good up to 32 inch, over 32 4k is really needed

@@ALPHABYTE94 i do believe 2k cutoff is 27"

4k on a big huge TV would probley have similar PPI as a 1440p 31.5" monitor.

Yeah, or Freesync.

Free and G sync are both just rebranded VESA Adaptive Sync industry wide open standard. Nvidia and AMD just pay royalties to VESA to rebrand the tech in their name. Agreed Adaptive sync is the best new tech along with HDR as they are not cheap gimmicks that take away performance and or image quality at the same time lol like fakeframes and RT lol.

What is Wotr

@@PolarbearYGT Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous One of my favorite games of all times.

Just lots of coffee today lol! Happy Halloween!

@@danielowentech glad to see you enjoying the day still on Far Cry 6 excellent gameplay BTW

But I guess my point in this video is that now the 3080 can play upscaled 1440p on a 4k screen using dlss that doesn't look as good as native 4k but does look better than native 1440p whereas in 2016 the 1080ti couldn't do that.

The 1080 ti WAS a 4k card in 2016. Games were easier to run and 4k also meant 4k/60 so yeah. 1080 ti was certainly a 4k capable card back then. Then the 2080 ti had to contend with 120hz monitors and fell short especially with the 2018 games getting demanding.

@@danielowentech Oh yeah sure i got the point of the vid. Ima just no fan of upscaling technology. I personally have a true 1440p running full details at 60 or more FPS rather than 4k and having to change to medium details. Might be possible that 4k gives u a sharper look but changing details, specially on shadows and textures makes to game look worse again, so there is no point of changing resolution to 4k if u have to lower everything else to get a 60 FPS. @ 1440p iam basically always safe to hit 60 FPS + max details even on the most demanding games.

@@christophermullins7163 Even before that, the entire marketing around the Fury was it was a 4K card, which launched 2 weeks apart from the 980ti. Altho back then of course 60Hz was your limit at that resolution. Games getting more demanding over time is a thing that has always happened. What doesnt happen as often is moving up the refresh rates. So in 2018 when we got both higher resolution and higher refresh rates, suddenly people did start saying that 4K wasnt possible somehow because it cant (or in reality - just harder*) to hit those frame rates, they seem to just ignore there are quite a few numbers between 60 and 144. I dont personally consider something a fail because it cant lock on to the highest FPS. I have my own preference of what is acceptable and while I enjoy higher refresh rates, I am good at anything over 60 - its a bonus. And you absolutely can game at 4K at over 60 in the vast majority of things. Thats the other wonderful argument they roll out - X game cant run at X frame rate therefore the entire thing is a fail..... (?!) So **** the other 14K games out there then??

4090: allow me to introduce myself

Well it will still look great but you aren't seeing the most out of what 4k has to offer until about 50"+ big screen TVs are what it is for to maintain clarity and sharpness like 1440p @ 32".

This is what I have to remind myself when I feel bad about spending a few hundred upgrading my rig, hell sone golf clubs cost more than my whole PC, and we won’t even get into vehicle modding!

Like trading real gold standards of old for new fake bronze gimmicks lol.

1440p 144hz if you have a lower budget. the cheapest 144hz 4k monitor that you can buy in the market right now is the XB273K GP I think which uses a slower IPS panel than newer 4k 144hz monitors. 4k 60hz monitors are alright for console, but the input lag may be high

Personally I find having high refresh rate as an option a big deal so I wouldn't go 4K 60 myself but for single player it is at least worth considering if the picture quality beats the 1440p display.

I have a pc 6700xt and ryzen 5 5600x I'd be playing single player games like whitcher 3 and skrim and more I'd got the idea of a 1440p 144hz monitor it's a sceptre e275b with hdr and 4k monitor not sure on which to go with was looking into asus but the hdr isn't good I do know you have to put more money into it for hdr my budget is under 400 something good overall with hdr

sad that he didn't respond to this.

tell that to RTS players, with higher resolution you can usually see much more compared to 1080p

With a bigger frame 1440p/4k 32" you see more and pan the camera less. 24" 1080p is a very very narrow view and requires allot more panning of the camera because you see allot less information in each frame.

I have 32" 4k Samsung monitor and mine friend calibrated it 😋 . Colours after calibration are sweet like 10x more colourfull now + improved shadow details 🙂😃😁 Monitors are as well great, just best after calibration with profi equipment & real measurements.😉🙂

Probably with fake hdr tho.

@@tmsphere of course it's the fake HDR400. I sold it, though, and now game on an LG B2 OLED with an RTX 4080 laptop. Loving my setup

Yep, that's the main issue. The difference is so subtle outside of text rendering you have to actively look for it to notice but fps drops by 50%. I tried going from a high end 32" 1440p VA to a 32" 4k IPS and returned it immediately due to the poor contrast, backlight bleed, dead pixels and barely any difference in games or movies.

You had a 32in 1080p? Are you sitting 8 ft back from your monitor? I can see pixels on that big of a 1080 pretty easily from normal desk distances.

Hey fellow projector 📽 enthusiast I game 1080p 165hz for fps shooters and 1080p 120 hz hdr projector dsr 4K looks incredible. Will upgrade to 4K 120hz projector when cards can actually run that in a couple of years

This is what most people who never used a 4K monitor for more than a week says.

@@paul2609 even in a game like valhiem which has really low resolution everything I can tell the difference between 1080, 1440, and 4k and that's only on a 27in monitor.

​@@No-One.321You can't even comfortably read text on a tiny little 27" 4k monitor let alone see all the rest of the details you are missing out on such a small screen with big resolution.

I’ve also got a 1080p 144hz aoc monitor it’s the 24g2u. It’s great and I have no plans of getting into 1440p or 4K I’ve used both but they don’t seem worth it to me on monitors

Not now.

Proprietary Gimmick stack to be more honest about reality. LOL

I think people and devs in general have realized that native 4k rendering is stupid, since upscalers can provide 98% of the quality at 50-60% of the cost. Like I can see the difference between native 4k and 1440p it's pretty obvious but when I use dlss (using dlss quality on 4k is equal to 1440p) the difference isn't as obvious as before. So even if you want to run games at 1440p running them on native 1440p is stupid because you're missing out on the extra visual improvements that you would have if you upscaled them to 4k

@@khaledm.1476 So why buy something that's just 80% complete next year again with 90% and finally 98%. It's ok if you feel benefit from it. But at the moment 8k or 4k monitor is incomplete. Tech and games just coming close to fully utilize it. Only reason why you want upscaling technology to be implemented because you can't get powerful enough hardware. It's nice to get extra FPS then you struggle with hardware purchase. I find it dump that you need latest hardware to utilize it. That's main reason I don't even consider any it. And I like to play games on my laptop with 100fps without any upscale on 1080 screen. Personally I find laptop gaming so comfortable for my lazy lifestyle that haven't turned on desktop for months.

​@@khaledm.1476It's a decrease in quality for an increase in quantity and lag of frames. Why trade real quality gold for a fake Bronze gimmick ?

Yup 4K @ 27" you can't even see or read icons on the desktop without scaling then up to where they look to big for the small screen lol. I guess the PC gamers that game on such tiny monitors have their eyes three inches from the screen at all times lol. I agree go bigger on the monitor/TV so you can actually see everything.

@@leanlifter1haha I could imagine! I have since changed my screen for a LG 42" OLED and even on that I run 125% Windows scale! :) So I cant imagine a 27"! :) But over time I have found this to be a very good sweet spot. 42". Big to have the "big screen expereience" and still "small" enough to have in front as desktop solution. I love my C2 LG.

I run higher than native res all the time. Some games do a good job at pixel to pixel distinction and some games have a blur factor where the game just isn't as clear as it could be and it comes down to how it's coded and the engine. In this case.. rendering at 50% higher resolution can great increase image quality at the same resolution. Old games looking better at 8k/4k native? Absolutely dude, go for it.

@@christophermullins7163 Thank you Christopher for your detailed reply! Much appreciated!

A lot of older games break when playing at high resolution such as misalign/badly scaled UI. I was playing Half Life 2 at 4K and the crosshair looks really small compared to 1080p.

@@paul2609 True. I have experienced this. Not all games benefit from raising the resolution to eg 4K. As a general rule of thumb, I do try raising the resolution as it can reduce the sometimes "nasty" aliasing.

​​@@paul2609That's because 4k is a cinema standard intended for use on 50"+ TVs then you would actually be able to see everything including your cross hair lol. You are making the PC noob mistake of run ing way to high PPI for the small computer monitor. You are losing details because many of them are to small to even see because the PPI is to extreme. That's why they don't make 4k phones it's a waste and you lose many details.

you can have both 4K and 120Hz

@@ALPHABYTE941440p 240Hz> 4k 120hz. People who play story games dont count as gamers.

@@itsv1p3r xd, fortnite does count as a game

@@itsv1p3r ofc 4k 120hz > 1440p 240hz I play cs2, Rainbow Six, Racing games and games like Factorio

Are you console or PC gaming on the 65”?

@@cliffordduhh45 PC. 3090ti

​@@OhItsThatI just don't believe you can't tell the difference in refresh rate.

@@tmsphere But he can definitely tell which one is OLED lol

I just built my first gaming PC and people are telling me that I can’t game at 4k because I only have a 4070ti.

​​@@dauntae24Those people think that PC gaming means turning the settings to pre configured Ultra and if the GPU does not run it @ 4k and 500+fps is garbage. Typically this is because they don't have a clue on how to dial in the settings and turn them down lol for their hardware. The 4070ti can natively run 99% of all games @ 4k high not ultra settings especially when you turn off the rt gimmicks in the two games that support them lol.