1080/60fps or 4K/30fps - if you had to choose, which one would it be?

This, all day long

4k/60 if possible

I currently game at 1440p/60 on everything.

If i have to make a choice, id much rather turn down the resolution to maintain a stable 60fps than to drop down to 30.

The only right answer.

I agree, but you wouldnt believe how many System Warriors who would go for the 4K supermodel and brag about it.

And what console can do that?

@Xplode_games:

...did you not see my other post? First of all let me be clear that 4K native/60 should be the ultimate goal that devs and the gaming community should be striving for as a whole.

However as I said if that target cannot be reached right away then devs should utilize a dynamic Rez solution just the way it was used in Halo 5 in order to maintain a 60fps. I cannot see myself going back to 30fps even if its in 4K. That is NOT progression.

But at the same time settling for a 1080 Rez to upscale to 2160p is also not the right move and just doesn't feel right either.

But with a dynamic Rez solution we can keep 60 fps while scaling the Rez back and forth say between 1800p all the way up to 2160p depending on how demanding certain sections of a game is.

By doing a dynamic solution we get the best of both worlds of FPS and just enough REZ where you don't have to feel like you are not getting enough potential from your 4K set.

There is just something that doesn't sit well with me to say we're going to upscale all the way from 1080p all the way up to 2160p. That's a big gap folks as opposed to upscaling from 1800p (or 1900p) to 2160p.

1080p 60fps all day, 30fps is unplayble at worst and tolerable at best for me

1080p 60fps easily.

1080p/60fps for racers and first person shooters, for everything else 4k/30fps.

@SolidGame_basic: 1080p and 60fps. That is actually possible without stupidly expensive hardware.

That and I've experienced 4K and I wasn't that impressed. Sure it is clear but honestly I don't think it is worth the expense or effort of getting the hardware for it.

I'll probably go 4K when the screens and hardware are so cheap that you may as well.

That and the number of games out that can truly take advantage of 4K are still relatively few. Plus if you buy "4K hardware" now it will cost a lot and only struggle to play new games in 4K in future.

The GTX 1080 can JUST about manage 4K consistently but mostly at sub 60fps. In a year that won't be the case anymore, those fps values will tumble and then the graphics settings will have to be dropped.

1440P/60fps

4k 30fps but I would take 1800p 60fps (checkerboard 4K) if it were an option.

1080p/60fps. A 2160p display that doesn't interlace the refresh rate is pretty expensive. I'd rather upgrade my hardware.

Ditto. Like most people, I don't have a 4k TV -- the the 4k is a moot point for me.

That's kinda a weird choice. If your hardware can handle 1080p 60 fps, it doesn't mean it can jump up to 4k lol. Usually it is 1080p 60 fps or 1440p 30 fps. Or 1440p 100fps and 4k 30 fps. You just don't jump from 1080p to 4k unless you are talking about this lame upscaling, which is not even remotely looks like a true 4k.

Sure that's the ideal goal, but not an entirely realistic one at present day. While it is technically possible on PC so long as you have the most expensive hardware, getting both that resolution and high frame rate requires a considerable amount of sacrifice in settings. Ultimately it's not entirely consistent as a standard. Nor should PC gaming as a whole, just because high tech options are available, be a "rich mans entertainment" only. Truth is we're not at the point where 4K/60 is available to the masses, so 1440p/60 is the more realistic standard we can strive for.

In fact I made this topic exploring the players preference for graphics/performance balance a while back, with a poll.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/4k-vs-graphics-settings-vs-frame-rate-33361378/

native res/60+fps

I always go for 60fps min. Too far below that and I begin to feel the input become less responsive. Right now I am doing 2K resolution (1440p) at 60-144Hz with G-Sync enabled. I believe it to be the optimal gaming configuration.

4K/60Hz with max settings is still not really possible. You need a $1200 Titan X Pascal in order to hit that mark.

1080p60 is the perfect balance for current consoles.

I mean, 4K is awesome, but not this generation with Pro, or even Scorpio hardware, which will probably handle 4K20 or upscaled 4K30.

I can't believe some in this thread would stomach going back to 30fps....for crying out loud we have to move on. 60fps should be standard and then we progress from there with Rez.

I see some mentioning 1440p/60....okay that's a start I guess.... better than 1080/60.

.....I get the feeling those voting 1080/60 don't have a 4K set or don't plan on getting one in the near future. Because if you did have a 4K set there is no way you would just simply settle for a 1080 Rez upscaling all the way to 2160p.

1440 is better but I still feel that the base should be in the neighborhood of 1800p-1900p with a dynamic Rez solution to maintain 60fps. I just feel that anything below 1800 and I'll just feel cheated out of the potential of my 4K display.

Depends on the game.

A fast paced action game, 1080p60

A slower movie like experience game, 4k30

I think the majority of games should be running at 60 frames though.

I do agree that 60 fps should be standard, but I get the feeling you don't quite appreciate that having 4K displays is not so easy for some people to get. Sure prices are much lower than from 5 years ago, but we're still not at the point where they're within the reach of the general masses, given budgets and life expenses for the average joe.

And while playing movies in 4K is easy enough, do you not get that not everybody can afford the PC hardware necessary to play games that are rendering in real time 4K graphics, high settings, and still doing that in 60 fps? That kind of PC tech is still not accessible to the gamer masses, and I'll say again, PC gaming shouldn't be confined to a "rich man's only" pastime.

If I'm playing an online MP shooter then 1080/60 anything else 4k/30

@AdobeArtist: Like you said 4K sets are cheap so I'm not so sure it's really going to be a problem.

Right now 1080p/60 as I have no 4K TV.

And do you consider a GTX 1080 paired with an i7 to be "cheap"?

8k/120fps. Not ideal but anything less than that makes me puke.

1080p is good enough, at that point frame rate matters much, much more than further increases in resolution.

1080/60.

If it's all cinematic and story-driven, 4k/30 fps is fine.

I don't have a 4k tv. Nor will I have one anytime soon. Asides from my current setup not allowing me to have enough distance to truly see the difference of 4k. So 1080p/60 FPS.

Action/Sport/Platformer games - 1080p/60fps

Adventure/RPG/Cinematic games - 4K/30fps

1080/60

1080p/60fps.

1080p/60

1080p60 now and 1600p60 next generation.

4k is great but too demanding. And lets be honest, with a good AA solution anything above 1440p is almost jaggie free.