Is 4k overhyped?

Hmmm, I can't see difference between 2k(QHD or 1440p) and 4k...

I will probably get a lot of flack for this thread, but me, as a pc gamer, i was not blown away with 4k resolution. Just recently migrated from QHD 10-bit monitor to a new 10-bit 4k 43-inch display for multipurpose use - coding, movies, gaming and graphic design. Probably the biggest 4k display you can get rtn.

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0711MP768/ref=emc_b_5_t

So, I am playing RE2 remake rtn, sitting just a 3 feets away from my huge 43-inch monitor and you know what, I can't f*cking see any difference except for some barely noticeable antialising.

Is it my eyes? Is it my display compensating with improved image quality? is it anti-alising thing that makes 2k and 4k difference barely noticeable? Is it because RE2 graphics are so good?

2K(QHD)

4k

The above picture is called QHD. 4K is a stupid term. It just means four times 1920x1080. If you say 2K, that would mean 1080p or the horizontal res of that, 1920. It's harder to see the difference between QHD and 4K than between Full HD and 4K. QHD should be the PC standard anyway. No one needs 4K res sitting in front of a monitor, and most programs and even Windows 10 itself scale badly on 4K anyway.

Edit: Your second picture is also in QHD.

Couldn't give a shit about it.

Also, you might wanna turn off some of Resident Evil 2's shitty filters, like film grain and chromatic abberation. Those will make it look blurrier. I see both in your pictures.

Fixed it now. Attached the wrong picture. Thank you for the details. In some sources, 2k was refernced as QHD or 1440p, so this is why I thought 2k to be a 1440p resolution.

I think the term QHD was more popular before 4K became a thing. After 4K, everybody started calling QHD 2K. But it doesn't make sense. If 4K has a horizontal res of almost 4000 and Full HD has a horizontal res of almost 2000, then full HD should be 2K, which is what I was trying to say but didn't explain well.

It's nice. Movies. Gaming.

4K is overkill unless you have a huge tv and you sit 5 feet away.

@ezekiel43:

Do I need a 4K/HDR HDMI cable to get the best results when streaming?

And here I am still barely using 1080p. 4K is good for people who want the shiniest graphics of course, and seems to be getting more affordable these days.

I think it is a noticeable difference going from 1080p to 4k, more so with movies.

Nope, night and day difference for me b/w QHD and 4k. It's the usual resolution increase, but we are definitely going to get diminished returns relative to PC monitor sizes.

I'm sure 4K is nice. Until the next big thing comes along and they make everyone think they need that and 4K is suddenly trash. Stuff that is basic HD is nice, too.

In games like RE2 and RDR2, where the final image is so post processed that the final result is cinematic (*blurry*), 4K seems to be irrelevant because no matter what res you are running, the image will never be sharp.

I think being able to turn off blur-causing AA and still having a nice crisp image with no aliasing is pretty appealing.

even at 1440p, aliasing can be pretty nasty in some games, and most AA methods do reduce the sharpness of the visuals

but, I'm in no rush to get a 4k screen. we'll see how the next generation of GPUs does with 4k

If you cant tell the difference between 1440p and 4K then you need glasses...............or the image is heavily post processed like RE2.

That said, I think native 4K is a waste of resources.

I would much prefer the use of DLSS or Checkerboard rendering to get a sharper image rather than pushing for native.

When i play a game on PC, prioritize 60fps stable> Max settings> Resolution.

I have a 2080ti so most games i can play at a stable 4k but when sacrifices are needed, resolution is the first to go.

Much rather have max settings (except for the stupid clouds in Odyssey) than native 4k

The rumor about the PS5 is that it will be able to output 8k Video and upscale to 8k for games.

Depends on how big your monitor is. Its all about pixel density

It is. Framerate > resolution(900p - 1080p) any day

2160p is amazing and definitely a noticeable difference over 1440p. However, it is extremely demanding and most people settle for 1440p as it already looks really good. If 4K didn't have the performance penalty, people would be all over it.

@xhawk27: "The rumor about the PS5 is that it will be able to output 8k Video and upscale to 8k for games."

No it isn't. That silly rumour came after Sony displayed a GT render on a custom 8k display which made some people think ps5 will cater to an 8k display.

I'm divided on the subject.

For my monitor I moved over to a 3440x1440 monitor at 120FPS, I like the increased resolution and I really love the high framerate.

But when I game on my TV I still play all of my games at 1080p, and it looks really good too because I sit way further away than I do from my monitor.

Plus I never notice that it doesn't look sharp or anything.

I'd like to get a new TV with 4K, HDR support and especially HDMI 2.1 (Variable Frame Rate) but I don't see the point yet at the moment. Maybe in a good few years.

I honestly tried it out on my pc for a few weeks. It was over rated for me. Nothing like the jump from 480 to 1080 was. I had to keep going back and forth to notice the slightest of difference between 1080 and 4k. I’m still gonna join in when it’s time for new monitors and tvs or when gaming is legit affordable and at 4k 60fps. But for now I’m still happy maxing out every game in 1080 and getting smooth frame rates on my old ass 980ti.

I actually splurged on a Samsung QLED 55" Q5FN because I saw it at my Microcenter for $699 for a refurb. I had a 4K LG TV that was just horrid, so I took it back and snagged this refurb. It seemed brand new out of the box; no scratches, scuffs, all of the stickers and protectors were still on it, and it included all of the pieces. I felt like I picked up a brand new TV worth 1000 bucks. Lol

The prices are great yeah, I saw a Sony and Samsung TV around that price that I was really tempted in buying.

But I managed to hold out because I'm seeing a lot of potential in HDMI 2.1.

RE2 TAA is the problem. Anyone running TAA or TAA+FXAA in RE2 will get downgraded textures and blur.

SMAA is the way to go. Unfortunately, consoles are stuck with the TAA/FXAA option.

I hate TAA and I wish I could turn it off in Battlefield V as well.

Do you have any of the post processing effects enabled, or all turned off?

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

RE2 TAA is the problem. Anyone running TAA or TAA+FXAA in RE2 will get downgraded textures and blur.

SMAA is the way to go. Unfortunately, consoles are stuck with the TAA/FXAA option.

TAA + FXAA sucks but I hate how the hair has the aliasing effect on SMAA.

Yeah RE2 not really a best example, played first run on my monitor(1440p as well) and 2nd on my oled, as far as the image quality goes the difference isn't big, turning of TAA and it becomes more apparent, the film grey I turned off instantly already. AA is still needed at 4K as shimmering is just awful and can be spotted from further away as well unlike some minor sharpness

I'm going to wait for 8k, 4k isn't a big enough jump.

How is 4K overhyped ? If you've got the power, why would you not play at the highest resolution possible? If you want my honest opinion, I think it's overrated, but that doesn't mean I think it's bad. 4K definitely looks better, but there's a big diminishing return to constantly increasing the resolution. I wouldn't sacrifice framerate for 4K, I probably wouldn't sacrifice ambient occlusion, high quality shadows, or other good lighting for it. But if you have the hardware, hell, might as well. There's no downside to playing on 4K if you have the hardware to still put out 60fps with all the other settings on max.

That said, I have the hardware to game in 4K if I so want to but I personally prefer to game in 1440p/60fps+ way above due to it's not expensive to sacrificing settings and I'm way more content in 1440p. If anything, 1440p is still the gold standard if you ask me, but as we have PC gamers in SW, 3440/1440 is the future as so they say. I don't plan to go into 3440/1440p anytime soon.

^^^^

Oh yes. It's just pixels. Literally.

Textures, polygons, lighting, particles, AI, # onscreen animations, # onscreen players, # onscreen NPCs, level design, visual artistry, gameplay mechanics, story, FUN....

Resolution is such a tiny part of the equation, but people won't shut up about it

This ^^

Perfect dude!!!

There definitely is a noticeable difference for me, I don't think it is overhyped, but it is dependant on the game as well, it also depends on some of the other stuff, like texture quality. I do have a 55 inch TV, so that helps for sure. It's not just about having 4K res, the game needs to have a good balance of graphical effects imo.

For example Warhammer Inquisitor has a 1440p mode on the X, but Diablo 3 is mostly 4K native(uses dynamic scaling to lock framerate at 60 fps last I heard). There is definitely a difference especially in this type of game with 3/4 top down view and lots of little details, image is sharper in Diablo 3.

On some games it might be less noticeable because the texture work may not be as good, so bumping up the res doesn't feel like it is doing much. RE2 runs at sub-4K 60 fps, and if I remember the DF report correctly it runs at about 75% of 4K res and of course I would have liked it to be 4K, I think it would have definitely made the image sharper but it is good enough at 75%, and the game looks and feels great at near-locked 60fps(apparently the average fps is over 59 fps... good enough), but also bringing down the res allows for the power to be used in another manner, the lighting is great in that game, I think overall they struck a good balance with RE2 on the X, even though it is not 4K native. It's on a case by case basis for me, really depends on the game, the overall package.

@Alucard_Prime: 4k does not make RE2 appear sharp by any means, Gears 4 at 4K however has excellent IQ

@warmblur: there's going to be little to no difference anyway. Diminishing returns is real. You can't get much clearer than clear.

4K is worthless for gaming.

It's great for productivity though. Text especially.

In order to see any appreciable difference between 1080 and 4K, you need a huge display on the order of several feet across, which is far larger than most people can even fit in their homes. Below that size and any differences will be indistinguishable to the human eye.

8K and 12K is already a thing.

What's "several" feet? No, the TV doesn't need to be very big at all to see a difference between FHD and 4K.

Do you recall only just a couple years ago when a new multiplat would launch 1080P on the Bore and 900P on X1 and OMG the laughter would ensue over X1 being 180P less than Bore?

Now it's 1000P difference but alas, the difference is hardly noticeable. lolol If not for double standards, SW would have no standards at all. :P

4K is really nice for sitting on a couch 7 - 10 ft away on a 65 inch TV.

Also the higher the res the less you need more power hungry AA. So it’s a good trade off for PC and monitors.

That's how the marketers want it.

Is it a coincidence that Sony is pushing 4K in their gaming consoles at the expense of all the good stuff you listed, while trying to sell lots of 4K TVs?

Where's my tin foil hat....

in some situations it is, in others its needed

link to your "rumor"?

Pretty sure that's not a rumor at all.

There was a show where PD showed off GTSport running 8k at 120fps in a demo for Sony's new 8k TVs but there was no mention of PS5 running with this performance.

Sounds like you're confused or spreading misinformation but feel free to post that link and remove any doubt.

Graphics whores tend to overhype their pixelated superiority in general.