When will 4K be the new standard for PC builders?
Posted by Top_Run_615@reddit | buildapc | View on Reddit | 625 comments
Right now, only a few people have a 4K-capable setup, with 1440p being considered the sweet spot.
My question is, when will 4K become as mainstream as 1440p is today?
Will future upper mid-range GPUs be able to handle 4K as well as the 7900 GRE handles 1440p?
Do you think 4K will eventually become the ideal resolution and more budget-friendly?
Sorry if this sounds like a silly question ( ignore it if so).
ChemBench@reddit
Yea until PC systems become more capable but more importantly when Developers stop being lazy with optimization and stop relying on upscaling and frame gen
ThatVegasD00d702@reddit
When it becomes affordable?….
No-Abbreviations1937@reddit
When the price for a whole 4k system and monitor drops to sub $1500
Asgardianking@reddit
I would say we are about 6-8 years away before it really starts to take hold. Video processing power will need to double or more before it becomes standard especially for mid range PCs
MysteriousAmmo@reddit
4K will become the new standard when the most popular set of cards can run games at 4K without sacrificing FPS.
bubblesort33@reddit
Probably 5 years at least. Given that upscaling from 1080p to 4k looks acceptable and better than upscaling 960p to 1440p, it's not so much a gpu issue, but rather if monitors can be made cost effective enough. The PS5 only has an RX 6700 in it and a lot of games run at 4k upscaled. If you're wondering when 4k is common, I'd say a long time, and eventually native 4k will just die.
trojangod@reddit
Wouldn’t think to hard on resolution. Most people play 1440 because most people are playing on 24-32 inch monitors. With that pixel density, why do you even need 4k?
aurumae@reddit
As someone who went from a 27” 1440p monitor to a 27” 4k monitor you can absolutely tell the difference, especially if you use your PC for work as well as gaming
DaRKoN_@reddit
Yeah my PC is mainly for work, will not go back from 4K.
_asciimov@reddit
I did, but resolution scaling situation is awful on Linux.
danimyte@reddit
I actually prefer 4k on linux because then you can integer scale from native and everything looks sharp. On 1440p you want to scale by 1.25 and it becomes blurry.
mickeyaaaa@reddit
Text a lot clearer for work? I just upgraded from 1080 to 1440 and the columns in onenote look like crap even after doing the cleartext calibration thing....
ZealousidealCycle257@reddit
Maybe the screen isnt big enough? It does sound strange.
mickeyaaaa@reddit
its a 40" ultrawide....
ZealousidealCycle257@reddit
Then its way too small for a 2k. the sweet spot for 2k Is 27 inch.
PraxicalExperience@reddit
Check what refresh rate you're using for the monitor. Sometimes it'll affect static image quality in weird ways, particularly the 59.something Hz vs 60Hz divide. One looks like utter shite on my primary display, the other's good.
RavagedDeity@reddit
It could be possible that your monitor has a low PPI. 1440p offers fantastic clarity and more screen real estate over 1080p. I do believe 24" would be a little too small for 1440p to shine, but maybe that's just now my personal taste and preference for monitors.
mickeyaaaa@reddit
it has higher PPI than my 34" ultrawide i upgraded from (2560x1080) - its crappy scaling i believe.
stickyjam@reddit
I tested this at work when we refreshed our monitors , all 24" 1440p. It's nice for office work, not sure how it'd look for gaming at that resultion/screen size. But it just 'feels' a bit sharper than my 27" 1440p I have at home.
Razarza@reddit
When I finally got one of those Chinese 1440p165 24 inch monitors I fell in love and ordered 2 other cheaper refurbed 60hz lenovo monitors to instantly replace my auxiliary monitors. 24in feels perfect for me personally, it's even better than I had hoped for. I use 100% scaling.
I had been wanting to upgrade from my VG248QE for like 5 years now but it was so hard to find one domestically (Australia) and proxy shipping from the US or China was always so hard for me to pull the trigger on until my old Asus failed and I was unable to get a replacement powersupply board for it. $100+ used part from China was an equally hard sell so I went with the upgrade.
Sorry for the ramble, it just feels so good to upgrade to something and for it to more than meet expectations for once.
microwavedave27@reddit
My work monitor is 4K 27 inch and I can't go back, it makes such a big difference when you're staring at text all day. Not as noticeable in games though, higher refresh rate is much more important than resolution.
PearMyPie@reddit
At university we have 4K monitors. I usually set my scaling to 200% (27" monitors). The text is so much sharper and more comfortable to read. The higher resolution makes the antialiasing of the letters way less noticeable.
PraxicalExperience@reddit
Yeah, but at the same time, even an -really- crusty PC can push 4K for productivity no problem; any even relatively modern build should be able to do so.
Until I just upgraded recently, I was using a big 4K TV as my main monitor for my WFH PC, and for office work, it was just fine -- and I was driving it with a 12ish-year-old GTX670 and an i3570k.
Available-Quarter381@reddit
My setup currently has a 1440p 27" and a 4k 27" and it is very clear how much difference it makes, couldn't go back to using 1440 as my main
Weary_Ad852@reddit
I just upgraded from a 1440p 165 hz monitor to a 4K 240 hz OLED. I haven't opened it yet, I'm away from home, I'm so exited.
warkidooo@reddit
For a while I used both a 1440p and a 4k monitor on the same setup and couldn't notice any difference even in text clarity of somewhat small fonts. But from 1080p to 1440p was like replacing a 5 yo pair of glasses.
kcajjones86@reddit
Wow. Another statement that will age like milk in the desert. You do realise people said this exact thing about 1024x768, and then 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc, etc?!
If the pixel density was really at a point of maximum advancement and ability of human vision then there wouldn't even be higher resolution monitors at all. I'm not saying that companies won't push out higher resolutions solely for marketing purposes without any benefits (they definitely will, eventually), I'm just saying we're not there yet.
ThankGodImBipolar@reddit
Resolution has increased over the years, but screen size has also been increasing with it, so PPI has generally remained pretty stagnant. Now that we’re getting to 32” 16:9 displays, I think we’ve reached a point where the typical person probably won’t upgrade to anything larger because the size of desk needed to sit at an appropriate distance viewing distance from one would simply be too big. 1440p is already good enough to achieve 93PPI on a 32” 16:9 monitor, which technically isn’t “retina” (usually >200 PPI), but reaches a mark that’s been considered “acceptable” for many years (same PPI as 24” 1080p, for example). So, while resolution can (and will) continue to increase to bring extra PPI to users of large displays, the fraction of the market that needs/wants that resolution will continue to decrease - all this to say that I think the situation with 1440p will be quite different than the other resolutions that you listed.
kcajjones86@reddit
I can see where you're coming from, but as I said in the previous comment, I believe this thinking won't age well at all.
In the 90s it was thought that 400bhp was obscene for a car to have and no one would daily drive a car with that much power, with only supercars of the era having so much. People said that public roads just aren't built for that much power and speed, and that we're at the point of diminishing returns. Now we have hot hatches with 400bhp that people commute to work in and supercars are exceeding 1000bhp.
I think there's still a lot of innovations to come in display technology, including resolution.
alek_vincent@reddit
I mean, you can still see pixels if you look very close at a 4K 27" monitor but most people sit far enough that 4K is good enough as far as pixel density goes
RavenWolf1@reddit
Yeah, I think 4k for monitors might be the maximum comfortable resolution in future. Bigger resolutions after that has no much point. Of course VR would need so much bigger resolutions.
Stokkolm@reddit
The GPU performance per dollar is hardly improving anymore, and the Nvidia CEO said himself as much.
Unless some revolutionary tech develops, I don't think there will ever be a GPU under $500 to run latest games at 4K + 100fps.
RavenWolf1@reddit
Sucks for VR dream then where something like 8k for both eye would be more like optimal resolution.
warkidooo@reddit
They kinda tried to push 8k a while back, tho. LG nanocell and C1 even had similar pricing, but apparently people seem to want better refresh rate and colors rather than better resolution alone.
knucles668@reddit
Ya there is science that says otherwise. 27" at 60cm (3ft) away in 4K is 73PPD which is above the 60PPD that a 20/20 vision person can perceive. That's the standard.
2160p 32"= 63PPD
2160p 27" = 73PPD
2160p 24" = 80PPD (No one is producing these panels anymore due to the preference by buyers for 27")
1440P 32" = 42PPD
1440p 27" = 48PPD
1440p 24" = 54PPD
You might play 1440p and still have a great time. And you might play 1440p on games that aren't as densely textured and not notice a difference. But the truth is in the science of optometry, there is a perceivable difference.
Calculator: https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
forumchunga@reddit
> Most people play 1440
Not even close. Per steam hardware survey, 57% play @ 1080 and only 19% @ 1440.
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
I still don’t get why people say this. I’d say 27in is the most common monitor size in my experience and I can easily tell the difference between 1440p and 4k.
No one needs anything, we use what we like or think we’ll like.
PotatoFeeder@reddit
Because once you go 4k oled you can never go back.
Everything else looks like absolute shit in comparison afterwards.
Especially now with laptops having oled screens with higher pixel density than even a 27” 4k oled.
My 24” 1080p IPS looks like absolute dogshit next to my 14” oled laptop
modularanger@reddit
Whoah, someone is trying very hard to justify that purchase huh, lol.
No, 1440p to 4k is not some huge game changer when using a smaller monitor which is why everyone agrees 1440p is the sweetspot. You literally admit this in your next comment saying it's OLED that is intact the important factor, which is definitely closer to being true but still way overblown imo. People just get very defensive when they find out their $3k monitor isn't really that much better than the $4-500 ips ones and I get it, but the consensus on this has already been pretty well fleshed out, that is that OLED (not 4k) can definitely be amazing with the right monitor but nowhere near worth the premium you pay for it right now.
As with all newish tech in history, when it's the new thing you pay a lot more for it than it's worth.
PotatoFeeder@reddit
Of course if the 27” 4k models released next year are like $1000 then im not dropping that much.
Again i cant stand my 1080p monitor for much longer lol. It just looks so bad.
modularanger@reddit
It's all subjective for sure, I'm on a 4080super that could definitely handle 4k on most games but I still choose to play 1440p unless the gpu is on low utilization even with ultra settings then of course it makes sense, might as well get free visuals. I have a 4k oled tv and a 1440p ips monitor so I guess I'm in a kinda unique position to be constantly swapping between the two and while the black levels and just overall picture quality is definitely better on the oled, when using my 27"1440p monitor it doesn't feel like "man, this is so much worse" not at all but again, it's all subjective.
PotatoFeeder@reddit
I guess i prefer to spoil my eyes haha
But like i said above, its not primarily for gaming
Unless someone wants to sponsor me a flightsim or racing setup
catalinashenanigans@reddit
People said the same thing about going from 1080p to 1440p but to be honest, I can't really tell much of a difference.
PotatoFeeder@reddit
I genuinely believe if someone cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 4k at the same size screen, they actually need to get their eyes checked
To me the difference is astronomical
Deep-Procrastinor@reddit
The leap from 1080 to 1440 is massive, the hop from 1440 to 4k is much less so, to my eyes anyway.
Havanu@reddit
Depends on the screen size. 1440p looks atrocious even on a 32 inch monitor. It's fine for 27-34 inch ultrawide screens. But 4k on a 42 inch is where that resolution really shines.
mahanddeem@reddit
I have both OLED 4k and OLED 1440p and I can confidently say there is a big exaggeration in favor of the 4k. What I confidently can say, for especially productivity, 1440p is superior at 27 inch since you'll not need more than %100 resolution scale, and it's very comfortable to read and work on.
PotatoFeeder@reddit
Because your 1440p is still an oled
If it was an IPS or something, then ☠️☠️☠️
McGundulf@reddit
Text on ips is by all means superior to OLED.
The "superiority" of OLED monitors is heavily overblown. I literally own almost every panel and I can easily switch from the OLED without any hindrance.
Ultra-wide curved QHD Alienware QD-OLED for single player "atmospheric" games.
QHD Alienware QD-OLED with 360hz refresh for "competitive" games and games like Baldur's Gate 3.
My "work" nano-ips QHD Alienware 280hz for scrolling, surfing and work. Text clarity superior to OLED by far.
AOC mini led VA QHD monitor. This was my first monitor of this bunch and can service all of the above needs in a highly satisfying manner. No risk of burn in and colors that are amazing, with impressive contrast close to the OLEDs. I use it when I don't wanna use my OLED, but the game benefits from good contrast.
Finally, my Samsung Odyssey G8 G80SD OLED 32" 4K 240hz 0.03ms display. This is the holy grail of my setup and is reserved for the ultimate single player gaming experience.
And if you were curious, no I'm not that rich. I paid like 2k for all 5 and I share them with my brother (of course there aren't 5 in a single setup that would be braindead). How did I get them so cheap? I know shady people.
To sum up, there is no best panel. And this is coming from someone who literally owns 5 different ones.
And if you aren't interested in gaming then an OLED is pretty much useless. A good mini led VA panel will have great contrast, great refresh rate, great text (which is an actual problem for OLEDs) and an overall satisfying experience in all use cases. OLEDs are good for games that are stunning. And my AOC doesn't even have discernable ghosting to the naked eye.
If I were to only keep 1 monitor, it would definitely be the mini led one. I have to baby all 3 OLEDs and not abuse them to avoid burn in. OLEDs are not for daily use. QD-OLEDs should be a bit better in terms of burn in susceptibility (because of the quantum dots doing most of the work to achieve the brighness and thus putting less strain on the individual pixels), but it's too early to tell.
Overall, OLEDs are flawed and are not worth it if you don't have a 2nd screen for daily use imo. IPS is just the best for work and some great ones are no slouches in gaming either.
What I'm trying to say here is... I heavily disagree with this OLED supremacy opinion. They are good for certain uses, but have clear disadvantages.
xabrol@reddit
I run my 40" 5120x2160 at 125% scale, which is considerably more screen real estate than a 27-in 1440p.
crackwag@reddit
I have not an oled monitor, but i agree with you! ✌️
drmelle0@reddit
True, especially for movies, oled is so much better, but still expensive
2hurd@reddit
Absolutely incorrect. 27@1440p is almost identical DPI as 32@4k.
If 1440p was a sweetspot then if you go with a bigger monitor you should use 4k just to maintain the same clarity.
I have a 32@4k and it's glorious but I wonder if shouldn't go 27@4k just for extra crisp picture, but probably even higher scaling.
Plini9901@reddit
Not even. 27" 1440p is ~109ppi, 32" 4K is ~130ppi. Very noticeable upgrade.
TheFondler@reddit
You'll see it in text, at least if you sit reasonably close to the screen, but not so sure about gaming. The issue may get a bit muddled depending on how games handle textures. If a game uses higher res textures at 4K than it does at 1440p and those textures leverage the higher pixel density, then probably (depending on screen size and seating distance). There is also the possibility that those 4K textures aren't truly "4K" in any sense, just better than the textures used at 1440p, but would look just as good at 1440p, in which case a game would "look" better at 4K, but not because it's rendering at 4K. That second bit is speculative on my part, but it is pretty common for modders to upscale textures for massive image improvements without changing res (example).
Swimming_Storm_2830@reddit
I'm on 49 and I still think my 1440 looks beautiful 🤷♂️
DzikiDziq@reddit
Well tbh you only have half of the screen height with 49” (super ultra wide) so its basically a 27”. 1440 is ok with such size. I have 48” 16:9 and 1440p would hurt my eyes.
Sea_Perspective6891@reddit
Agreed 4K is better suited for larger displays like 50 inch or larger. I prefer 32 inch for 1440p.
SauronOfRings@reddit
PPI is very important as well. 4K at 42 inch has the same PPI as 1440p at 27 inch. 4K at 32 is even better at 134ppi. 1440p at 32 has the same PPI as 108pp at 24, which is fine for gaming but not for productivity.
Havanu@reddit
But you'll never sit as close to a 42 inch as you would to a 27 inch monitor, makin ppi less relevant as a tool for comparison. Mine is 20 cm farther away, resulting in a much sharper image than my 34 ultrawide ever had.
lcirufe@reddit
I’d argue for productivity use, 4k 27-32in is perfect in terms of PPI. Text looks incredibly sharp and is way easier on the eyes to read.
p-r-i-m-e@reddit
That’s not the reason at all. Its frame rate and cost. To run good titles well at 4K is expensive and the tech still struggles to run it at high frame rates anyway. You usually have to compromise on graphical quality.
Top_Run_615@reddit (OP)
Thats right, but another question about upper mid range gpus handling 4k? Will that happen?
SauronOfRings@reddit
Upper mid range like 4070 Super or 4070 Ti or 7900 GRE can do 4K absolutely fine even now, just not at ultra settings or Ray Tracing. But most people are on 60 series so, it might be a while.
Machine95661@reddit
I agree, the most popular card (According to steam) is the Rtx 3060 which is definitely a 1080p card so it will take some time
Psych0MantlS@reddit
A 4070FE can play 95% of games w/ respectable to Ultra settings w/ 4Kres@60 FPS. In other words it’s happened already…and not even with the latest generation of cards either. 4k monitors have just been fckn expensive, though they are coming down in price. Also, if I’m already playing on a decent 1440p monitor I’m not going to upgrade to a 4k unless it’s OLED-which are out of a lot of people’s budget.
ZeroTheTyrant@reddit
What percentage of steam users even have those GPUs. Every generation the xx60 GPUs are the most popular ones.
I think you're wildly overestimating how much the average person spends on a GPU or monitor. Also how much they even care about resolution.
The majority of PS5 players choose 60fps over higher resolution.
Most of the top games on any platform are multiplayer games where people drop the settings to reduce latency. 240hz 1440p will be a bigger market than 4k, just because of tryhard sweats (I am one).
Bartsches@reddit
I'd advance that by saying that even FPS aren't a hard goal for all genres. I'm mostly playing what amounts to fancy SQL tables and those work perfectly fine with 15fps or less. Quite a number of wargames and grand strategy titles are limited the most by slow updates of the game world. If I'm budget limited I'm always going to choose more world updates over more FPS. I'm also going to tend to prefer a larger screen over fancier graphics (given those typically don't exist in wargames anyway) and higher FPS. The odd game that actually does have to render in real time and 3d being the exception.
beefygravy@reddit
Most people play 1080*
xabrol@reddit
This is buildapc, not buildagamingpc. There are millions of people that use computers for things other than gaming.
I have 5120x2160 because I need the screen real estate for work.
tristam92@reddit
In that case there would be no question, cause mid-office pc can handle office 4k job well enough already.
GlitteringChoice580@reddit
You are right that this sub is not only about gaming, but this post is clearly about gaming, because OP asked
If the primary use of OP’s PC is productivity, the resolution wouldn’t significantly affect GPU performance. So clearly this is about gaming.
just_toswipe@reddit
Most people play on 1080p
SurrealSanic@reddit
because taa make everything blurry under 4k
MordWincer@reddit
With how abysmal the game optimization is lately, I feel like we're going to revert back to 720p rather than progress to even 1440p 🫤
Razarza@reddit
That's kind of what's been happening with these upscaling techniques anyway...
Native resolution is always best, I have not yet tried a game with DLSS or FSR that I have felt was good enough, it always is very noticeable to me and I really don't like it.
I'm also the type to almost never use AA in games, so I might be more sensitive to the blurry edges.
PraxicalExperience@reddit
Oof, I love AA in games; the jaggies in little details like antennae and wires and such bug the hell out of me. That said, until a few months ago, I played without it -- because my setup was too dogshit to run anything even vaguely modern with all but the lightest touch of AA on.
I've played with DLSS/FSR on and off with my new machine on the couple modern games I have, and ... TBH, I think my opinion on it is mostly a wash. It lets me play at max rez and settings, but sometimes has some odd artifacting. But the latter is rare enough that it hasn't annoyed me much yet, and some artifacts that are obvious in a still are much less obvious when things are moving. Admittedly limited experience, but, meh. My tune may change to be more favorable in a few years when I try to play a new release at max settings on aging hardware. :)
Any-Skill-5128@reddit
Well what are you actually using dlss or fsr because dlss won’t cause that but fsr does from the videos I’ve seen
Any-Skill-5128@reddit
Your lying if you think dlss at 1440p/4k looks bad
879190747@reddit
This goes for a lot of things I think. In the past decade there have been many novel upscale tech but almost always if you compare it frame by frame it's either missing something or has stuff inserted that doesn't match.
I think a reason can be that upscaling often "sharpens" background by accident and flattens areas that are intended to have less focus. Even when old TV shows get upscaled there is this general flatness to it.
mcphee187@reddit
You're not kidding.
I've just played through Arkham City again on my Steam Deck. I was surprised by how well it holds up against more modern titles, most of which need to be at low (or lowest) settings and often with FSR, just to hit 30fps. The only thing that really stood out to me is faces. Faces & facial movements have improved a loooong way in the past 13 years.
opensrcdev@reddit
Agreed, most games are horribly optimized. Unreal Engine has serious micro-stuttering problems, affecting otherwise amazing games like Hogwarts Legacy. There's so many people out there experiencing these issues and there's nothing they can do except wait for updates, myself included.
fairportmtg1@reddit
1440p isn't even standard now. Budget gaming is still 1080p
Ajatshatru_II@reddit
Even at lot of mid range PC builder go for 24 inch 165 hz monitor.
1440p has a long way to go.
kanakalis@reddit
really? 1440p is very cheap nowadays, i've seen 165-180hz 27" monitors go for under $150
Ajatshatru_II@reddit
Monitor might be cheap, systems aren't and even if they were, people don't seem to compromise resolution over performance.
thedavecan@reddit
This exactly. I have a rig that's 1440p 144hz capable in most games but if I'm not hitting an absolute basement floor minimum of 60fps then I'm dropping the resolution to get that framerate up.
greenscarfliver@reddit
That's where I'm at, I bought a nice 1440p ultrawide, now I need something that can back it up and run it at 120fps. Not getting that in the games I want to without dropping some solid cash
guntanksinspace@reddit
Yeaaaah same lol. I bought a high refresh rate 1440P monitor and getting it to run that smoothly has become a struggle nowadays without a beefy enough video card.
inevitably-ranged@reddit
To be fair, run pixel numbers for ultrawides. If it's 21:9 you're pushing about 80% of the way to 4k from 1440p if memory serves. 4k benchmarks apply more to you than 1440 ones!
Quite deceiving tbh
greenscarfliver@reddit
yeah true enough, that's why I'm looking at 5080 is my upgrade lol. I'm way behind what my monitor needs to drive it and have been for a while, so I've been putting off playing a lot of games because I want to experience them at the best my monitor can provide
blockstacker@reddit
I can play rust on ultra at 120fps 1440p with my 7959x3d and 4090. It's hard for a modern title to be able to max out my 170hz 27inch screen. There are some games like doom but not a lot
tacosnotopos@reddit
I can confirm this as I went from a super budget build to a slightly less budget friendly build. 5600x and 6700xt red devil, sadly I'll be using this combo for like the next 2 or 3 years 😭
jsmrf@reddit
I could happily run that for the next 8! Having been through 8 years of a 1500X and a 1050Ti, was all I could get at the time.
tacosnotopos@reddit
It's funny you say that, I was running a 980ti and 16g less ram on this very same machine lol
jsmrf@reddit
I'd have preferred a 980Ti but I was a noob then and got 100% duped by "bIgGeR nUmBeR mEaNs MoAr BeTtEr!"
tacosnotopos@reddit
Oof that's rough, I got mine from my brother in law after my PC was stolen when my house was robber some years back. It's still a solid card for being almost 15 years old. I'm gonna miss the quality gpus evga would put out 😢
jsmrf@reddit
Eh, school of hard knocks lesson is all it was. Damn dude, that's actually rough. Luckily I have not had theft be an issue thus far.
Yeah I want to buy a used FTW EVGA card at some point just so I can say I owned one. I was hopping to get a card of theirs at some point but when I heard they were pulling out of the game altogether I was pretty sad. Going to switch to full team red with a Sapphire RX 6600 this time around, pairing it with a 5600X. Still sticking to AM4 because for 1080p I think it's where the best bang for buck is currently.
tacosnotopos@reddit
The 5800x3d and 5700x3d are keeping am4 extremely viable for years to come! That 5600x will also push you into some 1440p comfortably
TimeZucchini8562@reddit
1440p builds are like $1000 now. I know people don’t want to hear it but that is cheap in todays world
LowAspect542@reddit
But why drop a grand on a new machine when many are just fine playing at 1080p on their current one. Give it a few years and the market will move on in its own time.
A grand may be cheap to you, but not everyone has that to spare to buy new devices every year or two just to keep up with the latest marginal advances.
TimeZucchini8562@reddit
Nobody is saying buy a $1000 computer every few years. All I’m saying is for people buying new systems, $1000 is a cheap system now. I’m talking about yall still running your 1660s thinking about upgrading to a 3070
kanakalis@reddit
didn't you say midrange and not budget PC?
FakeDeath92@reddit
I just spent $1500 on a 1440p rig
qtx@reddit
Be glad you bought it now, same time next year it will be at least double the price for the same hardware. Them China tariffs are going to ruin this sub.
FakeDeath92@reddit
Yeah I was judt telling my buddy about this last night!
Also, not sure why I got downvoted it's the truth :(
ApologizingCanadian@reddit
Exactly lmfao. You call that cheap?
TransientEons@reddit
And most people on this subject are looking to spend less than that.
hardcore_softie@reddit
Yep, just look at the average specs of a Steam user. Most people are playing on potatoes.
FakeDeath92@reddit
It’s “possible” but you gotta cut corners
Alternative-Spot1615@reddit
It depends on your region, in my country the same monitor between 1080p and 1440p can have a price change of up to 50% more. And 24'+ 1080p monitors already are expensive
VitalityAS@reddit
My 3070 caps out in nearly every triple A game at 2k. Judging by steam stats hardly anyone can run 2k at decent fps and graphics.
Upscaling to 2k is the norm for a reason.
Emperor_of_Fish@reddit
Where have you been seeing those? 😅 I’m on 1080 rn but my system should be solid at 1440 for the most part. I only ever struggle w/ cpu bottlenecks (that can’t be alleviated without building a whole new system).
Belzher@reddit
The problem is not the monitor, is having a hardware capable of delivering it at a decent quality. I'm still at 1080p because it's the price range I can pay for.
MagicalMixer@reddit
I'll probably be bloviating but, oh well.
I think most of the PCMR reddit hivemind (which I am a no stranger to) often downplay too much that 1.5k is easy to throw around.
I can only speak for the US, but when 2/3s of the population is living paycheck to paycheck there isn't much way to rationalize 1.5k into a gaming PC. That money would be way better spent trying to pay off debt, investing into the future, etc.
Just get your money up bro.
If that was so easy, the crude ballpark of, 2/3rds of the American Working Population would not be working paycheck to paycheck.
flatgreyrust@reddit
Drives me insane when someone says “I have a $900 budget” and half the comments are shit like “just save up another $400 trust me.”
Care_BearStare@reddit
If you're budget is $900, and you're only going to use the PC for gaming. Buy a PS5 Pro, connect it to your existing TV, and save $400. The PS5 Pro will decimate any $900 build.
Gaming PC's are the "enthusiast" gear of the gaming world. Obviously, everyone wants it, but they are expensive. Budget builds are a waste for gaming compared to consoles, unless that PC is going to be used for school, work, etc.
flatgreyrust@reddit
There’s lots of pc exclusive titles that are more fun to play on a $900 machine than not at all.
Peterdestroysall@reddit
So if your setup is 1300-1700 you should be looking at 1440 tho right? Ive been running a 7600x and 3090ti for like 2 years and my old 2nd monitor is dying (its time, hes 10years old,24 inch and not even 1080...) current main is 1080 144hz but i could use that as a 2nd
Large999@reddit
I have a 6800xt on a 27 inch 1440 monitor and couldn't go back to 1080. If longevity is your goal though that 3090 will play at 1080 for years and years to come. I'd probably just stay at 24/1080 so you don't miss what you dont have yknow
Peterdestroysall@reddit
yeah i mean I definitely noticed the 144hz change in most FPS games but idk if 1440 would really be much better.
Large999@reddit
Yeah 144 hz is definitely a massive change but if I could go back I'd have just gotten a 1080p monitor. Now as long as I have 1440 it locks me into a certain price range on my next GPU.
WhoIsEnvy@reddit
100%. But even then idk why people make it seem like pcs are consoles...
It's not like you HAVE to buy a 4090 setup immediately...with pc you thankfully have the luxury of just upgrading slowly over time....
When I bought my pc originally it was almost 800, but now it's worth more like 1500 because of upgrades...
If you're really trying to save money pc is the fucking way! Your hardware costs are literally ALL of the cost of pc gaming, as long as you're willing to explore your options...
MagicalMixer@reddit
Correct. You should have no problems moving into 1440p. Don't give into the FOMO. 1440p monitors have gotten much cheaper over the years. The golden standard is the Dell 2724D. There are definitely better monitors in the 1440p, IPS format, but for $199USD it's really hard to find something that reaches that price to performance.
When it comes to monitors, imo, it's currently in a really awkward state financially the price brackets are since it goes really budget VA/IPS/TN panels (Free to $150; 1080p and 1440p) - 1440p, IPS/VA ($199 - $320) - Only Buy OLED Monitors or TV ($500+; 1440p and 4K).
Zitchas@reddit
Yeah, exactly. They said $900 for a reason. Getting another 400 might basically mean "no gaming for the next year or two."
$900 budget and get to game this year, vs $1300 budget and not get to game until a year, maybe two years from now... If thy're asking for a $900 budget, they've made that decision.
Kevosrockin@reddit
Two years to save $400? lol
Stalbjorn@reddit
If you're that close to broke where another $400 breaks you, should you be buying a computer to begin with (assuming gaming is the intention for this)?
mistiklest@reddit
What if you're not broke, but you'd rather have money to spend on other hobbies? What if $900 is simply what you have left over after expenses and saving for retirement, etc.?
Stalbjorn@reddit
And what if the extra $x passes a threshold that the OP may not have considered, allowing greater enjoyment/performance per money spent? Some have a budget and are actually constrained by it. Some have one that's arbitrary and could be adjusted based on information they may not have known or considered at the time the number was set.
Zitchas@reddit
We're here to help each other build computers, right? I'm not going to judge someones priorities or motivations for doing so.
I know people who have very fixed budgets and can take care of house, food, etc and all the other requirements, but still be in a position that when they say "I've got $900 to spend on a computer," they seriously mean that regardless of how long they wait, that number is not going to appreciably change. I am definitely not going to be the one to tell them "Actually, you should throw your finances off balance and skip lunch for the year so you can get a bit better value for your money building this computer."
Also, for most people I know (myself included), gaming is rarely the exclusive purpose of a computer. Research, news, applying for jobs, doing finances and budgeting, school work, running a business... All of these can coexist together and with gaming.
My general assumption is that if someone has a budget, that's the budget they've got to work with, and there's reasons they have the numbers they have. That's part of the challenge, really. Figuring out the best that can be done with the limits they have, rather than just pushing everyone into a nice comfy $1400 build.
BicycleBozo@reddit
Those comments are right, if you can save $900 you can save another $400
Evaldaslt13@reddit
And if you can save upto 1300 then you can save another 700 but oh wait you can save another 500 and then you can save another 500 and you will have Rtx 4090 build for not much more just have to save a bit
peioeh@reddit
If you spent twice as much your build would be so much better !
McCreadyTime@reddit
Right but I think the underlying point is that if you’re scraping money together to just barely have $900 for a gaming pc (and truly cannot afford another $400), maybe the financially prudent move is to not even spend the 900. Pay off a credit card, contribute to a 401k, sock it away for a rainy day etc instead.
I’m not mocking this situation, I know it sucks and I experienced a lesser version of it in my early 20s. Now I’m in my 40s have disposable income and still agonize over a $1-2k gaming purchase every 8 years.
veryexpensivepasta@reddit
Maybe but humans need entertainment and happiness not money invested into stock that may never even beat fruit before they pass away.
jsmrf@reddit
That's called being fiscally responsible, perfectly normal.
GeigerCounting@reddit
We know for a fact this is true based upon steam surveys. Most people are running budget to lower mid-range cards. On both the AMD/Nvidia side.
Notsosobercpa@reddit
Upscale 1440p looks better than native 1080p while not being much harder to run.
TheRtHonLaqueesha@reddit
I'm still using a 26" WUXGA from 2008.
PhoenixPile@reddit
Depends on the panel type you are looking for VA, TN, IPS.
DIGIDAS24@reddit
Where 😭 at least in my country the cheapest 1440p monitor ive seen is 250 minimum
kanakalis@reddit
oops, should've specified. $150 in the US, cheapest i've seen is $130 on amazon, and in canada the cheapest i've seen is $200 CAD (equivalent to 140usd)
Emmazygote496@reddit
maybe in the USA, not everyone lives in the first world
jsmrf@reddit
If you can afford any sort of modern-ish gaming rig, you're in the 1% camp not the 99%.
fantaribo@reddit
Monitor price isn't the sole factor for this, but the price of a system capable to push similar framerate at that higher resolution is.
kanakalis@reddit
6700xt and 7600 system combined is, what, $800-$1000? isn't that midrange?
fantaribo@reddit
A 6700XT won't push 140+ frames in => 2023 games.
kanakalis@reddit
i don't think the average gamer cares about getting 140 fps
fantaribo@reddit
Then why are we talking about such monitors ? Average gamer purchasing such monitors pushing 120, 144, 165 and more do care about reaching high frame rates.
kanakalis@reddit
average gamer buying high refresh monitors do not only use it to game. i have a 300hz monitor, browsing websites are noticeably different than 60. for games i do not even expect anything past 100, and lock my frames to 60 in most parts so my fans don't go into overdrive
Real_Garlic9999@reddit
Not everyone considers $150 cheap
Morkinis@reddit
There is more to monitor than just refresh rate and display size.
another1bites2dust@reddit
monitors, yes, but to have a 180 hz computer that has 180 fps all the time in games at 2K ... it's not.
_Orenbach@reddit
Not cheap to build a system that can run games in 1440p at those frame rates though.
Huge-Attitude9892@reddit
Yeah and build a PC capable to play games at 1440p. Most people can't afford it. And with the RTX3060(It was the most popular GPU according to steam) you should stick to 1080p. I have a 2070,but don't see any points why should i change to 1440p+a better rig
Zitchas@reddit
To be fair, older cards can be a lot more capable than people give them credit. I'm gaming on 1440p with an RX480 8GB... Wouldn't want to play a top end twitch shooter with it, though.
Machine95661@reddit
And Ive seen 1080p monitors for under $100
Any-Skill-5128@reddit
1440p does NOT have a long while to go , my gtx 1080ti was doing great until my upgrade last week, 1440p is the new normal midrange , budget is 1080p
No_Cabinet8689@reddit
1080p even isn't a standard now.
Monster Hunter Wilds put recommended specs for "stable 60fps at 1080p with frame generation and upscaling", meaning 40 fps at 768p without this BS.
Any-Skill-5128@reddit
Dlss shines at 1440p and 4k tho
Crytaz@reddit
It’s the “standard” for most cards releasing now and what they’re targeting for so I guess it makes sense
cyberspacedweller@reddit
Releasing now being the key words. Most people who the “standard” applies to are not new gamers and won’t be upgrading all their systems now.
Crytaz@reddit
Sure but if you look at the steam hardware survey, most of the cards there are capable 1440p cards with the 4060/ti 3070 4070 and 3080. It’s clearly emerging as the standard many people are adopting
cyberspacedweller@reddit
Depending what games you play, not on most AAA moving forwards if you want max settings.
Crytaz@reddit
Most people don’t play games at max settings
cyberspacedweller@reddit
And why is that? Because they get shite frame rates when they do on the cards they have at the resolution they target. Which kinda proves my point.
Crytaz@reddit
No it’s cuz max settings is kind of a scam. There’s tons of vids that show just turning them down a bit will be a minimal loss in the game experience and a massive boost in fps.
gronz5@reddit
Since when are standard and budget not separate sectors?
fairportmtg1@reddit
Most people pick the budget options for items. The average PCMR $1500 battlestation doesn't represent the majority
LordBalldeaux@reddit
But I also never buy an entire pc. Last time I did that was with the i7-2600. Or last month if you count just switching out cpu+mobo+ram (and I would have kept the ram if I did not need to take DDR5 over DDR4).
If I had to rebuy this thing now though, just 1500 would never cut it. I would also not like to spend that in one go. I just buy/replace piece by piece.
Hunt2244@reddit
Still have my i7 2600k for my personal pc.
Will upgrade next October when windows 10 goes out of support.
I only really play old games so it’s still fine.
Have recently upgraded my work pc again though and loving it so getting a bit tempted to leap early
fairportmtg1@reddit
Sure but even switching platforms is $400-$500 at this point. Graphics cards are more expensive too
LordBalldeaux@reddit
€680 to be exact (2×32GB-6400, 7700 plus new cooler, MSI MAG B650M).
Prices were never kind but at least I got a good deal on this.
fairportmtg1@reddit
It's a good deal for an upgrade but not a complete set up
Kilo_Juliett@reddit
I would argue 1440p is the standard right now.
I don't think you can call 1080p the current standard because it's the most popular.
I think you need to go by what makes sense if you were to build today with the current hardware. It doesn't make sense to go 1080p. It's basically dead. It will still be extremely popular for years but if you're building new you're not building to play at 1080p.
fairportmtg1@reddit
I agree it's smart to target 1440p if you're building but ut doesn't change the reality that most pc gamers haven't even fully switched to 1440p yet alone 4k like op asked
Kilo_Juliett@reddit
He's asking specifically about pc builders. Very few people are actually going to build a new pc for 1080p. Almost everyone will be 1440p or 4k.
A bunch of people still playing on 1080p is irrelevant. They are not new builders.
2neyc@reddit
I did build a pc now (7800x3d and 4070 Super) and decided to stick to 1080p.
Multiple reasons for this, such as better performance, higher textures, and the cost of multiple 2k monitors, to replace my existing 1080p ones that I was happy with.
Add in the fact I am happy with the current screen size given seating position and the fact I play a lot of lower res older games. I didn't feel the need to change them.
2k would be nice, but it isn't yet essential. At least not for me!
AmIMaxYet@reddit
Budget and standard have never been the same. 1440p is absolutely standard for non-budget builds.
dgs0206@reddit
i disagree 1440p is the standard but budget wise it’s def 1080p. anyone who builds now or even in past year is using 1440p i only spent 1100$ on my pc and my monitor was 250$ for 1440p and 240hx so its easy to get it under 1300$ now a days maybe even 1k monitor included if you shop around
monsternrgmakeupuke@reddit
You can still do all you want with 1080p especially with the high refresh rate panels, even though I just moved over to 1440p after over a decade of 1080p.
WEASELexe@reddit
I've been gaming 1440p on a budget for years lol. I would get like 50fps on my Chinese 1440p monitor with my Ryzen 1600 and 1070 years ago
fairportmtg1@reddit
59fps is low end for pc. Also saying what resolution you olay at without saying what tittles is kinda moot.b you are talking about hardware that's about 8 years old. you are at the point most people would upgrade. If you like it great, many wouldn't want to play the play you do.
It doesnt make you wrong but your point of view is one data point
WEASELexe@reddit
I play all sorts of games but at the time mostly PUBG and tarkov. When I built my first PC Ryzen was new. I didn't realize it's been so long. It was kinda ass getting less than 60fps but having 1440p is so worth it.
CommunistRingworld@reddit
"Budget gaming" is not what OP is asking for. "The standard" could mean budget, it could also mean the gold standard lol
There was a time when the smart way to high end gaming was 1440p. We're beyond that now. All modern nonbudget cards are 4K
fairportmtg1@reddit
4k at high frame rates isn't even here outside top end builds
CommunistRingworld@reddit
at no point did OP ask about high framerates. but I did do 300 fps in overwatch in 4k on a 3080
fairportmtg1@reddit
Yea if you play old game or sports tittlesnyou cna play at 4k if you really want on most mid teir cards from the current or last gen. So?
Pc gaming I fele like 60fps is minimum acceptable and now 144hrz is more expected with cheap high refresh rate monitors
CommunistRingworld@reddit
Cyberpunk 2077 4k fsr performance framegen psycho raytracing at 50 fps on a 3080 is preferable to 1440p 144fps.
fairportmtg1@reddit
Different strokes for different folks.
CommunistRingworld@reddit
It's cyberpunk. If you're not maxing it out, you aren't experiencing the game as intended. I get for twitch reaction competitive multiplayer games preferring to go high framerate over 4k. But not cyberpunk. I play it on a 4k 65" neoqled hdr tv 😀
Wiertlo@reddit
1080p? Where are we? In 2010?
fairportmtg1@reddit
I think you should look back. Also 4k and 1440p for the average person isn't a day and night thing so developers aren't oushing it and making games that don't take advantage.
Mytre-@reddit
I don't know if budget. I have a 4080 super, I still run 2 1080p 144hz screens. Maybe it's because screen size is a limiting factor for me and my compact space for my PC but at some point having minimum 30 inches for a monitor makes it really impractical for a PC unless you have a considerable space
fairportmtg1@reddit
I Mena buying a 4080 to play at 1080p on a 144hz monitor is a choice....
Mytre-@reddit
It is. Not gonna lie, the fact I can put ultra settings on everything and only a select games will dip lower than 144fps. And I like it this way, I'm afraid going to 1440p besides making it almost impossible to fit in my desk currently since it's minimum 27 inches for 1440p, is that I will dip below 100 fps on some games.
Spinatrix@reddit
I’m full 1440p from £550
fairportmtg1@reddit
It depends on the tittles. You can't build a full setup for 1440p brand new for that price though (you need a 1440p monitor to use 1440p
Spinatrix@reddit
True, most of my parts are used
Dukkiegamer@reddit
Budget??? Man, my PC isn't that bad. I got a 2080 super and an i7-9700k. Is that really budget already? Maybe it is. It can barely hold any games at 60 on max settings these days. Especially if I play them at launch.
Antenoralol@reddit
Yes its a budget system now a days.
fairportmtg1@reddit
I would consider 5+ years old higher mid range budget at this point (you could but it used cor a reasonable price and play games)
mighty1993@reddit
So much this. You can do a nice custom build for 1440p but 4K is so unrealistic as long as publishers want their studios to pump out one game after another no matter the quality. Because of this optimization is the first thing that is axed and we get a stuttering mess that barely runs 45 FPS with upscaling. Native 4K on ultra and high FPS is either a pipe dream or super rare that it's a waste of money to build a PC for that. The parts are just too expensive for the case of "maybe it will run". I just hook up my 1440p centered PC to my TV and wait for the one game in a million to actually enjoy it in 4K.
No-Actuator-6245@reddit
1080p isn’t budget gaming, it’s average gaming. According to the latest Steam survey 57% of their gamers are using 1080p.
an_internet_person_@reddit
Far more above 1080p than below. Most common below 1080p is 1366x768, which is mostly found on old laptops.
No-Actuator-6245@reddit
1080p is still the predominant resolution by a big margin, the distribution doesn’t change that. You have enthusiasts pushing higher resolutions but for average it’s 1080p and that doesn’t look like it will change for a long while.
Alexa_Call_Me_Daddy@reddit
That includes a ton of laptops and things like older computers that are no longer the primary device but still have steam installed.
cloudbells@reddit
And every one of those 57% are missing out
GMBethernal@reddit
If the 1080p gamers were given pc specs that could support nice 1440p gaming then they would swap instantly
JoaoMXN@reddit
On steam 1080p is almost losing to 1440p, like 30% difference IIRC.
fairportmtg1@reddit
30% is not close
mrsquiddywiddy@reddit
given the size of most monitors I don't think 4K will ever make sense. On a tv i does yes but those are whole different dimensions.
I have a 1080p monitor and from the distance to the monitor I usually game from I already can't make out any pixels
Nikolis@reddit
Hopefully not before 3440x1440 is standard, if ever.
zrasam@reddit
When medium end gpu can reliably get 60 fps and above
PraxicalExperience@reddit
The problem is how do you quantify 'medium end'?
To me, an igpu is low-end. Medium-end is literally any graphics card from the last decade, like, a 1070 or better. High end you're spending $800+ on a gfx card. "You're fucking nuts" end is of course the 4090 cards.
opensrcdev@reddit
The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super. I enable DLSS FrameGen (not upscaling) and have been playing HZD Remaster at 4k everything maxed. Same goes for a bunch of other games I play.
Macoroni_water88@reddit
The 4070 ti super is like 800$ that is not midrange in any way, 800$ is the price of an entire midrange pc.
opensrcdev@reddit
You can't build a mid-range PC for $800. The low-end is the GeForce RTX 4060 8GB @ $300. The top-end is 4090 ideally at $1,600.
➡️ The midpoint between $300 and $1600 would be $950.
The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER fits right on the lower end of mid-range at $800. I actually got mine on slight sale for $770, so even lower than typical price.
DEBESTE2511@reddit
But mid or high end is about what people are (on avarage) are willing to spend, it has nothing to do with cost of parts
yventsesxenos@reddit
Second hand market: "am I a joke to you?"
Macoroni_water88@reddit
We have a very different definition of midrange if you think the rtx 4060 is low end. The most common graphics card according to steam charts is the rtx 3060, most people don’t even own a card as fast as the 4060.The rtx 4070 ti super is literally the 7th most powerful graphics card on the planet and less than 1% of gamers own one, how is that lower midrange?
GMBethernal@reddit
You're acting like a god damn 4070 ti is some budget card, not everyone lives in American wages, not even Europeans
LordBalldeaux@reddit
The 4070Ti is just above a 4070 which is medium performance wise. Price wise though.... Yeah.
Itchy_Equipment_@reddit
Or wants to spend that much. Or cares about resolution that much.
I absolutely did not need to ‘cheap out’ on my PC by buying a second hand 6700XT (two years ago). I just didn’t want to spend more. And my machine is still doing just fine, can still play almost everything I want on max settings at 1440p.
Taldirok@reddit
I don't knhow the prices in the US but this card is at minimum 850 Euros here where i live, that's more that i paid for my entire CPU platform upgrade.
Psych0MantlS@reddit
I agree. We are absolutely there. It’s just the vast majority of people can not afford the equipment needed for it to be the “norm”.
Huge-Attitude9892@reddit
Its not about money. Everyone has a preference. For example in 2019 i could have bought a 2080 with no problem. Still went for the RX580. I just didn't see any points to go above the 580. Served me well. I seen a 144hz monitor in 2018. How it performs. The sweet spot is still 75hz for me at 1080p. 4k is reasonable for large +32inch displays,but below that its not IMO. My friend always goes almost above with PC parts. I never bought any pc part above 350$ He doesn't have a problem a problem spending 700$ on a GPU. Not to mention third world countries with high electricity bills. Flagship cards usually eats a lot of power.
rollercostarican@reddit
This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
“It’s not about the money, so I bought an objectively worse version of a product with guaranteed worse future proofing because I prefer it?”
Huge-Attitude9892@reddit
It's about money. The 2080 is a flagship with a brutal power consumption. I would had problems during the first covid wave if i had that card. Second is the new technology. RX580 couldn't run games like Alan Wake 2 due to its lack of mesh shaders. I still don't know what new tech Nvidia/AMD will gonna show in the future. I hardly build "future proof" PCs. As i said its preference. RX580 was enough for me back then. Now with the lack of interesting games i don't upgrade anything. Except the PSU maybe. Why i should buy a supercar if i only drive on Italy's curcy roads? Also i'm still playing at 1080P/75hz. I would have bought the 2080 for 4k. Nowadays the 4090 is an overkill for 1080p/75hz. Its reasonable if you want higher resolution or refresh rate or maybe you want to play DCS in VR. I have a 3050 6G now and a 2070 8G as well,but the 580 lacks some newer tech and the 3050 was the cheapest Nvidia card out there which doesn't needs an external power. I bought the 2070 cause it was a good deal and i never had a "Blower" type card before. Maybe i'm gonna test it in VR,but for now i don't have any plans to use even that old flagship
flummydummy@reddit
"it's not about money in my bubble so it can't be about money for anyone else!"
zerphir0n@reddit
For me just about never. Unless some insane advancements come that let me run games at 300+ fps at max settings 4k I'd rather play 1440p and as many frames as possible.
Mrcod1997@reddit
Because graphics get more demanding outside of resolution, and though 4k is sharper, even 1080p still looks decent. A 1080ti was a "4k" card when it came out, but it really aged well at 1080p.
HyruleanKnight37@reddit
From a monitor buying standpoint, not yet. Though I'd argue that midrange GPUs have gotten good enough to the point where 4k upscaled from 1080p looks pretty decent. In fact, 4k upscaled from 1440p looks so good that you'd be hard pressed to find the difference without a direct side by side comparison. If you've been playing at 1440p, you technically could upgrade to 4k at no extra cost - besides the monitor, of course.
As for monitors, 1440p is actually becoming more common, though 1080p going the way of 720p will still take a while.
I would've considered a 1440p display if I was buying one right now, though I'm actually planning on getting an OLED monitor for my next upgrade and I'd like to give OLEDs a couple more years to cook in the oven. I'll probably go for 4k if it's available at 27 inches, and if not, 1440p OLED it is.
WVY@reddit
If you wanna play at 4k you probably don't want upscaling. Although fsr3.0 seem pretty good.
jhaluska@reddit
We're barely gotten to 1440p. At the rate things are going, 15 years from now.
audigex@reddit
If that
I’ve done some a lot of 1080p and 1440p gaming, and a moderate amount of 4K gaming
The simple fact for me is that I appreciate 1440p, but at 4K I just don’t give a shit - it looks a little nicer, sure, but the “result” is not 4x nicer than 1080p when actually gaming and there’s definitely a “diminishing returns” going on for me
In most cases I’d rather use that processing power for rock solid 120 or 144fps rather than upping the resolution
To be clear, it does look a lot sharper when I’ve got a static scene and sit back to think “wow, that looks great” - but when I’m playing I’m not spending my time pixel-peeping at the sharpness or taking in the scene… I’m busy trying to play the game. So there’s just a lot less benefit to the higher resolution
mountainunicycler@reddit
4k makes a lot of sense when your monitor is larger than 32”, a 48” monitor at 4k is the same pixels per inch as a 27” 1080p monitor.
audigex@reddit
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any value of a monitor much larger than 27", maybe 32" at a push (or like an ultrawide, but that's effectively more like 2 smaller monitors with no bezel)
27" is as large as I find comfortable using on a desk. Beyond that I'm gonna grab my controller, sit back, and use my TV - at which point the viewing distance increases anyway
I actually use a 25" as my primary monitor, my 27" next to it is mostly used for YouTube or when I want to play a game with a controller (eg Forza Horizon) and sit back slightly. That's probably me being a little weird, though
But yeah, I just don't want a 48" monitor on my desk, I find it results in too much neck movement and is uncomfortable to use. I've had 42" before for several years when I used a TV as a second monitor (because it was pulling double duty as a TV) and I hated to game on it from my desk
XediDC@reddit
Interesting on the “looking around” — I use a physically massive 4x 32” 4K quad array for work (at 100% scaling) since I prefer to look around so much more than having anything hidden or window flipping.
The “primary” display is 144hz for gaming, but I don’t play the most modern stuff, so a 1080 keeps most things I play 60-120.
Not an argument — just nice we can do it however we prefer.
PraxicalExperience@reddit
Same logic here with my 56" 4K flatscreen -- and smaller side monitor at 1440p. I want all that real estate so that I can have multiple things open and up at once. Of course, I do sit a foot or two more back from the screen than I would if I was using a screen that was half the size.
I'd say that it's actually suboptimal to game on without sitting further back -- because a lot of information is in your periphery and it can be harder to take in everything going on at the screen at once. That said, I'm lucky that my setup allows for me to schooch back a few feet and take my KB and mouse with me. :)
mountainunicycler@reddit
I like a big monitor for work, so I just sort of end up gaming on it by default because I don’t have a separate gaming monitor.
And for “gaming” my favorite is simulation, so having three 48” monitors is the ideal (but those games are all designed to work that way)
Jirkajua@reddit
A 54" monitor at 4k is the same as a 27" 1080p
mountainunicycler@reddit
Ah, I remembered wrong, I think I was thinking of 24” monitors at 1080p
PraxicalExperience@reddit
That's exactly what it comes down to.
I can spend $1.5K and have a computer that runs -great- at 1440p but struggles at 4K. It'd double the price to do the same at 4K. Does 4K look better than 1440p? Sure! Does it look twice-the-price better? Oh fuck no, not when gaming at least.
Liesthroughisteeth@reddit
We need to take a poll. I think 1080p is still the more popular monitor sitting on desktops still. :)
theweedfather_@reddit
4k isn't even worth it until engine development gets better tbh
NewestAccount2023@reddit
4k is a constantly moving target. It won't be standard for literally 6 years. Wukong gets like 40fps with a 4090
PerturbedMarsupial@reddit
Maybe I got lucky but wukong (with dlss) 4k ultra on 4090 and I don’t recall dipping below 80-90. Capped fps at 143 and averaged maybe 110
thunder6776@reddit
Native rendering at 4k is a waste. It is absolutely doable, comfortably with a 4090, and even a 4070 can be stretched to do 4k with these amazing upscaling techniques.
XediDC@reddit
I think some of us are just oddly sensitive to resolution/clarity. I’d rather get down near 30fps in non-competitive games before lowering resolution or using much upscaling. Even at 4K 32” it bothers me.
Which is odd, since I grew up making ASCII art at the amazing “resolution” of 80x25.
p4vloo@reddit
Not sure. Playing God Of War Ragnarok now, native 4k vs DLSS quality - the difference is pretty noticeable to me. I like native 4k more. The picture is stunning. I play on an OLED TV. Native 4k with 60 fps is better experience than dlss and more fps.
WetAndLoose@reddit
God of War may be an exception, but I also game at 4K and the amount of games where I can even tell a difference, let alone an actually meaningful difference, can be counted on one hand. The vast majority of games for me DLSS is literally the magic more FPS button. Not even referring to frame gen.
Psych0MantlS@reddit
Sure it is. It really depends on the game you’re playing. A 240hz monitor @160 FPS w/ a lower resolution wouldn’t be doing a visually stunning game where latency doesn’t matter any favors.
Chemical-Spend1153@reddit
You dont need to play at ultra settings with RT. Also, DLSS.
LordBalldeaux@reddit
Depends on what you expect.
I got one of the very few first 4K screens, still works fine. I love using it in KiCad, Solid Edge, some Netflix, 100% scaling, like a boss. The only game that system even has installed is Eve Online and that runs fine. I think I played Limbo and Inside on it too no problems. Wukong might be a problem. But I'd play that on my main system anyway which now has a 3440×1440. But if all I played is super light stuff 4K is fine.
nataku411@reddit
This is true.
This is not true. Every GPU generation's flagship has been the '4K King' since 4K became a thing. Like you said, 4K is a moving target, but it's less about the GPU and more about the fact the games themselves are pushing GPUs harder each year a more graphic-intensive game comes out. 4K pushes your GPU exponentially harder than lower resolutions, so you're always going to chasing settings around in new games.
This is why I'm staying with 1440p. It means I can max out settings on most games while having a modicum of future-proofing to an extent.
peioeh@reddit
I think that might even take longer than that. How many generations of GPUs is it going to take before the equivalent of a 4090 costs 2-300€ ? I think it's going to take 10 or 15 years tbh. 1440p is only starting to gain actual ground on 1080p, it's going to be years before even that is the standard. 4k is far far away.
MarkLarrz@reddit
When 4K monitors are cheaper
get_the_data@reddit
I’m very new to PC gaming, but I have a 4070 Super hooked up to my 4K 65” TV and especially with DLSS I think shit looks fucking great lol. Maybe I’m too used to 60 FPS from consoles and my TV is only 60Hz anyway, but not going over that I’m very content.
Chemical-Spend1153@reddit
I think it will be pretty soon.
DLSS 3 at performance (rendering at 1080p) is amazing upscaled to 4k.
mcphee187@reddit
4K is just too expensive when done well.
For the price of a 4080 Super I could buy a 7800 XT and a 34" ultrawide OLED monitor. That would be a far larger overall improvement in image quality.
AdditionalMap5576@reddit
1440p isnt even the standard yet, check out steam hardware survey, it shows exact percentages of each resolution
USS-STK007@reddit
What is the current percentages? I can't check right now.
I've been using 1440p for 6 years now.
ItsRadical@reddit
57% 1080p
20% 1440p
4% 4k
Rest goes between UW displays and mainly lower than 1080p res.
AdditionalMap5576@reddit
Yeah, I love my 1440p screen, but its nowhere near the standard, 4k is years and years off, if ever
Typical_Detective835@reddit
Personally I play on a 27“ 1440p 170hz screen with an RTX 3060.
I thank the DLSS which allows me to be above 60fps on the current AAA without too many graphic compromises.
Djenta@reddit
No point while shitty upscaling tech is essentially required to run modern games well
SasquatchSenpai@reddit
When I'm not 12 inches from the monitor
LennyJoeDuh@reddit
For me, the advantage of going 4k was keeping a good pixel density on a large screen. I play mostly solo games and having 42" 4k is great for my wants. 👌
Stig783@reddit
Won't be for a while 4k gaming demands a lot.
Impossible_Cress6239@reddit
When it’s cheaper. Whenever that is.
Etroarl55@reddit
Never, now that NVIDIA has the monopoly on it there’s no reason to innovate or upgrade anything except for the xx90 class cards.
SirTrinium@reddit
late 2027- second quarter 2028 give or take a breakthrough technology
DEBESTE2511@reddit
I put my money on about 10-15 years more
opensrcdev@reddit
I've been using 4k for years, waiting for other people to catch up. I can't stand lower resolutions, as I'm sensitive to pixelation especially on text.
The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is an awesome mid-range GPU that can handle 4k gaming pretty well. I've been using it for the last few weeks, since I upgraded from an RTX 2080, and love it.
My guess is it'll take at least one or two more generations of GPUs to go mainstream though. Too many people are mentally limiting themselves to lower resolutions, or are financially unable to get to higher tier gaming. Remember that even as new NVIDIA GPUs come out, games get more demanding as well. It's always an uphill battle.
4k monitors are already pretty cheap, BTW. If you're not stuck on getting a high-end OLED, and are okay with a basic display, you can get them well under $200 each.
xXxKingZeusxXx@reddit
'mentally limiting themselves to lower resolutions'
My brain ID's this statement as a typo but I don't think it is. lol
I don't mind the budget 4k monitors assuming you're not gaming in them. I can fully appreciate 4k doing 3D modeling & design work as well as for text, video, etc however, I'd still rather to a 1440p to game for the massive FPS boost.
While I haven't gone 4000 series, I historically I wind up with the 2nd tier / XX80 class card every other generation and they just don't have the grunt for >90hz 4k as game engines seem to be less optimized due in part to DLSS / FSR. I was getting pretty good VR 90hz VR performance for a while, but I believe the standard now might be 120hz and would imagine pixel counts have gone up too.
Is the average game even improving visually? Maybe I'm not looking the right direction, but I don't even think games are looking all that much improved from year to compared to the jumps we used to see 5-10-15 years ago. Its possible it's just me but AAA titles from five years ago look so similar to today's. Halo to Halo 2 to Halo 3 improved massively. But from then on, they clearly improved, but nothing like they were. Halo 3 to Halo Infinite (7?) is a jump but thats 4 much smaller improvements altogether. But I suppose this is a completely different topic.
ragnarok_lives94@reddit
I don't think it'll ever be the ideal one like you're saying but for 4k 60 high settings my 7800xt does 4k more than fine
Balfus@reddit
I was hyped to get a 4K monitor. Eventually splurged on a Samsung Odyssey g8. The whole experience has been awful. Not just that the performance drop was bigger than I expected. Not just this particular monitor that randomly turns on and off, takes 10 seconds to wake up from sleep, etc. causes the PC to freeze for several seconds when starting certain apps or setting some videos to full screen etc.
Just high DPI desktop use is a frustrating experience, with many apps suddenly deciding to be tiny again until I move them to another screen back, etc. There are just so many fiddly little frustrations.
Other than the sheer size, I'm so much happier with my 27" Acer 2560x1440 monitor. I think my next monitor (which seems like it'll be a lot sooner than I'd hoped) will be large but back to 2460x1440, especially since as I get older and more able to afford nice things, my eyesight ain't what it used to be 😭 so I'm probably not even going to be able to tell the difference soon
mutebathtub@reddit
frame rate > resolution
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
Why choose? 4090 made my first pc building dream of 4k 144Hz possible. I’ve reached the end game.
KaelthasX3@reddit
Ping me when they can do 240 fps.
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
They can?
KaelthasX3@reddit
4K@240Hz with reasonable quality?
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
I’m sure one of the many products available could satisfy whatever you deem to be reasonable.
KaelthasX3@reddit
Not really, that's why I prefer to sacrifice resolution over frame rate.
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
Where are these $1,000+++ displays falling short in your opinion?
KaelthasX3@reddit
Oh no, you must have got me wrong. The displays are almost perfect. It's just that we don't have GPUs that can drive them to their fullest prettier. And I don't think that the interface/cable can really provide 4K@240Hz 4:4:4 image yet.
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
There very well may be a color depth hit, I haven’t looked into them too deeply. So yes, I agree there are very reasonable concerns for the practicality of it, but it can be done.
Avitas1027@reddit
Because sacrificing one of those specs makes the computer like half as expensive.
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
Right you are. But there are people out there who feel that way independent of finances, that’s really who the question is for.
finneas998@reddit
Highly depends on the game.
NZT23@reddit
Until we see an RTX 4090 with a 4060 pricing , by then i can safely say its almost there. Optimization by game developers matter as well, if too reliance on upscaling technology real 4K gaming is still not going to be the standard. High FPS for competitive gamers will still be important, 1440p despite more than capable, i personally dropped my res to 1080p to have a 500 average fps for eg CS2. Maybe an RTX 6090 or PS6 days will set the standard.
Clear-Influence-731@reddit
no
PhoenixPile@reddit
1440p I closer to the norm now with good pricing and more features for less than any 4k not to mention you don’t need the most expensive GPUs to run at the resolution with a 120hz to 144hz refresh rate. 4k will be a while until low to mid gpus can run 4k at similar refresh rates, 1080p is still the most common due to very cheap prices.
New_Importance2779@reddit
When 8K is the thing everyone technophile is pushing for. Only when there is something shinier does the old stuff start becoming affordable and standard.
golem09@reddit
I have a 4090 with a 65" 4k TV. I rarely ever game in 4k, in the times of DLSS that is a waste of computing power that you can instead put into better effects or more frames.
justa-Possibility@reddit
Long time, bro. 1080p is budget gaming, and 1440 is mid level. Most people don't even get into higher level stuff it's just too high graffix demanding and so expensive and more for enthusiasts. I really think most steam gamers have 580, 590, 1060, 1650s, 1660s, and lower end AMD (below RX6600) or NVIDIA (2060, 3060 or below) cards.
I play on a decent mid level rig, and I play with FSR3 (Auto Upscaling) and AFMF2 (Frame Generation) and Smart Access Memory fully engaged on 4k with just slightly under Quality settings toward Performance settings. So I'm actually on a lower resolution in game (usually 2k 2560x1440) being auto upscaled from 2k to 4k with FSR3 and doubling my FPS from 60 to 120+ FPS with AMD FLUIDMOTION Frames 2. It looks and plays well. But still is no way on any level of playing with 4k with high settings with my setup without any of these enabled.
I would need twice as expensive of a GPU, and I paid almost $360 for my current GPU this year. It's an AMD Radeon Asrock RX6750XT Challenger Pro 12Gig GPU. But I'd need i figure an RX7900XTX or RX7900GRE, and those are just way too high priced. Not to mention the prices of NVIDIA cards, which are way higher.
So it really dont look like 4k will be the standard for 5-10 years.
Putrid-Flan-1289@reddit
When/if it actually becomes affordable for us regular folk.
Tylux@reddit
When 4k monitors speed up and get cheaper.
MuscleTrue9554@reddit
I still play in 1080P with my RTX 3080, as a lot of modern games can't even keep a stable 60-80 fps without dipping when in native.
I guess I'll need a RTX 4080 and over to be comfortable playing only in 1440p.
pf100andahalf@reddit
There aren't even any good 4k cards although the 4090 is okay-ish for it.
Nervous_Split_3176@reddit
soon, 1440p has been the standard for years now
Funnelino@reddit
1080p is completely fine. Most people won't notice the difference, like pumps from lower resolutions.
LordBalldeaux@reddit
I use a 4K for Solid Edge, Pro Tools, Reaver, etc and would no way want to go back to any lower resolution.
Even if just gaming and wanting to stay low res, I'd go 2560×1080 over just having 1920. Ultrawide is lovely.
757DrDuck@reddit
What gaming does to a man. The difference is stark when editing, whether it be text or photos.
Eastern-Lake673@reddit
The right question is , when will the OLED monitors be finally approachable for the rest of us who don’t have a fortune. 1440p is the sweet spot on a 27inch monitor we just need OLED to cost less. This would be a huge jump in quality for everyone.
LordBalldeaux@reddit
I have a 34 inch ultrawide and am kinda annoyed at it it is too big. 29 inch ultrawide is actually great, not too small not too big. Sadly only 2560×1080 which is too low not 3440×1440 which would be fine.
Though if they give me OLED 2560×1080 at 29 inches, I am all over it.
Psych0MantlS@reddit
OLED 4K is the only way I’m upgrading from 1440p. 4K monitors(though getting cheaper) simply don’t beat the price to performance of a 1440p monitor. You should be gaming in 4k w/ a 4080 or higher anyway, but OLED displays really are just stunning.
lucashas93@reddit
I'm building a 4k gaming right to play with my 4k tv. It's expensive as heels, most people are still upgrading to 1440p.
fakuryu@reddit
If we use the Steam Survey as a metric, 1080p is still the standard by a wide margin. 4K gaming is still demanding to hardware unless you're playing gfx light games.
laci6242@reddit
Given that over 10% of people on Steam own a 1060 or 1650 no wonders 1080p is still that common. A huge part of PC gamers still own Pascal, Polaris and older. Even for the newer popular cards, the 3060 and 4060, those are marketed towards 1080p gaming.
peioeh@reddit
If you add up all the 60 and 50 series cards percentages, you get something like 55-60% of people on Steam. I did not even count any AMD cards or laptop cards or older slower more powerful cards.
Dreadpirateflappy@reddit
I saw a dude on here claim recently that over 50% of people own a 4090 now on steam, lol. It's amazing how many people make up shit or maybe just believe it's true.
As you said, most people are on older hardware, it's generally the enthusiasts that are on 4k with the latest hardware.
Frozenpucks@reddit
Kinda proves the echo chamber effect. 4090 owners are a minuscule number.
Ok_Run6706@reddit
Lol, and here I am thinking 1660 would be nice upgrade for my 950 :D
CSGOan@reddit
I basically only play cs2, so I want as much fps as possible rather than a good looking game. It will probably be decades before I play 4K lol. I am considering going for an 1440p OLED next time tho.
ZeroTheTyrant@reddit
It's almost as of op is out of touch or something.
GMBethernal@reddit
Incredibly out of touch
RegaeRevaeb@reddit
🎶...Out of time -- time... 🎶
filitsino@reddit
Personally, I think we're still far away. 4k monitors/TVs are expensive and when the cost of the higher end GPUs are going up, it's just too unattainable or budget friendly to get 4k and run 120fps or higher on average.
If you are fine with 60fps at decent graphics as a PC gamer - then at that point why not just go for a console if that's all you're doing?
I sometimes regret going for my 4k LG C2 with my 4080 Super. I think I would still be very happy at 1440p.
Frozenpucks@reddit
I think 3-5 gens out still. Most gpus outside flagships struggle with 4k
11_Seb_11@reddit
Probably not before 10 years, but technology is hard to predict!
trenlr911@reddit
It’s going to be a very long time, and there’s always going to be a large chunk of people who will value the extra frames from lower resolutions
Waveshaper21@reddit
4070 Ti Super owner here, I don't really value 4K or over 60 fps, I bought years of not worrying about an upgrade. I'll happily go down to 1080p again, but for now, 4K60 is easy peasy
StickyIcky313@reddit
1080 is the most commonly used resolution for gaming . 4k won’t be the standard for prolly like 20 years and even then competitive gamers will still used 1080 probably
sirshura@reddit
That's easy, once it gets cheap enough.
Snowghost794@reddit
4k? That's yesterday man. 8k is coming along fast. Hold off.
Straight_6@reddit
Devs can't even optimize games for 1080p anymore
Due-Equal8780@reddit
Not until gpus get better imo
Currently you can game on 4k sure, but you're almost never hitting above 100 fps+ on new games unless you have a 4090 or something. And even then, it's not strong enough to do 4k at 120fps in every game, so a 120hz+ 4k monitor is rather pointless at the moment unless you're playing old games (which kinda defeats the purpose, no?)
Most people, at least in my estimation when it comes to computer enthusiasts, don't want to game at 60 fps anymore. So most people chose 1440p 240hz+ which is literally impossible rn to do with 4k with current gpus
1440p isn't even standard yet and imo won't be for another 5-10 years until the current tech that can do 1440p np right now is outdated. When budget or two-three generations old GPUs can do 1440p with ease, that's when it'll become standard imo, and we're a few years from that yet
Playful-Piccolo-8213@reddit
when anyone can afford rtx 4090 or higher tier of GPU
opensrcdev@reddit
The RTX 4080 Super and 4070 Ti Super can do some 4k gaming. I've been playing games like Horizon, Hogwarts Legacy, and Everspace 2 at 4k. I'm using the 4070 Ti Super with a 4k 144hz G-Sync display.
GMBethernal@reddit
Yea a 4080 or a 4070ti... do you read yourself? Most popular card is still the 3060, a BIG portion of the gaming scene has a gpu similar yo a 3060 or even lower
BroThoughtHeDidSmth@reddit
And do you read at all? He was simply correcting that guy for saying 4090 is the only viable 4k card.
bong-water@reddit
You're not going to be able run every game at 4k with a 4070 ti super reliably regardless. Even a 4080 it's not worth the trade off. if you play multiplayer shooters then you're fucked. 60fps isn't enough for most people anymore, and there's going to be games where you won't even be getting that on high settings let alone ultra. Unreal 5 titles coming out it's going to get even worse.
BrianBCG@reddit
You don't have to run every game at 4k just because you have a 4k display. I've had a 4k display since I had a GTX 1060. I just played most things at 1080p. Though even back then there was a handful of things I ran at 4k.
bong-water@reddit
Wouldn't you not be able to play the game in fullscreen, else it'd look like shit?
ItIsShrek@reddit
You can play 1080p games fullscreen on a 4K display, they actually look solid because of the way scaling works. It really doesn't look that bad especially in games where you can scale the resolution down while leaving the menus and HUD/UI at native 4K.
Also, basically every game has some form of upscaling these days that'll work on the last 3 generations of cards from both manufacturers. At 4K, even DLSS in performance mode is more pixels being rendered natively than 1080p.
BrianBCG@reddit
You can play full screen fine, it will just scale. 1080P scales perfectly into 4k, though with that many pixels most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between native 1440p and 1440p scaled into 4k. In other words by having a 4k display you also have a 1080p display and a (slightly less than optimal, but by no means bad) 1440p display.
BroThoughtHeDidSmth@reddit
Idc what your reasoning is, his comment is spot on. 4090 isn't the only 4k card, that's a fact.
bong-water@reddit
I think some games being nearly unplayable is pretty solid reasoning.
GlitteringChoice580@reddit
You do realise that’s like saying “when everyone is above average” right? It’s never going to happen because the high end cards will always be too expensive for most people.
Avitas1027@reddit
I think they meant when cards with that level of performance become affordable.
OverworkedAuditor1@reddit
Considering that you need a 4090 to get 60fps in some major games with 4K Max settings…… A LONGGGGGGGG ways to go
bejito81@reddit
well most people are not even ready to pay 1500 for a 1440p setup, so 4k won't be the standard for I'd say at least 10 years
Hungry_Reception_724@reddit
Only once 4k becomes as cheap as 1080p will it take over, 99% of screens sold are still 1080p. Not talking just gaming just overall.
Basically what has to happen is buisness need to mmove to 4k or 1440 for a jump to be made as a standard for things like screens. Until then manufacturers wont make the jump either.
Unfortunately gamers represent less than 1% of the computer market considering a single buisness building of 30 floors has litterally thousands of machines in it.
veryexpensivepasta@reddit
Me over here fine with 1080p
Dilemma_Nay@reddit
When 4k high refresh rate monitors will be accessible.
I won't build a PC for 4k gaming when I don't have the monitors to match.
SpritesOfDoom@reddit
The problem is that there're no good and affordable 4K ultrawide displays (3840x1600 or 5120x2160), while you can get nice 3440x1440 OLED panels.
21:9 aspect ratio is ideal for PC monitor. Both for gaming and productivity. I've recently upgraded my 27 inch 2560x1440 144Hz VA panel to 34 3440x1440 175 Hz OLED panel, because my old 27 inch was a bottleneck for my new PC and I will never go back to 16:9 monitors.
In the future I may to upgrade to 3840x1600, but retain same PPI, just a bigger monitor, but in next 3-4 years. I'm definitely not going for 4K gaming. I'll rather have higher FPS or higher settings than higher resolution.
I still play some games in 4K on my 55 inch OLED TV and Xbox Series X. Some games run at 1600-1800p and less demanding ones are full 4K. However 1440p is good enough for me.
Drages23@reddit
It's not about the resolution but the screen size. People still use 23" monitors or 15-17" laptops, and those sizes can use 1080p good enough. Consoles go for 4K because people got big TV's mostly.
4K at PC starts from 27" but even it's small for 4K. So for 4K you need to have 32"+ screen and a desk for it. I love big screens and got a 42" TV for pc screen.
So, the PC parts are next as you can play 4K at 60 FPS with even 4070 TI and with 5000s I guess a 5070 would be enough, but VRAM could be a problem.
davekurze@reddit
It’s going to be a looooooong time before 4k is the standard for gaming lol. As it stands, even the 4090 can’t run everything native at 4K with maxed settings.
portablekettle@reddit
Probably 5/10 years imho unless gpu prices plummet. The average users are still using 1080p.
Khorvair@reddit
Who said 1440p is mainstream? AFAIK 1080p is and personally I'm still on my 720p monitor with a dual-core CPU and a GTX 660
DecisiveUnluckyness@reddit
Wtf?
TommyToxxxic@reddit
1080 is perfect for what I'm doing. It's also great for content creation because it means I stream and upload at native resolution. I play esports, so I prioritize framerate.
PsyOmega@reddit
4K will only become standard when GPU's capable of it become affordable.
The 4070, which is a bit beyond most peoples means, is a 1440p card.
Midnight_Leftovers@reddit
Probably not for decades. We're not even close.
carlbandit@reddit
Going off the most recent steam hardware survey for primary monitor resolutions 1080p is still top at 57%, 1440p is 19.7% and 4k 3.9%.
We are still a very long way off 4k becoming the standard, 1440p still requires a high end card to run modern games at high fresh rates, so 4k has even fewer suitable GPUs.
When mid-high range can run 1440p well and the top few GPUs can run 4k more might switch, but that could still be a few GPU generations away yet.
HngMax@reddit
As long as 1440p capable GPUs are so expensive it’s not gonna be a standard, and it’s not even 4K
Vannman04@reddit
It’ll be years. 1440p isn’t even standard yet, it’s just mainstream like you said. People should be in 1440p and I will always say this. 4k is too much for people and current hardware of today. (I like high fps)
UdatManav@reddit
When the “budget friendly” category isn’t just pre owned cards
Efioanaes@reddit
4 k is so overrated.
redi6@reddit
it's inevitable that eventually 4k will be the norm, but I don't think there's an urgent push for it by consumers right now, so it will just happen naturally as gpus get more powerful. Even if the 4090 was able to play absolutely every single game at 4k with max details, most wouldn't go that route. With alot of tech, it doesn't really make sense to get the new stuff. Best to go back a generation and get more value for your money. There are always exceptions especially when it comes to upgrade path. For example I wouldn't bother with ryzen AM4, given that AM5 has a much longer upgrade path and isn't much more expensive.
My son is 11 and an avid gamer. he plays regularly on ps5, quest 3, and pc. thanks to social media (youtube, tiktok etc) he always wants the latest shit. I had the ps5 hooked up to a 65'' TCL with hdr, 120fps 4k etc. it looked amazing, but he eventually wanted it moved to the office and he games at 1440p on a monitor for the ps5 now. sure it looked better at 4k, but when you're actually gaming, 1440p to me makes little difference. even 1080p is perfectly fine for modern games.
you're not admiring a game quite in the same way that you admire a movie at 4k with dolby vision.... plus i'm oldschool and grew up with nintendo, and later 3dfx voodoo, so literally any current game amazes me graphics-wise :)
my son and I built a pc a couple weeks ago. I tried to stay mid tier budet-ish and I still ended up dropping $1500 CAD. ryzen 5 7600, 4060, 32 gig ram, 2tb ssd etc. pretty standard build. I already had a pretty good affordable 1440p monitor.
Is it going to play everything at 1440p? not at all. does it do great with 1080? yep. can it play some stuff at 1440p? Probably. the 4060 that I got was just under 400 cad. the next logical step (for nvidia anyway) would be to move to the 4070 super. I felt that the best value 'budget' card was the 4060, and the best value 'higher end' card was the 4070 super, but doubling the price on gpu didn't make sense from a value perspective. I can always grab a 4070 super when they drop to around $400, and sell my 4060 for a couple hundred bucks.
coming from a 4th gen i7 box with a radeon 580 (which still managed to play lots of stuff at 1080 with some settings dialed down), I love the system we put together.
Tango1777@reddit
There is no real 4K setup since fps sucks, you either have to use frame generation or DLSS, that's nowhere near becoming standard. 1440p we can run just fine with current tech, but I wouldn't call it standard, 1080p still is.
Valuable_Ad9554@reddit
1080p was still kinda normal when i built my current machine 10 years ago. Since then I've moved onto 1440p, and for my next build 4k is looking to be the new normal. For a few generations of gpus now 4k has been more than achievable, that's what you need to become 'standard'.
Altruistic_Koala_122@reddit
4k is ideal for image quality and high bit-depth, if that's what you mean by standard.
I'm guessing when 4k is cheap and fast enough FPS wise, it'll be a standard.
Tech_With_Sean@reddit
2059
Dapper-Conference367@reddit
1440p is slowly but surely rising, but the most used resolution (and by a big margin) is still 1080p.
I could guess in 10 years max 1440p will be the new standard, but that's just an educated guess, not a truth.
I think maybe in around 15 years 4K will get to the point 1440p is now, but that's cause in my opinion (which anyone can call wrong, as it's just my opinion and not a truth by any mean) due to how much generational performance uplift we're getting with GPUs and hoping optimization will get better (while it's actually getting worse, but I hope game devs will be forced from "angry" gamers protesting and not buying barely optimized shit).
Literally any small thing could change and totally mess up with what mainstream resolution will be.
We could reach a hard wall for performance and get stuck for years with a technology before we can find another way to do things, we could also find a new way before and get way higher performance uplift than we've ever seen between each generation. Hard to say tbh.
Roseysdaddy@reddit
For me it was 2 years ago with the 4090.
seajay860@reddit
when people get eye implants
smackythefrog@reddit
This is like asking if a Bugatti or a Ferrari is the "new standard" for car drivers.
A proper 4K setup, including peripherals, is $2-3K USD, depending on the GPU you choose. Possibly more, and definitely more in EU or Asia.
Not everyone can afford that.
1440p is still a tough sell to most people because of pricing and while I think we're close to 1440p being standard, I don't see 4K being the norm and easily attainable for at least 5+ years. And that's a conservative estimate from me.
A lot of the less-expensive builds I see here where people say they want 1440p are going to be running 1440p between 60-85, at best. So there's still plenty of way to go in 1440p, in terms of frame rate, before we get to the point that most people buying new parts are targeting 4K60.
I'd say most people with money to spend should target 1440p and a frame rate at 120fps or better.
And then shell out the money for a 1440p monitor that can do 120+fps and is actually good. There are a lot of cheap monitors with shitty panels that have good specs on paper but are a waste of money.
So until all of the above clears up, 4K really is for the "elite" buyer with deep pockets. Most people are better off with the Camry that is 1440/60 and moderate amount of people can spring up to the Lexus that is 1440/144+.
Liringlass@reddit
Instead of moving to 4k i moved to wqhd (3440:1440) or ultrawide 1440. I wouldn’t want to move back to 16:9.
My PC could probably handle 4k with a 4080 but probably not easily an hypothetical ultrawide with 3840 height.
Funnily i was one of the first to jump on a 4k monitor almost 10 years ago. Bought two 780 in SLI i think it was called. Those two cards together costed less than a 4080 does today haha. But after using that monitor mostly in full HD for a few years i went back to 1440.
ADtotheHD@reddit
When Intel, AMD, and Nvidia genuinely spend some time doing R&D on GPUs to actually drive the processing power of the technology forward instead of incremental bullshit with AI and Raytracing. I'm talking about raw rastering capability. As an example, Nvidia as the market leader's fundamental design hasn't changed since the 1000 series, which came out almost 9 years ago. Yes the process gets smaller, yes the ram is faster and there is more of it, but inherently the same CUDA core design is what everything is based on. They just add more CUDA cores and cram more of them onto a die, which have gotten progressively larger. They aren't better. They aren't inherently more capable. Arguably all of the gains have simply been a function of process node shrink, core count increases, and increases in RAM speeds, not some radical redesign or better way of doing things.
Training_Try_9433@reddit
I’ve been 4k since Covid
Vedanta_Psytech@reddit
It’s not unrealistic today tbh. Still rocking 3900xt from 2020 and 7800xt, I can play any game I want in 4k around 50-60fps on highest details. As someone who uses a 4k tv as a screen (60hz screen, music studio) and plays occasionally, it’s more than I ever needed so far. Future is here.
AsianEiji@reddit
Give me a 4k monitor that is color calibrated to AdobeRGB 99% and sub 300 USD then come back to me.
Weary_Ad852@reddit
I recently upgraded to 4K, just because I got a 4090.
4K is real far from standard, not even 1440p is used by most gamers.
TeamChaosenjoyer@reddit
No time soon lol
zerostyle@reddit
Prob when 4k cards can be easily had for under $300
thedarklord187@reddit
Doubt that will happen now once the the tariffs start taking effect all your electronics will be sky high price wise in the US in the near future.
ksn0vaN7@reddit
Probably not for another 10 years. Even with upscaling and frame gen, running intensive games at 4k is still not easy. When a game like Cyberpunk with path tracing can run on a newly released budget gpu is when 4k will start gaining popularity.
ShawnBawn88@reddit
Not for a long ass time lmao.
shanesnofear@reddit
I play pretty much everything at 4k with a 2080ti so I would say mid range gpu's already can handle 4k. Now if its something like warzone I use my monitor that's a 2k ultra wide. So I guess my response is all over the place but I really think 4k will become a lot more popular as newer oled tv's work insanely good for gaming and once monitors catch up. Only reason I have not upgraded my monitor is because they don't really make a 4k 38" ultrawide worth a damn
Benepope@reddit
No joke, when phone resolution gets to 4K.
That_Redditor_Smell@reddit
4k has been my standars for my last 3 builds lol
al3ch316@reddit
1440p still isn't the main standard if Steam hardware surveys are to be believed.
another1bites2dust@reddit
usually people game in the competitivish side, so 4k is very very far from being standard as creates a lot of issues if you are not capable to match others fps in fight situations etc.
Cecilerr@reddit
10 years
LostInTheVoid_@reddit
We haven't even hit 1440p as standard. With the price of GPUs the optimisation level and visual fidelity and technology being used in games now... yeah 4K is a long long way off being "standard" for new builders.
drupido@reddit
r/buildapc and /r/pcmasterrace are the places to go when you want to see how out of touch (mostly Americans) are from reality.
Other than saying what everyone in the thread has already said, I would ask myself the question:
Is it really a priority for gaming studios to spend the extra budget, the extra time, the extra optimization, the extra effort to pull performance for what amounts to a very limited install base?
Is it really worth it for people (outside the US, because everything is cheap af over there AND they have more money to spend) to spend the extra money on 4k monitors, the latest and greatest GPU, bigger and better storage (gotta have 2TB NVMe drives to load your unoptimized 4k level textures!) and all the extra upgrades they need to do for a marginally better experience with arguably worse performance?
Everyone in the comments is going for the PC builder perspective, no one is really driving the source of supply which are game developers and the source of demand which are the gamers.
There's a reason this console generation has sucked balls as it has massive budgets that require install bases higher than the ones afforded by current gen, ergo they need to be held back by the previous gen. Same thing happens with PCs and gamedevs, you run the risk of not being able to sell enough of your game BECAUSE there's not enough people that even have the hardware needed and it's dumb to demand it with the gazillion dollar budgets these peope have as debt.
Your question isn't silly btw, the replies illustrate how NON-silly it is as many still don't get it as a whole and still focus on one detail. My answer is not encompassing all aspects either.
markadillo@reddit
I have a 4k 27" monitor that i use for non gaming purposes and would not consider upgrading my gaming to use a gaming 4k monitor. 27" feels too small for 4k and I do not have room for a 30+" monitor. It doesn't seem to be worth it to me to go beyond 1440p.
As far as gaming industry goes, I expect eventually specs will support better performance in 4K for the handful of people who will go down that path but I doubt that most people will follow suit with these upgrades.
ItchySackError404@reddit
Probably when a GPU can hit 4090 performance at less than 200 watts at a sub $250 price point.
So... Probably not for another 20 years.
drlongtrl@reddit
Gaming is absolutely FINE on a 22/23/24 inch screen. And such a screen looks absolutely fine in 1080. If you want to go a bit bigger, 27 or 30 is plenty big at the distances most screens are from eyes. And 27/30 looks just fine with 1440 resolution. To get any meaningful benefit from a 4k PC screen, you´d have to go way bigger than any meaningful portion of gamers would. So there´s really no strong incentive to push for 4k specifically now.
So, as long as people don´t start using PCs like consoles, gaming from their couches on huge ass TVs, I´d say 1080 and 1440 will just remain the norm.
Emmazygote496@reddit
4K is too much for a desk, i dont think its comfortable for PC, for a console on a couch it makes total sense
dropamusic@reddit
I run every game 4k max settings on my 4080 super with ease. I can see the 50 series being even easier to obtain for most.
bittynow@reddit
My rtx 3060 can withstand death stranding on a 4k tv with oled and hdr enabled I get about 80 fps unless It rains in the game I get about 50 fps (dlss enable ultra performance). Get an RTX
kfc71@reddit
inb4 ultrawide is the standard before 4k
shadowkh1@reddit
I believe that by 2030, 4k would be the Norm
rohitandley@reddit
I still use 1080p and 1440p monitors. 4k is far honestly because some regions don't get good quality monitors that US or some European nations get. If they are available, then they are way too expensive. Majority are still happy with 1080p as it does the job.
Pajer0king@reddit
The standard still is 1080p. Highly doubt it 4k will ever be a standard, given the prices. 4k is like 3d TV s.
CortaCircuit@reddit
OLED > HDR > in-game textures and lighting > 1080p vs 4k.
RavenWolf1@reddit
4k? I'm waiting 16k. :D
Personally I have 1440p. I don't see much use for 4k resolution especially how much better performance you can get with lower resolution.
Only reason to have really high resolutions is VR but such tech doesn't exists yet which would satisfied that.
StarHammer_01@reddit
As someone who games on a 4k monitor,
I say anytime from 15years+ to never.
I can only see 4k becoming a standard if
games stop becoming more demanding while gpu performance increases (the opposite is way more likely to happen)
VR takes off and everyone is optimizing their pcs for VR gaming which 4k 120hz is a minimum so why not get a 4k monitor also. (unlikely given pcvr is kinda stagnating at the moment)
Games become so optimized and fsr/dlss so good that most people can run it at 4k (current trends say no)
TroggieAK@reddit
Agreed. I don't fully regret getting a 32" 4k high refresh monitor because I use it for both work and play, but I don't think I'll ever seek out to a 4k monitor for gaming again. It's just too demanding and not worth it after coming from a 1440p 27" setup prior to it.
PaxV@reddit
2 screens on 1440p require 88% of 4K so if a game can get 55 FPS on 4k , you will get ~60 on dual 1440p screens.. for a VR set
StarHammer_01@reddit
Good catch I forgot 1440p is 44% of 4k so the equalivent should be 4k at 105hz
tonallyawkword@reddit
I bet about 10% of gamers currently use 1440p. Maybe \~50% of "enthusiast" ones.
I don't think a 2025 $500 GPU is gonna be superb for 4k gaming if that's what you're getting at. 2026 might be a significantly better time to build for it.
Practical-Boat2413@reddit
I have a 5800X3D and a 7900XT, I chose 1440p high refresh rate over 4k, it's not like a tv, you're not sat at the other side of the room, I would much rather have buttery smooth animations at 280hz than it looking beautiful and being a jerky 30 fps experience.
If you look at how demanding new AAA titles are now, if you want anything over 60 fps it just makes sense to target 1440p.
michaelbelgium@reddit
When 4K gpu's are 200$
No-Classroom-457@reddit
Foolish question. Probably, when the next generation past 8k comes out. However, it won't happen overnight, it'll take time for that generation to become the new top tier level, then the bottom will rise also. I'd imagine it will be quite some time from now (> 5yrs away, at minimum). Keep in mind nothing here is fact, it's all hypothetical.
Zarniwoop99@reddit
Resolutions aren't a standard for PC builders.
Most PC builds are without a monitor, you bring your own usually.
cover-me-porkins@reddit
Probably never, games will keep getting more demanding to run in 1080p as the hardware improves - that's at least the trend we're seeing at the moment.
Alph1@reddit
Not a silly question. The answer is when the price of a 4K GPU reaches the price that a parent will buy for their 12 year old as a Christmas present.
In other words, probably not for another 5 or 6 years.
Patient-Definition96@reddit
Why would you want a 4k for PC anyway? Our eyes dont need 4k for PC. If it's a TV, then 4k is the standard.
sykoKanesh@reddit
Physics has to catch up my man. We're still a good ways off from that.
Also, 1440p is not a standard yet, we're still at 1080p.
TopPebble@reddit
Honestly? no. While I have played at 1080p, 1440p and 4k, I still find 1440p to be the sweet spot. While 4k is noticeably better, I've been gaming for years on mostly low settings anyway (even on a decent setup), so 4k really isn't on my radar. Like others have said, 1080p is still the king resolutions, so I highly doubt it'll become standard.
Dysan27@reddit
Once 8k becomes common and 16k is even possible in the enthusiest space.
At that point hardware will have advanced to the point that low end hardware can support 4k gaming
Till then it will still be an upper tier/prestige thing.
Dahly_Llama@reddit
.. ...mmm
rizzzeh@reddit
when used rtx4090 falls below $300
--Dolorem--@reddit
Maybe when market prices plummet
protector111@reddit
I use 4k monitor for almost 10 years now. And i wonder why people sont use them. They are chep now. I cant stand blury pixels. I always gated them. I wold rather play any game on super low 4k than ultra raytracing 1080p…
neeryksdev@reddit
Not very soon , people still prefer “strech-res 720p” for most of the FPS gaming
TonyKinobie@reddit
I am currently saving for AM5 platform and my whole goal is to be able to run 4k max settings at 144 fps. I currently play in 1440p as well because that's what I could afford.
Kakerman@reddit
Hopefully never. 4k it's such a performance hog for a diminishing return.
zodII4K@reddit
When the current majority of 1080p players will have the budget for it.
NightmareLogic420@reddit
1080 is still the standard. I just upgraded to 1440 a few months ago, but that's definitely not the standard just yet.
Severe-Wrangler-66@reddit
When it is worth having 4K which it definetely isn't now. Sure games look great but the bump from 1440p to 4K is super tiny and barely noticeable except your fps gets cut in half or even more. It just isn't worth it but 1440 is or 1080p for budget.
_asciimov@reddit
4K and higher might become mainstream if Linux and Windows get good at scaling. I'm all for higher pixel density but text needs to be big enough to read.
Juleast@reddit
Problem is that 4k monitors are very expensive. GPU-wise, even integrated graphics can handle 4k resolutions currently. And as I see it, anything above 1440p is negligible in terms of what you see. I still live with 1080p and I don't see myself wanting more than this tbh. I would like a higher refresh rate but resolution isn't a top concern for me as long as it's 1080p and above.
But this is coming from someone who still uses older hardware. My setup is an i7-4700k with GTX 680.
BestBastiBuilds@reddit
I think since requirements, complexities of levels, game worlds and graphics effects will keep on increasing and advancing, 1080p will stick around for a long time still. Looking at it from a two year gen on gen cycle. It’s a vicious back and forth between new hardware releases, but at the same time the requirements increase, so the entry level from the last two years gets 60fps at 1080p. And the entry level from 4 years ago will not be good enough anymore for that 60fps. I was actually wondering about the same yesterday while running the thought crossed my mind. When will 2k60 or even 4K be the norm for entry level. I think once we get there, we’ll be there for a VERY long time.
HiSamir1@reddit
Not before 2040.
WVY@reddit
it will be mainstream when normal gpu's are on the 7900xtx/4090 level.
leoleosuper@reddit
We're reaching the physical limit of processors. We can go any smaller on a chip soon. Once that happens, either companies optimize their games better, or we don't even get 1440p to be standard.
Itchy_Supermarket729@reddit
To start this off, this is actually not a silly question. I've thought about this too. I think it's gonna take a while before this actually becomes more "budget friendly" especially because games are also becoming graphically more demanding.
I don't think 4K will be budget friendly for the years to come. 1080p is still considered budget and AAA titles are already really demanding on alot of systems on 1080p res. Even in the higher end midrange section it is hard to run some AAA games on ultra with rt enabled, especially if you're aiming for 100+ fps. I think ai and upscaling will be key to be able to run higher resolutions and framerates in demanding titles.
nv87@reddit
I have stopped using monitors with lower than 4K resolution years ago. It sucks in the office though. 4K is so much better for working on imo, that it is kinda hard to not have it at work.
Anyways I used a GTX 1080 from like 2017 to earlier this year and back when I got it I bought my first 4K monitor and later I was fed up with having different resolutions next to each other so I got a second one in 2019 or so.
I don’t play high fps games, my refresh rate is 60 anyways but it’s also a question of genre of course. I play strategy games and simulation games. I prefer the higher visual fidelity.
In my experience it’s not necessarily expensive to go this route, but it can be if you want to play the most modern games, for sure.
CommunistRingworld@reddit
4K should be standard for anyone buying a modern card. The modern cards are 4K cards, it's time to move on.
Taskr36@reddit
1440p still isn't the sweet spot. The sweet spot is when a midrange GPU can game properly on it, and we're not there, nor are mid-range GPUs even that affordable at this point. We have a long way to go honestly. GPUs have not been advancing or improving very quickly. They've been slow to even increase the amount of RAM on GPUs, with 24GB being as much as you can get on the most expensive cards available to consumers.
BearOnCocaine@reddit
1080p will always be king due to competitive gaming, more FPS the better.
Maybe in 10 years when PCs are so damn powerful they can run everything at 240+ fps 4k.
tomazu07@reddit
There is a big problem with this, GPUs are not truly evolving that much, they are just using fsr or dlss to hide their lack of power, and on the dame side programmers don't give a fuck about optimization, as they can just include dlss and that's it, it will at least be playable. Even more considering CPUs truly evolved a lot and they can absorb big loads.
MarubinMgd@reddit
if reputable brands like gigabyte, lg, and acer etc can cough up a premium 4k display below 200 usd then good
vincilsstreams@reddit
Flat screen peaked, gonna take mass VR adoption before we move past 1080p for everyone.
Baeblayd@reddit
HMDs will be standard before 4K monitors are standard.
theh0tt0pic@reddit
when a 4k setup is affordable.
dJohn2001@reddit
My 4070 runs Warcraft at 4k
Antenoralol@reddit
World of Warcraft?
It's a 2 decade old game, I'd expect it to.
EpicDragonz4@reddit
When it becomes affordable to the majority of people.
mountainunicycler@reddit
I hope it’s soon, I’m a programmer for my day job so I literally don’t have any monitors less than 4k and it makes all the games either run badly or look blurry.
My MacBook Pro handles it alright when games support Mac (like snow runner ultra settings 4k is fine, trypFPV ultra at 4k is fine, rocket league with emulation is fine at max settings and 4k) but I’m looking at building a PC for non-Mac games (mainly Microsoft flight simulator and iracing) and it seems like I need to either build a super beastly PC or buy a low-resolution monitor.
TrivialRamblings@reddit
I thought 4K was standard already. Standard 60Hz 4K TV's & monitors have been only a few hundred for years now, and Nvidia's 20-series ran most games fine.
WeAreNioh@reddit
1080p is fine for me tbh. We have a 4K TV if I ever want to have 4K I just bring my ps5 out in that TV. But my gaming PC is 1080P and I’m completely fine with it, not gonna spend thousands upgrading parts just to get better res
Guilleastos@reddit
Never. 4k is overkill on anything that isn't a gigantic screen.
1440p+decent HDR is "the standard" on how you get actual quality experience. 1080p is "the standard" on how to get a good system.
4k is for people who want to treat themselves by spending money. It's nice to have, but it's not normal or "standard".
IBenjieI@reddit
The best visually, but worst financial decision I ever made was to buy a 4K monitor for my PC.
I love playing games in 4K as they’re so pretty. Currently, I can JUST about maintain 4K60 with DLSS enabled.
Every new game that comes out moves the bar ever so slightly, I currently have a 4070 and it’s less than a year old - I’m already looking at 4080’s.
Arlenberli0z@reddit
Why was it the worst financial decision then?
Celywien@reddit
I'm in the same boat, coming from 1440p, worst financial decision is a stretch but it's pretty bad. First you get the monitor and you are stunned cause it's truly more beautiful.
But the catch is that you lose a great chunk of smoothness. So I was like "ima upgrade my hardwares to get the smoothness back" and it snowball from there. It's bad cause as they already said in the thread even the best gpu available struggle to get 60fps at native resolution, so you are never getting that sweet smoothness back
I, like, 70% regret buying the 4k and should've spent the money on a 1440p oled. But what is done is done, that's life hehe.
That said, that's purely for gaming, media wise I don't regret it one bit.
IBenjieI@reddit
Exactly this. Glad I’m not the only one 😂
IBenjieI@reddit
Because my GPU struggles with newer games despite having 12GB of VRAM, I’ve gone through 3 GPUs in as many years with games getting prettier. Not to mention the fact that games built with Unreal Engine use so many resources so frames are all over the place, it becomes a balancing act between frames and quality.
I’m hoping when I buy a 4080 that it’s the end of my woes 😂
Syvanna00@reddit
Well yeah, obviously eventually it will. I'm the same way I bet 500 years down the line nobody will even use 1080p, and 4K or 8k will be the bare minimum
Jeez-whataname@reddit
When AOC comes up with cheap 4ks
celestrion@reddit
When the hardware needed to run your software at 4K resolution with adequate performance is reasonably-priced.
I have a pair of 4K monitors, and when I bought them, a Radeon RX570 drove them. For running what I do (software development), performance was fine, which is why one or more 4K-resolution monitors has been fairly common for software developers for a good long time. It's definitely not "only a few."
I mean, I think I spent $200 on the graphics card and bought the monitors used at about $300 each (all in 2019). Going from dual 1080p to dual 4k was an amazing bang-for-the-buck upgrade for me. $800 and I can see so much more of what I'm working on at once? Oh hell yes.
If your software is more visually-demanding, you'll need more graphics hardware to drive it; performance tends to get cheaper over time. It's never been the case, though, that the cheap option runs the latest game on the biggest monitors with breathtaking performance. You have to budge on at least one of budget, time, resolution, or performance and resolve to be happy with what's available at the time.
Zitchas@reddit
My guess? It'll happen when GPUs capable of pushing 4k 100 fps are commonly available for <$200. That's regular MSRP and every day store prices, not sales.
Jazzmag@reddit
When the cost is low enough.
BluDYT@reddit
Probably not any time soon. Not until you xx60 class cards can consistently run it over 60fps will it ever really be and even then people will likely still choose 1080p or 1440p for performance.
noodlesvonsoup@reddit
4k is the standard and has been for some time now
mortalcoil1@reddit
I'd rather play PC games at 144 FPS and a lower resolution than 30-60 FPS at 4k.
BlueMonday19@reddit
I'm happy running 4K at 60Hz on my 3080 Ti, although I will be upgrading at some point.
Will be using the same 60Hz monitor
Ste3lf1sh@reddit
1440p mainstream? Uhm, nope. It isn’t mainstream. 1080p is still mainstream. Even on recommended system requirements for current games. So we are far from 4K as mainstream
cowbutt6@reddit
If you want 4K, you can have it today if you don't mind settling for a "mere" 60Hz; the monitor and GPU are the main expenses, and are unavoidable, but you can drive them with a relatively modest CPU: I'm using a decade-old 5820K with a 4070.
georgeskv@reddit
Hopefully never. You have absolutely no human need for 4k if you are playing on a 27-32" monitor. 1440p is the sweet sweet spot and it's already a very few amount who plays on this resolution, I think last Steam report was something like 13%?
mostrengo@reddit
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
I'd say you can wait a while, friend.
Replica90_@reddit
I like my 1440p 360 OLED, no need for 4K in my opinion. I like having the smoother experience than a higher resolution in this case.
PranavJH@reddit
I would rather run 1440p high with 60+ fps or even 1080p at 100+ fps instead of playing in 4k at a worse framerate with lower settings.
4k gaming will take a very long time to become mainstream. Even 1440p isn't mainstream as you think because the average gamer is still happy with 1080p. Outside of enthusiasts, not much people are having the hardware for even running 1080p at high/ultra at a stable 60 fps.
Male_Inkling@reddit
Hopefully not in a long time. 4K is a waste of resources.
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
Truly one of the takes ever
Male_Inkling@reddit
Prove me wrong.
jameskiddo@reddit
when people care more about > 30inch monitors. i use a 27inch monitor and 1080p ultra looks amazing.
IneedtoBmyLonsomeTs@reddit
Idk, 5-10 years?
I would say 1440 is the standard for higher-end gamers, but it definitely isn't the standard across the board yet.
It will take a number of years after that happens before 4k then replaces it as the standard.
gundam538@reddit
At some point of course, 4K will be the mainstream for gaming. At the moment 4k monitors are still a bit expensive and pretty much only high-end GPUs and PC can handle running things are native 4K.
PoopReddditConverter@reddit
4K monitors have gotten MUCH cheaper. Somewhere like 2017 I got the shittiest zero-feature-laden barebones 4k60 monitor for ~500 dollars, last year I got a stout 4k144 G7 for 600 bones on sale. And today you can get a basic entry to 4k for less than 200 dollars.
ComfortableTop2382@reddit
I don't care about resolution anymore. 1080 is just enough for me. For bigger screens, I sit further away from the screen anyway.
More resolution is better for text and work. For media 1080 is absolutely fine. Plus you can have higher FPS and graphics.
Kilo_Juliett@reddit
I think it's standard for higher end gpus. I've been on 4k since last gpu gen.
I think maybe 5 years or so (2-3 gpu generations) it will be pretty easy to run across all new gpu price ranges.
It depends on your definition of standard. If you're building something new today, I would argue 1440p is standard. 1080p is essentially dead. You're more than likely going to be cpu bottlenecked.
1080p is still going to be around for a while. Not everyone has new hardware. I wouldn't call it standard just because it's the most popular. I would go by what makes the most sense for the most current hardware, and today that is 1440p.
vattern06@reddit
Hopefully never. 1080p gaming ftw
dr_reverend@reddit
The way things are going, probably never. Seems like FPS is king over everything else. If your computer isn’t pumping out over 100 fps you will find yourself swamped with “literally unplayable” comments. I think we’re just going to see this continue with people screaming that they need a new graphics card because their computer is only getting 300 fps but they need 400.
travis_a30@reddit
When we have 8k computers that can run at 120fps...4k will be the standard
Auron599@reddit
High refresh rate > Resolution
Mopar_63@reddit
With people chasing frame rates the higher resolution adoption has slowed down a lot. It used to be if you could get to 100 or even 120 FPS then you where considered golden. if that was still the case then 1440 would be the standard and 4K would be much more prevalent. However, as we see the push for 160 and 240 and above the ability to push at 4K becomes harder to achieve, heck it can be hard at 1080P and so the cost for these higher resolution just keeps climbing instead of going down.
mihaajlovic@reddit
I’m still at 1080p. Though I am seriosly thinking of upgrade, because I am sure I can play comfortably at 1440p with my PC.
goodnames679@reddit
I feel like many comments are skipping the focus of your question;
If you’re asking at what point it’ll be common & affordableish to play at 4k, my guess is we’re about ~15 years from that point. By then, I imagine 1440p will have surpassed 1080p in popularity and 4k will be in the “common, but definitely not the standard” territory.
Tiny_Paper_3782@reddit
I'm still on 900p
chrlatan@reddit
Never. For the close distance most PC games are played 1440 is absolutely sufficient.
But there are always those who want more.
pacoLL3@reddit
1440p is nit the the standard. The gaming industry is standardiezed at 1080p/60fps.
You want rather your game to look better than chase higher frames and resoltion.
The reason is very simple: the vast majority of people are still perfectly happy playing at these settings. If you look at surveys, the vast majority still plays 3060s/4060s cards or lower, and play in 1080p and 60fps.
recognizegd@reddit
Most people are still on 1080p, why do we even need 4K? 1440p is perfect, but I still wouldn't say it's the "standard" - maybe in 2-3 years
libo720@reddit
why do we even need 60 fps? 24 fps is more cinematic
recognizegd@reddit
True
I mean come on 1440p on like 27" is pretty sick and somewhat affordable, 4K is kind of unnecessary unless you're ballin', but affordable hardware can barely keep up
libo720@reddit
once you go 4k, you can never go back
Ciesiu@reddit
Of course. That is unless your machine only pulls like 18 fps in your favourite game
Psych0MantlS@reddit
Most people are poor. Most people play free or low priced online multiplayer games, i.e. TF2, CS2, DoTa, LoL, etc, because of their replay-ability. You think your average gamer from India is driving to his nearby BestBuy or Microcenter to pick up a 4080, b/c he’s budget conscious & opting out of the 4090, to get home and put it in his $3K gaming rig? Of fucking course not, he found a way to hook up a Gameboy Color to a 20 y/o Dell he found behind a call center. I just looked at the Steam GPU list & and over 50% of the GPUs being used in the year of Our Lord 2024 sell for $50-$150 on the current used market.
TLDR: A lot of people are still not “most” people. A lot of people live in the western world and like nice shit, hell everyone likes nice shit, but the difference is many people in the western world can afford nice shit(ofc they’re are exceptions). So I’d a nice 4k OLED monitor to go with my 4090, while most with 4070 supers and Ti’s would like 4k to be the standard, they’re happy w/ 1440p for now. So it really comes down to what you can afford and as long as there’s a market for it they’ll be happy to supply it. God Bless America 🇺🇸.
Apprehensive-Ad4063@reddit
It’s not only having the components be able to handle 4k it’s also games being optimized to run better at 4k. Both will come together and maybe in the next few years we’ll have 4k as the new standard but then 8k will be the new 4k.
IssueRecent9134@reddit
1080p is still the standard. All recommended system requirements state the hardware necessary for targeting 1080p at 60fps.
1080p is still the most widely used resolution.
danuser8@reddit
The standard will be whatever your PC can handle.
TheFumingatzor@reddit
When you can run 4k at constant 60 fps minimum with full details, highest quality.
cyberspacedweller@reddit
When it’s affordable and practical for the majority.
Fireflair_kTreva@reddit
For my two cents, you won't see 4K become mainstream standard for a long while. There's a couple of components to it, I think.
Essentially I believe you will need the price of monitors which at 27" or larger can run 144Hz or faster and be 4k within reach of the average gamer. I'd guess right around the $200-300 mark.
But more importantly you will need the GPUs which can handle 4k gaming to come down significantly in price. Which, I'd guess will mean waiting another 3 or 4 generations of GPUs to when even low end versions of a card can handle 4k gaming. The 3080 could do it, same for the 4070ti and above. But those are pricey cards for the average person. I'd ball park the GPU price for 4k gaming to be mainstream to be in the $300-450 range.
Sufficient-Current50@reddit
The issue isn’t the monitor at all, it’s the GPU.
JoelD1986@reddit
Lots of people want to pay cnsole prices and are schoked when i tell them that for 400€ they dont get a new gaming rig that handles new games good. I then suggest looking at used or consoles or reconsider the budget.
kraltegius@reddit
Spend more on hardware and on electricity for something that's overkill? No thank you
64gbBumFunCannon@reddit
When budget gpu's can put out 60-100fps in 4k, across most games, it will become more adopted.
But considering the 4070 Super, at 1440p on cyberpunk is getting 30 - 40 fps with dlss off, it will be a while.
SickOfUrShite@reddit
6 years
1080p 240hz becoming standardized now
1440p 240 is becoming the baseline for enthusiasts who want to “future proof” with the new 480hz oled leaving room to focus on your build for a few years
Until we can reach 120fps across all titles easily 4K can’t happen yet
Mephil_@reddit
When its cheap and affordable.
maddix30@reddit
4k will be the standard when budget GPUs can handle 4k and have been able to for a while. Looking at steam hardware survey the 4k capable high end is a minority still
Possible_Living@reddit
In 15 years
videoismylife@reddit
I think two things are important - first, it's expensive to get 4K at a decent framerate. I have a GPU that was really too expensive for my budget despite being on deep sale; I ended up cheaping out on the CPU because of it. I don't regret that decision, it's doing what I want; 100-165 FPS at 1440p high settings, nice and quiet. If I wanted that performance at 4K right now it'd cost me $1200-1800. Not happening in this lifetime.
Second - diminishing returns. IMO 1440p at 100+ Hz on a 27-32" monitor is pretty ideal; for the same price as a cheap cut-corner 4K monitor I get a really decent 165Hz 1440p monitor with low latency, Freesync, proper HDR 10 and excellent color. I can't see separate pixels and everything is sharp and vibrant - I don't know why I would need or want 4K; it would add nothing to my experience except probably fan noise from an overworked GPU.
acewing905@reddit
Not anytime soon
Both GPUs and monitors are too expensive and the resulting difference isn't big enough for most budget oriented people to justify
SylverShadowWolve@reddit
Realistically, 2 gpu generations after consoles go full (real) 4k.
Minace@reddit
4K will be the standard, when low-end GPUs can handle it on, like, 90+ frames. The majority of people buying "new" GPUs are found in the 4060 / 4070 bracket (or lower). More frames / stable frames > higher resolution.I think 1080p is still the standard with the highest % of users. 1440p is not as big of an upgrade, so people would rather buy a 24" 1080p 120 to 165Hz Monitor and run that instead of splurging for a 4K display, but have your 4060 work overtime in the coalmines to cough up some measly frames.
Spymonkey13@reddit
Realistically, when these display panels are actually affordable.
eurocracy67@reddit
4k sounds great until you use it - On Windows with a typical desk-sized Monitor (24 inches plus) two feet away it's less readable (to me). 1080p is great and 1440p hits a sweet spot between resolution and readability. A 4K TV ten feet away, is marvelous with Windows 11. We're all different and for those with lower budgets or integrated graphics, 4K is a step too far with little to gain versus the additional cost or loss in visual fidelity.
The bigger number = better brigade who don't own a 4090, but can Google it will no doubt disagree.
Confident-Media-5713@reddit
I still use 1080p, even though my PC supports 4K. 2K may be my next monitor, but 4K is not in my consideration at all.
MountainDonkey215@reddit
Ultra wides are the way, 2k/1440p is the go to.
magnomagna@reddit
More tariffs will make 4K "standard" very unlikely
DuramaxJunkie92@reddit
The problem isn't resolution, it's refresh rate. People want more and more frames, and 1440P seems to be a sweet spot with 120+ fps along with increasing graphical fidelity. I don't see 4K being mainstream for a while.
gemmy99@reddit
Who needs more and more frames? Just competitive gamers who are minorities.
Regular gamers don't need higher fps than 120/240. Heck, most single player gamers would be happy with 4k/60
Gnomeshark45@reddit
I would much rather play a single player game at 1080p and get 120 240 frames etc than 4K 60fps.
Buuhhu@reddit
Regular don't need more than 120 correct, but so many games that come out now have trouble hitting even 60 fps on a 1440p with mid range because either the game is horribly optimized or the game is just very demanding.
Rainwalker28@reddit
When a 27" 4k120Hz oled averages $350 new & mid tier gpus don't sweat fps heavily at 4k high partial max & average $220-300
hintakaari@reddit
I mainly play fast paced fps games and loving my 360hz 1080p monitor.
CanuckInATruck@reddit
1080/60 is an easily attainable goal on a budget. 1440 and 4k, as well as the 100+ fps rates are still a luxury.
When higher resolutions and refresh rates become affordable for the average, casual gamer, they'll become more standard. For now, it's just higher budget enthusiasts looking at those higher tier numbers.
Greenonetrailmix@reddit
Well now that we have upscaling technologies. I feel that the new standard will take some time to come a reality, but I would say once we have low end nvidia GPUs that do RTX 4090 performance at sub $330. Which based on rough estimates would take till 2029 before we get close enough to that goal. We would also see a new generation of consoles pushing stronger for 4K/8K adoption.
Prrg88@reddit
Well, apart from real 4k cable hardware being too expensive, the pixel density for a reasonable screen size is just great with 1440p. No reason to go 4k. Stuff gets too small for many people, needing scaling. So being able to push the extra pixels really only benefits bigger screens, like wide screens or 4k tvs.
Wild-Wolverine-860@reddit
It's when gfx cards capable of 4k at decent game settings to become cheap enough for the masses. A card costing 2000 is never going to be mainstream, I'd guess most users might be happy at a 1k total build? So would assume 500 for gfx 500 for the rest? Just my opinion though.
Msgt51902@reddit
Only once 4k without DLSS or other trickery is considered midrange.
Branggwen@reddit
Personally, I actually went back to 1080p from 1440p since most of the games I play, usually on the older side, just do not scale well (or at all) in 1440p, making them a blurry, unreadable mess. I can't imagine 4k being any better on that, so far as I'm concerned Ill stick with my trusty 1080p's
Over a wider audience, 1080p is still the most widely used resolution due to a combination of factors. Not just the prices of the monitors themselves but also the hardware to produce said 1440p imagery still being far too expensive for the vast majority of this world's population (least the part of the population that have the opportunity to game in the first place), the general lack of performance in 4k screens even with the best of todays hardware, aswell as the current state of game optimization (as in how non-existent it has become for the larger titles), I dare say it will take a very long time until 4k becomes even close to mainstream, if it ever happens at all.
Dreadpirateflappy@reddit
Standard no... not yet.
I went 1440p like 10 years ago though and have been 4k now for 4 years. it's getting cheaper and cheaper to make the switch.
Even for basic TV households are still mostly 1080, and it will be many years before 4k is the standard.
RisingDeadMan0@reddit
having read through the comments, then 1440p will be the standard when the bottom tier cards run 1440p as standard, and people's old 1080p monitors die, which could take a while. Especially if Nvidia keep crippling their bottom tier cards and making them more expensive.
not kept up 100% but the 4060 was marginally better then the 3060ti or something so you need that step up. Next gen cards are coming out now, and the earliest adopters of 1080p are now probably 10+ years old, and will eventually move up to 1440p or even 4k.
3rd world, and 2nd hand laptops wise, my uncle said 2nd gen i5 is no problem, that will do web browsing and whatever just fine, so need to wait for those to stop working too, end of windows 10 support might help with that in the next few years.
greggm2000@reddit
Eventually? Of course, tech advances, and it’s not stopping anytime soon.
Right now, for the mainstream buyers, 1440p is the norm, and a very good experience. For people on a tight budget, 1080p is still a good choice, though 1440p isn’t unusual here too.
When will 4K be as mainstream as 1440p is today? My estimation is another 2 GPU generations, so by 2030.
8K will make inroads at some point too, again, probably around 2030 is what the new expensive displays will be, maybe MicroLED, where it’s 4K and OLED now.
Exe0n@reddit
The thing is, is there a real need for it? Pixel density reaches diminishing returns, 4k only seems worth it on larger displays, though many really large screens are ultrawide.
The GPU market has stagnates in the last years, perhaps in the next 5 years 1440p will be the standard and 1080p becomes what 720p is today. While 4k will become more realistic it'll be many years before 1440p is used less than 4k
emptybottle2405@reddit
Raw 4K is a long way off. Every time hardware gets better, PC games become more graphically demanding.
People fundamentally don’t understand this fact (although I’m sure this sub does, I’m just talking about the average joe). Too many times I hear “can hardware X play 4K?” Or “why doesn’t ps5 run 4K”v…v… the hardware is totally capable of playing older titles at 4K, it’s just that newer games are also expected to be more beautiful, and push the visual envelope open further.
In my opinion, which is meaningless, I think 4K will be largely unobtainable for a long time and likely the highest real raw resolution on desktop PCs. Anything higher will be through frame gen tech which is getting better and better.
Future VR will require upscaling to 8 or 16k as demand increases, and that will really only be done through frame gen.
BannerLordSpears@reddit
When it doesn't cost 4 grand.
Ecstatic-Beginning-4@reddit
Probably not for another 8-10 years atleast. 1080p and 1440p are both way more popular. According to steam hardware survey less than 4% of people actually play at 4k.
Only but the highest end GPUs can safely do 4k, maybe some slightly less high end GPUs with some upscaling in more demanding games. Consoles can’t do 4k all the time either.
For 4k to actually be 100% mainstream we probably need another decade or so. Sure it’ll be more doable in less time, but will people actually adopt it in say… 5-6 years? 1080p and 1440p will probably still be more popular by then.
TangAce7@reddit
1440p is just becoming standard 4k has a long way to go (technically not actual 4k but whatever) It’s expensive, performance heavy, and 1440p is more than good enough for most people
Even with a 4090, you can only run most games at 120-180fps with dlss, otherwise you are stuck around 30-80 Every gpu that can run games at 4k comfortably costs a damn lot of money 4k monitors are also not cheap Those 2 things alone likely costs more than people’s entire setups
Also for a long time 4k wasn’t very well supported on the software side Games and movies now offer 4k native resolution but that wasn’t the case a few years back
Lots of people running 4k are people working on their pc a lot, cause 4k is very good in productivity scenarios, and if they don’t game then it’s not that expensive, but I’d assume those people would get a laptop and a monitor or a mac People building towers are mostly gamers or working in visuals or AI
And yes it will, in time, likely become the standard, though by that time we are likely to have reached a point of not needing to increase resolution anymore, cause there’s a limit on what our eyes are capable of Though with VR and XR, things are a bit different and will take longer to reach that point, probably will have entirely new tech before then
sherlockishere@reddit
when its cheaper
GMBethernal@reddit
Bro lives in a bubble, standard is still 1080p, still a long way ahead to have the majority on 1440p, let alone 4k
Mo_smiley_face@reddit
1440p 480HZ is what people seem more hyped about than a 4k 240hz
Difference between 1080p and 1440p is INSANE Multiplayer games in general. Smaller screens are just better for peripheral vision for UI elements,
Difference between 1440p and 4k on smaller screens is small :/
I downgraded from a 32 in to 27 inch and it’s sooo much nicer.
That being said. 4k is still cooler than 1440p
UltimateSlayer3001@reddit
Lmao 1440p is not mainstream. This guy is on crack.
Ziazan@reddit
I'm not sure if it will. I have a 1440p screen, 32". I don't have space for a physically larger monitor, my monitor is already pretty big. If it was biggerr I'd have to physically look left and right to see the whole thing. And in its current 1440p/32", the pixel density is already at a sweetspot of being about as dense as it reasonably can be before I'd have to start zooming in. Like I'm a couple feet further back right now typing this from my bed in the morning and I've zoomed reddit 50% to see better. I don't need glasses, my eyes are good. If it was 4k I'd need to zoom in more. When I'm sitting in my chair it's perfect. It's about pixel density, and 1440p is already plenty pixel dense.
Additionally, my laptop screen is a smaller screen, I think it's 17", also 1440p, and even though the screen is closer to me, the writing and details on that screen are tiny. I can read it unzoomed alright but I have to focus. If I'm playing a game where a lot is happening on the screen it is harder than it is on my desktop monitor because of the increased pixel density.
1440p 32" is the ideal sweetspot for me I think. I dont want or need 4k.
WetAndLoose@reddit
I’d say another 2 generations. When the 6060 series or equivalent can do 4K at reasonable FPS, we’ll start seeing people actually move over to it. But right now a lot of people are surprisingly still stuck at 1080p, and I personally see the 1440p stopgap being extremely shortlived or simply nonexistent.
IMO the first really viable high-FPS 4K card was the 4080. Prior to the 4,000 series (and AMD equivalents), even the best cards could only run 4K around 60-ish. And DLSS has helped close that gap even further.
misteryk@reddit
Maybe once rtx 9060 comes out
kapiteinkippepoot@reddit
Dunno, I'm on 1080p and satisfied with it. Majority of people that did the steam survey are on 1080p. If those machines keep running and they (like me) don't upgrade unless hardware failure or really bad performance I think 4k is gonna stay for the early adopters.
My R5 3600/ 3060ti/ 1080p monitor gonna keep running for years (probably) so I don't feel the need to go to a higher resolution.
arcolog2@reddit
When nvidia releases the rtx 9900 and we have slowed developers from making games too demanding.
And when that one Pic on reddit comes true, where the graphics card literally had a 120v wall plug lol, for the 1500w power requirement.
d_bradr@reddit
When decent 4K monitors and graphics cards becone affordable to most people. Can't be a standard if it's reserved for high budget enthusiast builds
That's why 1080p is the standard now, the hardware is affordable to most people who wanna build a PC
anonymous6420@reddit
I use a 3090 for 42" 4k monitor.
I think maybe 70 or 80 series gpus when it gets to a point that it's so powerful you might as well upgrade your monitor even using the 8060 or something
Lewdeology@reddit
Not anytime soon tbh, 4k is a luxury right now especially if you want higher frames.
McZalion@reddit
Never bcus of 3 reasons. Price, price and price. Its too expensive for normal people. Ik this sub is great but u guys need to realise, normal peeps still uses 1080p 60fps. Less money, no expensive screen or bs, overall just better for the money.
Fradley110@reddit
My opinion is 5 years, budget-friendly not so much but it will be a reliable experience that will start seeing the enthusiast gamers who love 1440p start to switch.
Primarily because I believe games are hitting the technology plateau that mobile phones hit in the 2010s. For 99% of us now, there’s just no reason to want better graphics than what UE5 games are starting to give us. Once current hardware catches up and native 4k60 on these games like Black Myth Wukong, immortals aveum etc are all easy to achieve, the desire to upgrade will become a replacement cycle rather than wanting more power.
New consoles will come out with enough power to run those games at just enough to be sellable to the mass consumers on consoles and PC games will stabilise around them.
My magic crystal ball that I claim to hold cannot see a world where games get unnecessarily more and more demanding for the tiniest of graphics improvement while not only the best GPUs like 4089s/4090 struggle, but where most gamers use rigs nowhere near that level of performance.
No-Actuator-6245@reddit
I use 1440p 240Hz and 4k 120Hz. I do mostly play FPS and racing games but if I had to pick one to live with it would be 1440p 240Hz, it’s the best all rounder. The higher fps on f 1440p makes my most commonly played games feel better, higher resolution is nice but when in game you don’t get time to enjoy the extra detail. When 4K 240Hz becomes viable from gpu performance available maybe I will reconsider.
Now I do see this is because of the games I play. I can totally understand why someone playing differently types of game may pick 4k.
TheUwaisPatel@reddit
Until the last generations XX60 equivalent can do 4k60fps in most games and if 4k monitors were cheaper. So in other words I don't see it happening for a long time.
fantaribo@reddit
It will never be.
People usually say such card is a 1440p card or a 4K card, but ultimately they forget that video game requirements are a moving target, always increasing.
GioCrush68@reddit
Well the most popular cards are the 60 series and those are really 1080p cards. Even 1440p is very much a standard for enthusiasts. That being said even the 60 series can play in 4K it just can't do it on high settings or frames and is going to tax your CPU to make it happen. A lot of things will have to happen for 4K to become the standard for PC gaming though. The price of 4K OLED monitors and laptop screens will have to drop substantially and more laptops will need to use them not to mention that for it to even be worth it for manufacturers to make their mid range cards so powerful they would need to start pushing 8K really hard for the high end cards. Unless you want to play on a 40 inch monitor 8k is objectively not worth it at that pixel density.
Inevitably we will get there since manufacturers need to justify selling us newer more expensive cards but I don't see it being anytime soon. Don't expect a viable mid range 4k card until at the earliest the the RTX 7060 and it's probably going to be $700+ and only 12 GB of VRAM
Pitiful_Apricot8314@reddit
5-6 years before 4K is where 1440p is today
elliotborst@reddit
Given AI upscaling, I think sooner than later, people will feel they can move to higher resolutions without feeling the need to run the elite tier GPU.
reesescupsftw@reddit
Dude A LOT of people still play on 1080p bc of the high refresh rate with no software assistance.
I don’t think 4k will become the standard anytime soon bc of the reason mentioned above.
unevoljitelj@reddit
1440p is not a mainstream today. its high end gaming. 1080p is mainstream and will be for a while more. 4k gaming is so rare its not really a thing yet.
Psych0MantlS@reddit
Globally, you are 100% correct.
majky666@reddit
do we even need more than 1440?
AlertResolution@reddit
I still use 1080p for gaming, that being said, i am using a 7 year old pc at this point and going to upgrade next year when everything that's coming soon later this year or early 2025. 4K is fine, but if you talk about standard i think majority of PC users (gamers or not) are still in the middle of 1080 and 1440 now, it might going to take some time for 4K to become standard for at least gaming, unless you are one of the people who upgrade their pc on every new release of componant.
kovu11@reddit
When 4k monitors will cost 200$ and 4k gpu 300$.
kebimeva@reddit
don’t overthink specs. think about games and how games should be. I have 4070 but still playing with my old 1080p display.
there are games like rimworld more fun then AAA games.
fun is in games you are playing.
1440p and upscaling is sweet spot. It’s hard to differentiate at some point for human eyes. I guess the limiting factor is our body. but capitalism will sell you “better” somehow like virtual reality stuff or augmented reality
rtfcandlearntherules@reddit
Probably never (as in not in the foreseeable future). 4k is just pointless for most people at the screen sizes they use.
Jon-Slow@reddit
It already should be with every game having forced TAA.
4k quality mode DLSS runs at 1440p internal. There is no point in not getting a 4K screen if you can afford it. So you can either be at native 1440p or 4K DLSS quality mode with the same performance cost and FPS but much better image quality and clarity. This is only true for DLSS and somewhat for XESS and not FSR.
Machine95661@reddit
I think in 5 years 1440p will be the new standard. I'm on 1080p but am gonna upgrade when the new GPUs release. I think it will be take a long time for 4K to become the standard as on the average size monitor 1440p looks fine.
TomorrowEqual3726@reddit
you have to define "4k" on what that means, as I've been playing "4k" for years
New games are optimized like dogshit alot of times, so yeah no one is running it at 4k standard, let alone at 144+ Hz, but I've got dozens if not hundreds of games from the past decade that I can run at 4k (and do) no problem.
I think 4k "as a standard" is probably a decade off, people mostly keep their pixel density in the 27\~30" range on monitors at 2k and bleeding edge games will continue to be bloatfests that use various upscaling as a crutch, so monitors will make OLED and higher refresh rates more viable before people want to jump to 4k as much.
Der__Gary@reddit
Never. 1440 p is way more efficient with very good quality up to 34". 4k is just for very big displays. Oner day standard will change but i dint thunk it will be 4k then
karlrobertuk1964@reddit
I play at 4k already but don’t think it will become mainstream for another five years or so
ElPwnero@reddit
When 4K capable cards become affordable
Hanzerwagen@reddit
Mainstream for all the gamers or main stream for Western Redditors? First one is at least 10-15 years Second is at least another 2-3 GPU Gen's, so 4-6 years.
neonas123@reddit
Never will be and i have read who play in 2k and switch to 4k don't even see difference between 2k and 4k resolutions. And to run at least 60fps you would sadly need 80 or 90 versions from Nvidia.
Dapper-Dance6315@reddit
I do want to experience 4k at some point in my life, that being said right now I don't think it's worth it or ready too many software and hardware complications can happen for it to be a massive scale standard but it does sound like we're pretty close to seeing it be the new standard give it some years and people will be saying 8k instead of 4k and so on
La_Skywalker@reddit
Think of it like this,way back then, before 1080p became mainstream, people thought 720p was the sweet spot. Then, a few years later, when 1440p was introduced, people started moving to 1080p more and considered it the sweet spot. The same goes for 4K. It will eventually become the sweet spot for most people in the coming years, when hardware becomes so advanced that it would be a waste not to fully utilize it (probably in 3–4 more generations, or 6–8 years ahead, when a 7060/8060 is as fast as a 4080 or faster).
mmert138@reddit
I play at 4k with 7800xt, what do you mean as capable as 7900 gre at 1440p? 😭😭😭
YeetedSloth@reddit
Seeing as how 1440p isn’t the “standard” yet, we have a while to wait for 4k
ciaranlisheen@reddit
Wait you all ain't playing at 1200x900 on your crts???
tiamath@reddit
Mostly because not all people play games at 4k? I mean, 50% of the time i play factorio..what good would be a 1k usd gpu for that :)) my 980 works just fine
Belzher@reddit
We see even high end GPUs struggling with some games now, the only way to reach 4k in a realistic way is by upscaling, unless you're playing a less demanding game of course. Eventually it will be popular, but this day is not today yet.
Eeve2espeon@reddit
Never. The standards right now are split between 1080p and 1440p. 4K monitors and PCs are still expensive, even an RTX4080 system will set you back between 2600-3000 CAD if you get the right configuration.
Most people are going either mid-range or high end, like 4060/4060ti or 4070/4070ti. Also by the time 4K ever becomes the standard, games won't look as good anymore... probably
Most of the times 4K or even 8K is just extra. Its interesting to see computers get closer and closer to the physical limits of the human eye, but we probably won't get 4K as a standard for entry or mid range systems for ages.
Przmak@reddit
Hopefully, never
theoneandonlyfester@reddit
4k is for work more than gaming tbh.
v4sh123@reddit
No way am I swapping to 60 fps for a few more pixels.
doomedgaming@reddit
I'm going to guess in about 10-ish years or so, 1440p is barely the standard now.
It's also going to depend on GPU prices in the future.
uzuziy@reddit
Even 1440p is still not the standart
vergorli@reddit
imho 4K will always struggle with games that are younger than 5 years or so, because you need to have graphic cards in the range of 800$++. In 2010 this would have qualified as a high end pc (top 10%). Most people just have medium range PCs with total costs of less than 800$.
tristam92@reddit
If we talk about gaming people seem still do not realize how drastic change in computing power when we jumping from resolution to resolution, while trying to keep output quality at same level. It’s about bandwidth when you transfering a lot different input data for materials computation, about textures size overall and amount of shading work you have to perform in a very short window. Bear in mind that only recently introduced RTX and it’s by itself a massive performance hit even tho we have a lot of hacks and specialized computing units optimized for this task. Same goes for literally any aspect of demanding app, we still limited by old architecture, while for example arm is miles better and in theory can produce a massive performance jump, but it requires to rewrite huge consumer codebase first, which at this point almost impossible. We also got hit by various incompatibility issues which solved by a lot software and hardware hacks.
Don’t forget also marketing and economy, which also hits users, it’s not just cheap enough yet, even for 1440p, to be a massive product.
So in reality if we talk about getting 4K as a standard from existing workflow we are like 10 years behind at minimum. If look at problem like: from today we will design every part of solution with new requirements, spawn production lines instantly and cheap, then we still will be atleast 5-7 years behind.
shadowlid@reddit
When a budget card can push 4k 60 in new AAA games. I'm talking $200 GPU
flo83ro@reddit
When there will be a mid budget GPU that wil run 4k smooth as butter and no DLSS or FSR required
Kofmo@reddit
Not in the next many years (if ever), 4k is simply too demanding on the hardware, and only very few can afford a setup capable of running 4k with some decent fps
Elbren@reddit
Most people are playing on a 27-32” monitor that’s only sitting 2-3 feet away from them. There really is no point to 4k at that size screen, pixel density or distance. Especially when you consider the HUGE jump in cost associated with a 4k setup.
particularfields@reddit
I'm building a new mini itx now as my days of sitting in a room in front of a monitor are done so it's couch gaming in 4k for me. Unfortunately for most the cost of a gpu to power this is super expensive 7900 xtx/ 4080. For this reason I doubt it will be the default anytime soon.
The_Pepper_Oni@reddit
To the population at large, 4k at PC monitor sizes is overkill, and not really noticeable over 1440p. We'll get it as the standard target when GPU performance can hit it reliably in the XX60/XX70 bracket though. We aren't there yet.
I had a 32 inch 4k monitor for a few months before I switched to a 1440p ultrawide. Games and work stuff still look great and my fps is higher in games.
itchygentleman@reddit
Whenever 144hz is attainable on high settings for high-mid range cards. I would argue a 7800x3d is enough CPU already.
Prodiq@reddit
4k might become the new standard when rtx xx60 will have at least 60+ fps preferably closer to 100) on AAA titles on ultra settings.
MrMoussab@reddit
Diminishing returns
fuzzynyanko@reddit
I'm getting older, and at 1440p, I'm having to turn up the app zoom pretty high. It's higher on a 4k monitor. 1440p also helps with 1080p titles
FantasticBike1203@reddit
Even 1440p isn't super mainstream yet, 4K might only become more mainstream when the hardware that can run it is more widely available and way cheaper in like 10-15 years time, but even that is very head cannon of me to say.
vidati@reddit
There was a time that we were struggling to overcome the 1080p resolution. Running games at 1080p 60fps was what everyone was trying to achieve.
So back to your question. I think yeah. Next gen or the one after should do it in terms of raw performance on a mid to upper range of GPUs.
Yer_Remedy@reddit
I've been playing in 4K since the 3080 came out.
Transcend_Suffering@reddit
i play 4k at 60hz on a 65", i have a 7900 XT and it can handle most games at 4k 60fps with high or max graphics
thatwasfun24@reddit
2030
Jaives@reddit
when they realize playing on a big tv doesn't strain their eyes as much. i play on a 55-inch tv at least 4-feet away on the couch.
Alexchii@reddit
Your TV is 4 feet from the wall?
Mumbleocity@reddit
I really can't tell a lot of difference between the 2 in the games I play. I think games need to catch up to the capability. I also think prices need to come down so more people can afford to have a 4K rig.
fjbermejillo@reddit
Just my two cents, I don’t think 4k monitors would be mainstream as many have already said but I think VR will be much more popular in the near future and you would need a 4k (or more) capable GPU to handle VR
jfriend00@reddit
You will need 4k screens with decent performance, color and durability to be no more expensive than 1440 screens are today. This could happen reasonably soon. The TV market has pretty much already moved to 4k, even for relatively budget models where the top end is now 8k (with of course very little content for either).
And, you will need a mainstream, mid-range GPU that can comfortably run 4k gaming on a wide range of games. This doesn't seem very close. It is semiconductors so at some level there's significant progression every year, but doesn't seem close.
And, you will need mainstream mid-range CPUs to be able to support 4k gaming. This one is not a stretch since 4k gaming is generally more about the GPU than the CPU.
And, you will need game programmers to actually be happy with mid-range GPU hardware at 4k. If they keep programming to require higher end hardware for 4k, then maybe it never happens.
oreosandwhich@reddit
I’m really curious because 4k monitors with over 60 hz capacity are so expensive, is being able to hit 60+ hz really that important for gaming?
Vengeful111@reddit
60 is the bare minimum to it being playable to me. I need 90+ if I want it to feel good playing. Thats why i will stick with 1440p for a long time. Cheaper monitor, cheaper gpu and still good screen real estate
legotrix@reddit
It will One day, after ten years we will have optic fiber internet everywhere and very good streaming at 4k without paying a premium for that
And will be seeing IA used in almost every workflow between those years hard to say but after a decade 4K will be like full HD is today.
Then they will want us to buy 8K and quantum LEDs shit.
bringbackcayde7@reddit
It's already mainstream for productivity
Routine-Lawfulness24@reddit
Bro, what?
bringbackcayde7@reddit
You want 4k pretty much with all professional work related to photo editing, digital artwork or video creation.
mutebathtub@reddit
based on what?
ZeroTheTyrant@reddit
Idk if they have data to back it up but it makes sense that people who just work on their computers don't need to spend as much on components to push 4k games. Those savings can go to a better monitor.
ifyouleavenow@reddit
Hopefully never
laci6242@reddit
A big issue is new AAA games are getting harder to run faster than hardware improves. Right now you can buy a 4070 and still have a good experience in 4K. Sure, you won't be running the best looking games in native 4K, but with upscaling you can make it work and it will still look better than native 1440p. Few years old games would run in native 4K however.
Flashy-Carpenter92@reddit
It will probably happen (not soon tho) but there's no need to. When your 27" monitor is 30 inches far from your face, 4K is useless. OLED tech is much more impactful than having >110ppi
crappysurfer@reddit
When price comes down
Sea_Perspective6891@reddit
I predict within the next ten years depending on how tech trends go & what gets invented in that time. It's kind of the standard for most new TVs now. I rarely see 1080p TVs at Best Buy these days.
Thrimmar@reddit
it will never be a standard for pc builders. people mostly use 24"- 27" and the PPI is just unreasonably high at 4K. typically a PPI of 100 is a good target and 1080p at 24" is close to that making it an optimal PPI and no scaling needed in windows, however 2160p at 27" is 163 PPI so scaling would be needed. Even using a bigger screen 2160p at 32" is a PPI of 140 PPI would need windows scaling. People do prioritize performance over visuals so even if we could easily run 4K the majority of people would still take smoother gameplay and save on GPU power(I am one of them)
Sheree_PancakeLover@reddit
Never is a strong word. It’ll just take a long time
Routine-Lawfulness24@reddit
Not soon, maybe 2+ years
Yommination@reddit
A long time if ever