Thread 724162574

Is it worth the upgrade at 27 inches? I don't care about 4k since no setup can cope with it. Also it's just 27 inches at the end of the day.
I have been happy with 1080p but I wonder if I'm missing something or if it's just a meme.

Don't upgrade just for a higher resolution.

>>724162574 (OP)
It depends.
Me I can never go back to 1080p

>>724162574 (OP)
Increasing resolution is the biggest graphical improvement one can have.

>>724162574 (OP)
1080 to 1440 isn't enough of a jump, in my view. Just wait for 4k gaymen to become more affordable.

>>724162912
What if I just increase resolution in my existing 1080p monitor lol

damn, people still use 1080p panels in the current year

>>724162574 (OP)
nigger it was worth it 10 years ago

What's your monitor size now OP? When it comes to resolution, screen size plays an important part because it determines what your pixel per inch (ppi) is. so 1080p 24inch is like 92 ppi and 1440p 27 inch is 102 ppi. personally i see this upgrade as silly, unless you just want a larger screen.

i think the true enthusiast spec is a 1440p 24inch. i have one with a 165hz refresh rate, though i dont see a reason to go past 120.

>>724163803
Yeah I was gonna say this
Resolution is not simply big number good; if your ppi wouldn't change then it doesn't matter

>>724162574 (OP)
If you play multiplier then no.
Also not all games scale the same. Some games I saw a stark difference going from 1080p to 2k , other games I genuinely couldn't tell.

>>724162574 (OP)
Depends on the game.
Some games look just as good at 1080p as they do at 2K.
Main reason to ever upgrade is to get 120 or more HZ for better visible frame-rates.

>>724162574 (OP)
>get 4k monitor
>rtx gpu
>has to use dlss and fsr for it to run well, effectively running at 1080p half the time
great success

>>724163803
27, 60hz
I'm happy with it I just wonder if I'm missing all that much. I'm also worried about the compatibility of 1080p content with a 2k monitor. Like for example I plug in my PS4 and Bloodborne is 1080p, wouldn't look all messed up?

>>724162574 (OP)
27 inches? Dont bother

>>724165153
Brother get higher hz. 60 to 144 was day and night difference

>>724165241
Nigga how big are you all monitors? Sitting in a desk looking at a screen bigger than 27 sounds like madness

>>724162574 (OP)
>I don't care about 4k since no setup can cope with it
DLSS4 and FSR4 (and really DLSS3 as well) are supposedly good enough these days that with either of those upscalers, 4K at Performance upscaling looks better than native 1440p while performing the same or better (depending on the game).

But then again, 1080p is enough. I wouldn't bother upgrading at all.

>>724165153
Upgrade asap
1080p looks shitty at that size

>>724165401
That I'll never do. I tend to play old action games or souls games that are capped at 60 where if you go higher than that the game breaks. Also play with a controller 95% of the time. Use the monitor to play the PS3 and PS4.

>>724163803
so going from 1080p 24in to 1440p 24in would be a good upgrade no?

>>724165153
Abysmal ppi of 80 at 1080p 27 inch. You would see improvement by getting a smaller screen or increases to 1440p.
But wait, you want to use your ps4 with it? If you aren't rendering at native resolution then there is no point to have a screen that can do 1440p. I'll type it again.
If you aren't rendering 1440p, you will see no benefit of having a 1440p monitor. Though, to address your concern, it would scale to fit the screen if you render at 1080p. I doubt your ps4 is rendering 1080p tho lol. It would work fine is the point, it's just silly. I said ppi of 80 at the start, the ps4 is surely rendering less than 1080p, so your ppi is even worse than 80.

I'm a poor ruskie, yet I've ordered 42 lg C5 oled a few days ago, what's your excuse for using a fucking fullhd monitor in 2025?

>>724162574 (OP)
I went from 1080p 24" to 1440p 27" recently. Definitely an improvement for working and studying, but I don't see a big difference for PC games. Integer scaling an 800x600 game like D2: Lord of Destruction is niche, though.

It's more of a problem with the scaling when something like the Switch can't output more than 1080p.

>>724166152
I called it the enthusiast spec because you are entering the realm of diminishing returns. Yes, it is technically better and has a really sharp image at a nice screen size for desktop gaming. It is what I use.
Here are other things I think and you can consider my perspective as a reviewer.
>1080p is actually a luxury resolution
>4k is for morons
>720p is actually all you need.
I consider myself enthusiast, I use the 1440p 24 inch 165hz monitor. I just wish I could get in oled.

>>724162574 (OP)
yeah, worth. you will notice the difference.

>>724162887
same, looks fucking atrocious and 1440p is the superior middlestep at this moment in time

wait 10 years for 4k to be the PC standard, so we can play 120fps at 4k at max settings

4k 32" here

only 60hz tho, i need to step up my game

>>724162574 (OP)
1080p to 1440p is not a worthy upgrade unless you switch from generic IPS, VA to OLED, mini led

>>724166481
Correct. 2k upgrade makes most sense for productivity.
For gayming in some cases it's pay to lose. In FPS titles for example you must move your mouse a greater distance and also might overlooks things due to sight picture. That was my experience. For productivity and some single player games it's worth the 250 bucks. Not more.

>>724166773
1440p is the modern day equivalent of 720p. It's a retarded tiny resolution that made sense 15 years ago, while being laughably outdated today.

>>724165153
You shouldn't really upgrade if you don't feel anything is lacking no matter how much anons here are urging you to consoom. Since you're not planning to buy a bigger monitor, there's not even going to be practical advantages that goes along with that. What will happen that you'll be impressed for a while by the sharp resolution, then it'll just look "normal" to you and you'll old 27 inch 1080p that used to look normal now looks awful and blurry. And your experience is back where it was.

Same goes for 60hz, though it's bad for competitive games so if you're worried about disadvantage in those then I'd consider buying a higher refresh rate monitor. And in the case if you're buying a new monitor anyway, 1440p isn't that stupid since these days they don't cost much more than 1080p and due to upscaling working better than at 1080p.

Show me a vanilla game that comes close to filling up 32GB of VRAM with some giga textures to justify 4k.

>>724166936
1440p at 27" is barely any sharper, he probably has a large screen to begin with because he's blind as a bat and can't read on a normal 24" 1080p monitor.

>>724162574 (OP)
2 k is great. Sharp yet great FPS if you got the rig.

>>724166185
Yeah I should have clarified that I would use the monitor for PC games so the 2k resolution would definitely be appreciated. However I do have these two consoles that I have hooked up with a switcher which obvioulsy are well below 2k.

>>724162574 (OP)
of course you don't mention your PC specs in your shitty ragebaiting thread

>>724167168
Do you not have a high res monitor? I can set my 2k 27" back to 1080p and it looks comically blurry.

>>724167607
I see, well, if you were to do the 27inch 1440p upgrade things would work the same as before. You would also have a sharper image on your pc switch. An 80 ppi to 109 ppi jump. If you like 27 inch, it comes down how much you're willing to spend. I would want to do it cheap. You would notice the difference.

>>724162574 (OP)
>Is it worth the upgrade at 27 inches?
If you can play at good framerates, yes. I wouldn't want to play 1440p at like 60fps or something.

>>724162574 (OP)
>I don't care about 4k since no setup can cope with it.
You can cope with DLSS. I have a 4070 ti super and 4K DLSS gives you same frames at native 1440p except it looks better too.

>>724162574 (OP)
1080p maxes out at 22", 24" at a push. anything higher there is not enough ppi. if possible, go to a store and find a display that is 27" and set to 1080p, and you will instantly see it.

>>724168636
>except it looks better too.

>>724168269
1080p looks worse on a 1440p monitor than a native 1080p one.

>>724168636
So you can play 4k but you also have
>ghosting
>increased latency
And best of all
>you're not actually playing 4k

>>724162574 (OP)
Yes, 27" 1440p is night and day diff compared to 24" 1080p, let alone 27" 1080p. What's really pointless is 4K, unless you have passed the 42" mark. Just get a 1440p 27" 165+Hz, OLED if you can afford it, otherwise IPS is fine.

>>724162574 (OP)
going from 1080p 24" to to 1440p 27" is a sidegrade not an upgrade. What matter is is pixel density. 1440p in general is not worth it, it's not a noticeable step up from 1080p and is has worse content support; it's fine if you only play games at native res but 1080p content scales very poorly on 1440p monitors and will look blurry whereas since 4k is an exact 4x increase over 1080p the scaling works perfectly.

Never get internmeiate solutions, the downsides always outweigh the upsides. Either get a 27" 4k or stick with 1080p.

here is a pixel density calc so you can look at the actual difference between resoultion based on monitor size
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

>>724168941
Since "you're not actually playing 4k" is your "best of all" point, it makes me suspect you care more about whether it's metaphysically true 4K than what it actually looks like. Upscaling also all else being equal reduces latency which comes with the improved performance. Frame generation is the weird tech that "improves framerate" while making latency actually worse.

>>724166872
I got the 27" screen less than months ago because I needed to fill it with figures without having to scroll or zoom then out all the time, knowing that it was not going to be optimal for games. Thankfully I kept the old 24" for emergencies.

with a 120x60cm desk 1080p 24" was ideal, but 27" feels too close to play comfortably. I can either play at a lower resolution without filling the screen, or buy a bigger desk.

>>724162574 (OP)
I regret upgrading. I should have built a smaller and cheaper pc to run at a higher fps in 1080p.

>>724169367
Or don't be a dumb fuck and play the game at the native 1440 resolution. I can't imagine how stupid you'd have to be to buy a 4K monitor and play games at 1080.

>>724162574 (OP)
I'm fine with 1080p despise even playing for some time with a 4k 50' TV.
Well, that might be because I'm always using downsampling, so my image quality is always better than any 1080p

>>724162574 (OP)
ultragamer here

imo the best monitors:
1. 21:9 45" 5120x2160
2. 21:9 34" 3440x1440
3. 16:9 32" 4k

anything else sucks

>>724169693
He's talking about 1080p content such as videos. These are often just not available at 1440p.

>>724169367
What fucking 1080p content? Every single modern game has fsr, just run in native and if it doesn't run use fsr, what's the issue?

>>724169367
This is another handy website.
https://www.displaywars.com/

>>724166936
This anon is right. Unless you feel like you ARE missing something, do not upgrade: it will spoil you as you get accustomed to the higher maximum fidelity of resolution/framerate, but it will also be more noticeable when games are not running well (whether due to more fps variance instead of being locked 60, or due to not being able to keep fps smooth due to the extra performance demands of higher resolutions).

Historically, I upgraded my monitor over time because of thoughts like "this is too stuttery; I wish I had better motion clarity" or "I wish I could put two Firefox windows side-by-side without making them too thin like on 1080p." If you're not thinking anything like that, don't upgrade.

Examples of meme upgrades that come at further cost:
- 1440p -> 4k: IMO not hugely sharper, but much harder to run games at, especially given how shit most games are coded/optimized nowadays. 4k is impossible to run natively at a constant framerate even on highest-end hardware, but why bother upgrading the screen if you're going to run games at lower resolutions with upscaling anyway? Also DPI scaling in Windows sucks so much it's unreal.
- HDR: Many games don't support it, and Windows sucks so hard at it it's unreal.
- TN -> IPS: "muh viewing angles" (horrific backlight bleed makes dark scenes impossible to see) - sadly TN is almost extinct so this choice doesn't even exist anymore
- OLED: Burn-in, bad text clarity, subtle flickering, magenta edges on white rectangles

>>724168871
It literally does. Want proof?
>>724168941
>increased latency
DLSS upscaling does not increase latency. I don't think you know what you're talking about here.
>you're not actually playing 4k
Don't care, it's better than 1440p.

>>724170489
All videos are compressed and more limited by bitrate, not your screen resolution.

1080p 60fps chads always win

>>724162574 (OP)
>>724169095
this is terrible advice OP, this guy is either retarded or trolling

>Yes, 27" 1440p is night and day diff compared to 24" 1080p,
24" 1080p has a PPI of ~91.8
27" 1440p has a PPI of ~108.8
27" 4k has a PPI of ~163.2

27" 1440p only improves over 24" 1080p by 18% whereas 27" 4k it's a 78% increase

>Just get a 1440p 27" 165+Hz, OLED if you can afford it, otherwise IPS is fine.
Again, this faggot has no idea what he is talking about. Go look up "text fringing on OLED", OLED's don't use a standard RGB pixel layout so all text looks blurry as the scaler wasn't designed for it, intermetiate resoulations like 1440p only make this problem worse.

The jeets at microshit aren't competent enough to add support for any other subpixel layout so unless you want to use a niche Linux distro with a custom driver the only way to get around the problem is to make the pixels small enough that it brute forces away the issue, 27" 4k is the threshold where that happens.

If you are gonna get an OLED don't get anything other than a 27" 4k. LG is working on a RGB subpixel layout OLED but it won't be out until late 2026 and will cost 1.5k+. Stick with 24" 1080 IPS or get a 27" 4k OLED.

I wonder if I should get a 1440p monitor just so I can move to IPS from TN.

1080p is enough

>>724171039
based

>>724171023
>Want proof?
Actual proof or a single zoomed in shot of a still frame followed by a lot of shitposting?

>>724171131
fuck off merchant

>>724171131
>text fringing
You've never actually used a QD-OLED

A 1080p 144hz monitor using downsampling is the answer

>>724166936
>And your experience is back where it was.
figured this out a long time ago and it saved me a LOT of money. also, when I did make a jump, forced by circumstances, it was always astronomical. still right back where I was pretty soon, like the anon said.

>>724171003
>>724170986
Whoops, forgot about ultrawide. Ultrawide also comes at a cost because of distortion at high FOV settings required to take advantage of ultrawide, and many games aren't properly compatible with it, leaving ugly black bars. On IPS, those black bars will usually have annoyingly visible backlight bleed of differing hues per corner, and on OLED, you'll contribute to pixel burnout of the middle rectangle of your screen, so that's a no-no too. I also forgot to mention that 4k originally had the meme justification of letting you play without shitty now-temporal-only anti-aliasing, but the aliasing is still visible and many new games force it on no matter what anyway.

>>724171131
This anon is right about subpixel layout issues with 4k and bruteforce fixing it with pixel-dense 27" size... but like I said before, you'd have to turn on DPI scaling in Windows, and I think it's utter garbage. Maybe I'll consider OLED one day if one of the manufacturers finally releases an RGB stripe subpixel layout so I can just have a 1440p 27" 1:1 replacement.

>>724171241
Only do that if there's something about TN that's bothering you. For me, there wasn't, since I didn't mind the supposedly bad colors.

>>724171450
Text fringing was immediately apparent to me on the variety of monitors at Micro Center. You are blind and projecting your low standards as fact.

>>724171678
>Ultrawide also comes at a cost because of distortion at high FOV settings required to take advantage of ultrawide
This guys doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>724171678
>No I have no actually used one of those monitors
That's cool, but modern high end QD-OLEDs don't have any noticeable text fringing at normal sitting distances.

>>724171678
>if there's something about TN that's bothering you
Colors are completely different from my OLED phone and IPS laptop.

>>724170817
>Do you only use your monitor for games?
>Do you never read anything on it?
>Do games not have 1080 cut-scenes?
If you do nothing but play games on it and have a separate monitor for other stuff than sure, but most people have one monitor for everything.
I am speaking from experience, I drawfag and degbug code on all on the same monitor. I bought a 1440P OLED last year and it was so blurry I ended up going back to my 24" 1080p and later got a 4k IPS. Once LG works the bugs out of their true RGB OLED I will switch to that.

>>724169693
see >>724170489
I don't know anon, I tried watching 1080p content on a 1440p OLED and it looked worse than my 1080p IPS, I could see the line blur sitting about 3 feet way.

>>724170986
Ultrawides are cool but I feel support for them is dying the same way it did for 3D monitors.

>>724171763
Maybe one day games will render with something like panini projection instead of the ubiquitous rectilinear that causes the distortion at the edges of the screen I'm talking about, but not yet :(

>>724171926
>Ultrawides are cool but I feel support for them is dying the same way it did for 3D monitors.
Why would you think that? There are more patches and official support than ever.

Mmm now I'm thinking a good solution would be to get a 4k 27 monitor. If I can't run the latest game at 4k I simply choose 1080p right? All the pixels would align perfectly anyways. Same goes for my PS4. The PS3 situation would look a little more dire though.

>>724172312
It's just a waste getting such a small display for 4k.

>>724171926
>I don't know anon, I tried watching 1080p content on a 1440p OLED and it looked worse than my 1080p IPS, I could see the line blur sitting about 3 feet way.
Yeah that's exactly the point? 1440p monitors are the worst type of monitors (worse than both 1080p and 4k monitors) to watch 1080p content on, unless other monitor specs compensate of course. Or did you mix up the monitors here and meant to argue the opposite?

>>724171926
>>Do you only use your monitor for games?
No, I code and draw too, using 4k 27'', but switching to lg oled 42 since I don't want to have black bars between multiple monitors. I still don't understand how 1440p can be worse than 1080p for those tasks.

I just don't get why 4k and OLED monitors are still not the standard.

>>724162574 (OP)
I find it funny, because for old games you don't need it, but new games look like fucking ass at 1080p, some of them allow you to increase the internal resolution at least, RDR2 looks nice with resolution scaling at 150% for example.

>>724172312
There's also "dual mode" 4k/1080p monitors, don't know if the advantage with those compared to 4k-only is just a higher refresh rate in 1080p mode, or does 1080p also look better in that mode.

>>724172663
>4k
Because no GPU can run it at reasonable framerates in newer games.
>OLED
Anyone who actually cares about how things look and feel uses a QDOLED now.

>>724171403
I literally told him to not waste his money and keep his 1080p monitor until all the bugs with OLED have been worked out.

>>724171450
had a dell 1440p qd-oled for about 1 month and sent it back to amazon.

>This anon is right about subpixel layout issues with 4k and bruteforce fixing it with pixel-dense 27" size... but like I said before, you'd have to turn on DPI scaling in Windows
the issue with that is that it doesn't affect all programs, turning up text scaling to 200% hid the problem in windows but not in all the programs I use, Photoshop and Atom still looked blurry. Not all programs support scaling the same and you are just increasing text size to hide the problem rather than fixing it.

>Maybe I'll consider OLED one day if one of the manufacturers finally releases an RGB stripe subpixel layout so I can just have a 1440p 27" 1:1 replacement.
I would still go 4k, 1440p is an intermediate resolution and just won't have widespread support for video content going forward. 1080p and 4K will be standards for many years to come. 1440p and 8k just isn't gonna take off. Waiting for the true RGB OLEDS is a good idea though, QD-OLEDS are almost perfect but pink tint. color fringing, and VRR bugs need to be worked out.

>>724171779
If it's a tv and you are 10 feet away and have bad vision, then sure. If you sit at monitor length from it you will see it unless you are at point where you need glasses to walk around. I have less than 20/20 vision and I saw it sitting 3 feet awya

>>724172760
Now that you mention it. Has anyone here played MGSV at 4k? It's one of my favourite games and the graphics are great I think. I would like to see it some day

>>724163386
Look at the steam hardware survey. >53% of people are on 1080p.

>>724173064
>If you sit at monitor length from it you will see it unless you are at point where you need glasses to walk around.
My vision is significantly better than 20/20 (around 20/12) and I sit normal distance from my QDOLED monitor with no discernible text fringing. Don't know what to tell you. I literally have it side by side with and LCD monitor and can compare them as well.

>>724171354
>zoomed in shot
The reason people post zoomed in screenshots is because zooming in allows you to closely compare differences, because you're likely using a display resolution that's smaller than the video itself, and because full 4K uconmpressed unzoomed .png screenshots are 10+MB in size and can't realistically be uploaded here without compression or cropping or quality degradation.

And screenshots are better than videos because videos have to be compressed to hell and back to fit under the 4MB file size limit and when it's that compressed people just discard all video evidence claiming compression nullifies any results. If I were to upload a grid of uncompressed 4K video comparisons it would be 100+MB in size even if it lasted two seconds. Not to mention that the resolution limit would be breached too, due to such a grid being 8,192 x 4,320 in pixel size.

I will humor you and actually post video proof to the best of my ability, a slowed down video of native 1080p vs native 1440p vs 1080p DLSSd to 4K, at times unzoomed at times zoomed for emphasis, tweaked to fit under the filesize and resolution limits of 4chan. I already know that you'll discard it by calling it a lie or too zoomed in or too compressed or whatever, even though the image quality differences are still visible even in such a flawed video and even though I can upload the full res version online if you like.

You don't have to take my word for it, all I'm saying is I'm glad I bought a 4K display because upscaling to a higher resolution with DLSS/FSR4 is leagues better than just playing at a lower resolution natively. Only people with 1080p/1440p monitors don't realize this and think you just have to select a lower output resolution.

>>724165438
I use 32inch 1440p and am totally fine. But "mah pixel density", just sit back a bit, nigger.

>>724172848
I'm referring to the price. We've got WOLED/QD-OLED displays for phones and 4k movies for more than a decade, and yet you can only get a 1440p IPS panel for like $200. 8k is pretty much never happening at this point.

>>724173327
I saw your shitpost in the other thread where you refused to show actual motion. Save the shilling for someone dumb enough to fall for it.
>And screenshots are better than videos
You can fuck right off. Catbox is a thing. You just know that if you actually show video in motion DLSS will clearly be blurred shit.

>>724173327
>almost entirely static scene with a couple of smooth, slow camera movements
Okay, but how about you show characters walking around and things moving?

>>724173327
The problem with the 4k DLSS performance is the ammount of artifacts that it has, thus makings some things worse looking that 1080p

>>724173573
>thus makings some things worse looking that 1080p
I'll bite - like what? At what does 4k DLSS Performance look worse than 1080p?

>>724173432
>I saw your shitpost in the other thread where you refused to show actual motion.
What is that video if not actual motion? Are you really stupid enough to think motion is not happening unless you're the one pressing W on your keyboard? Whenever the pixels are shifting on the screen instead of everything being still, or the camera is panning, or things are moving - that's a motion scenario in a game.

>>724162574 (OP)
1440p will look "better" but honestly it's a pretty slight upgrade if you already have a 1080p setup. It does in fact look better and more crisp/sharp/detailed, not nearly as much as 4K but it is in fact an upgrade. However it's not a very huge noticeable thing, good anti-aliasing on a 1080p screen is almost just as good. Also if you are using multi-monitor or ever plan to use multi-monitor it's a nightmare having displays at different resolutions so having them all default to the same thing is useful, just to keep in mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HulO5oR4SaU

>>724173687
I don't like the artifacts it has. I didn't recorded anything because it takes too much time but it's mostly with ghosting

>>724173787
>What is that video if not actual motion?
Are you really stupid enough to pretend that when people talk about actual motion, they mean a little big of slow camera movement in a scene where nothing is actually moving around? Do you actually play video games? Why are people who use Cyberpunk as a benchmark for good graphics so invariably stupid and clueless about games?

>>724162574 (OP)
On 125% scaling (Windows) 1440p seems a little bit easier to work with than 1080p.
Games don't really look all that amazing, but everything else is a plus. Font rendering for instance. At work I'm using a considerably smaller monitor at 1080p and it's already just more annoying. My eyes would rather have smooth but clear fonts than just clear fonts. 1440p on 27'' is a sweet spot.
On Linux however... it's not that great. Depending on your particular setup, you might find fractional scaling to be shite. I think that if you use linux frequently you're going to benefit a lot more from either sticking to 1080p or going all the way up to 4k. I am dead tired of dealing with scaling issues over there.

>>724169463
>5-HT2A

>>724173828
Another thing to consider is that 1440p is more taxing obviously, quite a bit too. If your system already barely hits the exact performance you desire then upping to 1440p will drop it below that unless you drop a lot of quality options.

>>724173882
So are you saying motion is only when you're rapidly panning the camera like you're having a seizure? Would you like me to record that and post the comparisons? It'd take a while.

>>724173327
you are wasting your time there is no reasoning with these subhumans, they won't listen until their favorite zoomogroid eceleb tells them this

>>724173991
>So are you saying motion is only when you're rapidly panning the camera like you're having a seizure?
I'm saying motion is motion like you're actually playing a fucking video game, not making a bullshot trailer for a press event where you very slowly and carefully only pan the camera with slow and smooth movements to hide all the shit visual performance.

damn... I hate poorfags.

I have a 4090 and play on 4k. It's not worth it anons, you'll never be happy if you're chasing performance

>>724162574 (OP)
Yes but if you have 24 inch 1080p then still yes but not as needed depending on your hardware

>>724174121
OK so you want me to record faster motion in a different game, and post comparisons of that. Fine no problem, it'll take a bit but I'll do it. See you then.

>>724172510
I think you might be confusing me with another anon. I was arguing against 1440p and in favor of either sticking with 1080p or going 4k.

>>724172128
I haven't kept up with it too closely but the fact that it needs constant patching and isn't support out of the box for everything kinda works towards my point.
From what I remember a lot of games had issues like NPC animations wouldn't play unless it was in the 16:9 field of view as the game engines assumed that was the screen ratio and were turning on resource optimizations when on outside that.
I would be happy to be wrong though, ideally there should be a way to patch old content for ultrawide. Being able to play sidescrollers like the MMX games on utrawide would so cool.

>>724172848
4k downscales to 1080p perfectly. You can play older games on native and newer ones on 1080p. 90% of the games I have played this year have been 4+ years old or indie. The AAA garbage that studio are shitting out these days is so ass you would have pay me to play it, I'm not giving jensen 1K+ for a midrange gpu just to play AAA slop. I got a used 4070 ti super last year for $500 and that was already more than I wanted to spend, it plays everything I want to play at 4k and everything it doesn't isn't worth buying.
If any game requires a gpu that costs more than the price of a current gen console you shouldn't be playing it.

>>724174201
>OK so you want me to record faster motion in a different game
With things actually moving on screen. No you walking into a room with nothing moving in it.

>>724174124
damn... I hate richfags who makes bad investments

>>724174292
>I haven't kept up with it too closely but the fact that it needs constant patching and isn't support out of the box for everything kinda works towards my point.
No it doesn't. You're just talking out of your ass.

>>724174292
>4k downscales to 1080p perfectly.
The stretching for watching TV and movies you get from that is exaggerated. You're losing more picture quality from compression. No one here is watching uncompressed 4K feeds.

>>724172848
muh reasonable frame rates

you gain nothing from 60 fps to 144 fps when nvidia reflex essentially gets you the same input lag as 120 fps non.

lcd is too blurry even at high refresh rates

>>724174605
>you gain nothing from 60 fps to 144 fps
Are you a tendie or something?

>>724173309
In that case, good for you. I don't know what your situation is all I can do is share me direct experience. For me, 27" 1440p was blurry and I could see the text fringing when I was debuging code, it was like a little multicolored halo around around the letters.I did not have that experience on 24" 1080 IPS or 4k OLED at 27"
Not fucking you, but are you perhaps partially color blind?

>>724173573
dlss transformer performance mode has 0 artifacts/flicker. it's just insanely blurry compared to dlaa

>>724174680
>Not fucking you, but are you perhaps partially color blind?
Nope. My vision is fantastic on all fronts. Did you look at an older OLED? I got the newest models they had this year. There's no visible fringing on mine whether I'm looking at code or reading or in some kind of production app.

>>724162574 (OP)
>>724162574 (OP)
>Is it worth the upgrade
That is entirely up to you.
>Will it look better at this screen size
100% yes.
>I wonder if I'm missing something
This is a poor reason to buy anything. One thing for certain is that if you do upgrade, you will enjoy lower resolutions less, so now you're lumbered with higher requirements every time you upgrade your GPU.

Games will absolutely look better at 1440p at 27". But if you're happy with what you have, stick with it.

>>724166885
>1440p is the modern day equivalent of 720p. It's a retarded tiny resolution that made sense 15 years ago, while being laughably outdated today.

and you can't even run most big games nowadays at native 4K without using fake shit like DLSS/FSR so what's your point here?

>>724174996
Why would anyone give a shit about AAA slop? Everything worth playing plays fine at 4k on a potato.

>>724171003
>HDR: Many games don't support it, and Windows sucks so hard at it it's unreal.
Many games now have their own RenoDX mods, and RTX HDR/AutoHDR set up individually for the right sort of application work pretty well. Windows sucks dick with HDR, but you can get around it fairly easily. Native HDR is not always the best implementation (CP2077) but in some cases it makes every claim of HDR being a meme completely invalid and worthless (Stellar Blade). You'd need a good monitor for this which not everyone has, though.
>OLED: Burn-in, bad text clarity, subtle flickering, magenta edges on white rectangles
Burn in is inevitable but any more modern OLED displays will will last you quite a while if you don't display static images for hours on end at a high brightness. What you call bad text clarity is fringing, which is nowhere near as present on some monitors (for instance some MSI QD-OLEDs where you have to use a fucking magnifying glass to check that's even a flaw) and flickering is caused by heavy and quick framerate fluctuations on VRR which you can stabilize in the vast majority of cases.

>>724167168
>1440p at 27" is barely any sharper
I don't think that's true. I have a 15" laptop and a 17" laptop, same brand, similar panels besides size, both 1440p. When I got the 17", there was a noticeable reduction in sharpness, not massive but noticeable. This was not confirmation bias, I was not anticipating nor had I even considered the bigger screen at the same res might be less sharp. So I don't believe you can't notice a fairly significant difference between 1080p and 1440p at 27" unless you are visually impaired.

That's not to say OP should upgrade, if he's happy with his current setup.

>>724175128
you're gonna be missing out on the fallout 4 anniversary edition anon

>>724173958
Yup. In fact, the teacher was talking about shrooms this week.

>>724174651
I gotta agree with this. I have tried 120hz, 144hz, and 240hz.
The difference between 120hz and 60hz isn't as vast as 60hz and 30hz but it was enough that I instantly notice it. When my monitors drivers reset and go back down to 60hz I I instantly notice. I can't tell the difference between 144hz and 120hz, with 240hz and 120hz there is a difference but it's so small I have to sit and replay animations while actively looking for a difference to see it.

The pixel response time of 60hz is 33.3ms
The pixel response time of 60hz is 16.67ms
The pixel response time of 120hz is 8.33 ms
The pixel response time of 144hz is 6.94 ms
The pixel response time of 240hz is 4.16 ms

Even though the 240hz is twice as fast as 120hz the difference between the two is only half as much as between 120 and 60. 60hz to 120hz is absolutely worth it but once the higher you go the more the returns diminish. Unless you have performance to spare going higher than 120hz isn't worth it, especially given that frame rate drops are gonna be MUCH more noticeable.

>>724175873
>with 240hz and 120hz there is a difference but it's so small I have to sit and replay animations while actively looking for a difference to see it.
Going up to 360 on a QDOLED is actually a noticable boost. The UFO test looks perfectly crisp, like it's moving on a CRT but with the black levels and resolution of a modern OLED. And it looks and feels phenomenal to play older games that you can get 300+ fps on. While I don't really like the nuDoom games, I could run DE at over 300fps and it really does make a difference.

Maybe don't choose wrong when buying OLED.
I have a MSI 271QPX and a Philips 165hz IPS monitor side by side. I use the Philips for work mostly. Both at the same 1440p resolution and similar levels of sharpness which is close to default, if not the default setting.
Text clarity is virtually the fucking same.
If Windows 11 cleartype got updated to somehow work well with this subpixel layout I don't fucking know. But I find it stupidly difficult, even at a distance of a fucking finger, to tell where the fonts on screen are displaying this garbage over here >>724171131
OLED is the most hated technology of this generation, I swear to god. And mostly by people who never used it anywhere outside their smartphones. They "look it up" and suddenly they become opinionated RTINGS experts on this shit.

>>724166885
(You)

>>724174797
I had one of the first gen 27" 1440p Dell QD-OLED's, I don't remember the exact model number. I also looked at some of the newer models at microcenter earlier this year and saw the same issue on all the 1440p ones but not the 4k ones.I know LG has their WOLED and Samsung makes the QD-OLEDs but they both had issues for me at 1440p; thats why I am waiting for the true RGB 4k ones.
How high is text scaling set on yours? I have mine at 150% and it still looked off, had to go to 200% for text not to look rough; it was terrible at 100%

>>724176204
I've got the same monitor and I'm this guy
>>724174797
I genuinely can't see any fringing. Also I use Windows 10 so it's not an 11 update thing.

>>724176324
>How high is text scaling set on yours?
100. Honestly that just tells me your eyes are bad if you even consider scaling up text at 1440p. The extra screen real estate coupled with the sharpness is great for working on. Try the new MSI and ASUS models. They're the best ones in terms of panels and features.

>>724175873
Diminishing returns is definitely a thing, but 240hz compared to 120hz is definitely noticeable.
The thing is 240hz is "good enough" that if you went up from that and there was any issue, you would gladly stick to it.
For instance my display uses DSC to reach 360hz at 1440p. Otherwise through HDMI 2.1 it sticks to 240hz and DP 1.4 just sits on 120hz because we're dealing with bandwidth issues here. DSC is not all that flawed, you can't really perceive any image quality loss, but if you're an nvidia user for instance, you lose out on a couple of things, and on linux it's... a fucking mess. At that point, you'd use your 360hz monitor at 240hz because 360hz is an improvement, but most games and content won't get anywhere near there anyways.

>>724176339
They did advertise if I'm not wrong some sort of different subpixel layout on these MSI monitors. That might have something to do with it.
From what I can tell there's plenty of OLED panels out there that have a subpixel layout that's pretty shitty, mainly WOLED, so whichever ones are good are apparently nonexistent to people who really fucking despise this technology. The absolute seething and hate I keep seeing.

>>724162574 (OP)
I phone 4 was 320 ppi from 13 inches viewing.

24 inch monitor is about 23 inches of viewing distance.

You would need something that Is 180 ppi.

4k 24 inch is about 184 ppi.

once you've hit that number there's no better display you could ever get in terms of resolution.

in the year of 2025 poors are discussing 1080p and 1440p resolutions for their games.

>>724176076
>Going up to 360 on a QDOLED is actually a noticable boost.
placebo

>I can't afford or need to spend all my savings to upgrade from averaging 60 FPS to averaging 160 FPS, therefore I need to cope with the delusion that it's not upgrade at all

>I can't afford or need to spend all my savings to upgrade from 1080p to 1440p, therefore I need to cope with the delusion that it's not upgrade at all

>I can't afford or need to spend all my savings to upgrade from IPS to OLED, therefore I need to cope with the delusion that it's not upgrade at all.

>I can't afford or need to spend all my savings to upgrade from DLSS ON to DLSS OFF, therefore I need to cope with the delusion that it's not upgrade at all.

...

>I can't afford or need to spend all my savings to upgrade from a Fleshlight to a fully realistic Sex Doll, therefore I need to cope with the delusion that it's not upgrade at all.

I HATE POOR PEOPLE. I HATE THEM!!!!!

>>724162574 (OP)
27" 1440p is infinitely better than 24" 1080p. 1080p is horrific. It is the worth the upgrade from gaming to regular daily PC use. Ive been using a 1080p monitor again and it is shit. The 27" 1440p is perfect

>>724178446
too small. I have a tablet a few inches smaller than 27". If you game you need something 32" or more

>>724162574 (OP)
Oh yes I can totally see the difference in this 1280x720 comparison picture

>>724162574 (OP)
>Is it worth the upgrade at 27 inches?
Yes, 1080p at 27" is very low res so you really need 1440p as a minimum for that screen size. 4k is even better.

>>724162574 (OP)
4K is good for reasons beyond 4K vidya, and the small pixels handle non-native resolutions extremely well. As a poorfag who regularly uses 4K I don't get what all you people are afraid of.
>>724175873
Old CRT wisdom is that 90~hz is the sweet spot were your brain stops noticing. Obviously they don't really sell 90hz screens nowadays.

>>724178415
Brownoid wrote this post