this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
637 points (99.5% liked)
PC Gaming
11844 readers
402 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's wrong with 4k gaming? Just curious
Have you tried 4k? The difference is definitely noticeable unless you play on like a 20" screen
I play in 1080p so can't comment on 4k but I can confirm fps doesn't seem to affect me after 30fps. I don't perceive a noticeable difference between 30, 60, 120fps. Haven't played higher than that. I suspect 4k would probably look better to me than a higher fps though. But I'm happy with 30-60fps and 1080p so...
Not arguing FPS here lol. Arguing 4k, which you can run in 144hz in a lot of games even without a 5090, you failed to mention if you had tried 4k which I assume you haven't based on the switch to FPS instead of resolution
Somehow 4k resolution got a bad rep in the computing world, with people opposing it for both play and productivity.
"You can't see the difference at 50cm away!" or something like that. Must be bad eyesight I guess.
It's just kind of unnecessary. Gaming in 1440p on something the size of your average computer monitor, hell even just good ol' 1080 HD, is more than sufficient. I mean 1080 to 4k sure there's a difference, but 1440p it's a lot harder to tell. Nobody cares about your mud puddle reflections cranking along in a game at 120 fps. At least not the normies.
Putting on my dinosaur hat for a second, I spent the first decade of my life gaming in 8/16 bit and 4 color CGA, and I've probably spent the last thirty years and god only knows how much money trying to replicate those experiences.
I mean I play at 1440p and I think it's fine... Well it's 3440x1440, problem is I can still see the pixels, and my desk is quite deep. Do I NEED 4k? No. Would I prefer if I had it? Hell yes, but not enough to spend huge amount of money that are damaging to an already unrealistic market.
Does it really help gameplay on the average monitor? If it is a fast paced game Im not even paying attention to pixels
4K is an outrageously high resolution.
If I was conspiratorial I would say that 4K was normalized as the next step above 1440p in order to create a demand for many generations of new graphics cards. Because it was introduced long before there was hardware able to use it without serious compromises. (I don't actually think it's a conspiracy though.)
For comparison, 1440p has 78% more pixels than 1080p. That's quite a jump in pixel density and required performance.
4K has 125% more pixels than 1440p (300% more than 1080p). The step up is massive, and the additional performance required is as well.
Now there is a resolution that we are missing in between them. 3200x1800 is the natural next step above 1440p*. At 56% more pixels it would be a nice improvement, without an outrageous jump in performance. But it doesn't exist outside of a few laptops for some reason.
*All these resolutions are multiples of 640x360. 720p is 2x, 1080p is 3x, 1440p is 4x, and 4K is 6x. 1800p is the missing 5x.