![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I still don't understand this. I would have thought with the China ban on the top-tier GPU's the prices should have dropped, unless it's because Chinese buyers are circumventing the export ban and buying from exterior markets en-masse.
Just look at the cost of everything else. If people are lining up to still buy your product, why drop the price?
Not a price drop, but the increase.
Responding to a thread where someone asks for a card to run "everything on ultra at 4k" with "my card is fine at 4k, people are telling you to spend too much" when most of your games are like 10 years old makes very little sense.
I was responding to someone stating a 4080 card is a 1440 card.
Well I’m playing Alan Wake 2, and the new Forza game at Ultra settings with my 4080 at 4k. Oh well enjoy, I’m out.
So do I need to link to benchmarks or maybe take a screenshot myself because you sure as hell are not maintaining 60 FPS without settings reduced. In fact maxed out on a 4090 and DLSS quality, the game still drops into the low 50s in the forest. That absolutely will put you in the 40s in those same spots.
Yeah, I barely manage decent frames with a 4080 and dlss quality at 1440. He’s completely full of it unless he’s running dlss performance, which I don’t consider max settings or even decent settings.
But dlss even at quality is far from 4k, not even close, it is less than half the pixel count (2.25).And warzone is made by one of the best team engine wise with performance being top of the list of their priority. A bit the same for a Fornite, that the type of game made to run on vast amount of computer worldwide, ps4, switch, to be fast paced action title with quite the limited graphic (when nanite&RT is off)
How do you run a 1440p monitor at 4k?
It literally isn't. There are actual 43" monitors out there. ASUS, ACER and GIGABYTE all have them. Keep in mind, at one time 27" was considered a TV size as well. The fact that there are TV's as small as 43" or smaller is irrelevant. Personally, I am not interested in anything under 38-40".
You are entitled to that opinion. Though I do not agree.
So? What does that have to do with anyone else? This is why multiple options exist on the market. I think 500Hz, 27" monitors at 1920x1080 are retarded. However, I understand I'm not the target market for them. The fact that I wouldn't ever buy one is irrelevant.
After having a 34" Ultra-wide, I disagree. I believe 38" or so is better. One issue I have with 3440x1440 or similar displays is the lack of vertical screen space. For gaming, this isn't an issue. For productivity, I hate it.
There are a lot of factors that go into how "impressive" the difference is. Your display history and use cases have a lot to do with it. I had multiple 30" 2560x1600 displays for years. 2560x1440 was hardly impressive to me. Given the lack of vertical pixel height, I felt like it was a step backward for productivity though it was fine for gaming.
I don't agree with a lot of the distance calculators and "rules" that people seem to agree on for display size / distance for either home theater setups or computer monitors. The "math" as they put it is flawed in my opinion. I think a lot of that comes from old school trains of thought. A more immersive experience in my opinion would involve a display that fills your peripheral vision comfortably and nearly completely. It should fill your peripheral vision but in a way where you won't ever need to turn your head to see anything. The display's text should be easy to read, either with or without font scaling if you can stand the latter. I personally can't.
I think those distance rules should always be treated as ballpark figures just to get an idea. I know when I sit close to our 4k TV it becomes so obvious how shitty some of the apps/feeds are. Then if you sit on the couch farther away it's much harder to tell.
Usually, people who say things like this have never had larger displays or multiple displays at once. I had 3x 2560x1600 30" displays for a very long time. I can make use of a great deal of monitor / screen real estate. As for the TV comment, who cares? I don't see how the display size being similar to TV sizes has any relevance. As I said above, I think 48" and 49" was a bit too large for me. Though that was only an issue for things outside of gaming. For gaming it was amazing. For mixed use, I think 38-43" is perfect, with 43" being the maximum size I am personally comfortable with.
And how did you arrive at this conclusion?
32" 1440p is same pixel density as 1080p at 24". Once you get 32" or above, really need 4k for the increase in resolution to be of any use.
I think it makes a difference in the image quality in terms of pixel density for sure, but as you say, can be a preference thing.
I am aware. Hence why I said what I said.
Exactly. At 4K, you really need the best card available at the time your buying one. It's that simple. At one point, the RTX 2080 Ti was the pinnacle. Then it was the RTX 3090, etc.
What's the difference between 4K and 4K Ultra? Genuine question.
He's talking about maxing out the settings "usually called an ultra preset in a lot of games" at 4K.