102
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
102 points (91.1% liked)
PC Gaming
12192 readers
244 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
I personally think anything over 1080p is a waste of resolution, and I still use a card with 8GB of VRAM.
That being said, lots of other people want a 16GB card, so let them give you money AMD!
My gaming rig is also my media center hooked up to a 4k television. I sit around 7 feet away from it. Anything less than 1440p looks grainy and blocky on my display.
I can't game at 4k because of hardware limitations (a 3070 just can't push it at good framerates) but I wouldn't say it's a waste to go above 1080p, use case is an important factor.
My TV has this stupid bullshit where it's only 30hz at 1440p but is 60hz at literally every other resolution (including 4K). 😬
Pixel density is pixel density. Doesn't matter if it's a tv or a monitor.
Sure monitors typically have less input lag and there are reasons one might choose a monitor over a tv, but the reverse is also true. I chose a 55" tv for my sim racing setup that sits maybe a meter from my face and there's no problem with that setup
Not sure what you think PPI means or how it's calculated, but it has nothing to do with being a tv or a monitor. It's a relationship between the number of pixels and physical size.
A 34" 1440p monitor will have a lower PPI than a 4k TV at the same size
Is there a reason you were so hostile with your repsonse?
Second, according to this site which I referenced at the time of purchase for my TV, I'm at the appropriate distance for my screen size of 55 inches. The image is grainy at 1080p because a 4k screen has WAY more pixels to stretch the image over so at the recommended distance for a 4k screen you end up with a blocky image with chunky pixels. It's fine, it's not like its unplayable, but why would I do that when I can get just as good an experience (30hz display can only get pushed so hard) at 2k without overwhelming my hardware and have a better image as well?
I'm not a Hardcore gamer, I'm not trying to get 9000+ fps. I mostly play tetris and my ps1 on a crt. I want my games to look the way they're intended to, they're art projects and I like to respect them as such. Ergo, I play them at the highest resolution my hardware can support.
For games, maybe.
But I also use my PC for work (programming). I can't afford two, and don't really need them.
At home I've got a WQHD 1440p monitor, which leaves plenty of space for code while having the solution explorer, watch window, and whatnot still open.
At work we're just given cheap refurbished 1080p crap, which is downright painful to work with and has often made me consider buying a proper monitor and bringing it to work, just to make those ~8h/day somewhat less unbearable.
So I can't go back to 1080p, and have to run my games at 1440p (and upscaling looks like shit, so no).
1440p on a 27" monitor is the best resolution for work and for gaming.
But but Nvidia said at the RTX 3000 announcement that we can now have 8K gaming