LETS SETTLE THIS

If you play up close on a monitor, say 27-31', is there a difference between 1440p - 4K? I know there is a definite improvement at this side from 1080p -> 1440p, but what about 4K?

Attached: soo.jpg (1280x720, 91.25K)

Technically yes. Realistically no.

Can you tell if you use $99999 wagyu beef vs a $300 Korean beef cut? Some people can, most people can't.

the longer I stare at this the more I notice it's the exact same picture on both sides

There is if you have a monitor to support both at high refresh rates but in the majority of cases 1440p is the sweet spot and has more uses than 4k yet is better than 1080p in most respects.

yes there is a clear difference, especially if the art style is really pretty, not some shitty generic AAA game

ultrawide 1440 is better than 4k

I play on a huge ass 55 inch 4k/120hz TV and after many months if not years of experience I have to say categorically:
IT DEPENDS
Action/racing/fps games: 1440p looks almost identical to 4k
Strategy/simulators/games with verbose interfaces: it's noticeable in text, but if the game comes with an internal resolution scaler you're golden

Yes. There's even a difference between 4k and 8k.

Nice meme

I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.
What a scam, have fun being jewed.
Later losers

Noticed the shill. You never had a 27" 8K monitory, stop lying like you had experience with what you are talking about.

Imagine paying this much just to play a shitty nulara game

nu lara games are unironically a good time

soul/soulless

>trying to judge 4k on a 720p image
you are the victim of a cunning ruse

It depends, if the game uses 4k assets then you are going to see more detail in the background in 4k, it's most noticeable in open world games. If you are playing a fast paced action game in carefuly crafted environments and good AA there is no difference.

Also there is an interesting case with some older games that have been designed with 1080 or even 720p, they look dramatically worse at super high resolutions because the assets and engine aren't built for that.

Is 4k Zig Forums's FLAC? Are we going to get our own pasta equivalent of rotational velocidensity?

I agree, though many games don't completely support it.

1440p needs anti aliasing applied to remove the jaggies, 4k does not unless you have weapons grade autism and really look for them.

jaggies?

There is no such thing as 4K assets. WTF are you talking about? 4K is a resolution. If in a comparison, 4K uses higher quality assets, it's not fair. Both resolutions can use the same assets.

I wouldn't think so.
The human eye's resolution maxes out at about 2K in most scenarios.
Only time I could see 4K being useful is if you have a massive television where those extra pixels would actually make a difference.

I never had an 8k monitor but I've seen the equivalent through upscaling, decent AA etc

The only difference you could possibly seen was on zommed-in screenshots.

left has jaggies, right doesnt.

Attached: jaggies.png (690x329, 19.38K)

In terms of aliasing yes.
In terms of finer details yes (speaking of distant)
otherwise not really.

In terms of WORKSPACE on your desktop then fuck yes. 4x the amount of shit can be placed around the desktop compared to 1080p. But I wouldnt buy smaller than 32" for 4K because otherwise you'll have to scale shit and that defeats the purpose of 4K.

You can tell just through normal gameplay that there is still some very minor aliasing at 4k which if you double that eliminates them all. People say 4K is the limit but really it's 8K.

1440p is dead.

right does have jaggies

Human eye doesnt have a resolution, thats about as dumb as saying "human eye sees in x framerates"

No, not really, definately not on a upscaled, fake 4K/8K.

GTA V and other games with alot of complex/thin geometry everywhere really benefit from higher resolutions. 4K with TAA would be flawless (although blurry because of TAA)

Can 4k60 monitors have different resolution like 1080p120 and 1440p120

On a 27"-31" minutely, anything bigger is where it gets noticeable

Attached: a_86TSkR3J.jpg (1280x800, 128.03K)

oh right, thanks

Picture this situation: imagine you make a game for 720p and need to render a crowd in the background, what do you do? A couple of PNGs and some camera trickery and it's gonna look great, at that resolution each person is only a couple pixels at best.

Now imagine you are making the same thing but for 2020 hardware, now each person in that crowd is 480x480 pixels, your low resolution PNGs won't cut it, for a convincing effect you need actual 3D models.

The same applies to textures, model poly count, effects, LOD. It's why PS2 games at 1080p look like dogshit even though they looked fantastic on their original hardware.

As it happens, I myself upscaled via virtual resolution in GTA 5 on my 1080p monitor. I could see a huge leap to 1440p and miniscule from that to 4k. The only thing that I noticed difference about was actually not thin lines, but huge fields of textures.
So I believe you don't know what you are talking about or simply lying to make a point.

I think he meant 4k textures, makes more sense than assets

Yes

There is also no such thing.

So bumping up assets, not resolution. Not fair in comparison. When you compare both resolutions on the same assets is where it all matters.

Lol comparing dsr on a 1080p display to actual 4k monitor. Thinking you're gonna see more detail with 1/4 the pixels. kek.

Huh, the 1440p booba is a bit more noticeable for some reason.

It's still very much alive, retard.

i mean, it's comparing 1440p and 4k in a 720p image

ultrawide 1600 is better than ultrawide 1440

Attached: dead.png (942x434, 25.65K)