4k Res & PC Gaming


I felt compelled to start up some discussion after seeing the Destiny 2 PC advertisements tout 4k gaming with unlocked framerates. Is 4k really a selling point for PC gaming?

  • I don’t think I have ever seen 4k resolution available on a TV less than 40-43 inches.
  • I think a >40 inch PC monitor is a bad thing since you are generally sitting about 2 feet away from the screen. When console gaming you are often sitting on a couch, recliner, etc.
  • PC games are supposed to be a personal experience, therefore you want that smaller monitor. Console gaming is where you often see multiple people in the same room. Some console games are designed for split-screen, 2-4 players playing on the same console. The PC versions of these same games generally only have single-player options.
  • Can you really see the 4k improvements on a 24-34 inch screen?

Ever since I heard about 4k resolution I have considered it a “console gimmick”. I feel that 1440p is a great resolution for monitors 27" or larger. Any size less and you should use 1080p. Once you get above 34" then you really should be playing on console.

What are others’ opinions on this?


I agree with most of it.

4K definitely has its place, but it’s generally on TVs 70" or larger, or on a 32" 16:9 monitor or larger if you’re a professional video or photo editor.

The benefits of a 4K resolution on at 27" monitor (or 34" ultrawide) is noticeable, but very very very small. With little to no 4K content available on PC (don’t you DARE say ‘YouTube’), serious compromises in the framerate department (both in panel speed and frames your GPU can push), and a large premium on the price… They’re not even close to worth it.


I use a 60" 4k TV as my pc monitor. Sit about six feet back in a recliner and it works pretty well. It’s hell of a lot easier on my back than sitting in a normal chair for extended periods of time.

Generally looks like this while trying to play.

New photo by Quentin Wares (Biggles7268)


If I were sitting that far back from my screen then I might be interested in 4k. At my distance I wonder if I could even see the edges of a 34" ultrawide without moving my eyes.


Yeah up close it would be pretty terrible.


Well, I will say that 4k isn’t a console gimmick, but you’re right in the sense that it’s not really going to be the best use for a smaller monitor.

There’s nothing wrong with a 4k monitor regardless of size. Truthfully, you will have some form of benefit from it, but the smaller the screen, the less reason for it you have. I do agree that 1440p is a nice middle ground, and is where I’m currently looking at the moment.

I will also say that if there was a reasonably priced 4k monitor that was good, I would still absolutely get a 4k monitor over 1440p.

For screen sizes, I feel that most people don’t get anything smaller than a 22", and even then 22" is starting to be on the smaller size and 24" seems to be becoming the standard. But imo anything less than about 32" is great with 1440p. If you go 4k, there is nothing wrong with that, but you’re likely paying ~$500 more than you need to, and the panel quality may not actually be as good as a high end 1440p monitor that is several hundred dollars cheaper.

As for anything above 32", sure go 4k, but you may want to start weighing up your TV options. Most tv’s don’t make great monitors, but if you’re primarily gaming and not needing to do much ‘work’ on it, then a smaller 4k tv may work for you. Granted, gl finding a good one under 40".

All in all, for PC gamers, I think that the biggest game changer for us will not be 4k, but HDR. I cannot wait for HDR monitors come out, as that’s going to have a much bigger impact on your games then a 4k monitor will. I’m just hoping that they bring out 1440p HDR monitors along with their 4k ones. I don’t want to pay money for the 4k premium just to get HDR.


Yeah. OLED and HDR are where it’s at.

I probably wouldn’t. 4K monitors won’t have the same refresh rates available, and even if they did your graphics card isn’t going to be able to run games that quickly at 4K.
You could always downsample when you play games, but 4K does NOT downsample well to 1440p, and if you’re downsampling to 1080p, why did you get a 4K monitor in the first place?

A while back I spent a bunch of money on a 65" 4K LED TV (non-HDR) and it’s probably one of my biggest regrets. Across a standard, if not slightly smaller than average living room, there’s really not a noticable difference between 4K and 1080p (I bought a UHD Blu Ray player, and returned it). I’m guessing you need to be buying like… an 70 or 80" TV for it to actually be worth it.


I don’t see any reason for 4k right now, but I will say I use my computer from my arm chair in the living room sometimes, gotta love that steam link


Very good point with the refresh rates there. Good 4k Monitors are still a ways away.

I do have a “pixel shift” 4k projector (note: not true 4k, but does a damn good job), and I absolutely love it for my movies. I’m not sure why you didn’t notice a difference on your TV. I assume your HDMI cables, receiver and so forth all supported HDCP 2.2 and 4k? That aside… my projector screen is 109" so maybe that’s what’s doing it for me.


Yep. That’s probably it right there. The larger the display area, the more noticeable it is.

Yep. Was testing with a Samsung UHD BD player. My reciever doesn’t support HDCP 2.2, so I had an HDMI cable going from the player to my TV for video, and another one going from the player to my reciever for audio.


This is probably your problem. When playing 4k content, HDMI 2.2 is the required version. Anything lower and you’re capped at 1080p

Did a quick search that also speaks to this - it references Roku, but it still applies.

Edit: Misread your post. That’s what I get for posting when working at the same time. Missed the point of you skipping the receiver.