2K or 4K ?

[DjSpyder]

Hi everyone,

I'm basically just looking for some opinions here, I'm putting together a new build, with an RTX 4080. Spent a pretty big chunk of change on components, but I know the final piece will be a new monitor to go with it. I'm currently running 2 1080 monitors I figure I'll keep 1 as a secondary and replace the other.

My questions is 4k at 60hz or 2k at 144-165. I'm curious how noticeable of a difference there really is as monitors in that range are similar in priced, or is it really worth the extra $200-$300 just get the 4k at 120-144. I know it might seem a little odd worrying about $200-$300 after going all in on the other components, but honestly it's more about value than money, If it's not going to be a hugely significant difference i might just save the money, and if it's actually noticeable then I might go for it.

I've done a bit of reading and it seems like 2K at higher refresh rate is the more popular way to go, but since there is a pretty good and active community here, I figured I'd get some feedback. I've narrowed it down to a few MSI or Asus monitors, Kinda leaning towards 4k at 60hz, but would like to hear what others think before pulling the trigger.

 

[pliskards]

To me it seems like it depends on your pocketbook and how long you want your video card to last. I like to upgrade every other generation. So I have a 4080 and a 2k monitor because I don't want to buy a 5070/5080/5090 when it comes out. I'd rather wait for the 6070/6080/6090.

That being said with DLSS3 being included with the 40 series cards - maybe it will extend the timeline for how long it can run high end titles on 4k.

 

[iCake]

I'd take higher refresh over resolution each day of the week Then like the person above said, 2K is a tremendously less load on your video card, so you will be able to stay on the same GPU for a lot longer.

However, if you are going for a big monitor, I mean like more than 30'', then 4K may become more and more preferable due to pixel density getting to low with 2K. To my taste at least. Still, refresh rate first, resolution comes second as far as I am concerned.

 

[devivre]

Personally, I would go with a 2560x1440 Monitor. For me It is a visible difference compared to normal 1080 HD and it's still not as extremely demanding for the GPU as 4K.

 

[pliskards]

Personally, I would go with a 2560x1440 Monitor. For me It is a visible difference compared to normal 1080 HD and it's still not as extremely demanding for the GPU as 4K.

I also agree with this. I went with a 3440x1440 ultrawide. It is the super nice one from Alienware - because there are quite a few games I am really looking forward to in Phantom Liberty, Starfield, Baldurs Gate 3, Avowed, etc. I can say while playing some other titles in the meantime it hasn't been worth it. You need to mess around with ini settings in a lot of games, UIs get messed up in some or you get block boxes for others. When it works it is nice - but the support for it just isn't there yet universally.

 

[Guest 4561861]

I've had a 4k 60hz 28" monitor a few years now. It's great for productivity and single player gaming. If you do online competitive shooters, it's not great for that; refresh is most important there and 4k even fast could impede your play, because everything is a bit smaller on the screen. Cyberpunk did give my previous Vega64 gpu a hard time, but I was able to get a 3090 at a good price when they first came out, and it even has trouble at 60hz. So I run DLSS at quality setting and it works great.

So, in essence if you want great looking single player games 4k is it. If you like playing online shooters, 2k at least 144hz (higher the better) is the way to go.

 

[DjSpyder]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I decided to go with the MSI Optix G273QPF 2560 X 1440 at 165Hz

​

​

 

[leonidasM2000]

2k cause it's more easy and looks great
4k looks better but it's WAY harder to render and naturaly more expensive

 

[Michaelkdooar]

4k gpu will last a long time I reckon if you don't enable ray tracing

 

[Notserious80]

I can only recommend 4k 120 screen after i got mine. Its sadly 1 gen too old so can manage 98hz at 4k with HDR and 10bit colours.. But if the game doesnt support hdr i generally oc it too 144. If you have the rig for it its pretty amazing and silky smooth with very nice picture quality but like others have said... Expensive. 1440p is a middle ground but its much better then 1080p imo so hope you will enjoy it

 

[Hoplite_22]

Hi everyone,

I'm basically just looking for some opinions here, I'm putting together a new build, with an RTX 4080. Spent a pretty big chunk of change on components, but I know the final piece will be a new monitor to go with it. I'm currently running 2 1080 monitors I figure I'll keep 1 as a secondary and replace the other.

My questions is 4k at 60hz or 2k at 144-165. I'm curious how noticeable of a difference there really is as monitors in that range are similar in priced, or is it really worth the extra $200-$300 just get the 4k at 120-144. I know it might seem a little odd worrying about $200-$300 after going all in on the other components, but honestly it's more about value than money, If it's not going to be a hugely significant difference i might just save the money, and if it's actually noticeable then I might go for it.

I've done a bit of reading and it seems like 2K at higher refresh rate is the more popular way to go, but since there is a pretty good and active community here, I figured I'd get some feedback. I've narrowed it down to a few MSI or Asus monitors, Kinda leaning towards 4k at 60hz, but would like to hear what others think before pulling the trigger.

1440p @240hz on an OLED https://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/gaming/27gr95qe-b/