4k gaming at med settings vs 2k (or 1080p) at ultra

kuhne

Distinguished
Jun 28, 2013
76
0
18,640
Let's say you have a 28inch 4k monitor and a pretty good video card but going 4k on a game like Battlefield 4 will really hurt your FPS, so you decide to go medium settings and tweak other settings to get playable FPS.

How would this look in that same monitor compared to turning down to 1080p with pretty much everything on ultra?

Or on a 2k monitor for that matter?

Basically the question is, is 2k on ultra oober omg settings better looking than 4k in adjusted settings to get similar FPS?
 
Solution
Well, 4k has 4 times the pixels as 1920x1080. That being said, a GTX 770 playing crysis 3 on high at 2k pulls ~50 fps. At 4k, it gets ~10-15. So although 4k looks beautiful, you would have to run it at such a lowered graphics settings (assuming you spend below $500 on GPU), that in my opinion, the upgrade to an extremely expensive 4k monitor, to run it at low-medium settings doesn't seem justified. If you want higher res. without such a mundane FPS drop, you could look into 1440p. I personally own a 2560x1080 monitor, and i love the widescreen.

Swanson

Reputable
Apr 17, 2014
27
0
4,540
Well, 4k has 4 times the pixels as 1920x1080. That being said, a GTX 770 playing crysis 3 on high at 2k pulls ~50 fps. At 4k, it gets ~10-15. So although 4k looks beautiful, you would have to run it at such a lowered graphics settings (assuming you spend below $500 on GPU), that in my opinion, the upgrade to an extremely expensive 4k monitor, to run it at low-medium settings doesn't seem justified. If you want higher res. without such a mundane FPS drop, you could look into 1440p. I personally own a 2560x1080 monitor, and i love the widescreen.
 
Solution

Swanson

Reputable
Apr 17, 2014
27
0
4,540
All in all, quality 1080p or 1440p monitor you can game on with high framerates is always a better option than a 4k monitor on low quality. Then you're just seeing 4x as many low quality pixels
 

TRENDING THREADS