What resolution do you game at? (Mid 2017 thread)

[Bacon1]

3440x1440 75hz w/ Freesync.

I personally think 21:9 is superior to 4k because you have a better image, instead of just highly packed pixels with half the performance hit going to UW 1440p vs 4k over 1080p.

 

[tential]

3440x1440 75hz w/ Freesync.

I personally think 21:9 is superior to 4k because you have a better image, instead of just highly packed pixels with half the performance hit going to UW 1440p vs 4k over 1080p.

Just buy a faster GPU.

 

[Bacon1]

Just buy a faster GPU.

TIL buying a faster GPU increases the playable area on your monitor

 

[OatisCampbell]

Just buy a faster GPU.

I get that higher PPI is always desirable, but 3440 X 1440 adds a seamless level of peripheral vision immersion that Eyefinity/NV version attempted.

 

[casiofx]

I already felt that 2560x1440 is too long, unless you need to do some multi window work.

16:9 is just perfect for me to play dota

 

[Indus]

2560 x 1440.

Can't go back to 1080p outside of watching movies because I really 1440p makes 1080p look pixelated.

Strangely enough I still have a GTX 660 and I want to upgrade soon to the best 1440p card.

 

[Valantar]

I already felt that 2560x1440 is too long, unless you need to do some multi window work.

16:9 is just perfect for me to play dota

You might just be expressing yourself very oddly, but you do know that 2560*1440 is 16:9, right?

 

[casiofx]

You might just be expressing yourself very oddly, but you do know that 2560*1440 is 16:9, right?

Sorry, I meant 3440x1440

 

[EXCellR8]

+1 for 3440... I had a love/hate relationship with 5760x1080... was cool at first but most games required 3rd party mem hacks and driver updates were a PITA

 

[Rifter]

1440p 60Hz

 

[crisium]

I get that higher PPI is always desirable, but 3440 X 1440 adds a seamless level of peripheral vision immersion that Eyefinity/NV version attempted.

I'm sure it does. But I wonder how viable 21:9 would be if we had real 4K gaming oriented displays in the 37"-42.5" range. A 37" 4k letterboxed to 3840x1600 is about the same size as a native 35" 3440x1440. The LG 38UC99 (3840x1600 37.5") could be mimicked by cropping a 40" full 4k display.

I envision the extra pixels merely acting as big bezel while gaming, but when using the desktop you enjoy more working area. I did try this with 2560x1080 on my 27-inch QHD display out of curiosity for a short gaming session, but it was way too small to be worth it (only about 25.5" 21:9).

Displays that size are usually TVs or monitors with input lag and 60hz so it's not that suitable for gaming compared to 75-100hz and usually better input lag in the gaming monitors. Maybe one day.

 

[xthetenth]

3440x1440 most of the time. If I want to be weird on a twitch shooter I've got 2560x1440 144 Hz as well. And if I had the GPU power I'd be all over 8560x1440.

I'm basically the inverse of my signature at this point.

 

[Beer4Me]

4K, see sig for rig specs. Single GTX1080 works fine 90% of my use case for all details on Ultra except AA/SS, but at this res., who really needs those? I'll gladly disable AA or Supersampling in favor of LOD/draw distance/texture quality.

 

[tential]

I get that higher PPI is always desirable, but 3440 X 1440 adds a seamless level of peripheral vision immersion that Eyefinity/NV version attempted.

Bigger screen + high resolution gives you peripheral vision in all directions! Not just left right.


If you can't buy a better gpu you can do the unspeakable and lower resolution to 1800p and play on 4k like that digital foundry video suggests.

 

[Bacon1]

Bigger screen + high resolution gives you peripheral vision in all directions! Not just left right.

No... The playable screen area on 1080p and 4k are the exact same. The game doesn't "zoom out" because you are using a higher resolution. You just get 4 pixels vs 1 pixel.

 

[EXCellR8]

the two screens I use at work are 2560x1440 and I can easily see myself gaming at that res comfortably, if I had to.

the only drawback to 21:9 is a lot of pre-rendered scenes in games are only 16:9 or 16:10 and you get black areas on the side... but I'm pretty used to that now. plus, if they rendered the cutscenes at full 4k res the game's download size would be even more massive.

 

[tential]

I'm sure it does. But I wonder how viable 21:9 would be if we had real 4K gaming oriented displays in the 37"-42.5" range. A 37" 4k letterboxed to 3840x1600 is about the same size as a native 35" 3440x1440. The LG 38UC99 (3840x1600 37.5") could be mimicked by cropping a 40" full 4k display.

I envision the extra pixels merely acting as big bezel while gaming, but when using the desktop you enjoy more working area. I did try this with 2560x1080 on my 27-inch QHD display out of curiosity for a short gaming session, but it was way too small to be worth it (only about 25.5" 21:9).

Displays that size are usually TVs or monitors with input lag and 60hz so it's not that suitable for gaming compared to 75-100hz and usually better input lag in the gaming monitors. Maybe one day.

No... The playable screen area on 1080p and 4k are the exact same. The game doesn't "zoom out" because you are using a higher resolution. You just get 4 pixels vs 1 pixel.

Am I misunderstanding the crisium post regarding the letterbox portion?

 

[crisium]

Well, doing what I said does not give you extra "peripheral vision in all directions! Not just left right." I'm talking about running a custom resolution that letterboxes to get you Ultra Wide.

The extra tall pixels that are turned off don't help here (space efficiency disadvantage over 21:9). But you do have the full resolution available for desktop and 16:9 games only, a major advantage over 21:9.

As I said, there's no gaming oriented 4k display large enough to do it so it's not really actionable at this time.

 

[Bacon1]

Am I misunderstanding the crisium post regarding the letterbox portion?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to get at now.

Yes, you could use a 40" or so 4k and then letterbox top/bottom to have 21:9ish display similar to a 21:9 34".

However then you'd have a monitor missing the top/bottom of the screen which would look ugly most of the time while gaming, but you would see more to the left/right of the screen in games.

But here is an example of what 21:9 looks like compared to 16:9 (1080p or 4k would be the same, just 4x pixels (and way less perf), but exact same image / display area)

Spoiler

21:9 gives you a much better gaming experience and shows you roughly 35% more playable area!

 

[f2bnp]

1920x1200

 

[tential]

Well, doing what I said does not give you extra "peripheral vision in all directions! Not just left right." I'm talking about running a custom resolution that letterboxes to get you Ultra Wide.

The extra tall pixels that are turned off don't help here (space efficiency disadvantage over 21:9). But you do have the full resolution available for desktop and 16:9 games only, a major advantage over 21:9.

As I said, there's no gaming oriented 4k display large enough to do it so it's not really actionable at this time.

I see, so with oled what you're saying should definitely be possibly since the top and bottom pixels could go completely black and wouldn't be so bad for the wide-screen view?

 

[crisium]

Don't you have a 3840x2160 display? Just make a custom resolution of 3840x1600.

 

[Oyeve]

1080p because my screen is only 47".

 

[TypoFairy©]

1080p on my old peasant monitor hoping we get hdr screens out soon so I can finally retire this piece of junk

 

[railven]

Just finished Nier: Automata, and with all the hiccups on the PC port, the fact that it supported 21:9 out of the box was a kudos.

I'm sold on 21:9, and if I upgrade my monitor anytime soon it will just be the same ration but higher resolution.