Actually DLSS and FSR are more viable at higher resolutions as they have much greater internal resolutions to work with.I know technically people can now play "high framerate 4k" that is, not truly 4k just upsampled 1440p or 1080p thanks to DLSS and FSR
However I have a feeling people wanting to game at 4k might be more interested in image quality and not raw framerates. Specially because if you settle for something more reasonable as 4k and *only* 60FPS then you are very likely to get away with a much more reasonably priced GPU (With or without the inflated prices, which might end up being just the new prices for good) Whatever games you can't run at native 4k 60fps then you can also use a modest 3060 to push out "4k-like" visuals @ 60 with DLSS or FSR
What's more important to you 240 frames per second at 4k to get instant response times 1 ms and low input lag or the same low input lag and response times 1ms but 120 fps at 4k with less waisted resources?Wake me up when I can have 240 Hz at 4K/UHD.
What's more important to you 240 frames per second at 4k to get instant response times 1 ms and low input lag or the same low input lag and response times 1ms but 120 fps at 4k with less waisted resources?
Also imagine the hardware requirements to push 4k 240fps.
The c1 at 4k 120fps already competes with the fastest lcds out there for input lag and response times. What I learned is that there is no ideal monitor out there but monitors vendors will charge you a sky is the limit premiums on marketing perceived ideal monitors that fall short every time. The c1 comes close, well closest as we have ever been to ideal content consuming display to date.
1. LG 27GN950-B · 2. Acer Predator XB273K · 3. LG 27UL650 · 4. Eve Spectrum ES07D03 · 4. Asus ROG Swift PG27UQ
Way too close to 1000$ to justify it over a 32inch (for size) and M28U for price to performance. It's also in a territory of better performing ultrawides or simply put multiple 1440p monitor setups, if you need pixels for content creation.Hi why is there no Review of 27" LG 27GP950-B it was released few months ago and it is a good monitor. It has 4k with HDR and HDMI 2.1 at price of $899. Here is the link https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27gp950-b-gaming-monitor
Please review it I want to compare it with the Asus 32 inch that offers 4k HDMI 2.1! Thanks!
M28u has lower hdr rating, 8 bit color only also the color saturation is worse too(no DCI-P3). Also, due to having small room and table I don't like monitors above 27inches.Way too close to 1000$ to justify it over a 32inch (for size) and M28U for price to performance. It's also in a territory of better performing ultrawides or simply put multiple 1440p monitor setups, if you need pixels for content creation.
Than go for the LG. If you can justify those features, it should make you happy. I was just putting my two cents out there.M28u has lower hdr rating, 8 bit color only also the color saturation is worse too(no DCI-P3). Also, due to having small room and table I don't like monitors above 27inches.
I am sick of reviews that are out of touch with the gaming world. A review of gaming monitors that do not include Ultrawide monitors? What a joke? I would never go back to a standard monitor after using a 37.5 Ultrawide for over a year. Personally, I would like a 100hz+ 43in UW with 3840x1600 rez. 49in is goofy.
I will never buy Ultrawide (again), because alot of games are don't support 21:9 and black bars or stretching is what you get in these games. Even new games.
And this topic is about "4K Monitors" hence why Ultrawide is not mentioned - Strange huh? 4K/UHD have 3 million more pixels over 1440p Ultrawide.
21:9 is never going to be a standard, since most games are developed for consoles which are made for TVs aka 16:9 (HUD and everything else is optimized to 16:9 as a result). However 99% of PC gamers use 16:9 too, thats why Developers focus on 16:9 support and always will
Had an Ultrawide for 4 weeks before I returned it. It does nothing for me, in the games I play, especially in shooters the aim is off using ultrawide and the extra pixels only distracts, which is why no pro gamers are using ultrawide.
It's mostly useful for sim's, which I don't play. Most games I play don't support 21:9 properly, and sucks for older games and/or emulation etc.
I had the LG 38WN95C-W, 38 inch Ultrawide with 3840x1600 at 144 Hz with Nano IPS. Sadly HDR was crap and capped at 4:2:2 using 144 Hz had to run 120 Hz to get 4:4:4 Chroma Subsampling. Backlight were trash too so HDR performance were a joke anyway, even tho it was 1500 dollars..
I will take my 65 inch OLED with 4K/UHD at 120 Hz native + Gsync any day over an ultrawide if I want "immersion" in a game. Simply next level visuals - blows any pc monitor away. PC monitors are lightyears behind top-end TV's in terms of image quality, especially HDR and especially for dark room gaming (OLED is king, by a huge margin).
For my PC monitor I won't settle for less than 240 Hz going forward. 1440p/240Hz is amazing and I will move to 2160p when 240 Hz is out. 200 fps at 240 Hz is smooth AF, waaay better than 100 fps using 120 Hz. Zero blur or smear.
I hope to see OLED PC monitors in the next years, hopefully with 240 Hz, but 120 Hz OLED is closer to 150-160 Hz LCD in terms of smoothness, so I could settle for 180-200 Hz if OLED. OLED has way faster pixel transistioning and no smearing at all. OLED is king until microLED is ready for consumers, which might take 5-10 more years.
Upcoming 42 inch OLED TV's might be worth it for many people that want a big PC monitor with perfect HDR and 120 Hz + VRR.