That's what I was thinking. Most people can afford a computer build that will run 1080p optimally.

Yep... budget.

Hell, I am in a place where I have plenty of expendable income. Even so, when I last was looking for a new monitor, I even considered just getting a 1440p monitor. I ended up getting a 4K monitor, but it was nearly $550. The PC it would take to run a modern game at 4k, over 60fps, and high quality textures would easily cost nearly $2,000.

Despite the financial status of many, the ability for the average person to drop $2,500 on a gaming rig is relatively small.

Exactly. This is why I was considering going 1440p. At that distance on that small of a screen, it would be hard to tell the difference. The difference between 30 and 60fps is much more substantial.

I also say budget but also, there comes a point when you just can't justify it practically. I feel like sometimes that's like buying a Lamborghini when you live in downtown Houston. It's dumb and impractical. How much clarity do you need in an image?

DallasTeleAg said:

---

Exactly. This is why I was considering going 1440p. At that distance on that small of a screen, it would be hard to tell the difference. The difference between 30 and 60fps is much more substantial.

---

This is what I'm thinking as well... For many games being able to push more than 60fps improves the experience much more than higher resolution does.

With video card prices being as ridiculous as they have been for a few years, and new generations of video cards pushing their MSRP higher and higher, the eye candy that they provide isn't worth the giant additional cost.

I can't even play on 30 fps anymore. Feels like I can't even tell what's happening. Idk how we used to play on that as the standard. 60 fps is the absolute minimum for me now. 90 fps minimum for shooters or I just won't play them.

165fps or nothing for me.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

I also say budget but also, there comes a point when you just can't justify it practically. I feel like sometimes that's like buying a Lamborghini when you live in downtown Houston. It's dumb and impractical. How much clarity do you need in an image?

---

Practicality of hobbies goes out the window when looking at cost relative to your means, though. Granted, I don't like Lambos, but if you made millions per year, then it's not a big decision. I love guitars and spend a lot on them. There are many out there who would look at the $4K I dropped on my recent Les Paul and say that is not a practical purchase. there are Les Paul standards you could buy for $2K. Hell, there are other guitars that are just fine that you can buy at $500. If I made millions a year, I'd probably hunt for a nice Burst, dropping potentially over $250K. As one's means increases, one does not mind paying a premium for those various diminishing returns of quality and experience.

If I was focused on PC gaming like I was in my late teens and early 20's, I would have no problem dropping $3-4K on a beastly gaming rig. However, I'm in my mid-30s and enjoy sitting in my lazyboy after a long day of work to kick back and play a game.

I use my 4K monitor more as a second screen for work, but do have a mid-range gaming laptop for a few games only available on PC.

I think it will take awhile. Despite what you read on reddit, most gamers don't have 4090s and the most popular cards of every generation are around the xx60 tier which can't reliably run some of the latest titles at resolutions higher than 1080p. Another thing holding 1080p as a ceiling is a lot of people have monitors that top out at that resolution, and graphical improvements with ray tracing are also making going above that resolution harder.

i.e. if you had a 3060 and a 1080p monitor would you really want to spend money on a new monitor to run 1440p but have to turn off ray tracing or would rather stick with 1080p and keep ray tracing on?

UmustBKidding said:

---

I believe these are skewed by laptops. Not nearly as many UHD QUHD 4K laptops as HD

---

+1

El_duderino said:

---

165fps or nothing for me.

---

Same, except the only game I play where that's regularly doable without destroying the graphics is apex. COD only hits 165 consistently in 6v6.

Interesting. Nvida gpu then I guess? AMD is miles better performing this game for some reason.

El_duderino said:

---

Interesting. Nvida gpu then I guess? AMD is miles better performing this game for some reason.

---

3070ti with a 3700X. I get 170+ in multiplayer, but I'm pretty steady 115 fps range for warzone.

I like the 1440, although I still have my 1070 GPU from 2017.

Green2Maroon said:

---

I like the 1440, although I still have my 1070 GPU from 2017.

---

I'm running a 3060ti on a G9 1440p monitor, so basically 2 1440p monitors and I get 120-144 frames on just about everything I run. I'm thinking about skipping the 40 series entirely because I flat out don't need it. I'll upgrade RAM from 16 to 32 first or just build a whole new rig. 1440p is easily in the range of anything 2070 or higher.

Yeah my 1070 is outdated. I don't know if I play enough games to justify a new graphics card or not.

Another scenario....most people are investing their 4k dollars in TVs hooked to a 4k console. Cheaper and easier to go that route than get the equivalent PC rig.

So upgrading your PC rig to equal that is redundant for many or they've used the budget on the former. I have my 4k Xbox hooked to a 4k OLED for when I want to enjoy a more visual experience. And then for certain games or if I just feel like sitting in my office chair and being closer to my monitor then I will play on my 27in 1440p monitor.

I am over due for a GPU upgrade though on my PC so maybe I'll finally upgrade that assuming I dont' sacrifice frame rates.