What do you consider more important, expanding your frame cap beyond 60, or increasing your resolution size to 2k/4k?

1080p 144hz definitely. For singleplayer games I like to be have 120, for multiplayer 240.

Well I mean, they're both vehicles. They'll both get you to your destination, so why does it matter what they look like?

1080p 144hz

1440 144hz

1080p 144fps until 4K 144fps is possible. 1440p is irrelevant.

1440 and anything over 90hz really

Attached: 1523068403013.png (613x384, 192K)

you'd have to calculate the screen size and distance and pixels and eye condition to know if you need higher pixel count

1440p 75hz

Higher frames will always be more appealing than a better resolution.

What if I can do 1440p @ 144Hz?

I only need 60 for singleplayer and PvE games

>tfw you dropped 400 bucks on an XF270U and get fucked by the panel lottery

1280x960 100hz 0ms response time

Right but realistically most people's screen size and viewing distance will be limited by the physical space they have available. So at some point everyone has some kind of upper limit. We have to be pretty close to hitting up against it for the majority of people.

4k 240fps

Right now 4K gaming is unviable unless you shit money. Not even the RTX 2080 can handle 60fps unless you sacrifice graphics.
Most people play 2K at 60fps or 120fps

1080p 144hz, no contest.

high framerates hurt my head and 1080p is already plenty large
1080p75 for gaymes and 900p60 for browsing and other things

1440p can upscale more resolutions natively than 4k and especially 1080p. Resolutions that are based on 720 and 1440 are superior.

stop spreading lies. a 1080ti is fine for 4k 60fps.

1080 manlet lmao

post the benchmarks

no

both kinda meh desu
1440 144hz is the absolute master race

Attached: 1554916713159.jpg (1244x1080, 236K)

Personally never experienced 144hz, only seen it at 120hz, and keep forgetting 144hz exists, so good on you there as well if you can achieve it.

>1200$ GPU + 200$ CPU
VS
>1200$ GPU + 500$ CPU

4k 60fps in Metro Exodus max settings on a single 1080ti? I think you're delusional. You'll have to have turn down settings. I don't care if you say hurr those settings cant tell the difference you're still sacrificing quality

I'm just going by what OP offered. I'd take 1080p/144 over 4k/60. Preferably it'd be 1440p/144.

>theres zero reason
>1440p @144hz
>more fps

>1440p @240hz
>more fps

>2160p @60hz
>more resolution

>2160p @140hz
>more rrsolution more fps

>2160p@240hz
>more resolution more fps what a real MASTER RACE should be playing

that's what I thought.

ok sure let me spend an extra $500 so i can get 5 more fps in a generic shitty shooter game.

Attached: 1554224100402.png (780x1080, 1.61M)

what game?
I can think of maybe 4 games that I play regularly that are barely possible to get 60fps 4k with my 2080Ti and 9900k, no way in hell they are possible with a 1080Ti.

The difference is that with cars you're not allowed to go over the speed limit, with computers it's impossible to go over the speed limit

3440x1440p
120hz

I just picked a new game faggot
>anime picture deflection
kys retard

I'm not that user, but he is right. Can do 4k 50-60hz very easily with a 1080ti. I have one, so I know this. I just don't play at 4k because 1440p is visually identical and can stay capped on frames much easier.

nigger what games are you playing. every game i play regularly with my 1080ti runs 60 fps on ultra
not an argument

>numale incel weeb
>has shit taste
It's getting old at this point

Then you're spending 700 leafbux minimum if you want a quality monitor. I'm 1440/60hz and the cost is literally the only reason i don't switch

Once gaming goes 100% digital distribution and all those 4K assets make the games require 100GB downloads and ISPs start instituting data caps and overage charges just because they can, that will be the end of the line.

Yea Forums is the only place on Yea Forums where you see people say this. you're pathetic. drown in a lake or set yourself on fire so the entire world can be rid of you.

4:3 720p in grayscale @2144hz master race

Meanwhile
4K 60hz on CONSOLE FOR 200$
Pc cucks are truly pathetic bunch of fatsos poorfags

>more resolution more fps what a real MASTER RACE should be playing

4K at 60fps+ would a shit ton of money including the 4K 140hz monitor. Is not affordabe yet. Now if you believe the PS5 will manage 4K at 60fps with a mid range navi then expect to be dissapointed. Saying this because you seem like a consolefag.

4k on low/medium

2K/144Hz

Assets can’t support 4k yet. Go with the frame rate for now.

1080p w/ 144hz costs more to get running than 4k 60fps.

>220$ for a va 1440p/1440hz freesync/gsync compatible samsung 27” monitor
Try to keep up faggot

>VA/TN/IPS fags
>playing the lottery for shit monitors
>he doesnt have a microled
Jesus this place is not only overrun by zoomers but redditors as well how disgusting

Attached: 1554415374714.png (1080x1703, 766K)

>4K 60hz on CONSOLE FOR 200$
eric, just because you repeat this lie doesn't make it true. take your autism pills.

Try reading, faggot. He said Leafbux. Canada is absolutely fucked on monitor/gpu prices compared to the United States of Poverty.

Hows that bloodborne running on high settings them? Fgggot

framerate. 1080p is still a decent resolution. anything lower than 1080p however is sub-optimal.

i dont even own a ps4 you nerd. go get laid lol.

>2019
He doesnt know he can buy from amazon and get shipped to canada
Do you even use internet bro?

>numale weebs dont ruin other boards
>other boards proceed not to care and ignore the rare double digit weeb
Wow

1080p in 2019 is sub optimal even athe switch run games on 1080p you dipshit

have sex

I don't think there's a single PC capable of running new games at 4k 240 fps. Even the workstations with multiple GPUs probably won't cut it because I doubt games are able to take advantage of them

i'm fine with 60fps 1080p. Most games aren't made with even that in mind, much less anything higher.

Why no booth? Set yourself on fire and them go into a lake
You dipshit

Dollar conversion + Duty fucks us hard.

not really, mate. my 1080p 144hz monitor looks pretty decent to me and i spend all day in front of the fucking thing.

1440p 144hz & 4k 60hz at the same time you dumb poor nigger

Attached: aaa.jpg (217x212, 8K)

>been runing games on 4k/8k @240fps since 2015
Literally kek with this so called master race filled with plebiands and consumer tier faggots

My phone can do 1080p. Doesn't mean doesn't it runs games at the equivalent of 30fps/low/upscaled-from-900p like current-gen consoles.

1440p 144Hz
The only answer

I wonder how this is going to work in the long run. Digital distribution will eventually take over but HDDs are not going up in capacity fast enough to accommodate the MASSIVE amount of data people will need to store on their Xboxes.

>havent use a new OLD tech since im to poor to buy it
My really old tech its bettet

Kek

What's a recommended panel type for portrait orientation? All the TFT/IPS panels I've tried all have that slight brightness difference between eyes which makes it useless for me.

4K60Hz
Diminishing returns on refresh rate start at 60. for resolution it starts at 4K. The choice is obvious

What games, CSGO? I'm talking about games with graphics. Either post proof or you're a faggot

frame and refresh rate will always allow you to experience a game to its fulest

i think anything beyond 1080p is overkill. my school has 4k retina macs and its not a massive difference in detail besides some colors look a bit more vibrant, although that really has nothing to do with resolution and its mostly the display

If he plays HD games with ultra settings he getting a better experience than most consolefags like you.

diminishing return is a meme

Lower price

i'll buy what i want, faggot. i also don't have a vr headset or a mechanical keyboard. brb gonna go kill myself out of shame

4k is just a meme they say

Attached: 1524709003901.jpg (4000x1500, 3.83M)

This nigga gets it

Attached: thumbs up.jpg (170x213, 8K)

sold

Total War: Wahammer 2 with 4 armies on screen
Warhammer 2 Vemintide with modded high difficulties
Kingdom Come Deliverance with some of the graphical and HD texture mods

1080p 144hz hands down. Makes it easier to aim in PvP games + Fallout new vegas triple debuff aiming now feels much more better compared to 60 hz.

>screendoor effect
4K only matters if you're going for a large-ass monitor. Otherwise 1440p is crisp in the 24-30" range. 1080p don't go above 24".

I have a 4k TV but when I change my display settings from 1080P to 4K everything zooms out really far. How do i fix this?

Can a 2070 handle 1440p/120-144hz or will I need to bump up to a 2080?

1440p@165Hz is my sweet spot.

do you mean like the icons become smaller? You need to change the display scaling.

also checked.

Attached: crash uncharted 4.png (737x592, 139K)

>Zoomers getting zoomed

I mean it seriously gets zoomed out. here's a screenshot, how do I change the scaling? I only see an option to make text bigger in display settings.

Attached: zoomed out.png (3840x2160, 292K)

2k with a 144hz monitor is god-tier. If you have at least a 1080 (1070 maybe) it will work. Having to turn down settings usually doesn't matter (if you even have to) since you see more pixels anyway. I played exodus on medium and it looked great.
Unless you have akimbo RTX 2080Ti 4k is going to be trash, don't go any higher than 2k right now, and probably for the next generation or so.

>he's using a tv

Attached: 1553020540075.jpg (600x578, 33K)

>Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Display

windows 7 doesn't have good scaling compared to w10 though, maxes out at 150%

OP here

I have decided to pursue a 1440p @ 144 hz monitor based on this thread. Thanks to everyone who posted.

Attached: __hex_maniac_pokemon_pokemon_game_and_pokemon_xy_drawn_by_space_jin__9eebff59c9872661d1b6dbb12e65db7 (1200x1600, 248K)

You need a beastly computer to do either 1440p @ 144 or 4k @ 60 fps.

I personally think 1440p at as high of a frame rate as you can get is best.

i7 9700k, GTX 2080 here. I can't hit 144 FPS on a few games on Ultra. ESO for example, I get around 120 FPS usually. That's fine with Gsync, but I could easily drop a few settings to shoot for 144. I do get 144 in other games.

you made the right choice, get the asus rog swift one if you want excellent picture. it's a big spend but it is 100% worth it, shit looks unreal

my 1080 couldn't hack it so I sold it and got a 2080. A 2080 Ti is better, but I couldn't justify 1k.

If its only for gaming, then 144hz.

But I use my computer for work too and 4k is a godsend. So much screen real estate. Its hard going back to 1080 or even 1440p.

The ability to run a 40"+ display is definitely a huge advantage especially if you used to run a multi-display setup.

Windows wasn't designed for resolution independence, or for 10 foot use.
If you want to game on a TV with a PC you should get an OS build for it like SteamOS, or at the very least use applications designed for a 10 foot interface like Steam's Big Picture, Kodi, Retroarch, etc.
If you're using a large display as both a computer monitor up close, and as a 10 foot display you should look into interfaces with better resolution independence like a recent GNU/Linux distribution.

I switch Ubuntu between desktop and 10 foot depending on my needs.

yeah that's my problem. I changed to 150% and I think 200% is what I would need.

amazon.com/Nixeus-Certified-Adjustable-Ergonomic-NX-EDG27/dp/B071G6MYMW/ref=asc_df_B071G6MYMW/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309779531175&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2143554682474734736&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031333&hvtargid=pla-433917341267&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=62412137260&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=309779531175&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2143554682474734736&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031333&hvtargid=pla-433917341267

I don't know why it's 500 bucks right now since I bought mine two weeks ago for 400. It's a great monitor. IPS, fast refresh rate, cheap, and is Gsync comparable Freesync.

I think it's normal price on Newegg

1440p 165Hz bros WW@?

You could try upgrading to something like Manjaro. Most Linux desktops are pretty resolution independent. 7 is pretty old and on its way out.

I was thinking about getting this one

amazon.com/dp/B07NBM6KYH/?tag=pcpapi-20

I'm running a GTX 980, and these aren't optimized for use in freesync. I can drop 100 extra on getting G-sync to play nice with this older card, or save a bit more and get a monitor with non-propriatery freesync and put the saved 150 towards an upper end card.

That or keep the 980 and drop it on a monitor specifically with G-sync.

Attached: 3e20273b5896a7af2b8f229e1e59a494.jpg (1000x1200, 167K)

I have 1 TN screen and 1 IPS screen. I NEED IPS for my main gaming, but it's to taste. If you're mostly an FPS dude TN is going to be great. The Nixeus I linked has 4ms.

The price of the one you linked can't be beat, although I don't know any specifics about that brand/model.

this is my setup. I actually wish I had 1080p though because most modern games aren't optimized for it yet.

1080p 144hz best price to performance ratio

SOUL vs. SOULLESS

Hz, but 1440p 144 hz is ideal.

Good thing I don't view my monitors from 2 inches away.

Oh man you've convinced me to drop 1000 dollars on a 4k monitor and a GPU. Haha who doesn't just want 4k. It's so REASONABLY priced.

>4k 60fps
have fun running games at 40 fps

Have a 1080p 144hz VA monitor. Thinking about putting the refresh rate on 120 hz as I've read it's better for watching movies and such. 120 is divisible by 24, 30, 60, etc.. Also 144 hz isn't much different than 120 hz. Also I have and RX 570.

Attached: 3255.gif (500x375, 972K)

this is the only correct answer
nigga this is nonsense, if you can pull 4k 60hz you can and should pull 1440p 144hz instead

I know this is a bait thread, but the answer is obviously 720p/30 FPS. It's just more cinematic.

>be me
>always owned 60Hz monitors
>not enough money to buy another one
>want to just see the difference with more Hz
>overclock monitor and manage to get it stable at 71Hz
>notice a slight difference in games
And now I can't never go back to 60 and I barely managed to get an improvement of 10%

Attached: 354.jpg (680x684, 42K)

>0ms
Weak bait, phisycally impossible

I doubt OSU counts, user...

Next High end cards 4k 144hz
Midrange gpus Will have to wait 2-3 gens desu so 4-5years more for the normies and only half-1 and a half year for the Hardcore pc gamer

4K 60hz to be honest.
I usually play on consoles nowadays, and I really can't tell the difference between 60FPS and higher when I'm using a controller.

I have a 980 and I'm waiting for the next gen of GPUs to jump. The price/performance gap is just barely not enough to justify it.

My CPU and mobo are ancient so I'm ready to get that now. I was thinking about Ryzen 7 since it's half the cost of a proper intel i7.

What's even the point of 144hz outside of first person games?

must suck having 1 shitty ISP

>>Next High end cards 4k 144hz
That shit's gonna cost like 2k if the trend of raising the price of high end GPUs continues

2k 144hz

>tfw game on 3440x1440p 120 hz g-sync
Will never go back, only forward. See you virgins in the future when you catch up.

This colored gentlemen comprehends the truth.

Framerate. Always.
1440p 165hz Gsync mustard face

Attached: 60vs30.webm (1280x720, 2.86M)

1440p 144Hz ultrawide with 3080 Ti.

I would do this but the duties and shipping for a monitor like that is like $500 for me, throwing in a 2080 or 2080ti would be like $600 more, I can afford it but paying $1.1k just to get that stuff to me sucks, I could buy a lot of shit with 1k

It can handle it, but obviously it depends on the game and you'll still have to fiddle around to get a consistent 120+ fps.

framerate is god

1080p60hz is enough for me

How bad is 4K in consoles right now? I wonder this because I haven't got one since the PS2.

3440x1440 is the best price/performance resolution at 40% smaller than 4k. Still gives you a lot of real estate without taking too much of a frame rate hit.

All I know is that my priority is the image quality (colour, blacks and such), then DPI, then refresh rate.

Right now I'm using a 21:9 IPS 60Hz 2560x1080. I mainly got it for working on cause you can have three windows side by side, but actually the aspect ratio is great for films and games alike.

I'd have a lot of trouble convincing myself to go back to 16:9

4K is nice but 720+ is all I care about.

Graphics whores are what's killed the industry.

>Graphics whores are what's killed the industry.
t. poorfag

I mean I'd agree with you if you said 1440p is fine and there's diminishing returns after there (1800p to 2160p is almost invisible) but 720p? naw.

Attached: asqueroso.png (288x415, 178K)

playing games at 144hz is such kimochi that i honestly cannot fathom anyone picking 60hz over it

Attached: he_cute.jpg (574x628, 34K)

autism.
nah retina displays have a noticably higher resolution. I'd say that pixel density (for that viewing distance) is what we should aim for.

Neither, wtf? I play on 900p 60hz

Either 1080p 240hz or 1440p 144hz. 4k is unnecassary for a monitor, at least currently.

Imagine wasting money on a 240 hz monitor.

2k 144 hz

>he doesn't know

Attached: Need+more+smug+post+smug+please+ty_716494_6738164.jpg (1200x1007, 77K)

1080p 144hz by a mile.

1440p @ 144Hz

>2k

4k is for faggots
above 1080p is barely any difference at desktop viewing distances
120hz is awesome if you can manage high stable fps, then comes HDR and then HDR and OLED/mLED

Attached: 1533619346710.jpg (453x470, 24K)

>60hz is perfection

Attached: 1554370803782.png (317x392, 134K)

4k 60
144 hz hardly looks any different from 60 in most games.

4k 60 is comfy for strategy games.

Frame rate. 800x600 at 120fps still looks good on a CRT

Depends. 60 frames is more than enough for any single player game. 60+ frames is only important for competitive multiplayer.

Attached: 14215812515060.jpg (604x453, 23K)

>144 hz hardly looks any different from 60 in most games

Are you retard or blind?
Perhaps both?

It helps every game, not just competitive online. I fucking hate this meme.

>Yea Forumstards think 144 Hz is better than 120 Hz
beIng tech illiterate should be punishable by death

Frametimes aren't linear. The difference between 120hz and 144hz is around 2ms. 240hz is probably where we should stop, since the improvements in motion would be unnoticeable as they would be fractions of a millisecond.

what's worse is people thinking there is no difference between 60Hz and 120Hz

I'm not autistic, so resolution.
Demanding higher FPS is an extremely reliable indicator of autism on the internet.

Streaming. You won't own your games anymore, you'll pay for XBL/PSN monthly in order to stream gameplay onto your console or PC.

TN an VA panels not as color accurate as IPS and also having shitty viewing angles. Even 144hz IPS is nowhere as good as actually a decent 60hz IPS monitor.

can you please explain your retardation

why's it better? I'm a 60hz pleb so I don't have a horse in this race

you are autistic actually

>viewing angles

This shit is so stupid. You're always looking straight at your monitor. Who the fuck sits to the far left or right of their monitor?

I'm neurotypical. Autists like yourself are the ones that were called "retarded" for the last few centuries. It's impossible to "explain" my retardation, but you could explain yours. I'd rather look at a beautiful painting than run around shaking my head as fast as I could to see if things are "smooth"

he's saying there's no difference

>Who the fuck sits to the far left or right of their monitor?

people that are looking at the monitor that arent controlling the pc you fucking friendless idiot

120fps killed 60fps for me.

>NO!!!! U ARE!!!!!
Yeah, me and every "normie" on the planet that likes a picture more than a "silky smooth 240hz experience that doesn't trip up my hypersensitivity to light and motion"

Frames.
At the distance of an average room your eye can't tell the difference between 1080 and 4k unless you screen is really small or really large.

There is a reason Retina Display is a thing. It's the best your eye can do at the expected operating distance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display

autism

In theory 1080p 144hz, in practice 4k 60 hz

'fraid not, autist.
rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=6332
Check.

tism

>buying a monitor for other people's benifit

based retard

how far away do you sit from your monitor?

i won

no u

No, there is a difference.

It depends on the game or video.
A video is usually recorded in 24 Hz.
24 * 5 is 120 Hz, which means 120 Hz is better than 144 Hz for videos, because there'll be no dropped frames.
The same applies to video games. You want to use a monitor with a refresh rate that can actually be in sync with your content. And no, vsync or whatever will not help you with that.

won what?

You are beyond retarded.

High refresh over good resolution is a very autistic choice

Attached: 1554863719434.png (496x442, 177K)

120Hz is amazing. I can't go back to 60Hz.

Howso?

psychcentral.com/news/2013/05/09/children-with-autism-hypersensitive-to-motion/54637.html
Hypersensitivity to motion is literally a defining trait of autism. So defining, in fact, that these scientists think that it contains the key to understanding other autistic traits.

>no explanation
>just ad hominem

Okay. Framelets are always so stupid.

Not everyone has 100k to blow on a 100 inch screen

60fps is so jittery to me now.

>no arguments
>just ad hominem
>and hypocrisy
lack of self awareness can also be an indicator of autism.

Wow you're really reaching.

It really depends. For a game where small details are important, or there's a LOT of HUD that scales with the resolution, or something that's low-intensity that doesn't lose anything from being on a bigger screen, 4k is a great choice. Being able to see targets as more than just tiny pixel differences is really good and having open space feels great. But my computer isn't very good anymore (970, i7), so it might not be able to keep 60 frames at every game I play at the graphics settings I want, so I'll use 1080 more often than 4k.
That might be your frames being much higher than 60 but with quick drops below 30 every so often.

So is claiming everything is autistic.

>That might be your frames being much higher than 60 but with quick drops below 30 every so often.

No it's from playing at 120 for several years. 60 looks like shit.

For work resolution is important.
For vidya framerate is important.

It's not reaching. People demanding 60fps have always come off as screeching autists. It turns out there's a reason for that. Now they're screeching for 120fps because they're far too sensitive to the "jittery mess" of 60fps.
If you have an argument, take it up with the fucking experts working to understand and treat autism.

You're an idiot.

There is a link and explanation in two separate post above your autistic post, autist. It's funny how you're accusing my post of being an "ad hominem" when your entire post is an ad hominem. You see, it also happens that lack of self awareness is an autistic trait.

I'll re-copy and paste it for you. Next time, you'll ask.your handler to do.for you. Do you understand, autist?
> Children with autism see simple movement twice as quickly as other children their age, and this hypersensitivity to motion may provide clues to a fundamental cause of the developmental disorder, according to a new study.
> Such heightened sensory perception in autism may help explain why some people with the disorder are painfully sensitive to noise and bright lights. It also may be linked to some of the complex social and behavioral deficits associated with autism, says Duje Tadin, one of the lead authors on the study and an assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester.
> "We think of autism as a social disorder because children with this condition often struggle with social interactions, but what we sometimes neglect is that almost everything we know about the world comes from our senses. Abnormalities in how a person sees or hears can have a profound effect on social communication."
> Although previous studies have found that people with autism possess enhanced visual abilities with static images, this is the first research to discover a heightened perception of motion, the authors write. The findings were reported in theJournal of Neuroscienceon May 8 by Tadin, co-lead author Jennifer Foss-Feig, a postdoctoral fellow at the Child Study Center at Yale University, and colleagues at Vanderbilt University.

autism

Excellent argument, but what are your sources?

You're just embarrassing yourself.

www.strawpoll.me/17785007

eric, just because sony can't afford a better graphics card doesn't mean we're autistic

you motherfucker

optimized for what. 1440p or 144hz?

WHERE

Framerate.
Resolution is nice of course, and 60fps is a perfectly good baseline, but higher framerates have positive affects on the feel of a game, while higher resolutions improve a game's visual fidelity only minimally because graphics are more about polygon count, texture size and shader effects. Besides, while your refresh rate is HARD limited by your chosen monitor, you can still "improve" your maximum resolution with anti-aliasing or supersampling.

I honestly don't know how you guys deal with games at that resolution. ultrawide barely has any support and it seems more frustrating than running on my 16:10 monitor.

Don't give a fuck port it to switch or I'm not playing it

i have 4k 60hz with no variable refresh rate on monitor 1 and 1440p 155 hz freesync on monitor 2.
honestly freesync/gsync is more valuable than a high refresh rate. I could go back to 60hz but i'll fucking kill myself before I go back to a monitor that has screen tearing and stuttering.

Technology goes forward. Who would have thought?

>higher resolutions improve a game's visual fidelity only minimally
>graphics are more about polygon count, texture size
If you weren't a dumbass you would realize that higher screen resolution brings out all of those details. One of the reason why PS2 games look so much better emulated.

I'm thinking of getting a 2060, how much fps can i expect for modern games in 1080p or 1440p? Is 120 reasonable or should i expect less?

Depends on game. For new AAA the rule of thumb is you always need high tier GPUs.

Yeah but is the 2060 "high tier" enough in your opinion?
It seems like pretty much just a better version of the 1070.

You get high fps in Resident Evil 2 but not in AssCreed or something.

1440/144, nerd. Consistent 4k/144 is a few years off, even though therer are monitors for it now.

2060 is mid-high tier
don't expect amazing results in 1440p without dropping some of the more graphic intensive

This

Attached: 1547052158040.png (740x740, 166K)

144hz always. In any competitive game i've played i've notice an improvement when i've switched between 60hz and 144hz. 4k looks nice but it's not worth playing at 60hz

So I just want to play any game that comes out this year and next at only 1080 at 60fp with all settings at max.

What video card and processor do I need?

1080

gpu- 1070 or 2060
cpu - i5 8400 or amd 2600
there's a pc builder thread on /g/ where they can give you better info

you're blind if you think the difference between 1080p and 2160p is small. That's like saying the difference between 60fps and 144fps is small

i have 1440 165hz. the perfect balance

900p 45 fps master race

Attached: tenor.png (400x388, 137K)

based console sekiro bro

MLEDs are on the market? I thought they were still a few years away

People who put resolution over framerate are retarded normies.

1440 120hz.

720p 30fps

The correct answer is: Depends on the monitor. If we're talking an 85" TV, that's completely different from a 27" monitor. Generally speaking, I prefer 1440p @ 60hz with maxed settings. I only use 144mhz on the desktop because I like the smoother mouse motion. Keeping games locked at 60fps makes the computer work less hard and prolongs the lifespan of components. The difference between 60 and 144 isn't even noticable after 2 or 3 minutes of playing, once the novelty wears off.

>honda civic
I'd take an '88 Civic Hatchback over a porche any day. Talk about fuel efficiency, reliability, and low maintenance. Niggas don't even know.

>Right now 4K gaming is unviable

-Every bitter person with an ant sized 1080p monitor

more

Attached: 1554932177061.jpg (1056x1328, 162K)