I see so many people buying high end 1440p/4K monitors and then mentioning that the settings they're playing on are medium-high. Is this really favorable to playing on ultra settings on a 1080p panel? What's the point of playing on a high res screen with low res textures?
Posted Dec 13, 2015, 10:51 PM UTC
Mind you, "settings" is a pretty general phrase that means more than just textures. For instance, it also means and involves anti-aliasing, which tends to become less important on higher resolutions. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all, some people want details-purty and are texture junkies, some are more about things like lighting, and then how they weigh and prioritise all the options against one another is ultimately up to them. So is it favourable? To some more than others, sure.
IMO, with so many anti-aliasing options, and artifacts from aliasing looking as bad as ever on normal sized monitors, get whatever you need/want to get for your [b]non-gaming uses[/b], and then go from there. A 24-30" 4K monitor, with a 200% DPI setting, will have great looking text, FI.
What's the point of playing on a high res screen with low res textures?
4GB VRAM is normal, and 6-8GB readily available. If you're stuck with low-res textures, that's the game maker's fault, and not much to do with your monitor. Bigger textures don't need that much more GPU power or bandwidth, relative to what most cards have these days. But, outside of games where you have a distant 3rd person view, or a cockpit type view, textures will never all look super sharp anyway.
[deleted]
I prefer 4k and lower settings. The sharpness pleases me more then eye candy.
Honestly, it really depends on the game, and your personal preference. For some games, I find it looks better if I increase the resolution then to turn up the settings. But others, the graphics settings make more of a difference.