Question What is the draw to 4k ?

[bill001g]

Does that opinion still hold up when upscaling via DLSS/FSR

This is one of those things that you need to watch some youtube video where someone points out detail in screen captures. Once you learn to see the artifacts generated by the fake frames you will never be able to unsee them in the future. If nobody shows you want to look for you will be fat dumb and happy.

Any kind of frame gen makes the image look softer/blurry but then you have the artificial sharpening what also stand out.

This gets even more messy because game settings make a large difference. The game itself is doing similar tricks.

 

[RTX 2080]

Does that opinion still hold up when upscaling via DLSS/FSR

I only have experience with DLSS, so I can only speak about DLSS.

I would say that in the days of DLSS 2.0, the pixel density argument didn’t hold up so well when upscaling 1080p to 4K via DLSS performance mode, as there was some obvious ghosting artifacts and fine detail like distant power lines were obviously aliased, negating most of the benefit of using a 4K monitor in the first place. But with DLSS 3.0 and up though, I feel like the ghosting is completely gone, and even DLSS performance mode can return a good looking image for 4K, although I still use quality mode for maximum image stability.

I prefer DLSS quality mode to Native Resolution + TAA all day long. That’s how good DLSS has gotten. The downside is that of course you need a powerful GPU to run many modern games at 4K even with DLSS Quality mode.

 

[RTX 2080]

What if you down-sample from 4K to 1440p on a 2K monitor?

No experience downsampling, but it conceptually seems silly to me to use the GPU horsepower to render a 4K image all to display only a 1440p image. That’s basically the opposite of what makes DLSS Quality mode so compelling. Instead of getting a 4K image for the rendering power of 1440p, you’re getting a 1440p image for the rendering power of 4K. Just my opinion.

I mean, if you’re going to render that 4K image anyway, why downsample it to 1440p? Just use a 4K monitor straight up.

 

[thestryker]

I prefer DLSS quality mode to Native Resolution + TAA all day long.

TAA is awful and muddies images so that's not particularly surprising. Native + DLAA or FSR without upscaling are generally the best image quality unless the game isn't applying any AA which sadly is becoming more and more rare.

 

[MenaceUK]

No experience downsampling, but it conceptually seems silly to me to use the GPU horsepower to render a 4K image all to display only a 1440p image. That’s basically the opposite of what makes DLSS Quality mode so compelling. Instead of getting a 4K image for the rendering power of 1440p, you’re getting a 1440p image for the rendering power of 4K. Just my opinion.

I mean, if you’re going to render that 4K image anyway, why downsample it to 1440p? Just use a 4K monitor straight up.

Why downsample? Because it improves picture quality. Unlike DLSS which degrades picture quality.

I down-sampled all the time back in the day. It was less resource intensive than actually playing at the nigher res. You get more detail, Better contrast, Free Anti Aliasing, Sharper image.

 

[BFG-9000]

it conceptually seems silly to me to use the GPU horsepower to render a 4K image all to display only a 1440p image

Think of it as supersampling. Most game engines today do not work with traditional supersampling as they use deferred rendering, but nVidia DSR/AMD VSR are like post-filters so can apply supersampling to any game, no game support required. Of course it's only ordered-grid supersampling so the image quality benefits are limited compared to RGSS (which was used by 3DFX... who nVidia bought) but it is still a way to improve image quality if you have a much better GPU than monitor.

DLDSR is supposed to use AI to improve DSR but appears to primarily improve performance over what is now called legacy DSR. The AI determines what parts of the image need more detail and what parts can be processed more sloppily, so a lower factor can be used which reduces the performance hit.

 

[axlrose]

May I muddy the waters further? Is it worth me looking at a 16:9 monitor and a curved monitor in person?

 

[USAFRet]

Is it worth me looking at a 16:9 monitor and a curved monitor in person?

For an HID (Human Interface Device)...if you can look at it in person, do that.

Any suggestions from 'out here' are useless.

 

[thestryker]

May I muddy the waters further? Is it worth me looking at a 16:9 monitor and a curved monitor in person?

16:9 is an aspect ratio and curved is just... curved. Do you mean curved as in ultrawide or curved as in a 16:9 screen that is curved?

If you're talking a 16:9 curved display at 27" I'd never suggest a curved screen to anyone period.

If you're talking ultrawide then a lot more comes into play. Seating position and what else you do with the system are the big ones. You're also not generally going to find anything worthwhile that isn't curved in the ultrawide space.

If seeing in person is an option that's always going to be the best way to make a decision when it comes to things like curvature. Depending on where you'd be viewing them this may or may not be worthwhile from an image quality standpoint as well (stores for example often emphasize what looks good in store).

 

[axlrose]

16:9 is an aspect ratio and curved is just... curved. Do you mean curved as in ultrawide or curved as in a 16:9 screen that is curved?

If you're talking a 16:9 curved display at 27" I'd never suggest a curved screen to anyone period.

If you're talking ultrawide then a lot more comes into play. Seating position and what else you do with the system are the big ones. You're also not generally going to find anything worthwhile that isn't curved in the ultrawide space.

If seeing in person is an option that's always going to be the best way to make a decision when it comes to things like curvature. Depending on where you'd be viewing them this may or may not be worthwhile from an image quality standpoint as well (stores for example often emphasize what looks good in store).

I currently use a flat 2k 27". I've never seen a curved monitor or an ultra wide. Sorry not 16:9.

 

[MenaceUK]

I currently use a flat 2k 27". I've never seen a curved monitor or an ultra wide. Sorry not 16:9.

Depends what you play.

Ultra wide, imo, are best for your story driven games. I never liked it for competitive online games. Could just be a me thing.