HD vs Full HD vs 4K. FPS vs Res. What are the benefits?

[Amadren]

The title is pretty self explanatory. What are the differences between a game at:

60fps -> 1366x768
60fps -> 1920x1080
30fps -> 1366x768
30fps -> 1920x1080

I always privilegiate fps vs res because I really see no big differences between games at different res. And you, what's your opinion? And also, is 4k really usefull?

 

[VinsCool]

Since I'm not a graphic whore, and my PC runs games rather poorly, I always go for performances over resolution.

 

[sarkwalvein]

There was a thread very similar to this one not so long ago.
The difference is normally very easy to see, unless you have a bad display.
4K resolution would look better, your eyes should be able to notice the difference if your display is good and big enough.
That said for most types of games fps/performance is way more important than resolution in order to get a good gameplay experience.

 

[RevPokemon]

I mainly care more about the FPS regardless of the res. Generally I can't tell the difference that well when its 720P (provided the graphics look good) to 4k unless I look up close but of course it depends what I'm playing/watching and since I play games like 8+ feet away from my TV affects my opinion of course

 

[Amadren]

Honestly I don't see so much differences between HD and Full HD (never tried 4K) anyway I'm "hypermethrope" (sorry, don't know this word in english) and see too much details. So I can easily see differences between 30 and 60 fps (60 fps looks smoother when for me there's no differences between 1 and 30 fps xD)

 

[Hungry Friend]

720p(and lower if it's an older game or has good AA) is fine and much less time and money should be spent on making games pretty because it's FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Good art direction is where it's at as long as the graphics are good enough(which is subjective) I couldn't care less about resolution and such as long as a game performs well. 60+fps is preferable of course in all cases but 30 is often sufficient, for example MGS3 Subsistence(PS2, HD version is 60) plays just fine despite having fairy frequent hiccups. It's steady enough for the game to retain fairly precise controls and as long as it's fun to play, the superficial stuff is inconsequential. Games seen soul, not flash.

Raw horsepower is overrated anyway; look at games like Mario 3, World, Yoshi's Island, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger and Cross and Shadow of the Colossus among many others on older systems that STILL look great. Good art direction makes raw horsepower nearly irrelevant.

 

[GamerzHell9137]

<FPS = Smoother gameplay
<Resolution = Crispier picture

If the game has fast gameplay then i prefer 60 FPS, it its a slow gameplay game then i prefer higher resolution.

 

[JazzCat.CL]

I really like more the resolution sometimes, because you can "look" better at things at a game.
Obviously, graphics are a good thing in terms of having detailed items, lighting and shadows.

 

[DinohScene]

Performance, day in day out.
Fuck resolution, fuck graphics.
Game has to run good, that's all I care about.

 

[mightymuffy]

4k for the most part is a great white elephant: only if you're rich will you benefit from a 4k TV as the screen would have to be at least 66" if viewing from the usual distance....
Even on a monitor with yer face right up against it 1440p is often considered a sweet spot, with the difference between that and 4k being rather minimal.

I have a 46" TV (yeah it's a few years old now) and have a PS4, XO and a PC on it.... Tried Witcher 3 on both PS4 and XO, sitting about 7-8 feet away. PS4 = 1080p, XO = 900p - no difference when playing. Tried Battlefield 4 on them both however: 900p on PS4, 720p on XO, same distance away - difference (not HUGE, but apparent)
My point? I forgot that halfway through typing . But in the case of Witcher 3, XO had the better framerate, so was in my opinion, from my viewing distance, the better version....

 

[FAST6191]

I wonder if one day we will get proper motion blur in games and can end this 60fps farce.

4k in games and moving pictures... yeah I can leave it. 4k when working in CAD, spreadsheets, video editing and such like. I want more. To that end if the public at large wants to help drive the price down a bit then I am OK with that.

 

[Taleweaver]

It sort of depends on the game as well. A higher resolution means it'll show more on the screen, and on games like RTS'es that isn't a minor difference. Obviously, if it's a turn based RTS, resolution becomes even more important than the FPS.

On an First Person Shooter, frames per second is really all that's important. Or in short: the FPS is all that matters in an FPS.


My monitor's a native 1080p, but I really can't tell the difference with this and 720 unless I do a side-by-side comparison and really look for it (I'm not one to play the highest of the highest games...if I do, the resolution is the first thing that goes down in an FPS or TPS). As such, I won't be upgrading to 4k soon (I game on a monitor...not 5 meters away from it).

 

[Chary]

FPS is the most important thing, for sure. Sure, resolution is nice, but what's the point of a pretty looking game, if it plays choppy?

 

[Kioku]

60FPS. I used to not care.. Until I built a high end machine. I was spoiled. I've also found that going on a lower res is noticeable. Especially if it's not the native resolution of your monitor/TV. I haven't experienced 4K yet, nor 1440P. So, I can't say much there.

 

[HaloEffect17]

I agree. The game has to be playable. And if the FPS is hindering the experience of the game, that's a problem.

 

[Catastrophic]

1920x1680 at 60fps is currently the most kickass setup for what it's worth as common displays uses that resolution. 30fps is decent but isn't desirable for fast paced, reaction based games. 4K doesn't have enough support and requires far too expensive hardware for there to be a reason to invest in it for gaming.

 

[G0R3Z]

It's not about how useful they are.

If a game is terrible, it doesn't matter what resolution it's on or how fast it plays. I'd rather play a game at a lower resolution (or settings) as long as it runs smoothly. The games experience is more important than graphics. Graphics whores are not real gamers, simple as. If you can't appreciate the game without it being photo realistic, then you have no business playing it.

As a PC gamer, playing at the native resolution is the most important. I have a 1080p monitor, overclocked to run at 75hz. I'd rather set some settings lower to run it at that resolution, with 60fps or more. When that's fine, then turning up the options is next. As someone with a pretty good machine - I use what's called super sampling in order to run some games at 2560 x 1440 on my monitor. It renders the whole resolution on my 1080p screen, making the game look very crisp.

The experience is the most important. Resolution should be at your display's native, and 60fps is pretty awesome for gaming. You really notice the jump to fps if you've come from a 30fps console. My friends are flabbergasted when they see the difference.

 

[Amadren]

Ok. So is a 3x monitor solution a good alternative? I mean it -should- be smoother and there should be more details than a Full Hd screen. For exemple, if I want to update my gaming rig, should i go with 4k at 60 fps or 3x 1080p at 60fps?

 

[Selim873]

This is a PC focused reply:
I'm honestly not sure in my opinion, as I love a high framerate and resolution. I haven't really found my sweet spot yet. I currently have two 1080p 144hz monitors in my setup, but I kind of want to sell them in exchange for a single 1440p 144hz display. The one I want (The cheapest, actually) also has support for FreeSync. I don't like my SLI setup for temperature reasons, plus my GTX 760's won't support full DX12 and I'd like to have that option if a developer decides to use it, and the R9 Nano (Or maybe the Fury X) looks really nice.

All in all, I think my main focus is actually framerate, since I use 144hz displays that can output at 144fps maximum rather than the standard 60. If you're looking for frame rate, I would definitely get a 144hz display and use DisplayPort no matter what, since most games go way above 60 if your hardware's good enough, and that itself is easy to nail on newer cheap hardware since developers are now trying to focus on 4k so 1080p or 720p will perform SO much better than it used to, but it's a little tough to hit 144, so you'll almost never have to use VSync.

 

[G0R3Z]

Ok. So is a 3x monitor solution a good alternative? I mean it -should- be smoother and there should be more details than a Full Hd screen. For exemple, if I want to update my gaming rig, should i go with 4k at 60 fps or 3x 1080p at 60fps?

It isn't about what looks better, it's about the experience. For example, are you going to be playing many games that is going to take advantage of those three screens? It's down to your own preferences and how you prefer gaming. Do you prefer a Higher resolution then 4k. If you prefer a higher field of view then multi-monitor. Technically three 1080p screens would be slightly easier to run.

I myself would opt for the three monitors as I've always wanted to play games like Skyrim and Fallout across those extra screens. If you play driving games or simulators like Elite Dangerous, they're apparently amazing experiences in multi-screen.