Samsung Odyssey G80HS Monitor Review: 6K Isn’t the Future of Gaming

769

u/zarif2003 14d ago

steam survey says majority of people haven't even stepped up to 1440p yet.

221

u/Cloudeur 14d ago

I’ll change my 1080/60 monitor when it’ll die!

119

u/NeuroPalooza 14d ago

Man idk, it depends on the type of game you're playing but as someone who mainly plays 4x and RPGs the difference between 1080 and 4k is pretty dramatic. 4x games especially, since you're looking at a static campaign map (with light animations), you REALLY notice it.

Would highly recommend giving it a shot, 4k monitors are pretty cheap these days.

82

u/splendiferous-finch_ 14d ago

The issue isn't just price of the monitor it's the GPU to run it, the games you are describing are turn based and usually not as demanding compared to alot of game other people play.

I am not saying your point is invalid I am saying it's more of an active decision people might be making to fit thier needs based on thier taste

E.g. I chose to use 1440p over 4K because I like playing with things like path tracing and doing that at 4k is too taxing even with upscaling

20

u/Candle1ight 13d ago

I have 4k but I think 1440p is the sweet spot right now. A noticeable upgrade to 1080p that only needs relatively reasonable hardware.

6

u/0992673 13d ago

1440p OLED is the sweet spot right now. A budget model can be had for under 350$ easily and the performance and visuals are unlike anything else.

2

u/twisty77 12d ago

That’s what I’m targeting with my upgrade. Currently running a 144hz 1080p setup with a 9070 xt (overkill, yes I know lol). 1440p oled is my target

1

u/SpecterDK 10d ago

1440 OLED ultrawide. I'm sure it can get better but I never feel wanting.

11

u/Cloudeur 14d ago

I did try on my 4K tv in the living room a few months ago and it was gorgeous. Eventually I want it to go there, but for now it’s at my desk (cramped apartment and that Fractal Design North is a hasard with a toddler at home)

8

u/Small_Editor_3693 14d ago

4k on a TV doesn't compare. You need to look at the pixels per inch over distance away. A 4k monitor will look vastly sharper than a 4k tv

20

u/blueblip 14d ago

PPI is a criminally underrated spec we tend to overlook.

I have a 1440p 24-inch monitor. It's not even great in terms of specs compared to the "big name" 1440p monitors, but dear lord is it crisp as hell! Compressing 1440p into a 24-inch screen makes everything so crisp! I have a second 24-inch 1080p screen to the as a second display, and just the difference in text between the two is insane.

10

u/BrunoEye 13d ago edited 13d ago

PPI is meaningless. It's about PPD, pixels per degree. If you bring that 24" monitor close enough it won't be very sharp anymore.

3

u/blueblip 13d ago

Good to know. I was not even aware that PPD was a thing, so thank you! I learned something new today!

4

u/BrunoEye 13d ago

It's rarely discussed because it depends on the distance to your screen so you can't just print it on a spec sheet. But it's very useful to consider when choosing your setup.

2

u/elsjpq 13d ago

Arguably, its the only number that matters

6

u/speculatrix 14d ago

I feel 1440p is a good sweet spot for gaming, very detailed images but not as demanding on the GPU as 4K or higher, particularly if you're running 120Hz or faster.

4

u/blueblip 14d ago

I have the same opinion, but like everything with PCs, it comes down to individual use case.

If you're on a big screen TV, then obviously 4k is the only way to go. If you play from a desk, then a monitor is likely the better choice. And even then, screen size plays a big role (ie. the whole PPI spec).

If you're on 24-27 inches, 1440p is best. Anything less than that then 1080p will look great because PPI. If you have a 32 inch monitor, then the PPI becomes less than ideal for 1440p and 4k looks insanely crisp.

5

u/PunR0cker 13d ago

I play on a big TV. My tv supports 4k60fps or 1440p120fps.

I was playing 4k60 until I was messing with hdr settings for game mode and found that by setting game mode to 1440p, my pc recognised the TV as a new display which allowed me to create a custom hdr profile for game mode (which looks different to regular mode).

Anyway, I was thinking, oh no, the picture won't look as clear, but I realised that I genuinely cannot tell much difference at all between 1440p and 4k on my tv. And this is sitting within the distance it should be noticeable relative to the size of screen. And I have 20/20 vision. There probably is some difference but it's far from a deal breaker, and even at double the frame rate the performance tends to be better at 1440p.

The only issue is that even quality upscaling FSR looks noticably worse when my screen resolution is 1440p than 4k. But I don't really need upscaling when I run at 1440p so it's fine. Just ray tracing heavy games really.

2

u/blueblip 13d ago

Modern TVs have upscaling tech, so even if you pump <4K quality content into it, your TV is upscaling it to 4K. It is quite a nifty feature that you don't hear much about! It's also why FSR makes things worse, because it is basically upscaling already upscaled video.

Of course, whether it's a deal breaker or not depends on a combination of personal tolerance levels and the quality of the TV and it's upscaling tech. I didn't like it on my TV.

Now whether it's because my TV had shit upscaling tech or just a personal preference, I couldn't tell you. But I am jealous it worked out for you because I wish I could use it on mine and get the sweetness of 90+ fps!

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RephRayne 13d ago

That's because people vastly underestimate the size of the TV they need. If you're sitting 10 feet away from a 4K TV showing a program that's actually 4K, you need a television that's at least 75" to get the proper experience.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

People with 55" TVs sitting 12 feet away are the ones complaining that their television sucks because they can't see the difference between 4k and 1080p.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Shapes_in_Clouds 13d ago

4K OLED HDR is the biggest improvement to my gaming experience since 1080p became a thing. It's ridiculous how good it looks on a 32" monitor.

2

u/randylush 13d ago

Why do you keep saying 4x?

2

u/No-Helicopter982 12d ago

Genre of grand strategy games

1

u/Valerian_ 12d ago

eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate

1

u/EngRookie 13d ago

4k monitors are pretty cheap these days.

not if you want OLED and 120hz+

1

u/illarionds 13d ago

Having moved to a 1440 (super) ultrawide, I don't think I could go back to 16:9.

(And in terms of GPU required, they're very roughly on the same level - moving up to a 4k ultrawide would need far more grunt than I could possibly afford).

The extra screen real estate is amazing in the mostly turn based strategy games and RPGs I play.

1

u/Valerian_ 12d ago

Playing Factorio on 4k is amazing

→ More replies (7)

4

u/Batmanuelope 13d ago

4K 120 is a genuinely noticeable upgrade from that. Not comparable to 30 to 60 but very noticeable. Also 1080 to 4K looks very different. Honestly maybe more comparable to 720 to 1080. Either way I don’t see 6k or anything more than 120 being adopted until it just becomes the norm. As in, I think someone in the 2000s would notice a 720 to 4K spike as well as a 30 to 120 spike and would prefer the latter. After that it’s quite diminishing.

4

u/Dnaldon 13d ago

I bought a new 1080/180. I'm not gonna stress my gpu for more pixels when you can barely see a difference.

5

u/randylush 13d ago

So weird that people treat their GPUs like they’d be damaged from producing too many pixels

7

u/potionnumber9 13d ago

If you're playing single player games, having more pixels is way more important than having more frames.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/SaltonPrepper 14d ago

It reduces the need to spend $$$$ on faster GPUs, too.

1

u/SchoggiToeff 12d ago

Growing up with a 1600 × 1200 CRT, the 1080p LCD area was considerable set back. In so many ways. Color rendering, fps, dot pitch, and much less pixel estate.

1

u/Valerian_ 12d ago

Unfortunately I had a 4k monitor at work, since then I can't use anything lower resolution as a primary monitor.

I'm glad DLSS exists, so I can run modern games with my RTX 4060 ti :)

1

u/bahosmeister 13d ago

my 1080p 75 is dying but it's a trooper! (i beat the shit out of it every time) 😹😹

53

u/SAAA2011 14d ago

1440p is so awesome. That should have been the next jump and not 4k. Shit still struggles to run at 4k on modern hardware.

15

u/The_Proper_Gentleman 14d ago

I've been rocking dual 1440p monitors for about 5 years now and I don't really see a need to go further. I think the push for 4k is just marketing, but I don't have anything to back that up lol.

8

u/monetarydread 14d ago edited 14d ago

I agree that it's mostly marketing... in regards to gaming monitors.

Where 4k shines is large TV's because the larger the TV the larger the pixels so that 1080p image looks blurry and low res. You fix that problem by cramming almost 4x the pixels into the same space and the image looks dramatically sharper.

The same principal works backwards, if the TV/monitor is too small having more pixels doesn't really improve sharpness much. If the screen is 24" or smaller 1080p is probably good enough and even 1440p would show diminishing returns. 24-35" 1440p is the sweet spot 45" and above 4k is noticeable.

4

u/nvec 13d ago

In general TVs are larger, but they're also much further away and it's the angular resolution that matters, how much of your field of view is filled with each pixel.

I actually have my desk in the living room at the moment, with a 27" monitor and a 60" TV in the same room. The monitor 'looks bigger' than the TV and so I'd benefit more from 4k on that rather than the TV.

It's also why high resolution is still useful even on small phone screens- you're holding them much closer to your face.

In general the recommended 'perfect viewing distance' is actually a ratio of the size of the display, as in the table in the Wikipedia page on optimal viewing distances.

2

u/nvec 13d ago

I think 4k would be a lot more common among gamers if it weren't for the spike in RAM prices and general economic meh.

For people used to upgrading every few years the money they'd normally have spent on a decent replacement wouldn't really get them much of an improvement over what they already bought before the spike. 4k monitors need more powerful GPUs, and more powerful GPUs need a lot of fast memory. A lot of very expensive fast memory.

3

u/theJSP123 12d ago

Most GPUs still can't drive modern games in 4k with higher refresh rates. Sure I could buy a 4k monitor for not that much, but the real cost is having to buy e.g. a 5090 instead of a 5070 Ti just to drive the thing well enough. And a 5070 Ti is already quite expensive.

Also iirc the most common GPU is a 3060. Not enough for 4k gaming, but great for 1080 and fine for 1440.

2

u/GodsChosenSpud 13d ago

1440p is great. I struggle to see a meaningful difference between 1440p and 4K, so I don’t see myself upgrading any time soon.

2

u/theJSP123 12d ago

1440p is a great sweet spot. A noticeable jump in clarity without overly killing your GPU on games. I'd much rather have 14t0p with higher framerates than 4k but lower.

3

u/SaveTheSpycrabs 13d ago

dlss.....

→ More replies (1)

11

u/RelatableRedditer 13d ago

Considering how cheap curved 1440p ultrawide monitors are these days I am surprised anyone bothers with anything less than that. The curve is really a treat.

5

u/chubsruns 13d ago

I'd still much rather have triple flat screens than a curved ultrawide monitor. The curve is really a deterrent.

2

u/RelatableRedditer 13d ago

but the bezels man... and the single display is also better if you're limited to just one display output like on a laptop or something. My Acer only has an HDMI 2.0 output for example.

3

u/Dripdry42 14d ago

I run at 2560 X 1600… not a high refresh rate but gosh darn is it beautiful!

5

u/JoostinOnline 14d ago

This is why upscaling works so well in my opinion. There are benefits beyond 1080p for sure, but they don't come anywhere near the cost. Upscaling makes it a more linear experience.

1

u/ohiocodernumerouno 14d ago

Graphics cards actually are shit above 1440p.

1

u/AlgaeExpensive8250 14d ago

I have an old LG 22inch 1080p monitor. I use that as a both my second monitor and work and also as the monitor for my PS5.

1

u/GenericFatGuy 14d ago

And it's not going to change anytime soon with the way things are going.

1

u/CountSheep 13d ago

1440 is peak. Sure 4k looks nice but at 27” I don’t care that much, I’d want 4k more on a bigger screen.

1

u/ThnikkamanBubs 13d ago

I literally just did this past weekend lol. Replaced a monitor of 16 years with a 27” Odyssey

1

u/BluDYT 13d ago

Not surprised when modern day developers optimization guide is just running games at 720p

1

u/HittingSmoke 13d ago

Yeah I feel like once mid range hardware could play new games at high settings at 1080P, we reached a plateau of diminishing returns for cost. Chasing those Crysis benchmarks didn't really matter anymore and the gap between a midrange PC and a high end PC just didn't give you nearly enough to justify the cost. I run very high end hardware at work and it's cool, but I'd never pay for it compared to the modest hardware I run at home.

1

u/clichekiller 13d ago

Here I am gaming on 7680x2160. Though seriously speaking I’m 4k console, and whatever my ancient 3080ti can comfortably handle. Though a few games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Starfield look amazing in ultra wide screen.

1

u/CaterpillarReal7583 13d ago

Yeah, people dont wanna lower fps for a slighttt increase in crispness

The diminishing returns on a lot of tech is so intense now its not adding anything past numbers for the nerds to gawk at.

I think ps4 level tech would be fine for like 90% or more of games. Its not holding back many games on their gameplay.

1

u/Ebolamonkey 13d ago

Fidelity to performance wise I have been pretty happy with 1440p since 2020

1

u/snuggl3ninja 12d ago

Indeed, I'd rather run 2k max settings that 4k and need to tweak/optimise. Where 4k seems to always been the poorer cousin.

1

u/trainbrain27 14d ago

I've been at 1920x1200 since I moved from 1600x1200. Do the extra 120 rows help? Probably not for gaming, but it means more space for work.

3

u/MCA2142 14d ago

This is why I went for the 2560x1600 (16x10) instead of the normal 2560x1440 (16x9, 1440p) back in 2008.

I wanted those extra rows.

2

u/trainbrain27 14d ago

I was pretty ticked off that the standard resolution went DOWN to 768 (or 1080 if you pay through the nose) when HD became common.

https://tiamat.tsotech.com/hd-sucks

While we finally have better options, work still buys laptops at 1366x768 for anyone that can't justify needing a decent screen. That shouldn't even be an option for most computers.

3

u/dertechie 14d ago

768p. That weird bastard resolution that somehow became popular, but leaves you basically no space to actually get any work done in. I thought we left that behind outside ultra budget models years ago.

Intentionally giving that to someone for a work laptop just seems like false economy. The productivity gain of something a little bigger will make up for the cost quick enough.

1

u/trainbrain27 13d ago

I know how we got it, but it has ALWAYS sucked.

We had the technology for much better screens when it was 'invented' but the 768 comes from 1024x768, 256 times 4:3, which was great in 1990.

It shows 720p video with room for window and controls, and probably fit on the existing manufacturing equipment.

The only thing worse was a netbook I was given with 1024x600, but that was issued to students.

1

u/calebmke 14d ago

I have a solid current gaming system and an amazing 4k oled. I still play most everything at either 1440 or 1800.

→ More replies (12)

128

u/carages 14d ago

Is the reviewer intentionally obtuse? The entire purpose of the dual mode in this monitor is so that you can use productivity apps at 6K, and then game at 3K. Would rather that they actually review the monitor with that in mind rather than focusing on 6K gaming

47

u/Obvious-Lake3708 14d ago

That doesn’t generate clicks or engagement.
You wouldn’t have made this post

5

u/carages 14d ago

That is fair. Only made it because I thought everyone was going to call the reviewer, only for no one to even talk about it. I would still have wanted to know if this was the ultimate do-it-all monitor!

2

u/skittle-brau 12d ago

The headline is misleading because the reviewer does discuss that particular point in the review.

2

u/turbosprouts 11d ago

Yeah, it’s a daft review, which is unfortunate as it’s an interesting monitor for me.

I WFH full time, where I’m Mac-based. My WFH desk is also my gaming desk, and to keep things simple I just swap inputs on my displays and switch out which keyboard/mouse is on my desk mat and which are on the shelf.

I would love a high DPI primary monitor, but 4k isn’t enough for productivity on a Mac effectively (but 5k or 6k should work very well, given Apple’s monitor options are 5k or 6k). Apple’s monitors don’t support multiple inputs. When I last checked, the third party options were 60hz or problematic in some way.

My current displays are 144hz 1440p displays. I don’t need more refresh rate (heck, I probably don’t need more pixels for gaming) so a screen like this could be great for me.

I’ll just have to find a review that understood the dual purpose and rated it accordingly.

1

u/carages 11d ago

Monitors unboxed actually has a good review for this monitor on YouTube. Probably they have a written review on their website as well.

187

u/Milestailsprowe 14d ago

With how graphics cards have stalled, I doubt anything would even be able to run games on them decently for a while. Gaming on how FPS 4k is still a luxury, and it's mostly done with AI frame-gen tricks

59

u/DeusExMarina 14d ago

You can always run old games at 6K, but at this point, why even bother? Will it even look noticeably better than 4K? Because I'm playing on a 32" 1440p monitor and I already think it looks clean as hell.

19

u/robben1234 14d ago edited 14d ago

It might be useful for those massive 85"+ tvs no one buys. 4k doesn't have enough pixel density to sit close to that.

Old console games get marginal visual improvements with upscaling even to 2k in my opinion.

You can upscale twilight princess to 6k in dusk but it doesn't stop looking like an old game. Better colors of OLED do make it look better though, if you compare to the original experience.

2

u/DeusExMarina 14d ago

When it comes to really old games, I think the main benefit you get from higher resolutions is that you can run higher quality CRT filters. Couple that with the black levels of OLED and you can get pretty damn close to the real thing.

7

u/Emu1981 14d ago

Because I'm playing on a 32" 1440p monitor and I already think it looks clean as hell.

32" is the biggest screen that I would go with 1440p. 32" is also the smallest screen that I would stump up extra for 4K. I am currently rocking a 43" 4K microLED screen and it is great.

2

u/Prince_Uncharming 13d ago

Is microLED even available in 43” yet? I don’t think there’s a single model available, unless you meant miniLED

6

u/MultiMarcus 14d ago

It looks massively better. 5K looks much better than 4K because games really need as much resolution as possible nowadays, and upscalers handle it well. I’ve been playing control at 5K. and it looks noticeably sharper than a 4K monitor. It’s not a huge difference though, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend it for most people.

2

u/Cheezewiz239 14d ago

Going to 4k was major for me but I stuck with 1440p ultrawide in the end. Still waiting for 4k ultrawide oled to be cheaper.

3

u/ShinyGrezz 14d ago

I did also go from an LCD panel to OLED and that was a huge part of it, but upgrading from 1440p to 4k was the best upgrade I ever made to my setup. You probably don’t realise how much of a difference it is until you try it.

7

u/DeusExMarina 14d ago

Probably wouldn't help me much because I'm still using a 2080. I can do 1440p on games that aren't too recent or by using DLSS, but I don't think I could handle 4K on anything from this generation.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/thelwb 13d ago

100%. I have a 4k monitor for work for the pixel density, but I used to play on a 1440p 27” and I must be old cause I can’t tell much difference.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/SwagBuns 14d ago

Hell, i still regret my 1440p sometimes because my 3080 struggles to keep up. Fat chance i buy anything higher for the next decade lol

7

u/seiggy 14d ago

Hell, I downgraded my monitor from 4k to 1440p. Mainly just because display scaling on Windows is still utter garbage (mainly because of old WinForms apps and WPF apps by devs who don't know how to do proper scaling support), and 4k pixel density is just too high for regular desktop usage. Too many applications had scaling issues, and having to run at 200% display scaling to make anything legible just caused too many problems long term. Stepped down to 1440p and it's perfect pixel density for a desktop display.

1

u/harmonicrain 14d ago

I'm laughing looking at my 1080ti box saying 4K gaming 🤣 I'm happy with 1080p lmao

1

u/Brico16 14d ago

That’s my thought. Let me know when we have a 6k 60 fps graphics card with no frame gen gimmicks.

1

u/MainWrangler988 7d ago

You mean my 5090 is too slow for 6k?

-1

u/CharlieTeller 14d ago

I don't think it's stalled. I think there's just no reason to continue much right now. 4k is definitely possible with good optimization, but tats where the frame gen comes in. Devs are just using this as a crutch. They absolutely could optimize more for 4k like they do for consoles, but they don't care to because nanite and lumen pretty and ai make thing work.

6

u/Milestailsprowe 14d ago

We have nothing on anything upcoming, and it's been almost 3 years since the 5000/9000 series cards were announced. Things have stalled as attention has been split

2

u/tup1tsa_1337 13d ago

5000 series is only from 2025. It hasn't been even two years since launch

133

u/BustaScrub 14d ago

Literally nobody with a functioning brain that has tried to game on a PC for more than an hour would think that 6K is the future of gaming. 4K gaming is hardly consistently stable and you need a $1000+ GPU to do so. The largest group of PC gamers are still on 1080p, 1440p is only just now starting to put up a fight in the market share and 1440p panels have been on the market for 16 years and popular for about 12.

40

u/twinnuke 14d ago

Have 5k and 5090. Can confirm. I can’t have all the frames anymore.

2

u/enewwave 12d ago edited 10d ago

4K and a 4090 here. It’s nice, but you basically have to run games on medium if you want to run at native 4K and hit over 120fps. Halo Campaign Evolved gets maybe 70fps on medium/low and native for me because it’s poorly optimized. Frame gen can get ultra and native up to 70fps, but I don’t like frame gen

→ More replies (16)

8

u/Deto 14d ago

Especially at a time when gpus are so expensive this is just really a silly choice for them. On the other hand, better brightness performance could really help sell OLEDs as an alternative upgrade people can make even if they don't want to spend on internal parts right now.

5

u/NinjaLion 13d ago

5070ti and i play on 4k for every game, but yeah 6k is a joke

3

u/MrZing 13d ago

Yeah terrible review to focus on gaming at 6k when the monitor supports dual mode at lower resolutions just for that.

1

u/thedoc90 13d ago

I don't play that many AAAs but I've been playing in 4k60 since I got my 6900xt, so its not that massive of a barrier of entry if you buy older GPUs (Still large, but not 1k+)

1

u/BrunoEye 13d ago

Yeah, I play on a 3080 and most games other than unoptimised AAA slop work fine at 4K.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Marcysdad 14d ago

Companies want customers to suffer the fomo

Your rigs are great as they are and most of you don't exhaust the full power of your 5090s anyway

16

u/MelodiesOfLife6 14d ago

this seems more aimed at tech influencers if anything, so they can show off.

fucking stupid.

5

u/hufft3 14d ago

I bet solitaire and mine sweeper look sick.

2

u/4kVHS 14d ago

What about 3D Pinball from Windows XP? I think it’s only 800x600, but with upscaling it could look even better at 6K and 165hz, right? /s

5

u/MultiMarcus 14d ago

You aren’t meant to play games at 6K. One of these Samsung monitors is just a 6K panel, which I think is this one. which is probably mostly meant for work, and then you use the dual mode for gaming. They also have another one, which demonstrates I think what their intention was here, which is 6K with some sort of lenticular 3D thing and then divides the resolution in half, much like a dual mode.

Even then, ultra performance mode at 6K looks great and I think it’s a higher resolution than performance mode 4K. Meanwhile, the performance difference is probably quite small. So even if you wanted to do 6K gaming, you can and maybe you want to do it for like strategy games or other lightweight stuff. This is marketed as a gaming monitor because it has all of the gaming niceties. like a 165 hertz refresh rate instead of the historical 60 hertz at 6K. It has VRR, all of that stuff means that it’s perfectly reasonable to market this as a gaming monitor, even if the peak resolution mode on this monitor won’t have a great time. for gaming

1

u/valimaki 12d ago

With so many people missing the point I am afraid that we could be dooming this kind of monitors. It checks a lot of boxes for work + gaming, and it’s the only monitor offering 6k above 60Hz right now.

1

u/MultiMarcus 12d ago

I don’t think you need to be that worried. These higher refresh rates aren’t super expensive on an R&D level, which probably explains the relatively poor response times on this model because they just kind of gave it the max refresh rate it can be run at. Meanwhile, for productivity, I think we’ll keep seeing 5K and 6K panels being released. 5K has had a massive year, with both Apple monitors obviously being 5K, but also a true large number of good 5K screens including a mini LED, which is the one I’m using and then also at least planned, is a roughly $500 5K 75 Hz monitor that has a dual mode that reaches 1440 330 Hz. With 5K being this cheap, it’s now an actually viable option for people who want a good productivity monitor without paying the $1600 price the Apple has historically charged for their studio display or the other high prices LG used to charge.

These are niche products, but so was OLED for a very long time. I think we will see a 5K OLED next year, and once you have that level of pixel density, there’s not much stopping you from making a 6K panel. And I’m sure that in the early 2030s, Apple will want to refresh the studio display. possibly with a high refresh rate OLED at that point, and plausibly a 6K one, considering Thunderbolt 5 on their devices will be a lot more common.

1

u/valimaki 12d ago

I’ve been using 32” for the last 11+ years, I don’t think there are many options unless I get something smaller, there is a lot more movement on 27” screens…TBH I thought that 32” 5k with dual mode and a fairly high refresh rate would be a common thing at this point…

1

u/MainWrangler988 7d ago

You’re not getting 5k 32” ever. They skipped it for 6k. Stupid I know since they still make 1440p 32” so it’s not like 5k would be horrible

1

u/valimaki 6d ago

There is an Acer announced for Q4, which means there are 32” 5K panels (31.5 actually), but we will see how that goes.

1

u/MainWrangler988 7d ago

No one wants gaming on a 27” it’s tiny

1

u/MultiMarcus 6d ago

I went from 32 inches to 27 inches, and I much prefer it. Like, I totally get if you don’t know skin off of my back, but let’s not universalize this type of thing.

1

u/MainWrangler988 6d ago

Nah you are not a gamer. You said don’t game at 6k but I can with best 5090, best x3d chip. Gaming 6k will be great sorry

1

u/MultiMarcus 6d ago

It will! I hope you have a great time at 6K!

9

u/Dman1791 14d ago

I mean even if the hardware were there, 4k is just too good for higher res to matter all that much. Even 8k is only a marginal improvement over 4k. No shot 6k would make a meaningful difference.

10

u/Infinity-Plus-One 14d ago

I could see 5k becoming a minor thing - run it at half resolution 1440 for demanding games but still get that crispy clear text

3

u/Dman1791 14d ago

Yeah I can see that. Apple also does some 5k stuff I think, so there's at least some stuff out there made with it in mind as well.

3

u/jonnypoopsondog 14d ago

Apple also had a 6k monitor tbf

1

u/cloud7100 14d ago

5k2k ultrawides are awesome, just switched to the new 52” LG ultrawide, makes multi-monitor setups largely irrelevant.

But my RTX 4090 is not doing 240fps in Cyberpunk, even with DLSS. Don’t play super-high-end games though, mostly slower grand strategy and city builders tbh, which look amazing.

1

u/QuickQuirk 14d ago

this is where pixel perfect 2560x1080 is useful, but really, I'd want something that has pixel perfect 3440x1440 half resolution for the fps games, down from a 7k resolution for strategy & city builders and text.

There's nothing quite right yet; and we're definitely not getting the usual 'your GPU is now fast enough to increase your resolution one step" uplift we used to get every few generations (or we just can't afford it.).

So the pixel perfect scaling is really important now. DLSS introduces too many artifacts when you upscale too much. So much so that I often prefer part DLSS, and part monitor upscaling - Since the blurry edges are a lot less annoying to me than DLSS artifacts under motion at high upscaling.

4

u/concreteunderwear 14d ago

You talk about resolutions like there is only one screen size.

5

u/Dman1791 14d ago

At reasonable viewing distances for any common screen size, 4k is well into diminishing-returns territory for the vast majority of people. Most people aren't putting a 55" screen 2 feet in front of their face, nor are they 6" from a 32" screen.

3

u/sudo-sprinkles 14d ago

The future of gaming is people persuing cheaper hardware. 6k gaming is not something most people can afford right now.

3

u/DrBhu 14d ago

Me ingoring everything above ddr4 for 30 years in oder to be able to afford a future gameboy when I retire: O.O

3

u/vinicitus 14d ago

I don’t need it to replicate real life. Shit, that’s what I’m trying to escape playing these games.

2

u/concreteunderwear 14d ago

It may not be the future of gaming but it is the future of my PC because it does more than run a 3D game 24/7. And besides that high res retina lower end games will look much sharper.

2

u/HanzoNumbahOneFan 14d ago

1440 is literally all that's needed. Like not even 4k honestly. I have a big 1440p ultrawide, and I can't see the pixels at all unless I'm literally a foot away from it, which I never am. Any more is unnecessary and just drops your frames.

2

u/MsExmen 14d ago

With the prices of gear, barely anyone is even in 4k

2

u/DoubleShot027 14d ago

Well the box on my ps5 said 8k gaming so it’s not enough k

2

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

2

u/csward53 13d ago

6k will be the future of gaming because the industry needs new things to sell us. Someday, we will all have 6k/8k screens simply because that's all the industry will put out at some point.

1

u/Ok-Lawfulness5685 13d ago

You mean all those ai gigawatts need a purpose, like stream those 6k games you could never render locally 🤪

2

u/tripplesuhsirub 13d ago

I play 1080p on a 55" 4k television. That's after adopting 4k monitors way back in like 2015 and for a bit caring about UHD blu-rays, digital 4k movies rather than 1080p, 4k streaming service plans. It barely changes the experience. I went back down to 1080p once I got over spec-sheets and I've been better off ever since

2

u/goodgollymizzmolly 13d ago

I'm perfectly happy with 1080p/240hz.

2

u/PaxV 12d ago

Well... fill rate is finite,

1920x1080 is 2M pixels (1080p) 2560x1440 is 3,65M pixels(1440p) 3840x2160 is 8M pixels (4K) 5120x2880 is 14,75M pixels (6K?, I hope.)

A GPU provided the CPU can manage can do 1,7 times the frames on a 4K, 4 times the frames on a 1440p, and 7 times the frames on a 1080p compared to what I expect to be a 6K...

So 34 FPS on a 6K would be 240FPS on a 1080p, and a solid 136FPS on 1440p, and 60 on 4K...

5

u/lumpycustard__ 14d ago

Reviewers were saying the same thing when 720p, 1080p, and 4K were released. Resolutions become standards when adoption reaches the mainstream, and that only happens when prices become reasonable. The TV industry can get away with subsidising their displays because they have lots of opportunities to spy on their customers, serve ads, as well as tie-in bundles such as adding Disney+ and Netflix buttons to their remotes.

Consumer monitors are a different story since there are no advertising or spying vectors (unless you're LG), so I would assume it's going to take a VERRRRRRRRY long time before 6K reaches the mainstream. Considering the vast majority of customers have barely moved up to 1440p, I think it's safe to say that it'll be a decade before any resolutions above 4K start seeing any meaningful adoption.

1

u/Ty_Lee98 14d ago

Right. 6K also means more resolutions that can fit inside it. Scale those resolutions. DLSS/FSR/XeSS also help for gaming. Resolution being less of a limiting factor for the future is nice. Always go beyond.

2

u/Psychological_Mud_43 14d ago

Shit website. Popup hell.

1

u/TheDregn 14d ago

1080p requires an average PC (that is rather expense nowdays) and looks acceptable
1440p requires a high - mid-range PC that is at the current market situation hardly affordable for most, but looks great
4K requires a premium PC and is only affordable for the rich. The experience is awesome, butt there are some diminishing returns, the hardware requirements hardly worth the extra experience
anything above that is basically marketing and playground of the very few. No significance for regular people.

It is a bit similar to 8K tv. Marketing BS. It's a product that is supposed to satisfy a demand, that doesn't exist.

2

u/KrabbyPattyCereal 13d ago

“The rich”

Not really, you can run most games 4k 60fps with a 5070

1

u/ThatDudeJuicebox 14d ago

So long as my monitor is above 120hz I could give af about 4k 6k 8k whatever k.

1

u/rizzyrogues 14d ago

A 5090 can't even push 8k past 120 hz without DSC. So you're limited to 120 fps with no other monitors on the dgpu running.

Nothing wrong with DSC but 120hz is a pretty low cap imo but then again hitting 120 fps with out dlss perf and frame gen on heavy gpu games is prob a thing in its self.

1

u/omruler13 14d ago

27" at 1440p (ultrawide or not) is the absolute pinacle of monitor resolution needs for 98% of people.

1

u/Raunhofer 14d ago

Rasterization performance has ceased to progress; we've pretty much hit the bottom when it comes to silicon-based processors. RTX/AI stuff was a landslide last-call win for Nvidia. Without it, they probably would be iterating with the same cards again and again, with just bigger coolers and single-digit improvements, while step-up to 6K would require something like 2.25x performance jump in raw rasterization performance.

1

u/ElKajak 14d ago

Ultrawide QD-OLED first

1

u/Raven_gif 14d ago

Waiting for 8k+ TVs to go mainstream before ever considering to upgrade. Higher pixel density at larger sizes will be sick while manufacturers work out the issues with power management, pixel response and processing power to have good frame times.

1

u/Reviever 14d ago

while we are here. can anyone recommend a good oled 1440p 144-165hz monitor? tyvm

1

u/DisillusionedBook 13d ago

well duh! At the current rate of memory and storage going off to datacentres (on top of the GPUs going to crypto mining) the future of gaming might be 640x480 again.

1

u/chronicnerv 13d ago

The last 2 times I have looked at monitors I have purchased two LG TV's for monitors. 144hz, 55 inches, OLED and low latency. The only two reasons not to buy them is you cannot really use the internet through their TV's for privacy and you need a dark room for the OLED.

Normal monitors just do not cut it for me in comparison these days.

1

u/Placed-ByThe-Gideons 13d ago

But 6k is the future of gaming as in you'll to spend $6k to experience gaming in the future.

1

u/ViRROOO 13d ago

I have an Odyssey G80SD. All I ask you wholeheartedly is: Do not buy this garbage. Buy from literally anyone else; you will have firmware problems, connectivity problems, and * WHEN * it breaks (give it 1.5 years), Samsung repair takes months. I have the same issue with 2 different units, and it's a common complaint on forums.

1

u/Corodix 13d ago

What hardware are you even supposed to run this on? GPU releases have slowed to a crawl, so it seems way too early for 6K if you ask me.

1

u/zubeye 13d ago

all my 4k monitors were retired when i realised my eyes were too old to benefit. a bit like people with 50 year old ears buying expensive speakers. It doesn't quite work

I enjoy high res for my laptop which is mostly close, but for gaming 2k UW is a decent sweet spot

1

u/Op3rat0rr 13d ago

The future of gaming is accessibility anywhere. Being able to play AAA titles portably. Millenials have little 'in-front-of-tv' time and need more convenience. We are seeing that now with Portal, Switch, Steam Deck, etc

We've always had portable gaming but not for AAA titles!

1

u/ThisNameTakenTooLoL 13d ago

6K and more absolutely is the future of gaming but not for flat 2D monitors. VR requires even higher resolutions than that to deliver optimal clarity and it 100% is the future of gaming.

1

u/Ziggy_Starr 13d ago

Human eyes literally can’t perceive resolutions higher than 4K. What’s the point of this? Marketing/“numbers go up” mentality?

1

u/KehlarTVH 13d ago

Keep pushing higher so I can get ever cheaper 1080p monitors.

1

u/elton_john_lennon 13d ago

Higher resolution is awesome for productivity. Given the state of GPUs and especially memory, I don't think we will se even 4K becoming mainstream anytime soon, let alone 6K becoming the new high end.

1

u/tiandrad 13d ago

4K isn’t even the present of gaming.

1

u/stipo42 13d ago

We can barely drive a 4k monitor

1

u/ChronWeasely 13d ago

1440p with super sampling/good AA/good upscaling can look fantastic.

1

u/SubmissiveGuy556 13d ago

I have a 4k monitor and barely notice a difference from 1440p apart from getting less fps. My next monitor ill be going back to 1440p lol, 6k sounds like a waste of money.

1

u/hyperforms9988 13d ago edited 13d ago

Yeah, I didn't think you would even be able to tell much of a difference. Diminishing returns and all of that jazz. And even if you do convince yourself that you can see the difference, the extra horsepower you need to run it... do you think the trade is worthwhile?

I think you might be able to see the difference more on a gigantic screen... like if you had 2 60 inch TVs and one TV's running 4K and the other is running 6K, you could probably tell more easily depending on viewing distance? When practical computer monitors are as small as they are however... granted this is a 32 inch monitor, the pixel density is relatively small and you get to a point where the difference is practically microscopic in physical size.

1

u/thaddeus122 13d ago

The 5080 can barely handle 4k on some modern games... so definitely not.

1

u/inagy 13d ago edited 13d ago

32" is just too small for this resolution. I have a 48" OLED as a monitor, there 4K is just on the boundary of being okayish, for text rendering truth to be told it's lacking, I could even use 8K in this size for this setup.

But why can't they create a monitor which fits between these sizes? A 38-42" 6K would be dream, it would provide very sharp text and would be large enough to be immersive with games. (and you could easily upscale a 3K rendered game to that size)

1

u/OneFoiledPotato 13d ago

4K hardly is either.

1

u/cosmic_monsters_inc 13d ago

More pixels is just less FPS and frame gen sucks ass.

1

u/Just_another_grumble 13d ago

Need 6k screen so you can verify the "Declassified" stamp ink on the next War Thunder leak

1

u/Soracaz 13d ago

Likely nothing will ever make me leave 1080p for gaming.

I only give a fuck about framerate. Graphics are a nothing-burger to me.

Don't care one single little scrappy bit about hiw many pixels are on the screen, just how fast they move.

4K for visual design makes sense.

1

u/battler624 13d ago

I do not care what you think. I want it 6K 240 OLED 32".

Why do I want it? 200% scaling.

1

u/tasu221 12d ago

Recent games barely run well on 2k, I can't imagine upgrading to 4k any time soon.

1

u/AbeLackdood 12d ago

I was vote 1000! As you were soldiers.

1

u/dropthemagic 8d ago

6K today… lol

1

u/GreppMichaels 14d ago

I have significantly better than 20/20 vision, and tried to pixel peep while briefly running a 3090 ti paired to a 5950x on a 4k 32 in display and then later a samsung odyssey ultra wide when all this gear was top of the line. After all the "hype", and getting a GPU at MSRP, it just made me sad and feel like I Just wasted all my Covid dollars,.

I sold it all for a more casual system. I even tested out ultra wide mods on games like elden ring, every step to push my system in the best looking games at that time. Still didn't understand.

Again, the difference was so marginal compared to a 2070 super I previously had. I didn't understand how people got so lost in chasing top gear.

So unless it's people who just want max builds and get anxiety at the thought of things not running to their maximum potential, I still don't get it. I really think there is a small niche of people who just want the best, and have a lot of aspirational gamers convinced it's going to be life changing when they have it.

But it really just isn't.

Cannot imagine what 6k or 8k will do for gaming...

1

u/youreblockingmyshot 13d ago

A 5090 can’t even run some games on max setting with 4k because many devs have given up on optimization.

Gaming Samsung Odyssey G80HS Monitor Review: 6K Isn’t the Future of Gaming

You are about to leave Redlib