What do you prefer for games: Framerates and Resolutions? [2020]

What would you prioritize?

  • Total voters
    42
I'm glad I'm not completely off center here in thinking the same thing.

I was looking for a new monitor earlier in the year. I was amazed at how far behind monitors really are when it comes to specifications. For the price they're wanting it's just not worth it. I still have not found a new monitor worth buying. It may end up like my office chair replacement, where I find one that's suitable enough for cheap. Right now, I deem that to be under the $150 for 24" to under $180 for 27" mark for what horrible specs they have.
 
BRiT said:
I'm glad I'm not completely off center here in thinking the same thing.

I was looking for a new monitor earlier in the year. I was amazed at how far behind monitors really are when it comes to specifications. For the price they're wanting it's just not worth it. I still have not found a new monitor worth buying. It may end up like my office chair replacement, where I find one that's suitable enough for cheap. Right now, I deem that to be under the $150 for 24" to under $180 for 27" mark for what horrible specs they have.
Click to expand...
monitors are truly functional devices. If you want to just work, they are good for that. If you want maximum refresh rate, they are good for that.
If you want it all, they are insanely overpriced compared to TVs.
 
Dumb question: Could TV set be used for programming work? Or would it be bad for eyes health / exhausting?
 
JoeJ said:
Dumb question: Could TV set be used for programming work? Or would it be bad for eyes health / exhausting?
Click to expand...
you'd have to set the font to be massive. its not worth it for text processing, anything could be used. If your eyes of sensitive, get a higher refresh monitor.
I think you're better off with just more monitors, some in portrait mode and some in landscape mode then you are using a big tv screen.
 
JoeJ said:
Dumb question: Could TV set be used for programming work? Or would it be bad for eyes health / exhausting?
Click to expand...
Yep. I used a Samsung LCD TV at 60 Hz before replacing it. Very good 1680x1050 monitor. I actually preferred the picture of VGA over DVI. Unless you have the text stupidly small, it's no worse to read.

I have a Sammy QD LCD now and I use the same font size.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Yep. I used a Samsung LCD TV at 60 Hz before replacing it. Very good 1680x1050 monitor. I actually preferred the picture of VGA over DVI. Unless you have the text stupidly small, it's no worse to read.

I have a Sammy QD LCD now and I use the same font size.
Click to expand...
in theory, I my 65" screen is nearly 6 of my current 24" monitor stacked on each other. But to have the equivalency, I need to sit like 3 feet from my TV to be able to use the whole TV, as the same as having 6 separate monitors.

Not really sure if anyone has tried that, but brightness I feel is probably an issue

worth watching. tldr; if you select the wrong TV, you will get an inferior experience as a monitor for functional purposes.
 
Last edited:
MistaPi said:
I hope Microsoft will deliver and continue with their "60FPS vision" in their 1. party games and that they will receive praise for this from consumers and reviewers, even though the games will not look as pretty as Sony Studios games that unfortunately (IMO) largely sticks to 30FPS. Maybe then other developers will follow suit.
Click to expand...
they could just keep resolution dynamic and hold framerate at 60, MS hasn't mandated anything, but the recommendations is to aim for 4K / 60FPS for optimized titles.

The optimized badge will fall off in 2022 and anything will generally go.
 
techuse said:
Monitors have little value for games and multimedia. Poor image quality, poor HDR, poor colors, insane prices considering etc. Better to just buy a cheap monitor for PC work and a TV for everything else.
Click to expand...
it depends on the monitor, but I gotta agree with you. I have a TV next to my monitor (a monitor I love) and the image quality of the TV is surprisingly good -I bought it first day back in 2013, a 1080p TV-.

That being said, there is more to it to the story. Monitors are better for games.

The refresh rate and response time of a TV are far from any monitor. Playing at 60fps on a 60Hz TV is just too much to handle. Also if you are playing games like NBA 2k20 where you need maximum precision to be any good to get green shots, a TV is a no go.

Also I had a Samsung 240Hz monitor a few months ago and my best friend, who plays consoles always on TV, told me ("wow, how beautiful it looks"). The image quality was good.

It was a 1080p monitor, but at that refresh rate it was an okay tradeoff.

https://www.samsung.com/es/monitors/lc27rg50/ (this was the model)
 
Last edited:
DF has a point about 2x increase in framerate would eat up a 2x increase in flops, but then there's early GCN vs RDNA2, VRS, mesh shader, more memory, SSD and maybe a DLSS like solution in the future. I do hope at least most games will have a 60FPS performance mode with reduced resolution etc.
I think graphics have come to a point where better graphics aren't that important and higher framerate will make a bigger impact. Maybe its just me that has gotten old. I would however like to se better/more animations, physics and A.I, but I guess that could eat up alot of CPU so 60FPS could be difficult from the CPU side of things?
 
iroboto said:
in theory, I my 65" screen is nearly 6 of my current 24" monitor stacked on each other.
Click to expand...
:mrgreen:

Yeah. Um, my TV was 20". They do come in smaller sizes, you know. :LOL:

To be fair though, seems the big brands are only making larger TVs these days. If I could only get a 32" at the smallest, I wouldn't consider it and would stick to a monitor. Not gonna stick a 65" TV on my desk! :runaway:
 
MistaPi said:
DF has a point about 2x increase in framerate would eat up a 2x increase in flops, but then there's early GCN vs RDNA2, VRS, mesh shader, more memory, SSD and maybe a DLSS like solution in the future. I do hope at least most games will have a 60FPS performance mode with reduced resolution etc.
I think graphics have come to a point where better graphics aren't that important and higher framerate will make a bigger impact. Maybe its just me that has gotten old. I would however like to se better/more animations, physics and A.I, but I guess that could eat up alot of CPU so 60FPS could be difficult from the CPU side of things?
Click to expand...
4K resolution is 4x the workload over 1080p.
60fps over 30fps is 2x
so a reasonable compromise is to offer 1440p@60. Which should have equivalent pixel output workloads to 4K30
 
iroboto said:
4K resolution is 4x the workload over 1080p.
60fps over 30fps is 2x
so a reasonable compromise is to offer 1440p@60. Which should have equivalent pixel output workloads to 4K30
Click to expand...

If the CPU is not the bottleneck. This is not because they have good CPU than some people will not push it.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
:mrgreen:

Yeah. Um, my TV was 20". They do come in smaller sizes, you know. :LOL:

To be fair though, seems the big brands are only making larger TVs these days. If I could only get a 32" at the smallest, I wouldn't consider it and would stick to a monitor. Not gonna stick a 65" on my desk! :runaway:
Click to expand...
?? dude, you're a genius! you got me thinking!
Mount a 65" on the wall, move a big desk adjustable desk infront of it.

When you want to watch movies, either slide the desk away, or lower it out of view completely or slide it back for some big screen mouse + keyboard gaming.
If you want couch gaming you can just sit on a couch behind you.

great ideas! I should do this and lose the TV stand
 
iroboto said:
4K resolution is 4x the workload over 1080p.
60fps over 30fps is 2x
so a reasonable compromise is to offer 1440p@60. Which should have equivalent pixel output workloads to 4K30
Click to expand...
LegendsOf30fpsCapera
 
techuse said:
Monitors have little value for games and multimedia. Poor image quality, poor HDR, poor colors, insane prices considering etc. Better to just buy a cheap monitor for PC work and a TV for everything else.
Click to expand...

At the low end perhaps. But not at the higher end. At the higher end monitors offer features that are either very difficult or impossible to find on TV's at any price point.

Low latency + high refresh rates + VRR (with LFC) are extremely difficult to find together in a TV. Throw in a 21:9 aspect ratio (which granted is a matter of taste) and you're into impossible territory. And while HDR can be lacking unless you go for the absolute highest standard (HDR1000), image quality certainly isn't with a good monitor.

I already have a good 55" OLED TV but I'd consider a monitor that meets all of the above criteria in the 34"+ range to be an upgrade.
 
iroboto said:
4K resolution is 4x the workload over 1080p.
60fps over 30fps is 2x
so a reasonable compromise is to offer 1440p@60. Which should have equivalent pixel output workloads to 4K30
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, I'm not the sharpest pencil in the kitchen drawer. But AFAIK no XBO-X enhanced games runs at 1080p. Most does not run at native 4K, but I don't think that many XBSX games will either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top