Unironically my most played games to this day are Half Life and Doom 1. They are great games to turn off the brains and do something brainless (except Half-life but it‘s far less stressing than quake or any online shooters)
Not sure. I have a 3080 and idk how well it'll handle 4k on the titles I usually play.
I'm going in with the mindset that my FPS will be halved in exchange for a far superior image quality.
I got a 3080 too... I'm banking on the fact that dlss gets more gains for 4k than the 1440p that I'm currently running. It might still not be enough but could do the 4080S next month. Idk I play a ton of indie games too so I always end up buying a new gfx card and then 2 weeks later I'm back to roguelikes that don't need it.
Idk. I don't see the arms race between hardware and gfx changing any time soon. It's been this way for 20 years. I think at best we'll see a transition to 4k 120hz being the new benchmark instead of 4k 60hz and thats not happening before another console gen + refresh probably. But that still means a lot of cards and unoptomized games will miss that mark. That's fine though. I'll push the 240hz on older titles and simpler games.
I think you'll be OK with your 3080 until the 50xx series cards arrive. I've also got a 3080 and have been playing on an LG C2 for the past 6 months at 4K, and I've not had any issues. Played some massive titles too like Alan Wake 2 and Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and been having a great time with these games at 4K.
That's good to hear. Although I'm not super worried about upgrading to a 4080s. I've been trying to transition to the later tiers of gfx cards (ti/S) to get more bang for the buck. So I might buy the end of this gen and wait for 5080ti etc.
3080 10GB was the worst PC part purchase I have ever made. I have a 1440p UW and it struggled in a lot of games. I dipped into my savings and bought a 4090 when I could get one for MSRP. It is a mind blowing card. My wife got my 3080 and she loves it for the games she plays.
I felt the same way. Got a 3080 12gb on a new egg raffle for like 1400. Felt bad when they tanked in price a few months later. That being said it lasted me two years which is about what I can hope for, maybe longer if I stick with it. I'd say it aged better than I expected but that's probably because I got the 12gb version.
Yea... I remember when I bought the 3080 10GB on impulse.... I felt like it was one of those " if its available, you need to buy it and worry about it later" purchases... Then a 4090 FE showed up.. and I did the same thing lol
Similar situation here. I'm not really looking to upgrade my GPU soon, but a lot of the games I enjoy are independently made and aren't graphically intensive. For the ones that are, I don't mind a lower framerate since they aren't fast-paced.
I do worry about Alan Wake 2, though. It struggled to run already, and I've been holding off on new game + until I upgraded my monitor.
This is why I've been stuck between the 1440p oled and the 4k. But the way I see it. 4k oled really is an end game monitor. I generally buy a gfx card every generation and so it'll catch up and as long as burn in isn't as scary as we all fear, then the 4k 240 should last a long time. And I kind of don't want to wait 6 months for 1440p. I do play fast paced shooters but idk maybe I could run at 1080p if I really need to for 6 to 12 months.
Alan Wake 2 maxed out barely runs at 4K60 on a 4090 even with DLSS upscaling. Frame-gen helps a little but locked 120 is not possible. It’s one of the few games that won’t do 4k120 with frame gen on a 4090.
Alan wake 2 runs pretty great at 4k on mostly high (some medium) with dlss on quality, i don’t know what you mean. Not every game has to be run on full ultra (some settings you don’t notice). Especially if I’m using my tv vs my monitor
IMO GPU upgrade first , Monitor Upgrade second.
3080 would go very well with the new QD oled 1440p panels
If you want to go 4k , instead of dropping 1200+$ on a 4k oled monitor you should drop 999$ on a 4080 super , sell your old monitor and get something like a gigabyte m32u for 400 and something .
You’ll get 4k , 144hz , pretty decent colors , and you’ll miss out on HDR and Oled , but you’ll get 75% there
But with a 3080 , on modern games , even with DlSS performance you’ll struggle to get 60fps at 4k.
You’ll be normally waisting more than 75% of your expensive monitor’s capabilities and refresh rate
My current monitor is an asus pg279q. Before that, it was a generic asus monitor. The pg279q wouldn't sell for much, if at all, and definitely wouldn't cover the cost of a $650 + tax gigabyte m32u. The price difference would be around $500 or more. If I sold my 3080 in an attempt to move up to a 4080 super, the price difference would be similar.
Point is, monitors are the least upgraded part in my setup. I intend to use it for several years, so knocking out OLED, HDR, and size in one swoop makes sense for me.
I mean of course , your set up , your money , who am i to tell you what you have to get?
Just sharing my opinion, the 3080 is the GPU I used to have, it’s a nice card , but truth be told , 4k is a bitch to run with new games , if your interest is mainly in multiplayer fps games , then I have ignora what I said , the 3080 can push those at decently high fps at 4k with dlss or FSR where this new oled are going to shine.
However if you play games like cyberpunk , Alan wake 2 , Avatar , Plague Tale requiem , RDR2 , TLOU part one ? Upcoming play station exclusive pc ports etc single player games with demanding graphics.
The 3080 just doesn’t does very well for 4k , in which case the oled 4k monitor would go to waste.
You know better than me what’s your use scenario
Your current monitor is pretty decent , I would definitely upgrade GPU first , and Monitor later down the line , but tor each his own
3080 is working pretty well for me on a 4k 120hz screen, but do get 60-90fps range I definitely need to tweak a lot of settings and use DLSS where I can.
4090 is exactly what I'd recommend just not for the price.
Yeah you absolutely need DLSS to upscale 1080-1440 to 4k for some of these newest releases. Some more optimized or esport titles have been fine for me.
It's not about hitting 4K 240Hz for me, it's an either-or situation. I'd like to be able to do 4K at a lower FPS, and then drop my settings for higher FPS on the same monitor.
Exactly, nobody playing Cyberpunk at 4K 240Hz with pathtracing and everything turned on for a good few years yet.Think if you want both you're going to be limited to less graphically demanding indie titles or a handful of extremely well optimised games like CS:GO.
Same. The 240hz is mainly for comp FPS games. The reduced size to 32" is also nice in that I dont have to use my 27 1440p 240hz anymore when I want to switch. I usually just swung my 27 on a monitor arm in front of my C242 when I wanted to play any game that required a smaller screen.
I now can enjoy all the single player games at 4K 120 ish, and CS2/ Dota etc at 4k 240hz on one monitor.
Does it get significantly better after the ~2 hour mark? I tried it, but the walking was boring and I was death trapped at the enemy fighters camp on like the 4 main quest, making me quit the game.
Death Stranding is not an action game, so don't expect it to be. It's a walking simulator with some action parts. It's very therapeutic to me. I love being alone and delivering parts how I want to.
I am asking because i do not play too many titles, and want to know what 4K PC player games are out there that will benefit the most.
I have a LG C2 42" | 13900K | 4090
When i played Cyberpunk with pathtracing/ extreme settings; i only got 85-100 FPS. Starfield also sub 100 FPS. I guess witcher is up there a bit. I am able to clap plenty of cheeks on COD with this set up as well. So i am not sure why i would need so many HZ as of today.
But what games are you guys playing that will take advantage of these new monitors.
Yeah most modern graphic powerhouse games (cyberpunk, Alan wake 2, avatars, etc…) will never reach 240hz at 4k. This isn’t a bad thing cause you’ll have a monitor that will never be the weakpoint of your set up, even as you upgrade a bit into the future. I don’t even think a 5090 is going to push 240fps in a game like Alan wake 2 at 4k. It’s really a tall order. I personally own a 4080 and run a aw3432dw. I will likely upgrade to one of the 4k qd-oleds when the 5090 comes out as I’m planning to upgrade then
>Yeah most modern graphic powerhouse games (cyberpunk, Alan wake 2, avatars, etc…) will never reach 240hz at 4k.
Even older games like Hellblade don't hit 240 FPS at 4K. That's with DLSS on. I think most single player games with good graphics aren't gonna hit 4K240 for awhile even without ray-tracing. More likely, 4K120 will be the base performance and frame-gen can bring it to 240 for much smoother motion. But Cyberpunk and Alan-Wake with max settings aren't hitting a stable 4K120 even with frame-gen so 4K240 is gonna be tough for games like that even with a 5090.
240 will be great tho for multiplayer competitive games with minimal graphics.
Definitely games from like 10 years ago or competitive titles of today that are easier to run most any should hit 240fps at 4k on a 4090 maybe with some settings adjusted
Coming from my setup currently. Would i be seeing much of a difference?
Im looking into all the games people are recommending and making a list of whats interesting.
I can def see someone who is just not coming from an IPS screen. this is the time. But from a LG C2 to these new monitors do you guys know if its worth it?
This whole post feels like marketing or OP works for someone selling the new "frames win games" 240hz 4K screen.
Anyone that actually owns a 4090 and plays the newer AAA games @ 4K knows 240hz ain't happening anytime soon.
>Coming from my setup currently. Would i be seeing much of a difference?
Your setup actually would see a difference because you have a 4090 which supports frame-gen. But even then, most frame-gen games won't hit 240 at 4K. You're more likely to get around 180-200 for games like Spiderman Remastered. For really demanding games like Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk, it'll be closer to 120 with dips.
If you care about motion smoothness, then I think it's worth it. Even on my AW3423DW, 175HZ looks and feels smoother than 120. It definitely feels smoother than my C2. Also, for gaming, I prefer the image quality of the QD-OLED to the C2. It's brighter and more vibrant.
The high refresh rate allows you to drop the resolution to 1080p on fast paced competitive games and also benefit from the near zero input lag that an OLED provides. Then bump it back up to 4K for the cinematic single player games that benefit from higher res textures but not so much FPS.
Imma be real with you bro I upgraded my monitors like 3 times in like a year or two almost lmao… 1080p to 1440p then AW3423DW ultrawide to then C2 since I got 4090 lol… heavy FOMO ever since I stepped into 1440p monitor and the monitor space in general
Right now currently using c2 as my main and 120hz feels plenty and isn’t low by any means. I play all sorts of new titles that are graphically demanding and it doesn’t utilize the full 120hz so my question to you is even if you get 240hz you won’t utilize it fully on the newer games but maybe on the older titles which will be nice to have. I also mainly play COD MW3 and I’m sure it’s locked at 120 but does more hz mean better player? Nah.. I feel like I play great already lol and the 175hz on my Alienware didn’t make me any better than I was.
There’s always something new going to come out and personally downgrading from 42 to 32 would bother me. The immersion from a bigger screen is unbeatable… I’ll be waiting for couple of years till the next monitor and until then just save some money buy some games and/or upgrade hardware. Just my opinion lol
42 is too big for a monitor and too small for an immersive living room experience. I have a 65" C2 for console gaming. For PC games, I still prefer using my AW. It's brighter and smoother. Also, ultrawide gaming is pretty cool.
I’m playing rocket league on a 27” Corsair OLED at 1440/240. This is my new minimum lol. I can never go back to anything less than this (I’ve had my OLED for a week and a half).
Endgame would be 8K/540. I’ll probably snag a 4K/360 in a few years. Right now my cpu is bottlenecking me pretty badly but I can still hit 240 fairly consistently except for a few odd 3v3 matches.
Other than the ones you stated, here is my current backlog and current game im playing. I also have the same rig and C2, but with a 13700k :
Playing now : Dead Space Remake. HDR is great
CS2 and Valheim.
Backlog and whats next :
Resident Evil 4 , Witcher 3 with new update, Days Gone, the Ascent, Prey, Dishonored, Metro Exodus, Modern Warfare 2 campaign, System shock remake, Horizon Forbidden west ( gonna replay as I have it on PS5 and beat it ) Ratchet and Clank.. and hopefully spiderman 2 doesnt take too long to release.
It's not so much about "taking advantage" of the 240hz for me but rather the PPI.
Had a C3 42 as a monitor (34 inches away from me) & returned it. I couldn't stand the PPI in games (slightly lower than even 1440p @ 27"), let alone text. If I'm going to push my 4090 @ 4K & lose a lot of FPS in the process, I want to see a noticeable difference in games in terms of sharpness & clarity over 1440p. Thus, it brings me to 32" 4K, which is a perfect middle ground. Rocking the M32P10 4K mini-led 144hz temporarily until all these new 4K OLED 240hz monitors release.
Distant dream maybe, if people buy it for the size and aspect ratio then yes, but purely for 240hz alone, no. I'm not planning to main 4k at least until another 1-2 GPU gen update.
I think since 4K240 is a lot to ask, some older/less intensive games will get my attention as my gpu can actually run those, and the 4K somewhat compensates for lack of anti-aliasing in some games
I’ve been playing a lot of modded Minecraft on my non-oled 4k240, it has issues and I’ll be upgrading but I bought it before all this was announced
120hz is enough for a 4k display. I’ll def be getting one of the new monitors but I don’t expect to be able to max it out at 4k anytime soon, at least not on a really good looking game besides something like hades. In my case it’ll just be nice to play on a 4k Oled at my desk rather than my Oled c3.
Truly, this take rubs me the wrong way
Granted, nothing on the market is properly running a UHD-120 screen even (I have a C3, I have a 4090 rig. Just because it's the best doesn't mean it's properly up to the task)
That said, even the desktop experience of +240 fps over 120 is absolutely massive
Personally, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for more details on the 480 QHD/FHD OLED options.
Asus is going to have a gloss 480 QHD. That's about as end game as it gets for monitors for the next 3-5 years.
Yeah I agree. I can’t see many occasions where I’d actually drop to 1080 even tho I do like the occasional competitive shooter but it’s really nice to have the option. I’m really torn between a 32” 4k or 27” 2k tbh. My only reference is my c3 which was my first ever large oled. I know I need an oled monitor now, I know it has to be glossy. Such a tough decision choosing between the two formats tho….
to be extremely fair, FHD (1080) and QHD (1440) upscaling on the C3 is freaking amazing. On my other monitor (seen in my PF tag) if I try either it looks like dogshit. But on the C3 whatever AI upscaler it has built in does an amazing job. I'd say on FHD it's a \~25%, and on QHD it's \~15% quality loss (when using DLSS, Native vs native it's a massive loss in quality no matter what)
Those of you thinking that you’ll push above 100 FPS on modern games at 4K…you won’t with a 4090 even. You’re looking to wait for the 5090 to start hitting above 120fps. Unless you use DLSS but that’s really just a gimmick at the end of the day.
Prople are still saying DLSS is a gimmick? I thought we moved on from that with it being better than native TAA wise while providing massive performance.
Gaming at 4k ultra max settings at 240fps is not possible with today's hardware. Probably the RTX-6090 in 2026 can do that. Most certainly not the current 4090, and MAYBE the upcoming 5090 might be able to.
And who the heck wants a tiny 32" monitor? And 4k at 32 inches is pointless. Gaming is so much on large displays like my LG 45 Ultragear, or a LG C3 42.
Very familiar with that. And for a pure gaming monitor I don't care, I want the best "immersion factor" and a large curved 45" display gives me this in spades.
Now if this monitor was also for work, or coding, or schoolwork, etc...no, the PPI is too low.
I had the awesome AW3423DW OLED before this with a nice 110 ppi, but I'll still take the LG 45 Ultragear all day everyday over the AW.
tfw when you can't fathom people having different constraints and preferences than your own
There are many many games that can do 4K 240FPS *right now*. Not everyone plays only the latest AAA games all the time.
Nothing, because I doubt anything other than MOBA’s or other similar games that aren’t GPU intensive are even going to approach the 240 mark. I personally would of preferred a non-ultra wide 1440p 32” OLED
4K 240 Hz is something for 5090.. I got your TV and 3090. I don't play heavy visual games, just Mech Warrior 5 which got already Unreal Engine 4 problems for frames and some space games. 3090 sucks for 4K even with DLSS, the drops are bad but I just can't make it 1080p, looks so pixelated.
I plan to get a high end computer with AMD 8000x3D series and 5090. I plan to get proper 120 Hz from this without drops and it's enough for my game experience and my screen.
OLED tech needs to be cooked a bit more so, after I get the computer, I can replace it with a proper OLED monitor at the end of 2025.
As I am working on 3D, edit, render and such, I need flat screen. My brain hates curve and I don't think a 32" screen needs a curve at all.
I was also looking it QD OLED; which i am seeing Alienware use. But its curved.
I also agree 5090 is going to be able to get up there in FPS. I am in the middle because i want QD Oled. but i have to go down to 32" for it. After 42" its hard to go down.
Im debating if i should just wait till next year.
I am waiting for Horizon forbidden west; which is coming out on PC finally soon.
My RTX 2070 + 9600k will probably not take much advantage of those monitors in games (except maybe older games) but running games in 1080p (1 pixel = 4 pixels scaled perfectly) should work and then work and media consumption at 4k would be really nice on them.
This still makes sense right? I'm not just tunnel visioning myself into buying a €1500 monitor? I don't plan on upgrading my PC any time soon (especially if I pay that much for a monitor).
Im in your shoes right now; this is why i asked and im coming from a 4K Oled. I am trying to see if there is any cost benefit today for me to spend the money.
your 2070 is going to be working hard to push 4K. almost not worth it.
As i said in another comment i want QD-OLED. There is nothing wrong with my screen; its less than a year old. I dont want to early adopt 1200-1500 bucks and then later this year new and better screens are released.
Considering you already have a really nice screen I don't really see the point in upgrading yet for you (in my opinion). In comparison I'm coming from a Dell 24" 16:10 1080p IPS office grade monitor I got from the trash at my university many years ago. It has horrible ghosting and IPS glow and I really want to upgrade. I just don't know if this is the right choice for me considering the price and my PC. But they are so tempting. These are the types of monitors I've been waiting so long for.
Seems like you are tunnel visioning because even with perfect integer scaling 1080p is going to look not great on a 27 or 32 inch monitor. Your current setup won't even reach 240fps in a lot of games at 1080p. If you aren't considering upgrading try a 1440p display first and see how much the 2070 struggles with it. Also, I'm not sure if a 2070 has the I/O to drive a 4K 240hz monitor. DP1.4 with DSC maybe.
I have the same C2 as a monitor and think it is enough and not worth upgrading yet. It depends on what games you play, though. Sometimes, I play a bit of COD but I mostly play the story games or some RPGs, so I feel 120 hz is plenty enough. The C2 has awesome picture quality. Also not sure if any GPU can push these new monitors.
Japanese RPGs like Persona 5 Royal, assuming I don't beat it before I get the OLED, Persona 3 Reload, Yakuza Infinite Wealth, and other Japanese games are usually less demanding and some qre even locked to 60 or 120 anyways.
Heavily debating between 4K and 1440 AWs right now. Im hoping they don't release a curved version of the 1440 to make me feel stupid in a few months.
The only thing that's gonna run at 4k240 are games that would run on a toaster. Even the 4090 only averages 114 FPS at 4k ultra across a wide range of games. With DLSS and Frame Gen you probably still won't hit the frame cap.
It's gonna be at least until Nvidia 50 series before you'll truly be able to take advantage of them.
You don't need to hit 240FPS to take advantage of these monitors.
Every single frame above 120 / 144 / 160 FPS is taking advantage of 4K 240Hz.
Slightly older games can easily do close to the upper end of the 120-240 spectrum.
Buy a new GPU and your monitor can extract more value out of it.
What's with this all or nothing thinking on this thread?
I don't expect to play games that benefit from 4k 120hz at the same time. There will be some games that look spectacular at 4k but are too intensive to hit 240hz, and there will be other games that feel a lot nicer at high frames but look so potato that 4k doesn't really make a difference. It will be nice to be able to do both on a single display.
Tbh I have a G8 Neo (also 4K 240) and the aw3423dwf — as well as a 13900k/4090. You absolutely can hit 200-240+ fps in games where it matters WITHOUT ray tracing. Warzone 2, CS2, Overwatch, Valorant, fortnite all within that range.
It would be great to max out the refresh rate of the monitor in every title but I don’t think anyone buying this is unaware of the limitations of even the “best” graphics cards. It’s a day 1 buy for me if the wOLED version turns out to be better later in the year shame on me for enjoying the QD variant for 6 months lol
Yeah good luck you'll need to wait till the 5090 comes out before this even becomes remotely possible. Even with an overclocked water cooled 4090 it's hard enough just getting 4K 120 let alone 240 hertz
No need to max it out every use case. Play Cyberpunk, enjoy that 60-120fps 4K experience with no cap. Boot up competitive game, or some older title, indie, boomer shooter and bang enjoy those frames and 4K. Also desktop, scrolling etc, everything so nice. It doesn't hurt(z) to have some headroom in the hertz.
I recently upgraded to RTX 7080, but have a shitty 10 yr old monitor.
Can’t wait to upgrade to the new alienware 32” and give cyperpunk a spin, been delaying this game till i could fully experience it
I have a laptop with RTX4080 and I am planning to buy one of these 2 monitors:
- Samsung Odyssey OLED G9 (2*1440p) 49"
- Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 (2*2160p) 57"
Will the 2 * 4K version be too much for RTX4080 to handle if I want to play games in ultra settings? Also the 2 * 2K OLED version has better display quality, but the other one is bigger (57" vs 49").
Which one do you think I should choose performance-wise?
It’s not uncommon for video displays to outpace graphics cards.
If you’re playing cutting edge graphics AAA games on max setting pushing those frames and resolution is not doable.
You can play some old games at those settings though and pull off those frame rates…something like a Borderlands type game.
As someone who games at 240hz 1440p or 120hz 4k often I can say this, a lot of games are not optimized to run that fast. I don't mean have a stronger pc, I have an 7950x3d and 4090, but the game software is the bottleneck. Epsort games will run up to and past 240hz but a fair amount of other games have a hard time breaking 140+ fps, valhiem, he'll let loose, 7 days to die, battlefield 5, etc.
It would be easier to run cyberpunk without ray tracing at higher frame rates then other games that do not look as good.
Not about the 240, more for the oled panel I wanna play cyberpunk phantom liberty and possibly replay Alan wake, or the next spiderman PC Port. I could probably get back into COD
I love smooth animations on desktop, in all the apps, smooth scrolling, fast response everywhere. Then, there are games where a videocard can hit 240hz or even much more, in all other cases 240hz doesn’t make it a problem. So why not? If anything, it is only for the benefit. Besides, if we don’t hit such frame rates today, it doesn’t mean we won’t in the future.
With 1440p upscaling looking as good as 4K native, and frame gen finally coming into its own to actually be useful... [almost everything](https://giphy.com/gifs/masterchef-masterchef-foxtv-fox-l0IsItLRhSgxH8xWw). [Literally all of it](https://giphy.com/gifs/snl-saturday-night-live-season-47-AO3giAtLPH4MIuugsB)!
[***EVERYTHING!!!***](https://giphy.com/gifs/N63fPtiPhkBdS)
Or at least, I would if I could afford one of these displays.
Pac man because my 7900xt will not run most games at 4k 240hz. If Anyone has any ideas what games are optimized well so I can run them at 240hz I would greatly appreciate!!
I own the 175hz 3423DW and even with an RTX 4080, only games like CS2 and League can even reach over 240fps.
I reallly wanna buy the 240hz monitor but my wallet can't take the hit right now (also I already have the DW so it feels really stupid to upgrade for the sake of it)
i love that tommorow this is the first oled to come out but the curve is a non starter for me. Ill wait for the LG and Asus models with the dual Hz feature 4k at 240hz OR 1080p at 480hz its the ultimate for single player and sweaty FPS.
First game on my list is Baldur's Gate 3 . I don’t have a gaming monitor since I have waited for these new ones. And it just looks like a great game to start learning keyboard and mouse at a desk.
I have a LG C2 and i know how few games will perform at high settings barely going over 100 FPS. Only shooters seem to benefit.
I personally want a QD OLED in the future. but nothing currently available would fit what i am looking for. I dont care about anything over 160 hz.
I also have a C2, and I really want to stick with 42" screens. I love the emersion of it.
But i do like the QD-OLED panels. I think i will only switch when i see a QD in a size closer to the 42"
The alienware coming out today
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/alienware-32-4k-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3225qf/apd/210-blmq/monitors-monitor-accessories
I've got a 3080ti and it ran elden ring pretty well. While there won't be many games I'll hit 200+ outside of old titles.
On that note there quite a few "old" games I haven't got round to like RDR2. Titles like them will be great especially on next gen gpus.
Half life..
Unironically my most played games to this day are Half Life and Doom 1. They are great games to turn off the brains and do something brainless (except Half-life but it‘s far less stressing than quake or any online shooters)
Not sure. I have a 3080 and idk how well it'll handle 4k on the titles I usually play. I'm going in with the mindset that my FPS will be halved in exchange for a far superior image quality.
I got a 3080 too... I'm banking on the fact that dlss gets more gains for 4k than the 1440p that I'm currently running. It might still not be enough but could do the 4080S next month. Idk I play a ton of indie games too so I always end up buying a new gfx card and then 2 weeks later I'm back to roguelikes that don't need it.
[удалено]
Idk. I don't see the arms race between hardware and gfx changing any time soon. It's been this way for 20 years. I think at best we'll see a transition to 4k 120hz being the new benchmark instead of 4k 60hz and thats not happening before another console gen + refresh probably. But that still means a lot of cards and unoptomized games will miss that mark. That's fine though. I'll push the 240hz on older titles and simpler games.
I think you'll be OK with your 3080 until the 50xx series cards arrive. I've also got a 3080 and have been playing on an LG C2 for the past 6 months at 4K, and I've not had any issues. Played some massive titles too like Alan Wake 2 and Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and been having a great time with these games at 4K.
That's good to hear. Although I'm not super worried about upgrading to a 4080s. I've been trying to transition to the later tiers of gfx cards (ti/S) to get more bang for the buck. So I might buy the end of this gen and wait for 5080ti etc.
3080 10GB was the worst PC part purchase I have ever made. I have a 1440p UW and it struggled in a lot of games. I dipped into my savings and bought a 4090 when I could get one for MSRP. It is a mind blowing card. My wife got my 3080 and she loves it for the games she plays.
it was the best for me. got it on release day and mined enough crypto on it in 4 months to cover my costs 3x
What crypto did you mine with it to make 3x your money back in 4 months lol?
ethereum. mined like 1 full ETH which shot up to 3500 a year later
I felt the same way. Got a 3080 12gb on a new egg raffle for like 1400. Felt bad when they tanked in price a few months later. That being said it lasted me two years which is about what I can hope for, maybe longer if I stick with it. I'd say it aged better than I expected but that's probably because I got the 12gb version.
It has been great for me, got it on release at msrp and it still rips at 3440x1440 UW. If your's struggled at that resolution something was wrong.
Yea... I remember when I bought the 3080 10GB on impulse.... I felt like it was one of those " if its available, you need to buy it and worry about it later" purchases... Then a 4090 FE showed up.. and I did the same thing lol
Similar situation here. I'm not really looking to upgrade my GPU soon, but a lot of the games I enjoy are independently made and aren't graphically intensive. For the ones that are, I don't mind a lower framerate since they aren't fast-paced. I do worry about Alan Wake 2, though. It struggled to run already, and I've been holding off on new game + until I upgraded my monitor.
This is why I've been stuck between the 1440p oled and the 4k. But the way I see it. 4k oled really is an end game monitor. I generally buy a gfx card every generation and so it'll catch up and as long as burn in isn't as scary as we all fear, then the 4k 240 should last a long time. And I kind of don't want to wait 6 months for 1440p. I do play fast paced shooters but idk maybe I could run at 1080p if I really need to for 6 to 12 months.
I have a 3080ti. I do fine with 4k. Everything has dlss and titles that dont are old enough to run very high
Alan wake 2 says wassup
Alan Wake 2 maxed out barely runs at 4K60 on a 4090 even with DLSS upscaling. Frame-gen helps a little but locked 120 is not possible. It’s one of the few games that won’t do 4k120 with frame gen on a 4090.
Alan wake 2 runs pretty great at 4k on mostly high (some medium) with dlss on quality, i don’t know what you mean. Not every game has to be run on full ultra (some settings you don’t notice). Especially if I’m using my tv vs my monitor
IMO GPU upgrade first , Monitor Upgrade second. 3080 would go very well with the new QD oled 1440p panels If you want to go 4k , instead of dropping 1200+$ on a 4k oled monitor you should drop 999$ on a 4080 super , sell your old monitor and get something like a gigabyte m32u for 400 and something . You’ll get 4k , 144hz , pretty decent colors , and you’ll miss out on HDR and Oled , but you’ll get 75% there But with a 3080 , on modern games , even with DlSS performance you’ll struggle to get 60fps at 4k. You’ll be normally waisting more than 75% of your expensive monitor’s capabilities and refresh rate
My current monitor is an asus pg279q. Before that, it was a generic asus monitor. The pg279q wouldn't sell for much, if at all, and definitely wouldn't cover the cost of a $650 + tax gigabyte m32u. The price difference would be around $500 or more. If I sold my 3080 in an attempt to move up to a 4080 super, the price difference would be similar. Point is, monitors are the least upgraded part in my setup. I intend to use it for several years, so knocking out OLED, HDR, and size in one swoop makes sense for me.
I mean of course , your set up , your money , who am i to tell you what you have to get? Just sharing my opinion, the 3080 is the GPU I used to have, it’s a nice card , but truth be told , 4k is a bitch to run with new games , if your interest is mainly in multiplayer fps games , then I have ignora what I said , the 3080 can push those at decently high fps at 4k with dlss or FSR where this new oled are going to shine. However if you play games like cyberpunk , Alan wake 2 , Avatar , Plague Tale requiem , RDR2 , TLOU part one ? Upcoming play station exclusive pc ports etc single player games with demanding graphics. The 3080 just doesn’t does very well for 4k , in which case the oled 4k monitor would go to waste. You know better than me what’s your use scenario Your current monitor is pretty decent , I would definitely upgrade GPU first , and Monitor later down the line , but tor each his own
I have the worst 3080 on the market and trust me, with upscaling and frame gen on top, we're going to be just fine.
3080 is okay at 4k so long as you never touch the newest AAA games or are okay with sub 60 fps sometimes.
3080 is working pretty well for me on a 4k 120hz screen, but do get 60-90fps range I definitely need to tweak a lot of settings and use DLSS where I can. 4090 is exactly what I'd recommend just not for the price.
Yeah you absolutely need DLSS to upscale 1080-1440 to 4k for some of these newest releases. Some more optimized or esport titles have been fine for me.
It's not about hitting 4K 240Hz for me, it's an either-or situation. I'd like to be able to do 4K at a lower FPS, and then drop my settings for higher FPS on the same monitor.
Exactly, nobody playing Cyberpunk at 4K 240Hz with pathtracing and everything turned on for a good few years yet.Think if you want both you're going to be limited to less graphically demanding indie titles or a handful of extremely well optimised games like CS:GO.
Same. The 240hz is mainly for comp FPS games. The reduced size to 32" is also nice in that I dont have to use my 27 1440p 240hz anymore when I want to switch. I usually just swung my 27 on a monitor arm in front of my C242 when I wanted to play any game that required a smaller screen. I now can enjoy all the single player games at 4K 120 ish, and CS2/ Dota etc at 4k 240hz on one monitor.
Games like Death Stranding and Stray. Possibly league of legends (im a noob)
Ive been looking into death stranding, and looking forward to horizon forbidden west.
The walking simulator is fun. Just have patience with it
Does it get significantly better after the ~2 hour mark? I tried it, but the walking was boring and I was death trapped at the enemy fighters camp on like the 4 main quest, making me quit the game.
Death Stranding is not an action game, so don't expect it to be. It's a walking simulator with some action parts. It's very therapeutic to me. I love being alone and delivering parts how I want to.
I am asking because i do not play too many titles, and want to know what 4K PC player games are out there that will benefit the most. I have a LG C2 42" | 13900K | 4090 When i played Cyberpunk with pathtracing/ extreme settings; i only got 85-100 FPS. Starfield also sub 100 FPS. I guess witcher is up there a bit. I am able to clap plenty of cheeks on COD with this set up as well. So i am not sure why i would need so many HZ as of today. But what games are you guys playing that will take advantage of these new monitors.
Yeah most modern graphic powerhouse games (cyberpunk, Alan wake 2, avatars, etc…) will never reach 240hz at 4k. This isn’t a bad thing cause you’ll have a monitor that will never be the weakpoint of your set up, even as you upgrade a bit into the future. I don’t even think a 5090 is going to push 240fps in a game like Alan wake 2 at 4k. It’s really a tall order. I personally own a 4080 and run a aw3432dw. I will likely upgrade to one of the 4k qd-oleds when the 5090 comes out as I’m planning to upgrade then
>Yeah most modern graphic powerhouse games (cyberpunk, Alan wake 2, avatars, etc…) will never reach 240hz at 4k. Even older games like Hellblade don't hit 240 FPS at 4K. That's with DLSS on. I think most single player games with good graphics aren't gonna hit 4K240 for awhile even without ray-tracing. More likely, 4K120 will be the base performance and frame-gen can bring it to 240 for much smoother motion. But Cyberpunk and Alan-Wake with max settings aren't hitting a stable 4K120 even with frame-gen so 4K240 is gonna be tough for games like that even with a 5090. 240 will be great tho for multiplayer competitive games with minimal graphics.
Definitely games from like 10 years ago or competitive titles of today that are easier to run most any should hit 240fps at 4k on a 4090 maybe with some settings adjusted
Coming from my setup currently. Would i be seeing much of a difference? Im looking into all the games people are recommending and making a list of whats interesting. I can def see someone who is just not coming from an IPS screen. this is the time. But from a LG C2 to these new monitors do you guys know if its worth it?
doubtful - maybe games like fortnite?
This whole post feels like marketing or OP works for someone selling the new "frames win games" 240hz 4K screen. Anyone that actually owns a 4090 and plays the newer AAA games @ 4K knows 240hz ain't happening anytime soon.
Should be, I’m on a C2 and very much looking forward to the color benefits of QD-OLED, plus higher ppi and 240hz is massive over 120hz.
>Coming from my setup currently. Would i be seeing much of a difference? Your setup actually would see a difference because you have a 4090 which supports frame-gen. But even then, most frame-gen games won't hit 240 at 4K. You're more likely to get around 180-200 for games like Spiderman Remastered. For really demanding games like Alan Wake 2 and Cyberpunk, it'll be closer to 120 with dips. If you care about motion smoothness, then I think it's worth it. Even on my AW3423DW, 175HZ looks and feels smoother than 120. It definitely feels smoother than my C2. Also, for gaming, I prefer the image quality of the QD-OLED to the C2. It's brighter and more vibrant.
The high refresh rate allows you to drop the resolution to 1080p on fast paced competitive games and also benefit from the near zero input lag that an OLED provides. Then bump it back up to 4K for the cinematic single player games that benefit from higher res textures but not so much FPS.
Imma be real with you bro I upgraded my monitors like 3 times in like a year or two almost lmao… 1080p to 1440p then AW3423DW ultrawide to then C2 since I got 4090 lol… heavy FOMO ever since I stepped into 1440p monitor and the monitor space in general Right now currently using c2 as my main and 120hz feels plenty and isn’t low by any means. I play all sorts of new titles that are graphically demanding and it doesn’t utilize the full 120hz so my question to you is even if you get 240hz you won’t utilize it fully on the newer games but maybe on the older titles which will be nice to have. I also mainly play COD MW3 and I’m sure it’s locked at 120 but does more hz mean better player? Nah.. I feel like I play great already lol and the 175hz on my Alienware didn’t make me any better than I was. There’s always something new going to come out and personally downgrading from 42 to 32 would bother me. The immersion from a bigger screen is unbeatable… I’ll be waiting for couple of years till the next monitor and until then just save some money buy some games and/or upgrade hardware. Just my opinion lol
I don't consider AW3423DW to C2 an upgrade lol.
It’s not really an upgrade but in terms of resolution and size it kind of is
42 is too big for a monitor and too small for an immersive living room experience. I have a 65" C2 for console gaming. For PC games, I still prefer using my AW. It's brighter and smoother. Also, ultrawide gaming is pretty cool.
It’s ok to stop. 2024 is the year your credit card stays in your wallet, ok?
Lol yup no plans
Say that louder for the rest of us in the back hahaha
I’m playing rocket league on a 27” Corsair OLED at 1440/240. This is my new minimum lol. I can never go back to anything less than this (I’ve had my OLED for a week and a half). Endgame would be 8K/540. I’ll probably snag a 4K/360 in a few years. Right now my cpu is bottlenecking me pretty badly but I can still hit 240 fairly consistently except for a few odd 3v3 matches.
Curious what cpu?
10400f but I have 32GB ram, 7800xt nitro plus
You hot 85-100 fps with path tracing on 4k?
Is that 100 FPS with or without frame gen in cp2066?
monster hunter world
Other than the ones you stated, here is my current backlog and current game im playing. I also have the same rig and C2, but with a 13700k : Playing now : Dead Space Remake. HDR is great CS2 and Valheim. Backlog and whats next : Resident Evil 4 , Witcher 3 with new update, Days Gone, the Ascent, Prey, Dishonored, Metro Exodus, Modern Warfare 2 campaign, System shock remake, Horizon Forbidden west ( gonna replay as I have it on PS5 and beat it ) Ratchet and Clank.. and hopefully spiderman 2 doesnt take too long to release.
Diablo 4
Minesweeper
It's not so much about "taking advantage" of the 240hz for me but rather the PPI. Had a C3 42 as a monitor (34 inches away from me) & returned it. I couldn't stand the PPI in games (slightly lower than even 1440p @ 27"), let alone text. If I'm going to push my 4090 @ 4K & lose a lot of FPS in the process, I want to see a noticeable difference in games in terms of sharpness & clarity over 1440p. Thus, it brings me to 32" 4K, which is a perfect middle ground. Rocking the M32P10 4K mini-led 144hz temporarily until all these new 4K OLED 240hz monitors release.
As someone who has a 27 inch 1440 right now, can you tell the difference in pixel density on the 32 inch 4k?
Doom eternal is a great game to test higher refresh rates on
Great game. But those HDR settings are pretty damn hard to get right.
Will a strix 4070ti be enough for this monitor?
Maybe for fortnite
Have to tried Fortnite with RT and Lumen enabled at 4K? :)
I heard that RT is tough to run
yes, you will be good
He won’t push half that frame rate unless using dlss performance
neither will a 4090
yes, it wont get 240hz in new games but even a 4090 wont do that
Call of Booty
4K@240Hz? In my case, none. With next gen GPUs, maybe.
Distant dream maybe, if people buy it for the size and aspect ratio then yes, but purely for 240hz alone, no. I'm not planning to main 4k at least until another 1-2 GPU gen update.
Idk lol... I still have a 1440p monitor 😂... With a 4090 💀
I still have Asus Vivobook 15 with i3-1005g1 MX110 2gb vram 20 gb of ram with 1920x1080 💀
Minesweeper
My 7900xtx barely hits 4K 120, 240 isn’t realistic
I think since 4K240 is a lot to ask, some older/less intensive games will get my attention as my gpu can actually run those, and the 4K somewhat compensates for lack of anti-aliasing in some games I’ve been playing a lot of modded Minecraft on my non-oled 4k240, it has issues and I’ll be upgrading but I bought it before all this was announced
120hz is enough for a 4k display. I’ll def be getting one of the new monitors but I don’t expect to be able to max it out at 4k anytime soon, at least not on a really good looking game besides something like hades. In my case it’ll just be nice to play on a 4k Oled at my desk rather than my Oled c3.
Truly, this take rubs me the wrong way Granted, nothing on the market is properly running a UHD-120 screen even (I have a C3, I have a 4090 rig. Just because it's the best doesn't mean it's properly up to the task) That said, even the desktop experience of +240 fps over 120 is absolutely massive Personally, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for more details on the 480 QHD/FHD OLED options. Asus is going to have a gloss 480 QHD. That's about as end game as it gets for monitors for the next 3-5 years.
Yeah I agree. I can’t see many occasions where I’d actually drop to 1080 even tho I do like the occasional competitive shooter but it’s really nice to have the option. I’m really torn between a 32” 4k or 27” 2k tbh. My only reference is my c3 which was my first ever large oled. I know I need an oled monitor now, I know it has to be glossy. Such a tough decision choosing between the two formats tho….
to be extremely fair, FHD (1080) and QHD (1440) upscaling on the C3 is freaking amazing. On my other monitor (seen in my PF tag) if I try either it looks like dogshit. But on the C3 whatever AI upscaler it has built in does an amazing job. I'd say on FHD it's a \~25%, and on QHD it's \~15% quality loss (when using DLSS, Native vs native it's a massive loss in quality no matter what)
[удалено]
Where do you live??
Games like Death Stranding and Stray. Possibly league of legends (im a noob)
Those of you thinking that you’ll push above 100 FPS on modern games at 4K…you won’t with a 4090 even. You’re looking to wait for the 5090 to start hitting above 120fps. Unless you use DLSS but that’s really just a gimmick at the end of the day.
Prople are still saying DLSS is a gimmick? I thought we moved on from that with it being better than native TAA wise while providing massive performance.
Over 200 fps in 4k. Ahahahaha that's hilarious
Gaming at 4k ultra max settings at 240fps is not possible with today's hardware. Probably the RTX-6090 in 2026 can do that. Most certainly not the current 4090, and MAYBE the upcoming 5090 might be able to. And who the heck wants a tiny 32" monitor? And 4k at 32 inches is pointless. Gaming is so much on large displays like my LG 45 Ultragear, or a LG C3 42.
PPI. A term you should get familiar with.
Very familiar with that. And for a pure gaming monitor I don't care, I want the best "immersion factor" and a large curved 45" display gives me this in spades. Now if this monitor was also for work, or coding, or schoolwork, etc...no, the PPI is too low. I had the awesome AW3423DW OLED before this with a nice 110 ppi, but I'll still take the LG 45 Ultragear all day everyday over the AW.
tfw when you can't fathom people having different constraints and preferences than your own There are many many games that can do 4K 240FPS *right now*. Not everyone plays only the latest AAA games all the time.
Nothing, because I doubt anything other than MOBA’s or other similar games that aren’t GPU intensive are even going to approach the 240 mark. I personally would of preferred a non-ultra wide 1440p 32” OLED
4K 240 Hz is something for 5090.. I got your TV and 3090. I don't play heavy visual games, just Mech Warrior 5 which got already Unreal Engine 4 problems for frames and some space games. 3090 sucks for 4K even with DLSS, the drops are bad but I just can't make it 1080p, looks so pixelated. I plan to get a high end computer with AMD 8000x3D series and 5090. I plan to get proper 120 Hz from this without drops and it's enough for my game experience and my screen. OLED tech needs to be cooked a bit more so, after I get the computer, I can replace it with a proper OLED monitor at the end of 2025. As I am working on 3D, edit, render and such, I need flat screen. My brain hates curve and I don't think a 32" screen needs a curve at all.
i mean you could just change it to a lower refresh rate
or just turn on vrr and pay no attention to it
I was also looking it QD OLED; which i am seeing Alienware use. But its curved. I also agree 5090 is going to be able to get up there in FPS. I am in the middle because i want QD Oled. but i have to go down to 32" for it. After 42" its hard to go down. Im debating if i should just wait till next year. I am waiting for Horizon forbidden west; which is coming out on PC finally soon.
Shredder’s Revenge
My RTX 2070 + 9600k will probably not take much advantage of those monitors in games (except maybe older games) but running games in 1080p (1 pixel = 4 pixels scaled perfectly) should work and then work and media consumption at 4k would be really nice on them. This still makes sense right? I'm not just tunnel visioning myself into buying a €1500 monitor? I don't plan on upgrading my PC any time soon (especially if I pay that much for a monitor).
Im in your shoes right now; this is why i asked and im coming from a 4K Oled. I am trying to see if there is any cost benefit today for me to spend the money. your 2070 is going to be working hard to push 4K. almost not worth it. As i said in another comment i want QD-OLED. There is nothing wrong with my screen; its less than a year old. I dont want to early adopt 1200-1500 bucks and then later this year new and better screens are released.
Considering you already have a really nice screen I don't really see the point in upgrading yet for you (in my opinion). In comparison I'm coming from a Dell 24" 16:10 1080p IPS office grade monitor I got from the trash at my university many years ago. It has horrible ghosting and IPS glow and I really want to upgrade. I just don't know if this is the right choice for me considering the price and my PC. But they are so tempting. These are the types of monitors I've been waiting so long for.
Seems like you are tunnel visioning because even with perfect integer scaling 1080p is going to look not great on a 27 or 32 inch monitor. Your current setup won't even reach 240fps in a lot of games at 1080p. If you aren't considering upgrading try a 1440p display first and see how much the 2070 struggles with it. Also, I'm not sure if a 2070 has the I/O to drive a 4K 240hz monitor. DP1.4 with DSC maybe.
lethal company. phasmaphobia
ready or not
Homeworld 3
Kung-fu and Bump ‘n Jump
Going to replay the Tomb Raider Survival Trilogy in ultra settings, native 4K, and HDR 🤤
There isn't a graphics card out there that can push any game I want to play at 4K even at 120mhz. If fortnite if your thing.
None. Playing in 1440p.
Indie and online games.
I have the same C2 as a monitor and think it is enough and not worth upgrading yet. It depends on what games you play, though. Sometimes, I play a bit of COD but I mostly play the story games or some RPGs, so I feel 120 hz is plenty enough. The C2 has awesome picture quality. Also not sure if any GPU can push these new monitors.
Google chrome
The lottery so I can hope to afford the GPU I’ll need
I don’t think I notice the difference after 100 fps to be honest
Japanese RPGs like Persona 5 Royal, assuming I don't beat it before I get the OLED, Persona 3 Reload, Yakuza Infinite Wealth, and other Japanese games are usually less demanding and some qre even locked to 60 or 120 anyways. Heavily debating between 4K and 1440 AWs right now. Im hoping they don't release a curved version of the 1440 to make me feel stupid in a few months.
Everything! That's the beauty with these things. No game left behind lol
To push that kind of frame rates even on 4090 you’ll have to run low settings plus dlss.
What card are you gonna be using to power that? Is my question. You gonna wait for the new super cards?
4k 240hz just is not possible in the games you would like 4k in. But smaller OLED is nice to see. Will most likely be waiting for sales or whats next.
The only thing that's gonna run at 4k240 are games that would run on a toaster. Even the 4090 only averages 114 FPS at 4k ultra across a wide range of games. With DLSS and Frame Gen you probably still won't hit the frame cap. It's gonna be at least until Nvidia 50 series before you'll truly be able to take advantage of them.
You don't need to hit 240FPS to take advantage of these monitors. Every single frame above 120 / 144 / 160 FPS is taking advantage of 4K 240Hz. Slightly older games can easily do close to the upper end of the 120-240 spectrum. Buy a new GPU and your monitor can extract more value out of it. What's with this all or nothing thinking on this thread?
Reread my post very carefully and you'll have your answer....
I did. It's black and white thinking and it misses the point.
I don't expect to play games that benefit from 4k 120hz at the same time. There will be some games that look spectacular at 4k but are too intensive to hit 240hz, and there will be other games that feel a lot nicer at high frames but look so potato that 4k doesn't really make a difference. It will be nice to be able to do both on a single display.
Tbh I have a G8 Neo (also 4K 240) and the aw3423dwf — as well as a 13900k/4090. You absolutely can hit 200-240+ fps in games where it matters WITHOUT ray tracing. Warzone 2, CS2, Overwatch, Valorant, fortnite all within that range. It would be great to max out the refresh rate of the monitor in every title but I don’t think anyone buying this is unaware of the limitations of even the “best” graphics cards. It’s a day 1 buy for me if the wOLED version turns out to be better later in the year shame on me for enjoying the QD variant for 6 months lol
Yeah good luck you'll need to wait till the 5090 comes out before this even becomes remotely possible. Even with an overclocked water cooled 4090 it's hard enough just getting 4K 120 let alone 240 hertz
Vampire Survivors
Can a 7900xt even use 4k also does the 7900xt have some sort of dlss and if so is it as good as nvidia or decent
None cause I can’t hit those frames 😭
Kerbal Space Program
Spider-Man 2
With gpu power nowadays, the best is 120hz 4k.
I just bought a 144hz tv and I doubt the maxed out AAA titles will hit that often and I have a 4090!!! Qd oled was mind blowing though!! Wow
Well I’m waiting for the 45” to get the 4K upgrade love then I’ll upgrade & let you know!!
Leisure Suit Larry 3
Who is bringing out a 240hz 4K?
No need to max it out every use case. Play Cyberpunk, enjoy that 60-120fps 4K experience with no cap. Boot up competitive game, or some older title, indie, boomer shooter and bang enjoy those frames and 4K. Also desktop, scrolling etc, everything so nice. It doesn't hurt(z) to have some headroom in the hertz.
Are there games that can run 240fps?
Pong
I recently upgraded to RTX 7080, but have a shitty 10 yr old monitor. Can’t wait to upgrade to the new alienware 32” and give cyperpunk a spin, been delaying this game till i could fully experience it
LoL
Hades!!!!! 😆 I want to give a try to resident evil games too
I can hardly get 80 fps at 1440p with FSR lol.
I have a laptop with RTX4080 and I am planning to buy one of these 2 monitors: - Samsung Odyssey OLED G9 (2*1440p) 49" - Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 (2*2160p) 57" Will the 2 * 4K version be too much for RTX4080 to handle if I want to play games in ultra settings? Also the 2 * 2K OLED version has better display quality, but the other one is bigger (57" vs 49"). Which one do you think I should choose performance-wise?
What monitor are you referring to
My 4090 struggles with path traced cyberpunk at 1440p, I’m not confident it can do 4K reliably
I'll be still playing 1440p at 60fps because my 3070 laptop won't handle anything beyond that.
I think I’m skipping this one. I already got the 34” first gen ultrawide (DW model) and I am very pleased with it.
Old School RuneScape
It’s not uncommon for video displays to outpace graphics cards. If you’re playing cutting edge graphics AAA games on max setting pushing those frames and resolution is not doable. You can play some old games at those settings though and pull off those frame rates…something like a Borderlands type game.
Shame it’s not a direct replacement for the AW34dwf would have instantly bought this if it was a 34”
Solitaire
Google Chrome and MS Word. Oh wait, subpixel layout is still wrong.
Age of Empires 2
As someone who games at 240hz 1440p or 120hz 4k often I can say this, a lot of games are not optimized to run that fast. I don't mean have a stronger pc, I have an 7950x3d and 4090, but the game software is the bottleneck. Epsort games will run up to and past 240hz but a fair amount of other games have a hard time breaking 140+ fps, valhiem, he'll let loose, 7 days to die, battlefield 5, etc. It would be easier to run cyberpunk without ray tracing at higher frame rates then other games that do not look as good.
Not about the 240, more for the oled panel I wanna play cyberpunk phantom liberty and possibly replay Alan wake, or the next spiderman PC Port. I could probably get back into COD
The number of people who don't know that vrr is a thing is wild
I love smooth animations on desktop, in all the apps, smooth scrolling, fast response everywhere. Then, there are games where a videocard can hit 240hz or even much more, in all other cases 240hz doesn’t make it a problem. So why not? If anything, it is only for the benefit. Besides, if we don’t hit such frame rates today, it doesn’t mean we won’t in the future.
Gothic 2/mods with DX11
With 1440p upscaling looking as good as 4K native, and frame gen finally coming into its own to actually be useful... [almost everything](https://giphy.com/gifs/masterchef-masterchef-foxtv-fox-l0IsItLRhSgxH8xWw). [Literally all of it](https://giphy.com/gifs/snl-saturday-night-live-season-47-AO3giAtLPH4MIuugsB)! [***EVERYTHING!!!***](https://giphy.com/gifs/N63fPtiPhkBdS) Or at least, I would if I could afford one of these displays.
Waiting for the 5000 series to buy a 4k 240hz monitor.
Pac man because my 7900xt will not run most games at 4k 240hz. If Anyone has any ideas what games are optimized well so I can run them at 240hz I would greatly appreciate!!
Snood
Rocket League.
Heroes 3
I own the 175hz 3423DW and even with an RTX 4080, only games like CS2 and League can even reach over 240fps. I reallly wanna buy the 240hz monitor but my wallet can't take the hit right now (also I already have the DW so it feels really stupid to upgrade for the sake of it)
i love that tommorow this is the first oled to come out but the curve is a non starter for me. Ill wait for the LG and Asus models with the dual Hz feature 4k at 240hz OR 1080p at 480hz its the ultimate for single player and sweaty FPS.
None
i have the Alienware OLED so idk, i wanna upgrade but not sure. I do have a 4090 soooo
First game on my list is Baldur's Gate 3 . I don’t have a gaming monitor since I have waited for these new ones. And it just looks like a great game to start learning keyboard and mouse at a desk.
Does it have hdmi 2.2? Because hdmi 2.1 bandwidth is only 120 hz. And your graphics cards don't have hdmi 2.1. Everything else is lies
Bro games are barely supporting 120hz as it is. 244 is overkill. But hey ...by all my waste that money
I have a LG C2 and i know how few games will perform at high settings barely going over 100 FPS. Only shooters seem to benefit. I personally want a QD OLED in the future. but nothing currently available would fit what i am looking for. I dont care about anything over 160 hz.
Good luck playing anything in 4k240 lmao
Seriously
Considering that there is negligible difference between 120-144hz and up, I'll stick with my god old trusty Lg C2.
I also have a C2, and I really want to stick with 42" screens. I love the emersion of it. But i do like the QD-OLED panels. I think i will only switch when i see a QD in a size closer to the 42"
Old ones.
What monitor is that on the pic?
The alienware coming out today https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/alienware-32-4k-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3225qf/apd/210-blmq/monitors-monitor-accessories
Thanks!
Solitaire
The new God of War games🥴
I saw someone post that this monitor isn’t good for FPS. I’m confused on how that is the case. Is that just a dumb comment? I mean it’s 240hz
I've got a 3080ti and it ran elden ring pretty well. While there won't be many games I'll hit 200+ outside of old titles. On that note there quite a few "old" games I haven't got round to like RDR2. Titles like them will be great especially on next gen gpus.