Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

1080p. Is this for driving TVs off a PC?

Steam Survey says 60% of users are on 1080p

And that's just 1080p, quickly adding the survey results shows that only ~27% of people have larger screens than 1080p, so ~73% if people have screens of 1080p or less.

Though arguably people on older screens aren't likely in the market for a new graphics card, even "midrange" like this.

Most of those screens below 1080 aren't old monitors, they're budget laptop screens, specially 1366x768.

Personally I dont want anything more than 1080.. My OS UI, text and games are perfect for me at 1080p. I defo dont want to use more electricity and lose frames pushing 4 times as many pixels for games.

Once you go with a higher resolution, you realize how blurry 1080p is. For gaming, 1440p 240hz is a pretty decent middle ground considering quality, price, and fps.

That's not how LCD monitors work. I own 1080p, 1440p and 4k monitors and I've gamed on all of them. None of them are blurry.

Edit: LCD monitors are not blurry if you use the native resolution. Go learn about pixels and resolutions if you think otherwise, because you clearly don't understand. There's no way for it to be blurry unless for some reason you're doing non-integer based scaling. https://tanalin.com/en/articles/integer-scaling/

Anti-aliasing makes it look blurry when the pixels are larger

Yeah, this is just nonsense.

I'm not sure what you mean, but people buying $179 GPUs are very likely to have a 1080p monitor.

Upscaling means you can push to a high refresh 2560x1440 and be fine, in nearly all games.

What you can drive natively isnt really that coupled to what you can render anymore. It's an unnecessary luxury having full native res rendering, great to have, nice, but no longer necessary at all for almost everyone.

Also if you are just gonna predominantly play on Steam Deck or some kind of video solution, then it's probably more than enough.

> nearly all games.

Only a few games unfortunately. https://game.intel.com/story/intel-arc-graphics-xess-games/

A lot of modern games that do not support Intel XeSS do still support AMD FSR, which looks worse than XeSS but works fine on all three GPU vendors. FSR2 especially looks 'decent enough', FSR1 does look a lot worse.

Not everyone is interested in playing games in 4880p at 245 FPS. Besides the obvious diminishing returns, consuming this much power and generating this much e-waste for entertainment is irresponsible.

Yeah. I've got a "low end" AMD card... 24" 1080p at mid-high settings and 100+ FPS is "enough."

That's just my personal preference. If somebody else feels differently that's fine.

I like 4k60 because it allows me to re-use my existing 4k monitor that I use for reading code.

To play a game at 1080p, I need a dedicated third-party application, because changing the resolution of the desktop is absolutely criminal and also results in blurry scaling artifacts rather than the perfect integer scaling that it should be.

4k to 1080p is a perfect integer scale. One pixel at 1920x1080 is a 2x2 pixel block at 3840x2160.

Changing the resolution of the desktop indeed has hideous effects in Windows. If my external monitor loses power for half a second, all my windows get forcibly resized to fit within the limits of my laptop's built-in screen. It is inconceivable to me that someone might actually want this functionality.

And yet somehow, if I close a window, unplug the external monitor, and reopen the window, it will open in the inaccessible virtual space where the external monitor used to be, and I have to use keyboard commands to move it onto the visible screen.

I don't want either of those things to happen, but I'm prepared to believe that I have to live with one or the other. (I'd rather have the second problem than the first one.)

Why are both of them happening?

> 4k to 1080p is a perfect integer scale. One pixel at 1920x1080 is a 2x2 pixel block at 3840x2160.

Exactly. It's one of the reasons why I mandate 4k and not 1440p, in addition to it also being a perfect 3x multiple of 720p, which is absolutely godlike for games like FTL: Faster Than Light.

Most games these days support DLSS and FSR. You should never run games at 1080p output, but instead whatever internal resolution you can handle, upscaled to 4k output.

I don't want that compromise on quality. Additionally, the quality of the DLSS/FSR integration itself varies by game, and I play plenty of non-AAA titles that either don't have the setting altogether, or commit grave sins such as upscaling GUI elements.

What compromise? A game with 1080p internal resolution upscaled to 4k with DLSS on a 4k monitor looks way better than 1080p native on a 1080p monitor.

If the game implements upscaling correctly. Even then, I'm not a big fan of using upscaling myself, I'm not sure why.

I like spending $1,500 on a graphics card so I can re-use my existing $4,000 4k monitor to play pong.

My entire computer costed $999. The GPU is probably around $400 of that.

The 4k monitor I'm using costed $70. It's a cheap aluminum enclosure around a laptop panel.

What application are you using?

It's called "Lossless Scaling" and you can find it on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/993090/Lossless_Scaling/

You have to buy it and then switch the branch to version 1.6, because the new UWP version doesn't work properly.

For one, it's about non high-end PCs. Also, you would wonder how many people hate high dpi screens.

Maybe, but I'd think a TV target would be 4K in 2023. "1080p gaming" doesn't usually mean an exact target so much as "not powerful enough for more".

Sounds more like they're targeting the good enough market. Mid-level PC gaming has moved on to 1440p, but budget builds could maybe use something like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com