I think a graphics card tailored for 2k gaming is actually great. 2k really is the goldilocks zone between 4k and 1080p graphics before you start creeping into diminishing returns.
Assuming they retail at prices Intel are suggesting in the press releases, you maybe here save 40-50 bucks over an ~equivalent NVidia 4060.
I would also argue like others here that with tech like frame gen, DLSS etc, even the cheapest discrete NVidia 40xx parts are arguably 1440p optimized now, it doesn't even need to be said in their marketing materials. Im not as familiar with AMD's range right now, but I suspect virtually every discrete graphics card they sell is "2k optmized" by the standard Intel used here, and also doesn't really warrant explicit mention.
Time marches on, and I become ever more separated from gaming PC enthusiasts.
Instead, I bought a good 27" 1440p monitor, and you know what? I am not the discerning connoisseur of pixels that I thought I was. Honestly, it's fine.
I will hold out with this setup until I can get a 8k 144hz monitor and a gpu to drive it for a reasonable price. I expect that will take another decade or so.
At 4K, it's like having 4 21" 1080p monitors. Haven't maximized or minimized a window in years. The sprawl is real.
Get a 5K 27".
No fractional scaling, same real estate, much better picture.
In other words, the current tech just isn’t quite there yet, or not cheap enough.
It’s a great way to have my cake and eat it too.
You say PC gamers at the start of your comment and gaming PC enthusiasts at the end. These groups are not the same and I'd say the latter is largely doing ultrawide, 4k monitor or even 4k TV.
According to steam, 56% are on 1080p, 20% on 1440p and 4% on 2160p.
So gamers as a whole are still settled on 1080p, actually. Not everyone is rich.
It does have HDMI-CEC, so I haven't even used the remote control in several years.
If you’re ok with the resolution, then the only downside is significant power consumption and lack of HDR support.
Prove to me those aren't synonyms.
Ouch, had something similar happen to me before when I bought a VR headset and had to return it. Wishing you the best on your job search!
Could just get a 3060 and a nice 1440p monitor.
Even with this monitor, I'm barely able to run it with my (expensive, though older) graphics card, and the screen alarmingly flashes whenever I change any settings. It's stable, but this is not a simple plug-and-play configuration (mine requires two DP cables and fiddling with the menu + NVIDIA control panel).
https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cabl... is a calculator for bandwidth 4K@144 HDR is ~40 Gigabit/s. You can do better with compression, but I find Nvidia cards have an issue with compression enabled.
I don't think it's an issue until you notice. I only noticed because I toggle HDR for some games and at 1440p240hz, the difference is just enough to not need DSC
Reddit also seems to have some people who have managed to get 144 with FreeSync, but I've only managed 120.
Funnily enough while I was typing this Netflix caused both my monitors to blackscreen (some sort of NVIDIA reset I think) and then come back. It's not totally stable!
It works up until too many pixels change, basically.
1440p hits a popular balance where it’s more pixels than 1080p but not so absurdly expensive or power hungry.
Eventually 4K might be reasonably affordable, but we’ll settle at 1440p for a while in the meantime like we did at 1080p (which is still plenty popular too).
Like I said, it's on the cusp of invisible pixels.
I've not tried but I've heard that a butter-smooth 90, 120, or 300 FPS frame rate (that is also synchronized with the display) is really wonderful in many such games, and once you experience that you can't go back. On less powerful systems it then requires making a tradeoff with rendering quality and resolution.
Tbh now that I think about it I only really need resolution for general usage. For gaming I'm running everything but textures on low with min or max FOV depending on the game so it's not exactly aesthetic anyway. I more so need physical screen size so the heads are physically larger without shoving my face in it and refresh rate.
Most people don't have enough disposable income to make spending that extra amount a reasonable tradeoff (and continuing to spend on upgrades to keep up with their monitor on new games).
It's doable, the tech is there. But the cost is WAY too high compared to what you get from it in the end.
I run the second monitor off the IGPU so it doesn't even tax the main GPU.
1920x1080 is 1080p.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that's how it is.
[EDIT] I mean, of course, 1080p's also not typically called that, yet another resolution is, but labeling 1440p 2k is especially far off.
> (the p is progressive, vs i for interlaced)
> 4k, 2k refer to the number of columns of pixels
> 2560×1440 is both 2.5k and 1440p, and 3840×2160 is both 4k and 2160p.
These parts I did not misunderstand.
> and those terms come from cinema and visual effects (and originally means 4096 and 2048 pixels wide)
OK that part I didn't know, or at least had forgotten—which are effectively the same thing, either way.
> 1920×1080 is both 2k and 1080p
Wikipedia suggests that in this particular case (unlike with 4k) application of "2k" to resolutions other than the original cinema resolution (2048x1080) is unusual; moreover, I was responding to a commenter's usage of "2k" as synonymous with "1440p", which seemed especially odd to me.
“2K” is used to denote WQHD often enough, whereas 1080p is usually called that, if not “FHD”.
“2K” being used to denote resolutions lower than WQHD is really only a thing for the 2048 cinema resolutions, not for FHD.
...which will be most likely in better condition than anything that was used for, let's say, gaming...