Best answer: The best resolution for PC gaming depends on what GPU you own and how much budget is available for buying a new one to handle more advanced monitors. The current sweet spot for gamers is 1440p, with more gamers looking to adopt 4K.
In this case, it's the field of view from the perspective of your playable character. This can vary depending on your rig of course, so see which setting works best for you.
- Best display for 1080p gaming: ASUS VG248QE ($250 at Best Buy)
- Best display for 1440p gaming: Dell Gaming S2417DG ($326 at Best Buy)
- Best display for 4K gaming: Acer Predator XB271HK ($650 at Amazon)
Different screen resolutions explained
One of the major factors to consider when choosing a new display is the resolution. 1080p is the most popular configuration used today, but 1440p and 4K are slowly acquiring market share. Here are the resolutions we'll be working with when selecting a new monitor (or TV if you wish to get into couch gaming):
- 1280x720 — HD / 720p.
- 1920x1080 — FHD (Full HD) / 1080p.
- 2560x1440 — QHD/WQHD (Quad HD) / 1440p.
- 3840x2160 — UHD (Ultra HD) / 4K 2160p.
- 7680×4320 — FUHD (Full Ultra HD) / 8K 4320p.
4K is considered the true successor to 1080p. It doubles the horizontal and vertical resolution, so you can begin to understand just what's being asked of your graphics card when you throw an intensive application or game into the mix — four times the pixels. As noted above, it depends on what your PC can handle. We want to be aiming for a steady 60 frames per second (FPS) as an absolute minimum for smooth gameplay.
Higher frame rates are better if your monitor can handle it. Most 1080p screens are 60Hz, while more expensive 120Hz screens can output 120 frames each and every second. An example display could be a 1440p unit with a refresh rate of 144Hz, which will enable you to enjoy smooth gameplay at a higher resolution than Full HD. Again, this is only if your graphics card and accompanying components can muster up enough power.
The best monitors for PC gaming
Source: Rich Edmonds / Windows Central
When you need to game on your PC, you need a gaming display that can handle all the pixels sent by your GPU. Adding synchronization technology to the mix makes your game catalog shine, no matter what you play. Depending on what GPU you own and how much budget is available, we have the best recommendations for different resolutions.
While we've included it in the above list, don't go for 720p. Ever. A 1080p monitor should be your minimum entry point, with displays having become relatively affordable at around the $100 mark. You can even pick one up with support for AMD FreeSync technology for stutter-free gaming.
Xbox One owners will need to stick with a solid 1080p monitor, while Xbox One S and Xbox One X owners can go for a 4K display. For PC owners, when should you make the jump to 1440p or 4K?
Even more pixels
1440p
Grabbing a sweet deal on a new 27-incher (or above) for your gaming den will be an ideal investment, allowing you to choose a screen that offers an increased refresh rate and higher resolution. 1440p is becoming more popular as consumers upgrade to more powerful hardware at affordable prices. Latest AMD GPUs will be able to handle gaming at 1440p (as well as 1080p) and will even support VR too.
Seeing how your PC handles games at 1080p would be a reliable way to estimate just how 1440p will go down. If you consistently hit the barrier of your monitor's refresh rate (60Hz being the norm or 60 frames per second), then the leap to a 1440p monitor may be an ideal enhancement to your experience.
Also, check benchmarks from reputable sources to see how your graphics card and setup could handle the extra demand. Going for one with a higher refresh rate will also enable your graphics card to refresh the image on-screen at faster rates to help eliminate blurring and tearing with fast-moving content.
4K or bust
The 4K resolution is a whole different ballgame. This is an incredibly demanding format and should only be deployed if you have sufficient graphics power. We're not talking high-end specifications, but absolute beastly setups. Even NVIDIA's new RTX 2080 Ti can struggle with powering content to a display at 4K. Remember, you need to aim for high frame rates as well as pumping up graphics options and increasing the resolution to enhance your gaming experience. And 100 FPS at maximum detail on 1440p would be better than 20 FPS on 4K.
You need to consider response time, resolution, refresh rates and sync tech.
It's also possible to look into SLI and multiple card configurations when considering the move into the Ultra HD (4K) market. But if you haven't the space to upgrade to a larger display or simply don't feel the need to do so, your 21-inch Full HD setup is more than capable of immersing you into the numerous virtual worlds available for purchase today. It all boils down to personal preference, budget, and available computing power.
When looking at new monitors, you'll need to work out your available budget on not only the display but also the necessary computing power to be able to push all the pixels out. If you own a powerful card, have experienced stable frames in 1080p, or have a new NVIDIA GTX card on order, 1440p is an option that shouldn't provide many issues. The resolution, response time, refresh rates, and other features are worth considering as factors.
Jargon Busting
There's a lot of jargon when it comes to picking out monitors. Just what are response times, refresh rates, FreeSync, G-Sync, and IPS and TN technologies? Keep reading.
Response time
Measured in milliseconds (or simply 'ms'), this figure represents how quickly the monitor in question can go from gray-to-gray, as calculated and tested by the manufacturer. It's recommended that you have a response time of five ms or lower, to help prevent ghosting. Having a monitor with a high response time could lead to image ghosting issues, which is just another hurdle on the road to absolute immersion. Of course, the lower the response time, the more expensive the price tag will be.
Refresh rate
The refresh rate of a monitor is the number of times per second an image displayed needs to be regenerated to prevent flicker when viewed by the human eye. If your GPU can regenerate an image to a 120Hz monitor 120 times each second, you'll enjoy an excellent viewing experience. However, if your PC isn't able to power through the demanding game, you will see stuttering and possible screen tear as the monitor and GPU become out of sync. (This can be mitigated with FreeSync and G-Sync tech.)
FreeSync and G-Sync
These are systems developed by AMD and NVIDIA, respectively, that offer smoother gameplay, help prevent what is known as 'screen tearing' and also reduce input lag. What essentially occurs is the monitor and graphics card communicate with one another to adapt the current refresh rate to ensure what's being displayed on-screen is in sync with what's being rendered. If the monitor or card is above and beyond the other, this can cause screen tears to appear – horizontal tearing across the screen.
An ideal monitor for gamers would be the chosen resolution, screen size, 120Hz or higher refresh rate, with two ms or lower response time, and either FreeSync or G-Sync support. While AMD GPUs support FreeSync and NVIDIA GPUs work with G-Sync, NVIDIA has begun certifying specific FreeSync monitors to work with its GPUs, which we've listed for you to save some pennies.
1080p gaming
ASUS VG248QE
Affordable and fast
Say you're an FPS enthusiast who wants to augment their game with a new monitor, yet you don't have the funds to support your ambition. ASUS has you covered. The VG248QE has a 144Hz refresh rate and a one-millisecond response time and can be obtained for about $270. Unbelievable, right? The 24-inch LED display has a 1080p resolution and a 16:9 aspect ratio.
1440p gaming
Dell Gaming S2417DG
Small but capable
You can find locally stored files in On My device, under Locations. On your iPad, simply drag files into the On My iPad folder to store them directly on your device. If you want to save a file locally on your iPhone or iPod touch, follow these steps. Go to the file that you want to store on your device. Tap Select the file name Organize. In your work or personal life, you’ll sometimes need to download a file on your iPhone or iPad. Using the new feature introduced in iOS 13 and iPadOS 13, you can now do this directly in Safari. No third-party app needed! Safari’s download manager is a hidden new feature in the iOS 13 and iPadOS 13 updates. 
Safari Uploader aims to get rid of this limitation by allowing you to upload any type of file that you wish, whether it’s a document, zip file or a photo. After installing the tweak, when you want to upload a file to a webpage, a new option labeled “Choose File” will appear.
Dell makes some killer monitors, and this 24-inch gaming example is well worth considering for PC gaming. It takes advantage of NVIDIA's G-Sync technology for a smooth and stutter-free picture, and the 165Hz refresh rate is above and beyond what most monitors offer.
4K gaming
Acer Predator XB271HK
Butter smooth high-res gaming
If you have the GPU to handle 4K gaming, Acer's Predator XB271HK is an excellent option. The 4K picture is outstanding, the stand is adjustable, and there are plenty of ports. The 60 Hz refresh rate meets our minimum requirement, and the response time of 4ms is excellent for gaming.
We may earn a commission for purchases using our links. Learn more.
Buyers GuideThese external monitors are a perfect addition to your Surface Book 2
Thinking about adding some screen real estate to your Surface Book 2? Check out these external monitors that will fill the need for high resolution, smooth gaming, or budget pricing.
Page 1 of 5
| [ 45 posts ] | Go to page1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next |
| Print view | Previous topic Next topic |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
Posted: 05 Sep 2004, 02:40 |
|
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 18:10
Posts: 79 | Hello. I'm new to this forum. I've been looking at the HDTV Gaming section over at HTPCnews.com for help with setting up PC games to display at 16:9 without being stretched. (I'd like to see more to the left and right if possible.) I've come to the following general conclusions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1. For most current games this has to be done 'manually' by changing config., ini. or even registry settings.
2. If you just change a resolution to 16:9 aspect numbers, you won't see more desktop, just a stretched game FOV.
3. Many (if not all) games allow you to specify a different FOV manually.
4. I assume the default FOV for any game is a number that must represent your 'degrees' of sight.
5. Many games have a default FOV of approximately '90'.
Now for some questions:
A. If you search through a games config. or ini. file can you usually determine what the default FOV is exactly? I think that would be helpful since it should tell you at what FOV run at a 4:3 aspect ratio the menu items, etc. will be perfectly proportioned.
B. Is the FOV setting a linear function across the width of a screen? If so, I would think the best way to set the new 16:9 FOV would be to simply multiply the default value by 1.33. (16:9 = 5.33:3, 5.33 / 4 = 1.33) This would expand the desktop horizontally but keep circles perfectly round and other items correctly proportioned. The HDTV gaming section seems to have a potpourri of recommendations for setting FOV. Sometimes you increase 90 to 100, sometimes 90 to 115, sometimes 80 to 100. Can't this be an exact calculation as I've suggested above?
Thanks, and happy gaming! 8)
|
|
| Top |
Post subject:Setting Correct FOV for 16:9 Gaming |
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2003, 13:52
Posts: 5707 | Questions..
A ) Unfortunately, it's often going to be guesswork unless one of the developers leaks the info. Halo, for example, used an FOV of 70 degrees. Games like Quake 3 use 90 degrees, but Deus Ex 2 used 68 degrees. Weird value, but there you are.. it also recommended that if you wanted the circular menu nearer the edges to turn the FOV down to 62..
B ) That will work. Again, it doesn't always work exactly like that.. the 2D overlays for example, in games like Jedi Knight II, will always be stretched, since they are created for 4:3 ratio screens. But the actual 3D world will be correct.
|
|
| Top |
Post subject:Re: Setting Correct FOV for 16:9 Gaming |
|
Joined: 01 Sep 2004, 20:44
Posts: 10 | Is the FOV setting a linear function across the width of a screen? If so, I would think the best way to set the new 16:9 FOV would be to simply multiply the default value by 1.33. (16:9 = 5.33:3, 5.33 / 4 = 1.33) This would expand the desktop horizontally but keep circles perfectly round and other items correctly proportioned. The HDTV gaming section seems to have a potpourri of recommendations for setting FOV. Sometimes you increase 90 to 100, sometimes 90 to 115, sometimes 80 to 100. Can't this be an exact calculation as I've suggested above? I've wondered about this as well. And recently I've tested this with UT2004, and I've found out that FOV change is not necessarily proportional to aspect ratio (or resolution change). I usually game at 1920x1200 (or 1920x1080) + 2xAA + 16xAF with my X800 XT PE. Here are the screenshots. In UT2004, default FOV is 90. UT2004 @ 1920x1200, default FOV = 90 16:10 aspect ratio UT2004 @ 1600x1200, default FOV = 90 4:3 aspect ratio UT2004 @ 1920x1200, default FOV = 100 16:10 aspect ratio At least in UT2004, FOV 90 at 4:3 aspect ratio is proportional to FOV 100 at 16:10 aspect ratio.
|
|
| Top |
Posted: 22 Sep 2004, 04:47 |
|
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 18:10
Posts: 79 | I've been experimenting with UT2004 also. I guess you're right that the FOV change is probably not proportional to changes in the resolution aspect ratio. According to my formula above, a default FOV of 90 should be changed to 119.997 if you use a 16:9 resolution such as 1280 x 720. The highest FOV I can get in UT2004 appears to be 100. This is by using both the in game setting under 'player' and by trying to modify the FOV settings in the user.ini file. Despite only getting to 100, the in game world appears to be only minimally stretched at 16:9. (I'm judging this based on the appeareance of a round cursor. Perhaps that is wrong. Maybe just the HUD is minimally stretched, and the world is fine.) Anyway, the game looks pretty good at 1280 x 720 with the FOV set on 100. I still wish there was a way to set exact FOV values that would keep everything proportional at different aspect ratios. 8)
|
|
| Top |
Posted: 23 Sep 2004, 20:58 |
|
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 18:10
Posts: 79 | PowerK, you're the man! (or woman!) Thank you, thank you, thank you! I knew there had to be an exact way of calculating the correct FOV. I was just looking at it wrong. I was treating the FOV number as if it were a linear distance across the screen. I forgot (or never really knew) that it does indeed represent an angle measured in degrees. Your diagram and method of using trigonometry are exactly right. I will see if I can use 106 in UT2004 using either an .ini hack or console command. I had tried it before using just 120 and it didn't seem to stick.
An interesting side note is my physical determination of the correct FOV for Painkiller. (See my earlier post at http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=231. I came up with a value of 111 for the FOV in 16:9 aspect ratio gaming. Using your formula above (substituting a default 95 degrees and changing the distance from eyes to screen to 5.49803 at 4:3) gives exactly the same 111 degrees! I'm not trying to boast. I just thought it was kind of cool that my experiment and the trigonometry way match exactly. 8)
|
|
| Top |
Posted: 24 Sep 2004, 02:51 |
|
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 18:10
Posts: 79 | Manually setting the FOV at 106 in the user.ini file of UT2004 works great. It definitely shows a little more width than the in game option of 100. When I had tried 120 previously, it looked no different than 100. 106 is definitely the ticket! Thanks again. 8)
|
|
| Top |
Posted: 24 Sep 2004, 09:26 |
|
Joined: 01 Sep 2004, 20:44
Posts: 10 | X-ray Doc,
Yeah.. like you, this FOV has been bugging me for sometime. End user can alter FOV to whichever value she/he wants. But I'd like to see it the way it's meant to be seen as 'designers' intentions'.
So, I wanted to figure out how to calculate the *correct*, and *proportional* FOV for different aspect ratio. Of course, the calculated FOV is derived from the original (4:3 AR) reference, and this is why the new calculated FOV is perfectly proportinal, dead on correct. :)
As for UT2004, You can specify FOV value upto 5 decimal places in UT2004. :D (Yes, I'm being anal here).
I set it at 100.388858 degrees for 16:10, and 106.26020 for 16:9 just to be as exact as possible. (They're rounded off to 5 decimal places). :) (Yes, I've just confirmed this using user.ini file as well as just using console command).
BTW, UT2004 Editor's Choice Bonus Pack is out today. (just in case, you're not aware of it, yet) Make sure you have the latest patch (v3323) installed before installing this new Bonus Pack. I've just downloaded, and tried it. It includes new maps, new Onslaught vehicles, and possibly more stuff I have not found yet. The new vehicles are very interesting.
As for Painkiller, if default FOV of Painkiller is 95 degrees, the correct/proportional FOV for 16:9 aspect ratio would be 111.0025356, not 110 to be exact. :D Yes, 111, and 110 are close enough, but the idea is to calculate, and find the *perfectly* proportional FOV *without* any distortion, agreed? :D
EDIT : Oh, you said 111 FOV in that original Painkiller thread you linked to, and 110 here. Typo in the above post, eh ? ;) Yeah, your calculation is indeed correct. :) You might want to edit you post above regarding Painkiller FOV as it may confuse new readers.
Cheers.
|
|
| Top |
Posted: 24 Sep 2004, 17:54 |
|
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 18:10
Posts: 79 | I looked carefully at my previous posts. I think I always typed a FOV of 111 when making a 16:9 recommendation for Painkiller. I did mention that I had read to use 100-110, but the answer is 111.0025356! The default setting is 95, so I don't think I could add the seven decimal places. But I'm definitely adding the extra digits to UT2004. 8)
I don't mean to get giddy, but this new knowledge is freaking cool! I'm a huge gamer and thought things were pretty sweet on a 21' monitor. I recently finished a dedicated home theater with a 16:9 110' diagonal screen. So far UT2004 and Painkiller look awesome and I love having the extra side vision. I will add COD shortly! Now I wish there was a FOV setting for Tron 2.0. I've looked and can't find any. When you modify the resolution settings you just get a stretched image. If you're into gaming, I'd definitely recommend the two relatively unknown, sleeper games of Tron 2.0 and Painkiller. The glowing graphics and light cycles of Tron 2.0 are a blast. And the sophistication of game play and graphics in Painkiller are awesome! It has a mature rating, so don't be offended by the gruesome rag doll physics. Here are a few resized screen shots of Painkiller at 16:9 to wet your appetite.
Now hack Tron 2.0 and I'll be happy. What about FarCry? I've read that you don't see any more width even though there is an in game widescreen resolution available.
|
|
| Top |
Posted: 25 Sep 2004, 07:26 |
|
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 18:10
Posts: 79 | I just installed COD in the theater and tried making the cfg file changes. It seemed to work for the single player game, although I no longer see the Activision and Infinity Ward movies at game start up. For multiplayer though, the seta cg_fov '80' line always reverts to 80 when I start multiplayer. Do you know anyway around this for multiplayer?
|
|
| Top |
Posted: 25 Sep 2004, 16:54 |
|
Joined: 01 Sep 2004, 20:44
Posts: 10 | Yeah, Call of Duty as well as Quake 3 forces defaults FOV (80, and 90 respectively) in multiplayer mode for even playing field. There is no way around it. :roll: I know.. developer should allow proportional FOV change upto 16:9 widescreen ratio in multiplayer games. But remember those two games (Quake 3 engine) doesn't even support widescreen resolutions out of the box. I just thank to the flexibility of Quake 3 engine for config tweak --> widescreen. As for Far Cry, What about FarCry? I've read that you don't see any more width even though there is an in game widescreen resolution available. if that's true, that means FOV 'value' does not increase with aspect ratio increase. (4:3 --> 16:10 and/or 16:9). And this actually means that *actual* FOV is decreased in widescreen resolutions compared to normal 4:3 because top, and bottom of image will be cropped to overcome aspect ratio distortion (aka horizontal stretch). Ideally, FOV should increase automatically as AR increases. But I guess, Crytek didn't take this into account. I haven't tried Far Cry yet. But as long as there is a console command for FOV change, I guess this FOV issue can be overcome just like UT2004. I'll look into it. P.S. Nice screenshots of Painkiller, BTW. I might as well try Painkiller. And also nice to see another HT enthusiast. :D I'm using Sim2 HT300+ Link DLP projector with 92' (diagonal) FireHawk as well. But I use it mainly for movie watching, and play games on it time to time. For PC games, I mostly use Apple 23' Cinema Display because of its high resolution. (1920x1200 native).
|
|
| Top |
Page 1 of 5
| [ 45 posts ] | Go to page1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next |
