Well, /v/?

>>381930929
What kind of mental illness do you have to suffer from to ask such a dumb question?
Do you know that 4k is a resolution?
That's like asking
>is 1024x768 gaming worth it?
back in 2000

Dumb fucking shits.

>>381930929
Is it worth being limited to 60fps for 4k? Yes. All frames above 60 are meme frames.

Is gaming worth it?

>>381931690
Jesus christ chill out you dumb cunt.

>>381931936
Lel this loser doesnt play in 120fps

>>381930929
>wanting graphics over gameplay
Western """"gaming"""" was a mistake.

>>381930929
If you're a responsible consumer and look out for good deals (like my seiki pro 28 inch for $220 last black friday) then you can argue that it's worth it.
However, anything that's a hobby can't really be measured in value as it relies on the sentiment of the performer.

>>381932081
Stop posting any time, cattle.

>>381930929
It looks more crispy, but you Xbox faggot are still in 718p and the x one x will bring true 1064p gaming

It all boils down to personal opinions and income. Everything about that question is subjective.

I don't think 4k is worth it because I would have high expectations(60+ every game no stuttering or compatibility issues) and require a rig far beyond my expenses allow and the price/value ratio wouldn't be good. But there are plenty out there that feel otherwise and that's fine.

>>381932107
I didn't know more fps = more gameplay

Not at the moment. My monitor is 1440 but I play my games at 1080 for the performance boost, which is about 10-15fps on my 6gb 1060.

Maybe later on when hardware can handle it with ease and we don't see significant hits to game performance.

>>381930929
Do you wanna play the surge at 4k or bloodborne at 1080 what's the better experience.

>>381931994
Is anything worth it?

For Consoles? No
For PC? If you afford it to upgrade, otherwise no. 1080p is fine

>>381932512
Is "worth", "it"?

In a couple years it totally will be.

>>381930929
Consoles should consistently hit 1080p before even considering 4k. Even at 1080p I still think the next jump should be 1440p but that's just me.

File: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>381931936
>can't get 4k and 120fps

look at him and laugh

I have a 4K 60hz monitor and a 144hz 2K display. I vastly prefer the 144hz. Once we have 4K displays that are high refresh that don't cost $2000+ like the ones coming out this year do and we have single-cards that can run games at 4K 60FPS+, I'll be fully on board. Right now, 2K 144hz(or 165) with a nice panel is the sweet spot.

Hell no. QHD should be next step.

Because Nividia and AMD slow manu progress we can't have 4 K right now.

And 1080 is fine. JUST GIVE US FUCKING STABLE 60 FPS. S T A B L E

4 K was a mistake.

Blame your shitty marketers for that.

>>381932772
>play on PC
>does not play with a sli setup

literally buy a console and fuck off you pleb.

>>381932953
>sli setup
>literally no games support it
>those that do don't use it very well
I'll stick with my single 980.

No, it doesn't matter. Memers will come in here saying bullshit like
>he hasn't [x]
or
>why have [x] when you can have [4x]
When the only thing that truly matters, has ever mattered, or will ever fucking matter is good games
These threads are dumb and anyone who actually participates in them without saying that VIDYA GAEMS matter needs to fuck off to plabbit

File: 1343072698529.gif (987KB, 229x176px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 229x176px

>>381932953
>SLI
>he pays double the price for 10-20% performance increase and microstutter in 80% of games since they don't even support it

>>381932953
No fucking way, never again. Ran SLI for four years. Half the games don't have a profile and the ones that do have iffy scaling. I would rather buy a new single card every two years than make a high initial investment for something that doesn't work very well and makes it tough to justify an upgrade for longer periods of time.

>>381930929
>2017.5
>not playing 4k at SSAA x4
Wew
e
w

File: re7_2017_06_15_01_13_42_428.jpg (667KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 3840x2160px

Depends.
If it's 4k60 (or near 60), then sure.
4k30?
No, at that point you're better off just lowering the resolution.

>>381933724
How the fuck do you make 4k look this blurry

File: 1468936196687.jpg (23KB, 377x431px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 377x431px

>>381932404
>4k is a framerate

It's pretty, but not worth the cost, at least not for me.

If you've got money to spend, and nothing to spend it on, go for it, sure, but others may not have that liberty. Not yet at least. I'm not gonna spite guys for getting it, calling them retards or anything, but I'm not really in a hurry for it myself, considering my current financial situation.

I'm fine with the 1080/ultra/60 I have for now. I know it's not the cutting edge anymore, but I'll survive.

>>381934263
>It's an illiterate blizzard cocksucking shill episode
Nice m8

>>381930929
Fps > 4k

You lose so much to have 4k, it's retarded.

I can play a game right now, with maxed settings options and 60-144 fps at 1080p

Or I can play at 4k, have much lower fps and have to limit graphics options.

File: re7_2017_06_15_00_10_56_936.jpg (922KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 3840x2160px

>>381934236
That area in general looks blurry as fuck with reflections enabled for some reason.
Plus, RE7 has a generally soft appearance, at least with TAA enabled.

>>381934236
Re7 is an ugly game

>>381934494
Or I can play maxed out 1440p.
Seriously 1080p is so fucking hideous and lacking in clarity and detail it's impossible for me to play at it now.

>>381932404
You are right, but still... Low fps is good for turn based strategy game and high fps for shooting up stuff games

>>381934623
I notice you left out fps.

4k is like VR, the technology simply isn't there yet.

4k isn't everything you have now and 4k, you downgrade to get that 4k.

>>381934884
I don't give a shit about meme fps. I don't play any games where it would give me a 2% advantage and not all games support it

>>381934884
>4k is like VR, the technology simply isn't there yet.
Uwotm8?
4k is easily attainable on a single GTX 1080 Ti.

>>381930929
After all the money I put into getting both a 4k tv, monitor, PC to run everything in 4k at 120fps, along with a player for the tv, I can say its not that much better then basic ass shit considering I have yet to play a game that even looks that good in 4k at 120 fps besides the few I can mod the hell out of.

I could have made a huge payment on my house and still had two computers better then what most of you non god race fuckers use. Its just a waste of money, if you have the money to waste then go for it, but its not really a thing you should be proud of. It like having the fastest crotch rocket, sure you can go fast but you still look like a cunt and no one really loves you.

>>381935057
You lose things to get 4k, fps or graphics settings.

You can't have 144fps + max graphics settings + 4k.

>>381932512
>>381932609
No

>>381935268
Are there even any 144 Hz 4k panels on the market?
You can easily have 60 FPS + max settings + 4k on a 1080 Ti in most games.

>>381935268
No shit. But on most modern AAA games now you can't have max settings + 1080p + 60fps without at least a 1080

>>381931936
>its a meme because I'm too poor to join

>>381932081
He's right, though.

>>381932562

Not really worth it on pc either. A lot of people enjoy 1440p.

The only good thing is this will force the nvidia jew along with amd to make 4k cards faster and not this incremental shit

>>381935268
You can in certain titles with SLI, but as mentioned previously, SLI is a shitty experience and you're looking at $1400+ invested in GPU to get it.

...plus high refresh rate 4K monitors are not a thing yet, and will be $2000+ on arrival.

I don't know about you, but I have a pretty decent job and make about 85K a year, but I don't really have $3500 just to spend on vidya shit that will be cheaper and better inside of five years. Just not worth it right now.

>>381934637
>low fps is good for turn based strategy game

"not completely game ruining" is not equivalent to "good", retard

>>381935268
>You can't have 144fps + max graphics settings + 4k.
That's just moving the goalposts. You said the technology isn't there for 4k, when it clearly is. I remeber there being hype about Crossfire Fury X's being able to play games in 4k, 4k isn't some unobtainable thing. Saying you HAVE to play 4k/144/ultra is asinine considering high end CPU's aren't even strong enough to hit 1080p/144 in a lot of AAA games.

File: Ow_the_edge.jpg (63KB, 400x366px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x366px

>>381932209
>cattle

>$1000 for a 4k monitor.
>$3000 for a stable 60fps, 4k capable computer.
>Spending $4000 to play TF2, DOTA, or LoL.

Eh.

For cinematic movie games and cutscene heavy single player games with slow pacing yes. For anything with action or competitive you're better off going for higher fps/refresh rate. If you play neither than get a switch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbGT-u4i3EY

Just to prove the point, even the fucking 7700K, the king of gaming CPU's dips well below 144fps at 1080p in most AAA games. People who whine that 4k costs too much money and say go 144Hz instead are delusional.

4k requires a really good GPU.
144Hz requires a really good CPU and GPU.
Either way you'll probably be lowering settings in the occasional game.

>>381936718
Funny thing is this is what people actually think.

>>381935484
Prove you own a system and monitor capable of 4k then.
I love how people say "you are too poor" when they never give any proof that they aren't.

File: gNbeqtR.gif (389KB, 500x262px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 500x262px

>>381936109
Finish him.

>>381931690
Idk where that image is from but I have to assume they may be asking if it's worth the money, you know? I don't think anyone today would say "Yeah, let's stop getting better technology". Stop getting angry at things you don't understand autismo.

>>381936718

I think you could easily half those costs.

File: 1484895186026.gif (149KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 600x338px

4k is a meme, let's answer the real question.
Is 144hz really worth it over 60hz? What about 120hz?

File: shekels.jpg (300KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1440x810px

>>381937535
Shhh

when will actual graphics updates come, instead of simply upping resolutions?

>>381937650
High refresh rates are awesome but it's very expensive unless you're playing CS:GO on low.

File: 1444011196318s.jpg (2KB, 73x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 73x125px

>>381931690
>Not playing games at 1000 fps at 8000k+ resolution

im thinking of getting a Dell S2417DG
>LED
>2560x1440
>165 hertz
should i or is there something better 24inch for gaming? dont care about cost

>>381930929
4k is the next step on console to maintain 30fps.

>>381937837
With the technology we have it is perfectly possible to make a photorealistic game. The problem is it takes a lot of talent and effort for developers, and many lack both.

>>381938030
Get a wide 21:14 display or something similar

>>381933461
every good game in 2017 support SLI mate.

>>381932109

Thread should have ended here desu. If you like 4k res and can get 60 fps at least then it's great, expensive, but great.
Otherwise downscale on a 1080 monitor and get rid of aa altogether, it looks quite crisp and will do until 4k monitors get cheaper.

>>381932363
>require a rig far beyond my expenses allow
You can't afford 700 bucks?
Are you working in walmart or something?

File: 1448922699626.png (1MB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x900px

>>381935268
>You can't have 144fps + max graphics settings + 4k.
>t. consolecuck

>>381932363
this

it depends. if you have a ps4 pro or scorpio, definitely worth it. for PC, it's only worth it if you have a rig that can run games at a stable 60 fps at 4k at highest settings or if you're willing to play on lowest settings.

>>381936718
More like
>$700 for 4K capable computer
>$300 for 4K monitor

>>381939639
>if you have a ps4 pro or scorpio, definitely worth it.
That implies that either of those can even reach 4k in most games.

>>381937205
Except they're using the integrated GPU in that video dingdong
Stick a 1080 in there and you'll hit a solid 200fps

File: yayasd.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

It all depends on how much you can afford.

For me, the sweet spot was 1440p 60fps Ultra settings.

I definitely noticed and appreciated the jump to 1440p over 1080p. It's a lot sharper.

>>381939968
>Except they're using the integrated GPU in that video dingdong
Are you retarded?
They're using a Titan X Pascal.

>>381939706
Why would you buy a cut rate 4k monitor? All the 300 range are shit tph.

>>381939968
They used an overclocked Titan X Pascal. So they could get a little bit faster with the Titan Xp, but not much since its a clear CPU bottleneck at that point.

File: 051129c_024.jpg (116KB, 650x802px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 650x802px

>>381940036
Do you still use AA for 1440? I've read once you hit 4k you don't get very many jaggies

>>381938434
Name them

>>381930929
i have two 1080s and play everything in 4K

It depends how much of a puritan you are. I can get everything in 60fps ultra settings apart from stuff like TW:3 where it'll drop to high 40s/50s when bombs are going off and stuff - i dont mind that

I dont play anything super fast paced that would make me give a shit about 144

>>381940204
Then you can blame the shit framerates on the CPU
Also, calling the i7 series "gaming processors" is completely idiotic as they were built for repeated, high-load cycles such as rendering, video games nowadays barely even use the CPU so the video, along with your argument, is completely redundant

On PC, sure, since you're like 2 feet away from the screen.

On televisions? Probably not.

>>381931936
fag detected

>>381940228
2nd hand

>>381940493
Jesus christ you're retarded.
i7 CPUs are better for modern gaming than i5s, especially when overclocked, which the CPUs in that video are.
Though the other anon is wrong, because that video isn't displaying a CPU bottleneck in any of the games aside from maybe Ashes of the Singularity and TW3, it's purely a GPU bottleneck, hence why the 3770k performs as well as the 7700k in most of the games.

>>381930929
144fps>>>4k

>>381940493
Are you retarded? The original point was that 144fps at ultra settings is literally impossible to hit with modern hardware, you have to lower settings. I was responding to all the memers who think that 4k doesn't count because "hurr you can't max out every game at 4k yet."

>video games nowadays barely even use the CPU
The 7700K is usually chosen as the best "gaming" CPU because it has the highest IPC, highest single thread performance and highest clockspeed on the market. Use more than 4 cores on Intel and clockspeed drops or it turns into a housefire, 4C8T is the sweet spot for gaming right now..

>>381937205

List the games and list other CPUs
Cos 7700K is end of life, there's no room for improvement, only for better games.
And most benches often include shitty games that throw out inconsistent results or there's a flaw in their benching setup.
And don't even get started on DX12/Vulkan supporting titles, the developers don't know what they're doing yet with the latter and think it makes up for DX11 sub par performance.

>>381930929
4k is at human visibility if you're sitting 3 feet away from the monitor.

>>381940493

A ton do.

Arma 3, Cities Skylines, Battlefield 4 /1, Assassins Creed series, Witcher 3, Crysis 3, Just Cause 3, GTA V, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Metro Last Light.

All very heavy on CPU, and the trend seems to be getting MORE cpu intensive with time.

I would not recommend and i5 anymore if you can avoid it.

>>381940836
>i7 CPUs are better for modern gaming than i5s
From a price standpoint they're not, fuck you're better off getting an i3-6100 than blowing your wad on an i7

>>381941010
>144fps at ultra settings is literally impossible to hit with modern hardware
Except it's not

i'm thinking of getting a ryzen 1600(non x) to upgrade from my old 8350

R5 1600 + ASRock Fatal1ty AB350 + 3000mhz Crucial DDR4 = ~440€

is there a better intel build for the same price?

i'm looking at all options since i have to buy the 3 separate parts now and i don't really care if intel or amd, but i've been away from intel in so long i don't know its current state.

>>381941271
>From a price standpoint they're not
They are actually, because instead of having to upgrade in a few generations or deal with horrible bottlenecks, you can hang onto an i7 and pair it with a modern high end GPU with little to no issues.
As shown by the video where an i7 3770k has no problem maxing out a Titan X Pascal in most of the games shown.

>>381939726
a lot of games do go 4k on the upgraded consoles, though they might be upscaled 4k. but for console gaming that's the best it gets. if i gamed on consoles i would go the 4k option.

you now realize that most people getting a 4k console don't even have a 4k TV

>>381941271
Dual-core CPU's are dead, and dual-core with hyperthreading is approaching EOL. The Pentium G4560 may be the best buget CPU right now, but it can't use anything higher than a 1060 currently. So once Volta and Vega come out, people with Penyiums or i3's will no longer be able to upgrade GPU's. the question is, if 2C4T dies next year, how long do you think 4C/4T will last? The writing is on the wall, the i5 series has at most 3 years.

>>381941421
Except there's literally no need for that since you can achieve 4K 60fps with 2x cheaper hardware

>>381941249

At least six of those titles are unoptimised trash, Battlefield dropped the improvements that 4 brought for some reason and Crysis 3 is ancient on top of being a gamewerks multiplat title.

That's not an indicative trend of anything, when you get games like DOOM that are extremely well optimised for CPU no problem, and get notable benefits just for more cores in Vulkan.

Well made games are not CPU intensive - they're just more CPU exploitable compared to the DX11 standard of old.

Is higher resolution nice? Absolutely. Is higher refresh nice? Absolutely. The problem is you can't just snap your fingers and make any and every game work at your desired parameters. This alone is reason enough in my head to never strive for such standards because no matter how much money you throw at the problem, they are simply unattainable.

The cycle of 4k has gone the same for the last few years. New graphics card comes out. Plays current and old games at 4k 60 fps ish. Then new games come out post launch of GPU and suddenly that GPU flops at even 1080p max settings. Now we need to wait for another new top dog GPU to come out and give us back 4k 60 for old games.

This cycle will not break until 4k becomes to the masses what 1080p is today. It has to be the joke standard that every poor hillbilly can get for $100 from Walmart.

Ask yourself how far off we are from that becoming the reality for 4k, and you'll get your answer to when 4k gaming will be worth it.

>>381941369
Watch the video, a 7700K, Titan X Pascal and 3000MHz RAM can't hit 1080p/144fps at maxed out settings.

>>381941795

I mean it doesn't really matter how optimized the game is or isn't if you're unable to play it and you want to.

>>381941931
That's because it's a shit video that doesn't prove anything
Unless you can give me several tested and calculated proofs that this computer can't hit 144fps instead of one shitty video, your argument is invalid

>>381942147
It's a real life benchamrk, not a synthetic benchmark. You can whine about optimization all you want, the reality is those are games that are all currently out. 144FPS Ultra is harder to hit than 4k/60 Ultra in most modern games, this is simply a fact. You don't build a PC for some magical "optimized game," you build it for games that are currently out or coming out soon and that's what they did.

>>381942082

Well the games that people want to play are fun and often not very intensive, the exception being something like DOOM that happens to be well made.
Meanwhile, the continued shit Not-Uncharted reboot of Tomb Raider has huge driver related issues in DX12, yet benchmarks still use that complete turd of the game as valid results. Just to throw some randomness to the results I guess.

If you're looking into games like Arma, you have no hope but to bitch at people like Bohemia to get their shit together and make a decent fucking product, not having to rely on a typically 144hz build just to brute force a solid 60 FPS.

>>381942548
And unless you can provide me several benchmarks proving that under no circumstances can you hit 144fps you're full of shit
Drawing conclusions based on one test is fucking retarded

>>381942548

They benched games that are fundamentally broken.
But they don't bench games that also come out, and aren't.
They didn't even include DOOM, because most likely the results would be very similar/marginal. Because you're talking about much smaller number differences.
And corporations like Intel, who have made very questionable financial decisions in the past, don't like it unless you give some fire to light up their latest products - instead of exposing it for the marginal annual scam it is.

Frankly, if you're going to bench any games, you should strip out the multiplats immediately. Proving you can beat a console is pointless.

>>381931690
I think it's a fair question and you seem to oversimplify things in life. 4k really isn't worth the jump from 1080

>>381942927
>Frankly, if you're going to bench any games, you should strip out the multiplats immediately. Proving you can beat a console is pointless.
Except PC games are almost always more poorly optimized than console games, since they have to get the game running on the low power 8 core CPU's in the PS4 and Xbone. On PC you get garbage like ARMA 3 which scales off a single core so people on liquid cooled Pentium 4's can still play.

>>381943631
People with old ass Pentium 4's can play Arma 3? Give me a source that proves it; and I'm talking about the 2003-2006 era cpu too.

>>381930929
Yes. 4K DSR looks amazing on my 1080p monitor, it would only look better on native res

>>381944308
It was a joke you humorless faggot. My point was that because people don't upgrade their CPU very often on PC games have to target dual cores and quad cores at most, while console games HAVE to run on at least 6 cores otherwise they won't run on console. If you benchmark games PC gamers actually play, the results would be completely useless.

CS:GO on low settings
Team Fortress 2, which runs on a single core
ARK, which is one the most poorly optimized game of all time after The Sims 3
The Sims 4 which looks like a cartoon and runs on Macs
Player Unknown's Battlegrounds on low settings
Minecraft, the Java version
Classic Runescape

So wow, no surprise benchmarks tend to feature multiplats on Ultra.

>>381932107
More resolution = more precision, therefore it is gameplay.

>>381941693
I thought this argument was about 144 FPS.

>>381945330
And you can achieve 144fps with said hardware
Not achieving 144fps with that hardware means that either the game is fucked up or your hardware is fucked up

>>381945579
>And you can achieve 144fps with said hardware
You can't actually, unless you're using a 7600k and OCing the fuck out of it.

File: fEdFvTP7yAScwDNvik5RC5-650-80.png (197KB, 650x663px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 650x663px

>>381942927
>They didn't even include DOOM
You need at least a Fury or GTX 980Ti to hit 1080p/144Hz in DOOM using Vulkan. And that game is well optimized, considering most games aren't in reality you will need something significantly better than a 980Ti.

>>381931690
Lol are you retarded?

Yes 4K is better, but are we at the point in time where it might not be worth the investment.

>>381945649
Riight, that's why there's countless footage of people running games at 144fps with even cheaper hardware than what you provided
And all you can counter that with is one measly video

>>381946119
Running CSGO on max settings at 144fps != running modern AAA games on max settings at 144fps

>>381946119
Low settings on Quake Live doesn't count, the person who started this argument originally stated that if you can't hit 4k/Ultra in AAA games, 4k isn't feasible. 144Hz isn't feasible because even a 1080Ti will struggle to hit it in pretty much every AAA game except DOOM.

>>381946216
>go to youtube
>search "[game name] 144fps"
>????
>profit

>>381946663
Provide me an example of a modern AAA game running at 144fps on ultra settings on an i5 please.

>>381930929
that's 720p with godawful amounts of HDR
fuck off with your clickbait

File: witcher3.png (59KB, 686x812px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 686x812px

144Hz is so cheap guys, just buy an i7 and a 1080TI! Don't forget to play at 1080p despite spending $1000 on a CPU+GPU.

>>381947207
I-I d-don't need max settings, b-but 4k still isn't viable b-because you can't do it on m-max settings at 60 FPS on a 980.

>>381947207
Turn down grass and shadows from ultra -> high and turn off hairworks. Watch all those fps literally double.

File: doom-start_26416510303_o.jpg (947KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 3840x2160px

If you can run it then 4k is well worth it

File: profit.jpg (118KB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x667px

>>381937354
here's a picture of my stock portfolio

File: 32.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

It is, I hate aliasing more than anything.

>>381939706
>$700
You meant the graphic card.

>>381931690
How many games have you played that support 4k in the last month?

>>381951240
Pretty much every game can support widescreen can run 4k, if not natively then you can always force it with your graphics drivers. Every AAA game in the past 3 years should natively support 4k.

144mhz is better than a higher rez. I've been at 2k before 4k was the new meme and it's been an awful ride the whole time. Hardly any games support it and if they do they just stretch 1080p. But higher refresh means smoother game play and a prettier experience over all.

File: 1498150224287.jpg (395KB, 1277x940px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1277x940px

>>381951521
Nigga even ancient games like CoD 4 and DA:O support 2k.
Personally I just feel like it`s a QoL improvement though.

>>381951521
>Hardly any games support it and if they do they just stretch 1080p.
Stopped reading there.

>>381934494
It really depends on the game. For some games having the ability to clearly see things off in the distance is really nice.

>>381930929
>is it worth it videos on youtube
Don't think there will ever be a video that isn't shitty.

>>381933190
>>381933376
>>381933461
Ditched SLI a year ago
Can say literally all of you are flat out wrong
scaling is about 80-90% these days, micorstutter maymay doesn't exist, and nearly every new release supports it
Still a waste of money though unless you're pushing high resolutions

>>381951521
>Hardly any games support it and if they do they just stretch 1080p.
You're a fucking retarded liar

>>381930929

If you want to see enemies from long distances more clearly like ARMA then yes.

>>381955724
>If you want to see enemies from long distances more clearly like ARMA or just see literally everything more clearly and with more detail along with no longer having to worry about shitty anti-aliasing then yes.
FTFY

I still game at 1680x1050

>>381956262
Don't feel bad anon
That's what's great about PC, play shit at whatever settings you want or can afford

>>381930929
No, most games don't even make good use of the 16:9 aspect ratio. High resolutions were a mistake for video games.