1440p is the popular compromise. Noticeably better looking than 1080p, and not near as demanding to run as 4k.
if your eye isn't used to 4K details? nah.
I haven't used a super high end 1080p monitor, but I did go from a high end 1440p monitor to a 4K one and it is definitely nicer, even if the performance took a massive hit.
I switched from a 60 Hz 4K monitor to a 162 Hz 1440p monitor and regret nothing.
If you're buying a new monitor, there's no reason to bother with 1080p. 1440p is only slightly more expensive now (and sometimes actually cheaper) and offers improved visual fidelity at common monitor sizes. Entry-level high-refresh, low response-time 1440p monitors can be found for like $200 now.
QwertyChouskie said:
DLSS Performance upscales to 4K from 1080p. Most of the 50-series cards out now can actually handle it. I don't really feel the qualitative difference between 1440p and 4K is worth the money, though.
vulkan finally getting some love, it's like they remember vulkan exists in the same way a forgetful parent remembers the baby is in the car under the midday sun.
Everyone knows Vulkan exists though, at least on Linux. Pretty much every GPU since like 2018 has supported Vulkan on Linux as it's what everything that's not a Windows app running in Wine uses (outside of some older stuff which is still using OpenGL). And even in Wine, it's the backend for playing Windows games via dxvk.
