gone

900p

Got a 1440x900 (16:10). The older standard.

don't know specifics or how it works in the technical form, but im just using a plain intel HD4000 but I have the output on a 1080p screen

My next computer this year will be 2k. I doubt any one GPU not breaking the bank, will handle 4k at 60fps.

Too expensive for my blood to go higher than 1080p

I'm using 1280x1024 on my 42 inch TV, partially because I like to be able to read things without tweaking the font sizes, and because I'm not that big of a stickler for resolution.

I have a 1600x900 monitor but I play in 1080p.

I am using a 42 inch 4k tv as monitor. It works superb for some games, but for multiplayer shooters... well it's not the best thing of the world. The worst thing it's the refresh rate, max 30hz. Some games look weird because of the refresh rate when you start to play in 4k, but if you really like the quality of the image, you get accustomed to it. If you play a lot of multiplayer shooters, I DON'T recommend a 4k tv. Not sure about the monitors.

For games like Diablo, Legos, Batman, Saints Row, it works well. I like shooters, but most of the ones I play are singleplayer, because to play with good sensibility on multiplayer it's the hell. I am running Heroes of The Storm and runs flawlessly on this tv.

If you want to go pro in multiplayer shooting, a 4k tv as a monitor is not the best thing to do. Also, you will notice a slowness with the mouse over windows. Not so much, but it will be noticeable.

Finally, I made tons of mods and maps for a couple of games. For design, 4k is a beast. I can do ton of stuff with the huge screen. I had been using 3 monitors in the past, but the borders are so annoying when you are focusing on something and you need to look into the other screen. For design, mods, maps and stuff, 4k it's super cool. Works with me.

Running with good gear, most games go ultra in 4k. 16gb ram, 5 tb hard drive and AMD R9 200 Series. Personally, I love the experience and quality of everything. All looks amazing, I am more than happy to be able to play games with this pc.

Best Regards!

TIL monitors cost 4k dollars.

1200p

4k. Crossfire Radeon R9 280. Illiyama 4k 28" monitor.

1080p.

Want to upgrade, don't have money for that.

I have a 1080p monitor on my desktop but I run 1440 on my surface. Sometimes I stream games to my surface.

Full HD on 27" Acer monitor. AMD Radeon R9 280X, 3GB GDDR, 8GB RAM. Everything is smooth as butter.

i run 2560*1080 (21:9) with this system: i5-3570, GTX 970, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD. my main issue with certain games is not the performance, but the aspect ratio. but most games support it (or there is a fix). love 21:9! :)

a single 780 is not enough for 4k. not even close. ;)

It's too early for 4k (with a reasonable budget)

1080p on desktop, 1366x768 on laptop. 720p on phone.

Seriously, resolution is overrated. 1080p 60 fps vs 4k 45 fps - and you will always get better gaming experience on 1080p. On 4k you will see the LoD while it remains invisible in 1080p. Antialiasing, texture quality, Lights, Shadows - all of them will improve visuals in a way that is unobtainable by simply pumping more resolution into a game.

First of all - human eye got it's own internal resolution. And it is very close to 1080p. Does it means that it is pointless to get higher resolutions? Well, no. Because to make sure that you won't get distortion while transferring any digital signal you need to get sampling twice as high as highest possible frequency of the signal. The same applies to resolution, but in two dimensions. Using simpler words - human eye can see a very small difference between 1080p and 4k.

But these numbers are just best possible scenario. In UK there was a test. A group of random people was looking at two or three screens in different resolutions. On all 40" screens was shown the same movie, recorded in 1080p, and on one screen it was shown in movie's native resolution, on second one in 720p. The group which seen three screens also saw the same movie in 480p - all rescaled, and using lossless compression. All the screens had been calibrated for optimal colour balance, brightness, contrast and saturation. And the results were that in two screen group 58% claimed that they can't see any difference between both screens, and 11% claimed that 720p was better, only 31% shown correctly that 1080p is better. While looking at three screens 29% answered that they can't see any difference between them. 8% claimed that 480p was best, 21% that 720p and 42% that 1080p.

Now I know that you can't directly translate results to games - mostly because of aliasing, UI and fonts but still it shows us the pattern. Whey you get to a high enough resolution you can't see any difference. (and the sales department got an army of people calibrating and de-calibrating screens to prove that you can) And while in my opinion if you can't see a difference between 480p and 1080p than it means that it is time to get some professional help, and maybe glasses, I still claim that everything above 1080p at today's hardware is overkill.

There is a big price tag on 4k resolution. It doubles resolution in two dimensions, so the computer needs to calculate 4 times more pixels. And it kinda sucks. You won't get as big performance drop on adding any antialiasing, doubling texture resolution (which by the way is often too low for optimal display at 1080p), improving shadows or doing one of hundred other things which can improve video quality. Also note that to get a true 4K resolution you need to increase the resolution of textures (or you will get blurry textures - it won't be clearly visible, but at some angles, and in some scenes you will notice that something is wrong) And this would increase texture size by a factor of 4. So textures for a game instead of using 8 GB (average size of a textures on a PS4 game - usually textures are build for 1080p, even on a 900p games, besides usually there is very little to no difference between target resolution for texture in these two modes) of space, will now take about 32 GB. So another 24 GB to download/put on Blu-Ray. It is a problem which isn't solved yet (but let's face it - games will soon exceed the size of BR disk anyway, and 2 BR games/60-100 GB download will be required in some games) The part of the problem is texture compression. (you can't use .jpg but you need or uncompressed textures or something like A8L8, S3TC or 3Dc - and they result in big files, like 16MB in uncompressed and between 4 and 2 MB in compressed, 2 or 3 textures per object, multiplied by number of objects in game... - there are ways around this, but you need a lot of time and effort to use them in a way that won't cause the player to notice them. It is much cheaper just to leave all textures big) In most games difference in visual quality is much bigger between setting high in 1080p and Ultra in 1080p than between High in 1080p and High in 4k.

tl;dr - Get 4k screen only if you can play games on Ultra details. If you can't - stick to 1080p or 1440p.

Also the technical aspect of graphics doesn't matter as much as overall aesthetics. Play Silent Hill 2, Shadow of the Colossus, This War of Mine or Braid and you will know what I am talking about.

Am I the only one who games at 3K, then?

EDIT: Are people talking about resolution or #p? I'm assuming the former but just figured I would ask. Never know these days.

Does running some games at DSR at over 4K via DSR on a 1920 by 1200 (greater than 1080P) monitor kind of count as 4K? I marked "other" (as 1920 by 1200 isn't 1080P).

2K games are not bad either, though there is some criticism regarding their DLC practices ;-)

1366x768 Master Race.
...Anyone?

I love my 1920x1200 monitor :3 I really with that 19:10 was the standard. As it is now it's better for everything that's not a movie ;p