Native 4K or Checkerboard "uprendered" 4k

[Intrinsic]

Conina said:

Intrinsic said:

Wait.... in the posted images the differemces are so glaringly obvious that you can honestly say it comes nothing close to 4k? And without you zooming in and focusing on spots that are more lilely to show flaws that you typically wont be able to possobly see when sitting on your couch plauing the game???

The ONLY zoomed picture in this whole thread was the last close-up of laras neck&shoulder, the other ones were 1:1-sections of the 4K-pictures for the people here, who are even too lazy to open the 4k-pictures in fullscreen (and even there you have to maximize the picture on a 1080p-display) to see the differences and just took a quick look in the forum display and "see no difference"

I think you  and Peh are really missing the point of this thread. I'm not saying there ISN'T a differrence. Yes, 4kc will never look as good as a native 4k. Thats never been in debate.

But the point is simple, is 4kc providing a good enough imporovememnt over 1080p? Will that difference be something that will look sooo bad and detract from the overall I at a glance in comparison to native 4k under normal use situations? Is or should pushing more pixels natively be proposed over pushing pixels "smarter" with less a hit to resources while still achieving results that are better than 1440p which just up till september 7th seemed to have been perfect and ok for most gamers?