If you don't have space to place a desk i understand.

I play 1,5 feet distance from the 32 inch monitor though and it's not the same from all those years i was playing on 24 inch. ^^

I hate the space i have my tv too, it only fits 55" inch on 2 meter distance from couch. I would prefer 65" inch size.

But until i get a console with true 4k resolution i will stick to my old 47 inch 1080p  tv to watch movies and play older consoles.

Since I sit just over 10ft from the 65" TV, fov is only 26 degrees on TV. 1440p is really the max I can see at that distance. That's already 100 pixels per degree, while 20/20 vision is 60 pixels per degree. I can spot 1440p being sharper/smoother than 1080p, yet 4K is overkill until I stick an 100-120" TV in the living room and next to being very expensive, looks just ugly in the living room. 65" already covers the TV cabinet side to side lol.

4K on TV is wasted on me, but HDR is amazing when implemented right. And actually I haven't played on TV for over half a year, I just play on PSVR2 at 110 degree fov :) But that's only 20 pixels per degree. Good enough to be fully immersed. RE8 with its HDR implementation on PSVR2 looks incredible.

But yes, sitting 1.5ft from 32", 75 degree fov, 4K will be beneficial to you. 1080p, 1440p, 4K gives you 26, 34, 51 pixels per degree. All below 20/20 vision.

Another benefit of sitting so close for me is that I don't need my glasses. I'm near sighted, only need my glasses for TV and VR since the focal distance is at 2m/6.5 ft. Reading and using my laptop I can do better without my glasses. 


I guess another thing to look for when you build a PC, screen size and viewing distance determine what resolution to play at.
20/20 vision is pegged at 30 cycles / 60 pixels per degree, while humans see benefits up to 90 pixels per degree.
Here's a simple viewing distance calculator http://www.hometheaterengineering.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
(It's so old it doesn't have a https address, browser might warn you on that link, it's safe though)

Rendering over 90 pixels per degree is a waste, you're just super sampling at that point. 60 pixels per degree is plenty for output resolution. So if you build a gaming PC for use on TV, you likely don't have to go over 1440p. Only if you have a big monitor and sit close you'll 'need' to look into 4K rendering.

3,5 meters distance is acceptable for 65 inch TV. 4k isn't wasted on 65 inch , it is only 68 ppi.
Nah i read all the time that they see big difference with 4k 27/32 inch pc monitors, I just don't want to spend 1,5k $ to buy an expensive gpu. :P

I don't use Tvs for pc gaming, pc monitors are much better.

It's only not wasted when you get closer to the TV.

3.5m from 65" is only 23 degree fov. The TV only fills 23 degree of your fov (horizontally), so 1920x1080 gives you 1920/23 = 83 pixels per degree. Already no reason to go above 1080p. Above 90 pixels per degree you can't tell the difference anymore as studies have found out. ppi is irrelevant, only what you see from where you are sitting. (PSVR2 is over 800 ppi, yet max 20 pixels per degree to your eyes)

Only when the content is badly aliased you can have some benefit from higher resolutions, yet with modern AA techniques that should not be the case. 

I can't tell the difference between 1440p and 4K on my TV, can hardly see benefit of 1440p. From Blu-ray to 4K Blu-ray, hardly a difference. (Just a sharper menu when starting the movie while standing in front of the TV) Much bigger difference between Blu-ray and Netflix at the same resolution. (Much less compression on Blu-Ray) I'm not paying extra for 4K streaming which I can't really see from the couch anyway.

PC monitors and games aren't good at HDR, but you have better pixel response times, better VRR, higher refresh rates. Cinematic games with good HDR are better on TV. Fast paced shooters better on a PC monitor. Another advantage of PC monitors is that you can simply lean in to read the small print, instead of having to move the couch closer to play BG3 on TV!

And yeah don't bother with 4K monitors unless you can actually render at 4K. Rendering at the monitor's native resolution still looks better than upscaling, especially when sitting that close. Smoother / steady fps beats 4K all the time.


4K is mostly a scam for TVs. It only looks better because compression of 1080p content is pretty bad. So you basically get charged extra to get highly compressed 4K which looks the same as Blu-ray's 1080p. Sure 4K Blu-ray can look amazing when standing in front of the TV, yet there it's still mostly HDR that makes it shine. The scam is no HDR for 1080p and low bandwidth for 1080p content (avg 7mbps on Netflix vs Blu-ray avg 25 mbps with peaks to 40mbps), got to have 4K to get decent 1080p quality...

PCs are now all about upscaling to meet the monitor's native resolution. 1440p is the sweet spot, 1440p monitor, render native 2560x1440 without upscaling will give you the best picture quality. 4K is good for screenshots ;)

To see big difference you must be close to the monitor. That's why it is more important on pc.

Also you must understand that Playstation 5 isn't native 4K, you play 1080p/1440p upscaled.

When they will release consoles that play native 4k , 4K TVs will have a reason to exist.

When avg TV size is 100", (native) 4K consoles will have a reason to exist ;)

At 10ft (3m) viewing distance you need a 100"screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1440p.
At 6.5ft (2m) viewing distance you need a 65" screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1440p.
At 3.3ft (1m) viewing distance you need a 34" screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1440p.

And of course rendering at 1600p (2844x1600) raises that again.

At 10ft (3m) viewing distance you need a 120"screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1600p.
At 6.5ft (2m) viewing distance you need a 80" screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1600p.
At 3.3ft (1m) viewing distance you need a 40" screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1600p.

And to complete the set at 1800p (3,200x1800)

At 10ft (3m) viewing distance you need a 140"screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1800p.
At 6.5ft (2m) viewing distance you need a 90" screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1800p.
At 3.3ft (1m) viewing distance you need a 45" screen to see the benefit of 4K over 1800p.

Hence consoles don't need to bother with native 4K. 1440p upscaled is more than enough for 99% of players.

Avg TV size in the USA is 55" with 65" getting more popular for new purchases. UK sits at 43" to 50".

When we get here, 4K (and 8K) will have a place


Projectors are better suited for 4K, yet native 4K projectors (most pixel shift 1080p) are still pretty expensive and have their own drawbacks.

But you can get a good one for gaming now for $2,000

https://www.visions.ca/benq-tk710-4k-3200-lumen-laser-casual-gaming-projector-16ms-4kat60hz
https://www.projectorcentral.com/benq-tk710-4k-laser-gaming-projector-review.htm

However DLP means you get rainbow effects (not everyone sees that, I do unfortunately), contrast is always an issue as light tends to bounce around while you're projecting on a reflective screen, fan noise, limited color (rec.709) and HDR is just not as impressive because of contrast issues and peak brightness limitations. 

Best picture quality is reserved to OLED screens. Any good 4K LED TV / monitor beats most projectors. But a 120" screen is very cool!

Do you have a valid source link that eyes cannot see the difference between 4k and 1440p in 2 meters distance below 65 inch ?

RESOLUTION LIMIT OF THE EYE: HOW MANY PIXELS CAN WE SEE?
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rkm38/pdfs/ashraf2025_resolution_limit.pdf

To determine the ultimate resolution at which an image appears sharp to our eyes with no perceivable blur, we created an experimental setup with a sliding display, which allows for continuous control of the resolution. The lack of such control was the main limitation of the previous studies. We measure achromatic (black-white) and chromatic (red-green and yellow-violet) resolution limits for foveal vision, and at two eccentricities (10 and 20 deg). Our results demonstrate that the resolution limit is higher than what was previously believed, reaching 94 pixels-per-degree (ppd) for foveal achromatic vision (b&w), 89 ppd for red-green patterns, and 53 ppd for yellow-violet patterns. We also observe a much larger drop in the resolution limit for chromatic patterns (red-green and yellow-violet) than for achromatic.


Regtinal eccentricity means how far away from the center of your eye, the fovea. The graphs show how much can be gained with eye tracked foveated rendering as your visual acuity is already less than half 10 degrees off center. (total waste to render the whole screen at high resolution) And the best visual acuity is with black text on white. (no surprise)

This is consistent with a previous study by NHK (can't find it atm, it was old) that asked people which display looks better (different resolutions). That study found that above 90 ppd people were just guessing (50% correct in pointing at the higher resolution display)

2 (6.56ft) meters from 65" gives you 39.6 degrees viewing angle. (The screen occupies 39.6 degrees of your view horizontally)
3840 / 39.6 = 97 pixels per degree.
2560 / 39.6 = 65 pixels per degree.

So yeah 2m from 65" you can spot the benefit of 4K over 1440p (as I stated up there)
Although 20/20 vision is 60 pixels per degree, so you need to have better than that (which plenty people have, estimate 30% see better than 20/20 vision) 

2m from 55" is 33.9 degrees.
3840 / 33.9 = 113 pixels per degree.
2560 / 33.9 = 76 pixels per degree.

With really good eyes (20/15 vision), you should still be able to spot a little better definition in high contrast patterns. _{(fine print)}
https://www.visionworks.com/articles-how-rare-is-20-15-vision

2m from 52" is 32.1 degrees.
3840 / 32.1 = 120 pixels per degree
2560 / 32.1 = 80 pixels per degree

20/15 vision or better required to see the difference here.


Technically you can spot the difference at 2m below 65" with contrasting lines / b&w text. However in any normal video content the ability to determine the higher resolution display quickly drops off above 60 pixels per degree. Diminishing returns and all that. 

There really is no need for consoles to go over 1440p. Leave that up to the pro consoles for the few sitting 12ft or less from a 120" screen.

However in VR this means anyone with 20/15 vision (80 ppd) can still spot the difference between 8K (70 ppd) and 12K (104 ppd) per eye at 110 degrees fov. For full immersion at the upper limit of human vision, 150 degrees per eye with 94ppd, 14,100 pixels needed to reach that. That's the theoretical upper limit.
(For 60ppd, the 20/20 standard, 9,000 pixels over 150 degrees will give a perfect picture)


Deep dive into the rabbit hole of human visual acuity :)

Intresting. I guess if i ever buy a console again i will hook it up on a pc monitor instead of a tv.
I don't have room for 65 inch in the living room. :P

My reason for a gaming laptop at the time was because I was travelling around a lot at the time and wasn't home all that much. So a laptop was a much more natural fit, otherwise I would have gotten a desktop.