Yeah go with 1440p, anything under 27"really wouldn't benefit from 4k unless you were about 12" from the display really looking for a pixel.
That 4060ti will be struggling to do 4k without DLSS, which older/indie games likely wont have.
Another answer; if you did end up hooking your 4060ti to a tv to play in 4K youāll be fine. I play a bunch of indie/older games maxed out at 4K on my 3060ti. For newer games Iām still able to play at 4K IF I turn the settings down to medium or below.
At 4K you can afford to skimp on some AA to get the FPS up
I understand why they say these things but if OP is already aknowledging that it wont run 4k natively AAA games but states their own current situation and they still say these things its just bruh
If you're using a portable monitor, you won't be able to tell much difference between 1440p and 4k. I had 27" monitor in both, and could barelllyyyy tell any difference. So if you're using like a 15" monitor, I'd just stick with 1440p.
No. Literally had them side by side. There was barely any difference at the sized monitor. Only thing that was remotely noticeable was the 4k had clearer text. Otherwise, not much a difference.
I have a 23.8" 1440p and another 23.8" 4k. The difference in both gaming and non-gaming is massive. Also have a 27" 4k for work and it too is a massive jump from 23.8" 1440p (for work). Nevermind that you literally have more than double the useful screen real estate.
So yeah, you must indeed not see very well.
Everyone answering "no" here is just plain wrong. The 4060ti is able to run any game you throw at it in 4k given you don't mind turning down some settings (it's far from having to set everything to its lowest, though).
If you look at the [4K raster benchmarks from Tomshardware](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-review/6), it averages \~40fps in their suite of games at the highest settings. Most of these games will easily run at 60 if you turn the settings down a bit.
It'll easily do Minecraft at 4K with most shaders and even Starfield will absolutely be playable.
In terms of monitor resolution, I'd really recommend going with 1440p for anything under 27 inches. You might even want to consider some of the 15ish inch Full HD Oleds, if you don't plan to game in a bright environment or leave lots of static elements on screen.
I donāt know if you would tell a huge difference, but isnāt going to hurt anything. On a small 4k monitor you could always turn the resolution down to 1080p if you do decide to play a more demanding game. Would look bad on a larger screen, but probably fine on anything 24 and under. Might even look better if it has good upscaling.
A 4060Ti would be more than sufficient for those games at 4k/60fps.
Would you notice the extra fidelity in those games on a portable monitor? That's up to you to decide. Depends how good your eyesight is I suppose lol.
If there isn't much difference in price between 4k and 1440 you might as well. But if 1440 is significantly cheaper it would make more sense going 1440.
Yeah basically what everyone else in this thread said. The pixel density of 4K is so high at 27" that it's not really worth the performance hit.
Should be a fine card for 1440p though you may run into VRAM limitations even at 1440p. DLSS has gotten so good now that I wouldn't have any shame in turning it on in balanced mode just to get that handful of frames you need to be extra smooth.
If you already have a 4K display, though, I don't see the harm in trying 4K. DLSS will be an absolute necessity due to VRAM limitations in most games, though I expect that lots of older games will run great natively at 4K. Basically anything 2019 or earlier I would expect to be pretty doable. Find out for yourself and let everyone know!
Viable, no. Doable? Yeah, with DLSS and FG, you can get a decent experience. Check benchmarks on youtube. If you don't like the performance, go for 1440p instead.
I remember the first 4k capable was the gtx980 with ti maybe, seeing the first card running witcher 3 at 4k with 30fps on near max setting was something revolutionary give it a few years even mid range card will run 4k without stress....
ffw to now... we all know what happen to triple A game notorious for not optimize their game
For certain games, including indie games, it's probably doable.
But the real question is, why bother? You're talking about playing on a portable monitor, which I presume is pretty small? If that's the case, 1440p or even 1080p would be the better answer. If this is like a 17" portable monitor, even 1080p will look very crisp at that pixel density.
Nvidia sells it as a 1080p card.
The 4060 Ti will heavily struggle with its limited VRAM, and fitting anything better will be a problem with the 175 mm you have in the Velka 3. The Gainward Pegasus 4060 Ti is the only *reasonable* video card which would fit in a Velka 3! Others have used Palit SFF cards, though I don't know their exact dimensions. Bear in mind it is still a 160 watt thermal loading in there!
Also, 4K on a tiny portable monitor is quite a waste of money. You need to be in the 30"+ domain for that to be worthwhile. 1440p is okay for a 4060 Ti, but not modern games. You don't even need to be in "AAA" land for 8 GB to be a problem at 1440p, indie games are going over that now.
4K scales well with 1080p and 720p which puts it in a unique spot for its versatility. With it being a portable monitor thatās probably 15.6ā in size, I donāt expect you to ever run it at 4K native unless you enable scaling. I would personally go with a 1080p portable.
pixel density is great if you can't bear TAA blur. Something to consider when you see people claiming 4k isn't worth it under 27" (it's worth it to me). Also matters how close you are to the monitor.
As someone that's rocking a 4K display with a 3060 ti and having a great time, it really depends on what you are planning on playing I'm someone that's fine running my games at the DLSS performance mode or at 1440p with dlss quality or balanced when it comes to AAA games. I'm even fine with playing games below 60fps(playing alen wake 2 with raytracing 1440p and a 40fps cap). Stuff like esports I can run at high fps with a but I would recommend a VRR display.
I would still recommend a 1440p.
Honestly 4K gaming is complete overkill in my opinion.
You can play at 1440p and still get great frame rates whilst enjoying the graphics. 2K is enough.
Yes, it will work for lighter games at 4K. Even in modern AAA, optimised settings and upscaling will get you reasonably decent experience
If you have the choice go with 1440P. It will still look good but will be _far_ easier to run
Even with the indie game scene, some may struggle. Others, not so much.
The key thing when it comes to resolution and games is the VRAM. The higher resolution you are using, the more VRAM is going to be required, as there's simply just more stuff to render.
2D games will be fine... hell even some 3D games. Minecraft should be fine, it's not exactly graphic intensive (though don't expect to have it running with ray tracing).
I think that 1440p is the better option. 4K in my opinion is generally overrated anyway if you're sitting at a desk... it's great for couch gaming, but when you're right in front the monitor? Not so much.
With 1440p, you'll need less VRAM than 4K, practically all of your indie games will run absolutely fine. You mentioned Starfield, though while I haven't played it since it initially came out, I remember that it ran like shit even on high end GPUs... so YMMV with that one.
I used to play QHD with a 2060 and normally mid/high settings. You can use DLSS 3 with that 4060ti that also outperforms 165% mine 2060. So, maybe yo will need to do some tweaking, low shadows..., of course you will need to do some upscaling but I think it's not a bad busines your idea and 4K60fps is totally possible.
Yeah go with 1440p, anything under 27"really wouldn't benefit from 4k unless you were about 12" from the display really looking for a pixel. That 4060ti will be struggling to do 4k without DLSS, which older/indie games likely wont have.
Thank you for the first actual answer š
Another answer; if you did end up hooking your 4060ti to a tv to play in 4K youāll be fine. I play a bunch of indie/older games maxed out at 4K on my 3060ti. For newer games Iām still able to play at 4K IF I turn the settings down to medium or below. At 4K you can afford to skimp on some AA to get the FPS up
Yeah this community is insanely stupid, you should ask in other subs for recommendations.
I know right ppl think anything lower than a 4080 is unplayable for 4k like consoles don't already run at 4k with upscaling
I understand why they say these things but if OP is already aknowledging that it wont run 4k natively AAA games but states their own current situation and they still say these things its just bruh
Like this sub is just a bunch of people who are trying to justify their purchasing decisions
Older and inde games would probably run in 4k though personally for 4k I'd go with amd at this budget
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Precisely lol.
If you're using a portable monitor, you won't be able to tell much difference between 1440p and 4k. I had 27" monitor in both, and could barelllyyyy tell any difference. So if you're using like a 15" monitor, I'd just stick with 1440p.
> I had 27" monitor in both, and could barelllyyyy tell any difference are you blind?
No. Literally had them side by side. There was barely any difference at the sized monitor. Only thing that was remotely noticeable was the 4k had clearer text. Otherwise, not much a difference.
I have a 23.8" 1440p and another 23.8" 4k. The difference in both gaming and non-gaming is massive. Also have a 27" 4k for work and it too is a massive jump from 23.8" 1440p (for work). Nevermind that you literally have more than double the useful screen real estate. So yeah, you must indeed not see very well.
Everyone answering "no" here is just plain wrong. The 4060ti is able to run any game you throw at it in 4k given you don't mind turning down some settings (it's far from having to set everything to its lowest, though). If you look at the [4K raster benchmarks from Tomshardware](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-review/6), it averages \~40fps in their suite of games at the highest settings. Most of these games will easily run at 60 if you turn the settings down a bit. It'll easily do Minecraft at 4K with most shaders and even Starfield will absolutely be playable. In terms of monitor resolution, I'd really recommend going with 1440p for anything under 27 inches. You might even want to consider some of the 15ish inch Full HD Oleds, if you don't plan to game in a bright environment or leave lots of static elements on screen.
I donāt know when it happened, but pc gamers recently forgot thereās setting other than āUltraā lmao
Nightmare ?
No
I donāt know if you would tell a huge difference, but isnāt going to hurt anything. On a small 4k monitor you could always turn the resolution down to 1080p if you do decide to play a more demanding game. Would look bad on a larger screen, but probably fine on anything 24 and under. Might even look better if it has good upscaling.
What kind of indie games?
Mostly Celeste and Geometry Dash atm but I also play Ultrakill and Cruelty Squad sometimes
A 4060Ti would be more than sufficient for those games at 4k/60fps. Would you notice the extra fidelity in those games on a portable monitor? That's up to you to decide. Depends how good your eyesight is I suppose lol. If there isn't much difference in price between 4k and 1440 you might as well. But if 1440 is significantly cheaper it would make more sense going 1440.
A 1650 could run those games at 8k lol
Yeah basically what everyone else in this thread said. The pixel density of 4K is so high at 27" that it's not really worth the performance hit. Should be a fine card for 1440p though you may run into VRAM limitations even at 1440p. DLSS has gotten so good now that I wouldn't have any shame in turning it on in balanced mode just to get that handful of frames you need to be extra smooth. If you already have a 4K display, though, I don't see the harm in trying 4K. DLSS will be an absolute necessity due to VRAM limitations in most games, though I expect that lots of older games will run great natively at 4K. Basically anything 2019 or earlier I would expect to be pretty doable. Find out for yourself and let everyone know!
Viable, no. Doable? Yeah, with DLSS and FG, you can get a decent experience. Check benchmarks on youtube. If you don't like the performance, go for 1440p instead.
I remember the first 4k capable was the gtx980 with ti maybe, seeing the first card running witcher 3 at 4k with 30fps on near max setting was something revolutionary give it a few years even mid range card will run 4k without stress.... ffw to now... we all know what happen to triple A game notorious for not optimize their game
As others said - it's possible, but on a small screen there's no reason to go for 4k.
For certain games, including indie games, it's probably doable. But the real question is, why bother? You're talking about playing on a portable monitor, which I presume is pretty small? If that's the case, 1440p or even 1080p would be the better answer. If this is like a 17" portable monitor, even 1080p will look very crisp at that pixel density.
Nvidia sells it as a 1080p card. The 4060 Ti will heavily struggle with its limited VRAM, and fitting anything better will be a problem with the 175 mm you have in the Velka 3. The Gainward Pegasus 4060 Ti is the only *reasonable* video card which would fit in a Velka 3! Others have used Palit SFF cards, though I don't know their exact dimensions. Bear in mind it is still a 160 watt thermal loading in there! Also, 4K on a tiny portable monitor is quite a waste of money. You need to be in the 30"+ domain for that to be worthwhile. 1440p is okay for a 4060 Ti, but not modern games. You don't even need to be in "AAA" land for 8 GB to be a problem at 1440p, indie games are going over that now.
4K scales well with 1080p and 720p which puts it in a unique spot for its versatility. With it being a portable monitor thatās probably 15.6ā in size, I donāt expect you to ever run it at 4K native unless you enable scaling. I would personally go with a 1080p portable.
pixel density is great if you can't bear TAA blur. Something to consider when you see people claiming 4k isn't worth it under 27" (it's worth it to me). Also matters how close you are to the monitor.
As someone that's rocking a 4K display with a 3060 ti and having a great time, it really depends on what you are planning on playing I'm someone that's fine running my games at the DLSS performance mode or at 1440p with dlss quality or balanced when it comes to AAA games. I'm even fine with playing games below 60fps(playing alen wake 2 with raytracing 1440p and a 40fps cap). Stuff like esports I can run at high fps with a but I would recommend a VRR display. I would still recommend a 1440p.
Honestly 4K gaming is complete overkill in my opinion. You can play at 1440p and still get great frame rates whilst enjoying the graphics. 2K is enough.
Yes, it will work for lighter games at 4K. Even in modern AAA, optimised settings and upscaling will get you reasonably decent experience If you have the choice go with 1440P. It will still look good but will be _far_ easier to run
Even with the indie game scene, some may struggle. Others, not so much. The key thing when it comes to resolution and games is the VRAM. The higher resolution you are using, the more VRAM is going to be required, as there's simply just more stuff to render. 2D games will be fine... hell even some 3D games. Minecraft should be fine, it's not exactly graphic intensive (though don't expect to have it running with ray tracing). I think that 1440p is the better option. 4K in my opinion is generally overrated anyway if you're sitting at a desk... it's great for couch gaming, but when you're right in front the monitor? Not so much. With 1440p, you'll need less VRAM than 4K, practically all of your indie games will run absolutely fine. You mentioned Starfield, though while I haven't played it since it initially came out, I remember that it ran like shit even on high end GPUs... so YMMV with that one.
No
yes the rtx 4060 ti can run 4k with a monitor which can support it .
At 5fps
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I feel like you didn't read the entire post
I used to play QHD with a 2060 and normally mid/high settings. You can use DLSS 3 with that 4060ti that also outperforms 165% mine 2060. So, maybe yo will need to do some tweaking, low shadows..., of course you will need to do some upscaling but I think it's not a bad busines your idea and 4K60fps is totally possible.
You won't be able to do 4K native in the latest games, but 4K DLSS is possible.
The RTX 4060 is probably better for 1440 medium or 1080 high/ultra
No
even the 4070s would struggle at 4k