yes they do (or at least on launch) but not optimization issues for 4k but rather optimizations issues at ultra graphic settings
settings impact textures more as the higher setting the more info you are putting into ram and higher demand on the chip, then the impact of resolution comes along
Lets take Last Of Us on the PC as an example
at medium settings 4k resolution the RTX 3080 (or AMD 6800 gives similar results) gives you playable 60fps avg and 47fps 1% lows
at ultra settings you get a console like FPS split of 36/25 on avg/lows. in order to maintain the same FPS as medium settings 4k in ultra settings you need to drop down to 1440p
so clearly settings has a major impact on FPS, it’s not that resolution doesn’t impact FPS but rather settings & resolution go hand and hand and you can’t mention one without the other.
I game at 1440p, that doesn’t make it “better” than 4k or 1080p just what I liked and decided on. It’s up to each gamer to choose what they like. My whole point is that 4k is playable with cards under $500 GPUs like the RX 6800 (and many others) if you play less demanding games or adjust your settings.
The latest greatest AAA console ports at 4k ultra settings are going to take flagship GPUs that are clearly priced at large sums but is that due to 4k monitors or a push by GPU chip manufactures to artificially create demand by ever higher graphic performance, sand bagging performance to justify price points and capitulation by developers?
Facts. OLED ruined gaming for me. though I can never go back to an IPS 
4k is literally 4 times as many pixels. You’d have to be blind to not notice the difference. I run 1440p and the pixels are noticeably smaller than at 1080p.
1 Like
Give it up my friend. He is set on trying to justify in his own mind staying on 1080p. You are right. 1080p is 2 million+ pixels vs 8 million+ on 4k. The color vibrance alone in the difference is night and day. You would 100% have to be blind not to see a difference
Now if his argument was “4k is making PC gaming expensive” Id 100% agree with that. It is not cheap for the hardware required to achieve desirable frame rates.
2 Likes
It is absolutely a complicated subject for sure but at the same time it used to be 480p, then it was 720, 1080 etc. Hardware and prices will catch up to 4k at some point. DLSS 3.0 is already here.
Saying that I game on three screens.
A 27" 1440 pc monitor at about 2.5 to 3 foot and the difference Between 1080p and 1440p is pretty massive to my eye. I’m going to assume the difference between 1440p and 4k is noticeable but not that much of a difference. But for 4k the value wasn’t there for me on this set up. If I was serious about upgrading to 4k I would want to go up in monitor size and then my 2nd monitor would have to go.
A 55" 4K LG oled at about 5’. This used to be a 1080p 55" TV. Huge massive difference between 1080p and 4k
A 65" 4K, LG oled at about 11’. At this distance the difference between 1080p and 4k is noticeable but fairly subtle.
I can guarantee though there are piles of people watching 4k TVs at distance to size ratios where it makes next to no difference.