Why Gamers Should Stick With 4K Monitors Over 5K
Engadget advises gamers to skip 5K monitors and choose 4K for better value, citing lower costs, higher refresh rates, and less demanding hardware.
4K monitors have come a long way since the first model, IBM T220, was released in 2001 for $22,000. Today, 4K panels account for about 35 percent of monitor sales in the United States. The newer 5K resolution packs 5120 x 2880 pixels, about 77 percent more than 4K’s 3840 x 2160. That extra clarity benefits photographers and video editors who work close to the screen, but for most players the difference is not worth the trade-offs.
Price is the biggest hurdle. The cheapest 5K monitor currently available, the ASUS ProArt Display PA27JCV, retails for around $650, while 4K monitors can be found for as little as $200. Refresh rates also lag: the fastest 4K panels support 240Hz, whereas the quickest 5K monitors, such as the AOC Agon Pro AGP277KX, are typically capped between 165Hz and 180Hz — too slow for competitive esports.
Running games natively at 5K is another problem. Even with Nvidia’s DLSS and AMD’s FSR upscaling, which can reduce the load, players would need a top-tier GPU like the RTX 5090 to achieve acceptable frame rates at native 5K, and frame generation can add noticeable input lag. Meanwhile, 4K is more than sharp enough for modern titles like Cyberpunk 2077, and upscaling works well on more affordable hardware.
For these reasons, Engadget recommends that dedicated gamers stick with 4K monitors. Those with older graphics cards should even consider 1440p to keep frame rates responsive.