Pros & Cons to 4k?

[Bill_Bright]

You might want to reconsider getting a 4K monitor.

Check out Linus' 11 minute review of the new LG34UM95 21:9 Ultrawide Monitor.

 

[Whilhelm]

Honestly I think a pair of 2 27" 1440p monitors is pretty much the best possible monitor setup. Perfect size and pixel density, plus to me the difference between 1440p and 1080p is extremely noticeable. Its the perfect amount of real estate for really good productivity and that resolution is beautiful for gaming.

Also I like the concept of ultrawides but for me I really enjoy having a secondary screen that has chat programs and monitoring utilities on it. That way if you get a chat message or something you can just glance over and see if its worth alt-tabbing out of my game to respond to. Also it's nice to have GPUz open real time as well as temp monitoring tools.

 

[claylomax]

It sounds like for a lot of reasons its not a very good time to make the change. While I'm sure 1440p looks good it doesn't sound like it looks that much better to justify the change. And for me it would me changing my setup, I have a nice monitor arm with 2, 24" monitors. I would have to take both of those off the arm and I don't think I have the old stands so it would be a major mess just for that one new, larger, monitor.

I think I will wait for 4k to become more mainstream. Probably a year from this holiday season will be the big 4k moment. I think this holiday will be too soon, at least on the PC gaming side of things.

Thanks

I think you'll be making the right decision.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Also I like the concept of ultrawides but for me I really enjoy having a secondary screen that has chat programs and monitoring utilities on it.

Did you watch that video? I too like using my secondary monitor the same way you do, but the ultrawide shown in the video can easily be configured as two side-by-side monitors in the same way - but without any bezels in between. Very nice.

That said, Linus discussed in detail why this ultrawide is better than 4K monitors.

 

[Whilhelm]

Did you watch that video? I too like using my secondary monitor the same way you do, but the ultrawide shown in the video can easily be configured as two side-by-side monitors in the same way - but without any bezels in between. Very nice.

That said, Linus discussed in detail why this ultrawide is better than 4K monitors.

I get that but gaming on half an ultrawide so you can have apps on the other half kinda defeats the purpose of an ultrawide. For me I would still need a secondary monitor. In normal desktop usage scenarios I am not at all bothered by bezels but for people that just want a single monitor solution it makes a lot of sense. Also at that screen size I agree that an Ultrawide is better than a 4k display.

 

[BiggieShady]

Probably a year from this holiday season will be the big 4k moment.

I predict that even then it will be two graphics cards affair ... I mean, when we get more powerful GPUs we almost never get games that push 120 fps or have playable fps at super high resolutions ... it's always more detail, and more eye candy.
History is going to repeat itself, for 4K gaming SLI Pascal Titan will be required because all new games will be accordingly dense with detail, just enough to bring two future flagships to its knees.
It's all about max settings in AAA titles that sell SLI setups ... can anyone who owns two titans play with settings set less than maximum? I know I couldn't ... psychology is a bitch.

Oversimplified way of finding a time frame for mainstream single GPU 4k gaming is looking how old a game has to be for it to be playable on single GPU at 4k today. For example I can run Portal 2 maxed at 4k DSR on single 970 today above 60fps, and that game is 4 years old.

 

[EarthDog]

oh also I will be using a single GTX 970 with it.

That is a con right there, LOL! 3.5GB vRAM at 4K... don't do it.

The cost and cost to run it properly is the biggest turnoff to me. You are almost $2K in the hole for a decent monitor and 2 cards that can push it well.

 

[Whilhelm]

... can anyone who owns two titans play with settings set less than maximum? I know I couldn't ... psychology is a bitch.

Even with 980s its a bitter pill to swallow when you have to drop settings at 4k to maintain a playable framerate.

 

[OAcesync]

4K isn't worth it atm imo with all the prices and the power required to run 4k at decent settings, even the best single card Titan X will have some trouble getting consistent 60fps+ depending on the game and settings. I wouldn't recommend 4K until prices drop, it's more mainstream and GPUs are more powerful. The best 4K card is the R9 295x2 but that requires a hefty amount of power.

 

[Hawkstream]

Honestly I think a pair of 2 27" 1440p monitors is pretty much the best possible monitor setup. Perfect size and pixel density, plus to me the difference between 1440p and 1080p is extremely noticeable. Its the perfect amount of real estate for really good productivity and that resolution is beautiful for gaming.

Also I like the concept of ultrawides but for me I really enjoy having a secondary screen that has chat programs and monitoring utilities on it. That way if you get a chat message or something you can just glance over and see if its worth alt-tabbing out of my game to respond to. Also it's nice to have GPUz open real time as well as temp monitoring tools.

I'm sure dual 27" monitors is awesome but I live in a small Manhattan studio and that would just be too much. Those wouldn't even fit on my desk not to mention with those in the room along with my 56" TV my apartment would look like one big screen! lol

I think I'm holding off for a while but there has been some great info in this thread. Thanks guys.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Y'all forget about the Titan X that can game easily at 4k.

Pros: Looks amazing and is eye candy.

Cons: No more wallet.

It's not that we forget about it, it's just that the price is not cost effective, so it doesn't factor into most people's budgets.

 

[BiggieShady]

Y'all forget about the Titan X that can game easily at 4k.

It's not that we forget about it, it's just that the price is not cost effective, so it doesn't factor into most people's budgets.

I we look games at medium settings, or few years old, or we don't need 60 fps because g-sync, then yes, single Titan can do it.

Anything up to date at high settings, g-sync is recommended.
Without g-sync at 4k, SLI Titan is needed for 60 fps most of the time for a decent experience.

 

[newconroer]

My advisement after dealing with 4K myself:

• Don't get anything less than 32"
• Do not buy a TN panel - particularly the 27/28" models that are 'affordable 4k'
• It takes a lot of GPU horsepower to drive 4K, more so than it does to keep 120fps on a 120hz monitor at 1440p in the same game.

For the same money or less you can get a nice 27-29" 1440 120hz IPS panel from Korea or the U.S. (CRM overclock). For a bit more money you can get 27" 1140 144hz IP panels with Gsync or Free Sync.

If you can't maintain 70+ frames to begin with, then maybe stick with a 60hz monitor.

 

[Octavean]

I we look games at medium settings, or few years old, or we don't need 60 fps because g-sync, then yes, single Titan can do it.

Anything up to date at high settings, g-sync is recommended.
Without g-sync at 4k, SLI Titan is needed for 60 fps most of the time for a decent experience.

For what its worth, its my understanding that G-Sync at 4K is quite smooth at about ~40fps in a quasi 60Hz way.

Still, I don't think people here in this thread are acknowledging one important thing. No matter what video cards / monitor combination you use there is no perfect setup. Its a moving target and everything is a compromise of some sort.

Going for a 4K setup is fine but you compromise on price for the hardware (not necessarily a problem for everyone).
Forgoing 4K is fine too but you compromise on having lower-end less cutting edge hardware (again not a problem for everyone).

IMO, if someone does go 4K they should simply sidestep the potential issues as best as they can. Buy a 32" or larger 4K display (SST and IPS if that is what you need). Why bother with scaling? Get the GPU power you need or turn down the settings or both.

 

[claylomax]

What would look better if you don't have enough GPU power: turning down quality settings or reducing the resolution?

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I we look games at medium settings, or few years old, or we don't need 60 fps because g-sync, then yes, single Titan can do it.

Anything up to date at high settings, g-sync is recommended.
Without g-sync at 4k, SLI Titan is needed for 60 fps most of the time for a decent experience.

I don't know why you quoted me to show this. Look how the Titan 6GB compares to cards that cost less and have less VRAM. You could probably get equal performance to the 12GB Titan with two 970s and spend WAY less.

I maintain, the Titans are not cost effective enough to even be practical for most gamer's budgets, and when NVLink debuts, SLI will be even more efficient.

Single GPU prowess is nice to talk about and all, but at the end of the day, the $400 you save on alternative GPUs can easily afford you that 4K display that you buy them for in the first place, and still manage to drive it just fine.

 

[RadFX]

At that point people are going to ask you what games you actually WERE playing to come up with that assessment? I play on a single 7970 OC at just 1080p, and I know first hand how even 1/4 the pixels can be challenging in some games at max settings.

Most looking to get high end gaming gear like a 4k display before they've even become mainstream and are still pretty high priced, aren't typically going to be the type to want to be limited to only very well optimized games that don't push the graphics envelope.

Thus I feel your testimonial is very exaggerated and unrealistic. It's also much more of a minority than majority that would say you need $1000 worth of GPUs to run one, even for the most demanding games. There are options in the $600-$700 range for 2 cards that suffice for most.

I realize there is probably a dozen or so newer games that would cripple the R9 280x(nonx) at max settings and 4k, but they do fine with most games and a few bells and whistles turned off. Otherwise I agree what what your saying.

 

[RadFX]

What would look better if you don't have enough GPU power: turning down quality settings or reducing the resolution?

Turning down quality settings. Starting with stuff that hardly matter just as hair fx, shadows to min. DOF, Blur that kinda stuff. I'm sure there is a point however where it would be better to go down on Res.

 

[Mars4242]

A little late to the party.... I've read the thread with lots of interest and would like to add/repeat the question.
My old monitor is dead (about time, it's 10 years old) and I would love some more screenspace - I'm a programmer and freetime gamedeveloper, and the more stuff you can have on the screen, the better.
I'm using a laptop packed with a 970m GPU - and is perfectly aware that I will NOT be able to play games in 4k. But if I can play on this monitor in FHD, and work Unity3D and code in 4k I would be more than happy.

The monitor I'm considering is: https://www.samsung.com/us/computin...-with-high-glossy-black-finish-lu28e590ds-za/

My worries is:
- will code (text) be too small? (28" is not that big a screen)
- can I actually just set a game to run in FHD and experience the performance as playing on a FHD screen?
- I'm not really sure about the HDMI version in my computer - 1.4 I'm guessing, how can I find out (other than googling which is rather inconclusive)

Thanks!

 

[JalleR]

It depends, i have no problems with my UHD 28" but scaling will help you here, if the Programs you are using supports it.
1080p scale perfectly on a UHD monitor and yes
If it is HDMI 1.4 it will only be able to run at 30Hz, Display port was quicker to support 4k@60Hz so it could be an idea to see if you could get that in some way. What Laptop is it ?

 

[RejZoR]

Pros: Better image quality (pixel density wise)
Cons: Slow performance (no GPU hardware to really properly utilize it yet), no high refresh rates

That's about it.

 

[Durvelle27]

I love 4K

It definitely takes images to the next level

I haven’t tried PC gaming at 4K just mostly movies and now Xbox One X which looks amazing in native 4K games.

 

[JalleR]

I love 4K

It definitely takes images to the next level

I haven’t tried PC gaming at 4K just mostly movies and now Xbox One X which looks amazing in native 4K games.

ME2 i upgraded from 1680x1050 to 3840x2160 and the first game i played was GTA5 and WOW what a big deference, and my at the time R9 290(x) was actually able to play it.

And i love how much desktop space you get

 

[silentbogo]

Don't get dissuaded from buying 4K monitor. Prices are actually quite low now, especially on mainstream 4K@60Hz displays.
Got my 24" Samsung for just under $400 (now it's around $330-350). If you can afford it - get their newer "Quantum Dot" display:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0JC-0007-00G95

When I first bought my U24E590D, I was still running GTX950 in my rig, so don't get sidetracked by "Titan XP" comments and other crap - you can always run games at lower resolution or lower settings on your 970. Even then my puny videocard gave me all the necessary horsepower to beat Alien Isolation in 2K and re-play all of my older games like Portal, HL2, all Borderlands and some other games in native 2160p.

I'm currently sporting a GTX1060 6GB and about 80% of my steam library is quite playable at 4K, so if you like pre-2014 games, then most of them will work on High or Ultra no problem. Newer AAA are a struggle, but you can always drop the resolution and tune settings to get your desired 60+FPS.

You can always upgrade your GPU later. New video cards are coming out almost every year, while monitors stay the same for a lo-o-ot longer.

Pros : The main benefit of migrating to 4K right away is productivity. simply browsing web, reading docs and working on it in general is a lot more pleasing and relaxing.
Cons : absolutely none.
Other Notes : font scaling on some software is not working right, but it's not a monitor's fault.


Also, Bill mentioned ultrawide monitors. Those are amazing, but only if you have enough desk space for one (and an extra $$$). In my case anything bigger than 27" is out of question, so I went with a traditional 16:9 monitor w/ higher pixel density on 24" panel. Prices on ultrawides are also higher than regular 16:9 2K/4K, but if you want to replace an aging multi-monitor setup - it's low enough to be justifiable.

 

[BluesFanUK]

Depends on the usage.

I had a 4K monitor a couple years ago, and it was probably the most useless upgrade I’ve ever done (after an m.2 drive).

To get a meaningful scale of the 4K size, you’d need a screen size of about 40”+. The 27” I had was much sharper for general use (with 125% scaling), but for video content watching a 4K clip was no better than a high quality 1080 source.

If you’re a gamer you’ll need at bare minimum a £400 GPU to partner it to pump out decent frame rates.

My LG OLED was worth the money I spent, 4K monitors are a gimmick though, and will continue to be so at least till 4K becomes the standard over HD.

The ideal size right now is 25", 1440. You can use that at 100% scaling and it's just about perfect for anything you want to do. Sharp picture, and lots of workspace, doesn't require lots of juice if you're a gamer either.