Who is moving to 4K?

[DOA]

Although available now the change from early adopter to enthusiast will be next summer IMO.

http://www.techspot.com/news/58899-all-samsung-ultra-hd-monitors-2015-support-freesync.html
AMD will continue to lead the charge as they are doing now, trading performance at lower resolutions for 4K performance. Unfortunately right now it takes two 290x or 980's to push 4K at playable framerates which is a pretty steep entry fee. Nvidia will no doubt come up with a card to trump the 290x at 4K.

 

[EpicShweetness]

I just made the move from 1080p (Samsung 27inch) to 1080p (BenQ 24inch with G-Sync) lol. 4k a bit to rich for my blood, plus I really hate that currently a single GPU can't handle it acceptability, I abandoned multiple GPU set ups from the issue's I've had in the past. So I'll gladly wait, I'm a very patient man.

 

[AsRock]

Nope not worth the extra cost, don't pay to be a early adopter anyways better sit back and wait until samsung get freesync and maybe gsync on their stuff on large panels then maybe.

I am happy with 1080, 4k just means more cost and running costs.

 

[the54thvoid]

Although available now the change from early adopter to enthusiast will be next summer IMO.

http://www.techspot.com/news/58899-all-samsung-ultra-hd-monitors-2015-support-freesync.html
AMD will continue to lead the charge as they are doing now, trading performance at lower resolutions for 4K performance. Unfortunately right now it takes two 290x or 980's to push 4K at playable framerates which is a pretty steep entry fee. Nvidia will no doubt come up with a card to trump the 290x at 4K.

They already do...

Notably the HardOCP review mentions the Catalyst driver they used had a 4k crossfire bug which locked up BF on Mantle - so they benched on the working DX11 crossfire set up.

And TPU's own review (summary of all games tested)

I want to move to 4K but will wait for Win10 I think as the desktop scaling in Win7 is 150% I think but Win8 is 200%. I don't want to adopt Win8 with Win10 round the corner unless it's a straight forward update to the OS without the need to re-install.

By the time I do move to 4K (if I can resist this: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-111-BQ&groupid=17&catid=1895) the next gen 390X or 'Big' Maxwell might be out but I figure two 290X's or two GTX 980's will best a single next gen....

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I think Pascal will be the GPU to run 4K by itself, with a little help from Dx12.

That said, even if Pascal will max any game at 4k, it would take 4k broadcast becoming a reality for me to feel I have to go 4k. The scary thing about ultra high res is soon game software gets ahead of it, then it's right back to multi GPU, which I'm not a big fan of.

I guess that also makes it obvious I like to have my display serve double duty as a TV and monitor, but for those of us on budgets that game in small living rooms, it's just as much a matter of convenience. I also like being able to quickly switch to TV while waiting for DLs, scans, defrags, etc.

Conversely, I also switch to forum chat when the damn commercials come on. It's also handy to be able to quickly switch to PC to check TitanTV.com for program listings. Besides that, there's just no PC TV tuners out there that I trust to adequately replace my beloved TV with.

The other thing of course is price. 4K TVs would have to severely drop in price for me to even consider one. I like that 4K is finally bringing DisplayPort to TVs, which also means they may soon support Free Sync, but lately I'm more interested in what Nvidia is saying about their upcoming GPUs.

I thought I was going to go Nvidia last time, but the 660 Ti I bought had a serious compat issue with my TV, which my 7970 does not. Things like that can be deal breakers. I don't think Nvidia care about testing TV compatibility much. I could tell by talking to them they still think TVs are for consoles.

 

[64K]

Yeah, I don't mean to be pessimistic but I think it will take a full chip Pascal GP210 binned for OC to take on 4K with a single GPU at ultra settings in almost all games. There will always be a Crysis 3 type game that will bring it to it's knees though. Best case scenario 2 years. Worst case scenario 3 years. Either way I am well pleased with my 1440p monitor so I can sit and wait for it to play out.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

...I think it will take a full chip Pascal GP210 binned for OC to take on 4K with a single GPU at ultra settings in almost all games.

And that's likely with no AA, but of course with many sized screens used for gaming, AA isn't necessarily needed at that res.

It reminds of of when 2560x1600 30" monitors first hit. It was considered quite exiting that near TV size displays (those that are 1080p anyway) were using a very tight .25mm pixel pitch. A lot of reviewers were talking about being able to sit close using no AA and still have a very sharp picture.

Enter 4K, and we now have scenarios where 42" TVs have a pixel pitch even tighter than that (.24mm). I'm used to sitting at a desk in the corner of my living room 5' away from my 32" Panasonic though. Not sure 4K would work for me ergonomically.

 

[Joss]

I'm waiting for 16:10 ratio 4k monitors (if they come).

 

[manofthem]

I do want a 4k monitor, and it's going to be my next upgrade purchase.

But I think that I'll need to get glasses if I upgrade to 28" 4k to be able to see and read

 

[erocker]

Sure I'll make the move to 4k... When there's a single GPU that can run it and is affordable. I also don't see the point of moving up from 1440p at this time.

 

[DOA]

Good comments all!
28" 4K running Win7 at 200% works pretty well. Some applications do not scale, but hopefully by the time Win 10 is out the scaling issues will be gone.
Save your $, next spring or summer the single GPU's and freesync/gsync monitors will allow fluid game play at 4K.
If you are at 1440 you may not see a difference, but 1080 desktop looks jagged after some time on a 4K.

 

[erocker]

I've seen 4k firsthand and yeah, I'm in no rush.

 

[[Ion]]

Only just recently went to 2x1080p, and it's amazing. No rush to replace what I have.

 

[RadFX]

I'm a little bit surprised that people think you need and insane amount of GPU power to run 4k. You actually don't. Despite what they are telling you.

I run a Gigabyte Radeon 7970GHZ paired with a XFX Radeon R9 280 Oced the same as my 7970ghz. Even with just my single 7970ghz I'm sure it could easily handle 90+ % of the games out there at max or close to max settings.

I've run Fallout 3/NV with high res texture packs, The Witcher 1&2, Stalker Series (High Res textures), Metro 2033, Tomb Raider 2k13 all my my single GPU and they were either playable or borderline playable (maybe minus a few settings). Also for the record I don't use AA, Blur or Depth of Field fx. (Can't stand Blur and DOF)

Crossfire on midrange cards rocks 4k. 4k is a huge improvement over 2560x1600. I really like it in older games that work with it. It really improves the looks of games that otherwise have no mods/texture improvments going for them.

 

[Champ]

I'm sorry, but you guys are silly. Very worth it. I couldn't see me doing 1080p or any other resolution other than ultrawide. You'd have to not only witness it first hand, but own the hardware to try it yourself. I didn't think much at first until I cranked a game. I'm upgrading to 2 290x that I can heavily OC to setting games to their highest.

 

[Winston_008]

Ill move to 4k when they are the price of current 1080p monitors

 

[Dessicant]

I'm moving to 4K, sort of. I bought the LG 31MU97 which is a 4096 x 2160. It's sitting in my living room because I've been too busy to install it and play with 4K rez, which I am sure will have problems. I just installed a GTX980 and I have never had a problem installing a graphics card in 20 years. But this one wouldn't work right. I connected displays to the DisplayPorts and what happened next was scary. My computer would run through the BIOS screen and turn itself off spontaneously (using a 2560 x 1600 30 inch HPz30i. The it finally booted to 1024 x 768 on one monitor but failed to recognize the identity or capabilities of either one. Nightmare. Finally I hooked up one 30 inch on DVI and the other on a DisplayPort and both are now working beautifully at full 2K rez. So now I have 30-inch displays left and center. My intentions is to set up the 31.5-inch LG running 4K in the middle, flanked by the 2 30-inch monitors running at 2560 x 1600.

I don't game much, so I am not concerned with the obvious problems I would face trying to run a FPS. I am mainly addicted to screen real estate and the productivity of having lots of pixels to work with. Running Adobe Premiere on 2 30-inch displays is a revelation. I am wondering if I can get used to the small icons and type using 4K. If I don't like it after a month or so, I will pull out the LG and replace it with another 30-inch and just go 3x30 at 2560 x 1600. I can always take the LG to my other office and use it alone since I don't do long computer sessions there.

I have heard that a few companies will be producing 40 inch 4K monitors within the next year. To me a 40-inch IPS panel would be a good size, and by then many programs will start scaling their menus and interfaces for the 4K revolution. I could see building a new kick-ass X99 based computer next years and getting a 40-inch 4K in the middle with the 2 30s on the flanks.

2015 should be interesting. But then again, every year is interesting!

 

[manofthem]

Going from my 2560.1440 to my 1920.1080 is a huge difference so I can only imagine the difference between 4k and 1080.

I hope I can make the jump to 4k speed soon

 

[15th Warlock]

I've been eyeing this 4K beauty for a while now:

Acer XB280HK Black 28" 1ms 4K Widescreen LED Backlight G-sync LCD Monitor

It was 10% just a couple of weeks ago but it sold out in minutes, waiting to see if any etailer will sell it discounted again to snatch one of those puppies

 

[AsRock]

Don't see the point even if i had the money to spend on even that monitor i would not at least things matured a bit 1st. $800 is a lot of money and to me i would wait until mid next year when hopefully all this Gsync and Freesync is sorted out then spend $800.

 

[manofthem]

Don't see the point even if i had the money to spend on even that monitor i would not at least things matured a bit 1st. $800 is a lot of money and to me i would wait until mid next year when hopefully all this Gsync and Freesync is sorted out then spend $800.

I agree with the $800 sentiment, and that's why I haven't been able to make the jump. I've considered buying used as a viable option, and that way spending maybe half the price. Still, it's a waiting game for now

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

You all could use Generic Downsampling Tool (GeDoSaTo) to try out some of these resolutions on certain games to see if its a viable option.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=807472

http://blog.metaclassofnil.com/?p=481

Created by Durante (DSfix and DPfix)

I just did a speed run of Half-life 2 over the past weekend at 2x my native res. 5120x2880. Best of all, I was able to keep my refresh rate at 110hz. Ran very very well for me.

Try it out on your current monitor to see how the performance is with your rig. Obviously it is not bug free, and it does not yet work with every application.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Honestly, I'd welcome a better display tech to replace LCD LONG before I would 4K.

OLED/PLED just aren't cutting it. Multiple times more expensive with at best 1/3 the life span is not my idea of better tech.

What worries me is in some ways 4K seems to be driving display tech backward. There seems to be a lot of people justifying the perpetuation of LCD just because of the added pixels. Many are even reverting to TN. Please, stop the madness, this is a crazy train to nowhere. With these kind of compromises, more is less.

 

[EarthDog]

Although available now the change from early adopter to enthusiast will be next summer IMO.

http://www.techspot.com/news/58899-all-samsung-ultra-hd-monitors-2015-support-freesync.html
AMD will continue to lead the charge as they are doing now, trading performance at lower resolutions for 4K performance. Unfortunately right now it takes two 290x or 980's to push 4K at playable framerates which is a pretty steep entry fee. Nvidia will no doubt come up with a card to trump the 290x at 4K.

I doubt it will be summer of 2015... Its simply too costly to buy a GOOD one AND buy the GPU's required to support it. When QUALITY 4K monitors are sub $500 and a single GPU can run it, that is when I believe you will see adoption. I would imagine sometime in 2016 will both of those be in alignment.

trading performance at lower resolutions for 4K performance.

What are they trading? Anything you do for better high res performance (more ram capacity and bandwidth) wouldn't affect anything at lower resolutions.

 

[GhostRyder]

I have one already and I am running 3 R9 290X's. Its great when you really get the ball rolling but its also a very hard to run at times.