Pros & Cons to 4k?

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

This could have been better suited to a new thread instead of resurrecting a 3 year old thread...@mars4242

 

[John Naylor]

Agree w/ previous comments to the extent that the gaming world is not quite ready for 4k. The best gaming experience to my eyes is currently on a 27" 1440p screen using the 165 Hz AU Optronics IPS screens from Asus and Acer w/ G-Sync, and ULMB. Ypou are also looking at a Free-Sync monitor and Freesysnc is not supported by your GPU. The problem at 4k is that it takes twin 1080 Tis to reap all the advantages that fast response screens can provide and fast response screens are not expected to arrive until Q2 this year.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11701/acer-and-asus-delay-their-4k-144-hz-gsync-hdr-displays-to-2018

When the new 144 hz 4k HDR screens do arrive, the resale value of every 4k screen in use will drop in the toilet. The new HDR technology w/ with 1,000 nits brightness, a 4 ms response time is the biggest change in monitor technology that we have seen since adaptive sync. As for screen size, 96 pixels per inch is the point below which humans can start see individual pixels .... so ya wanna be above that. The above mentioned screens are 109 PPI . I expect we won't see many below 27" which will provide a whopping 163 ppi but at 4k, you can get the same pixel density as today's current 27" 1440p panels up to about 40".

If ya thinking 4k ... I can't see jumping in now. To my eyes, what would have to happen to make 4k gain any significant market share:

a) Next generation GFX cards
b) Return to sane card pricing levels ($700ish for xx80 Ti, $400ish for xx70)
c) release of HDR 4k screens
d) A year for prices on above screens to get affordable.

The caution here is akin to current GFX card pricing. Buying a "top of the line" card now runs the risk of netting just 25% or less of current cost 6 months from now. In your case, I'd grab a 144 Hz 1080p screen to hold ya for now and use it as a 2nd screen when 4k makes a lot more sense. When a 1080 Ti is bringing fps w/ the newest titles into the mid 40s at 4k, ... i don't see it as a reasonable target for most budgets.

 

[Vayra86]

Many people seem to forget that the priority list for a monitor should not START with resolution, but with screen diagonal.

If you want the best panel for your use case, follow this
1. Optimal screen diagonal: such that for your typical viewing distance, you are not forced to move your head left to right constantly - both for simple ergonomics as well as comfortable gaming. For productivity work, its a different story because you can arrange the information on screen yourself.
2. Resolution: such that PPI is at least at or above 100, and not too far over it (120 - 150 max) or you will not be able to resolve the detail you display = wasted pixel crunching & performance
3. Budget/display tech/secondary properties: find the tech that suits your use case; ie dim lit room, no color accurate work, best cinematic/immersive qualities = VA // brightly lit room OR color accurate work = IPS // On a budget OR highly (semi-pro level, mind you) competitive gaming = TN.

PPI is a vital part of comfortably using a monitor. Being forced to use all sorts of scaling in different places is a nuisance and is not supported in all applications.

 

[BiggieShady]

PPI is a vital part of comfortably using a monitor.

You mean right PPI for right viewing distance

 

[Mars4242]

This could have been better suited to a new thread instead of resurrecting a 3 year old thread...@mars4242

Yes, you're probably right - sorry.

Everyone else, thanks a lot for your input - it's much appreciated!

I realized that I have recently replaced my TV with a 4k - so I bought myself a new HDMI 2.0 cable (cables I already had was kind of old) and tried it with my TV.
It ran the 4k@60Hz and using Unity seemed to work like a charm, so I'm happy (love the space - the overview)

I haven't tried to start op a game. Wonder if a game like, let's say, Dying Light set to run at 1920*1080 will run as smooth as I'm used to...?

/Mars

 

[silentbogo]

Dying Light set to run at 1920*1080 will run as smooth as I'm used to...?

Yes. Definitely.

 

[RCoon]

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!

Next time start a new thread, please. Thread necro'ing is not helpful to anyone. You're better served with a fresh thread and no prior posts for people to get confused about.