Do you Regret buying a 4K ?

What I meant was with regards to the FOV is, the amount of stuff shown on a 4K screen and a 1080p screen, given the same game, is the same, hence if the screen size is increased to the point where the edges starts leaving your eyes' FOV, you starting seeing less of the game.

Sure, you get to see more detail, but I am more of a, for the lack of a better word and excuse the pun, overall picture guy. I prefer to have everything within my own FOV.

I can only see PA328Q, not PA328G, and it's a large chunk more expensive for me than the BL3201PT (at least $300 more), and those two are pretty much my only choice for 32" 4k.

I had considered the 40", but I really do not want it too large, as I most likely will not be playing any FPS on it (too demanding for my hardware), so there is little immersion factor for me (but I will play less demanding ones like KOTOR2 or FF13 etc on it).
 
chenw said:
DSR has absolutely nothing to do with Monitor scaling.

Downscaling as a result of DSR is done entirely on the GPU, so a 4k image will look sharp on a 1080p screen as it is an integer multiple of the native.

Upscaling is, to my knowledge, done on the monitor itself, and almost all monitors use some form of internal scaler for all resolutions, even for half resolution images, which will blur the image.

A 4k image displayed on an 1080p screen will look good and sharp. A 1080p image displayed on a 4k display is almost always blurred, even when there shouldn't be any.
Click to expand...

For this reason I think that is better to buy a 1080p and use DSR when possible than a 4k and downscale to 1080p for performance reasons
 
sblantipodi said:
For this reason I think that is better to buy a 1080p and use DSR when possible than a 4k and downscale to 1080p for performance reasons
Click to expand...

That was exactly my thinking when I bought the Swift over any 4k as my main monitor.

I can DSR games up to 4k much easily than I can overclock 4k Panels to 144hz,

And there is the lower 'useable' resolution so the higher resolutions can be used as an option, rather than having to use lower blurred resolution as a compromise.
 
chenw said:
What I meant was with regards to the FOV is, the amount of stuff shown on a 4K screen and a 1080p screen, given the same game, is the same, hence if the screen size is increased to the point where the edges starts leaving your eyes' FOV, you starting seeing less of the game.

Sure, you get to see more detail, but I am more of a, for the lack of a better word and excuse the pun, overall picture guy. I prefer to have everything within my own FOV.

I can only see PA328Q, not PA328G, and it's a large chunk more expensive for me than the BL3201PT (at least $300 more), and those two are pretty much my only choice for 32" 4k.

I had considered the 40", but I really do not want it too large, as I most likely will not be playing any FPS on it (too demanding for my hardware), so there is little immersion factor for me (but I will play less demanding ones like KOTOR2 or FF13 etc on it).
Click to expand...


I am in the same boat as you, but I am buying 2 monitors, so.

I heard the flicker on the BenQ was bad, unless I probably would've picked it up. Going to grab the X34 instead.


Also, you kinda lost me there.
The 4k resolution will have 4x the information and nearly twice the FOV as the same game being played at 1080. (That is if the game's output matches 4k, some games won't do 4k yet).

What do you mean the "edges start leaving your eyes".. are you talking about your particular seating situation..?
 
4k resolution certainly won't have 4x the amount of information. In fact I know very few games that actually do that.

I know for sure Mass effect games, the FOV doesn't bulge going from 1440p to 5k resolution. The image is sharper, definitely, but the amount of things I can see remains the same. FOV doesn't change in FPS's with respect to resolution, and I have never seen or heard of one that does.

The only game off the top of my head that actually lets me see more things with higher resolution is Civ V, but that game ironically have other scaling issues.
 
4K is a complete waste of time for gamers using this generation of GPUs even if they have SLI with 2-3 high end cards. It probably won't be feasible until big Pascal is released and then that limitation will again manifest itself once next gen consoles are released in a few years. Right now the sweet spot for gaming is 1440p + 144 hz G-Sync.
 
That's what one half of me is saying. I think I may just get a glossy 1080p and call it a day.

But of course, the other half of me wants me to actually find out what this whole 4k is about, and I wanted something that is used for IQ, not performance, as well as a side screen (yes, I know how pedantic a 4k side screen with a 1440p main screens sounds).
 
5150Joker said:
4K is a complete waste of time for gamers using this generation of GPUs even if they have SLI with 2-3 high end cards. It probably won't be feasible until big Pascal is released and then that limitation will again manifest itself once next gen consoles are released in a few years. Right now the sweet spot for gaming is 1440p + 144 hz G-Sync.
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? 4K is fine if you have Tri or Quadfire/SLI. Have you even tried this out for yourself or are you just talking out of your ass, wtf?
 
Xinmosni said:
You're joking, right? 4K is fine if you have Tri or Quadfire/SLI. Have you even tried this out for yourself or are you just talking out of your ass, wtf?
Click to expand...

Don't even need to go 3 or 4 way gpus. Plenty of people on here are just doing fine at 4k with 2 way sli Titan X's. Of course if I had two Titan X I would still game at 1440p with 100+ fps but that's just me.
 
This thread is filled more with excuses for not going 4k than it is peoples experience by going 4k. You can game at 4k with high end SLI/Crossfire setups at a sustained decent FPS (to the point where you don't notice lag/stutter/etc.). I have zero regrets (apart from price). I upgraded from a 27" 1080p to a 48" 4k, and it's amazing. Staying the same screen size and just changing resolution in my opinion isn't a huge upgrade, unless you care about 144hz and gsync/freesync, then 4k isn't for you (for a while). Go as big as you can.
 
I have my own reasons for not going near 4k, thanks to DSR, I can see some games simply do not do 4k well. That alone is a deal breaker for 4k as my main monitor (I had several deal breakers, each is enough to steer me away from 4k, let alone together).
 
I want 4k because I want big screen 40+ and seems like there is no more option than going with 4k screen because 1080p looks horrible on 40+ if you sit near to your screen. But seems like 4k TV scales well at 1080p too so this means gaming @ 1080p isn't that bad with 4k TV?
 
Xinmosni said:
You're joking, right? 4K is fine if you have Tri or Quadfire/SLI. Have you even tried this out for yourself or are you just talking out of your ass, wtf?
Click to expand...

I've got Titan X SLI and it's not enough for 4k. What's that say for the average buyer out there?
 
I won't adopt 4k for gaming until it becomes too easy for GPU's too pump out. You can make the pixels small enough that I can't see them with a magnifying glass but if the polygon count isn't high, the texture resolution isn't high, and the lighting isn't spot on the game isn't going to look good. I've recently turned some of my games down to 720p for in home streaming performance, and on some of those games it really doesn't make much difference. Anti-aliasing works very well these days.
 
I have no regrets going 4K (43" TV). It's probably the most noticeable upgrade I've ever done. And that includes when I upgraded from AMD Athlon XP 3200 with 6800GT to i7 920 with Nvidia 285.

I'm now running with a single 980ti and for me that's perfectly adequate. I find a single 980ti @ 4K smoother than my previous 680 SLI @ 1200p.

Of course I'd like to go SLI but I can't justify the cost yet.
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
4K is a complete waste of time for gamers using this generation of GPUs even if they have SLI with 2-3 high end cards. It probably won't be feasible until big Pascal is released and then that limitation will again manifest itself once next gen consoles are released in a few years. Right now the sweet spot for gaming is 1440p + 144 hz G-Sync.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who never used 4k. 1440 @ 144hz probably has the same demands. Have you ever even used 1440p? Your name is so ironic maybe your trolling
 
Deadfreak said:
This thread is filled more with excuses for not going 4k than it is peoples experience by going 4k. You can game at 4k with high end SLI/Crossfire setups at a sustained decent FPS (to the point where you don't notice lag/stutter/etc.). I have zero regrets (apart from price). I upgraded from a 27" 1080p to a 48" 4k, and it's amazing. Staying the same screen size and just changing resolution in my opinion isn't a huge upgrade, unless you care about 144hz and gsync/freesync, then 4k isn't for you (for a while). Go as big as you can.
Click to expand...

I second this
 
I've been using a 4K monitor since July 2013, and while I still use it for gaming, I've switched to an XB270HU as my primary gaming monitor. For fast paced games like mobas and fpses, the increased motion resolution provides a better gaming experienced to me, and it's also easier to maintain high framerates (100+ is ideal) at 1440p than 4K.

That said, I really enjoy the 4K monitor for slower and turn-based RPGs and strategy games like Civ5, Pillars of Eternity, Shadowrun:HK, etc. In these types of games, framerates and motion resolution are not a concern, and you can see so much damn stuff in Civ5 @ 4K :D

So I think it depends on your gpu budget and the types of games you play. However, for screen real estate and getting work done, 4k is MUCH better than 1440p. My 4K monitor is 32", though, and I'm quite skeptical of the utility of smaller 4K monitors for this last purpose.
 
I had a very nice 27" Ultraview 1440p Dell before I have my current monitor. I have to say that I don't regret it one bit. I was apprehensive about the scaling to making games unplayable but I suppose my eyes are still good enough that it's no great strain , even the desktop is still nice to look at.

The cost wasn't really that great an expense for me, I mean, I pickedup a great monitor with 95%+ Adobe RGB specrum, great contrast and an IPS panel, enough hardware power to still max every PC game made to date (the 'unmaxable atila total war included' ) and still have 10-20fps headroom, that's even before overclocking the 980ti's.

it's refreshing how well it turned out actually.
 
Tgrove said:
Says the guy who never used 4k. 1440 @ 144hz probably has the same demands. Have you ever even used 1440p? Your name is so ironic maybe your trolling
Click to expand...

At least 1440p can get 60 fps easier than 4k can get 40fps. Some people are more sensitive to stuttering due to low frame rates than others.

Yes, 1440p @ 144hz has the same requirement as 4k @ 60hz, but half both refresh rates, 1440p @ 72hz is much more playable than 4k @ 30hz
 
Comixbooks said:
I read these reviews on Amazon where people dable with 4k but end of going back to 1080P or more so 1440P just because the FPS is bad on the newer games out there with 4k because the optimization is bad or their computer can't handle it. I'll never run SLI myself due to the cost and problems running SLI.
Click to expand...

I grabbed a 404K crossover, and I love it. Despite the outdated sig, I run SLI now. But 4K still is not the best for gaming. it only offers 2x the resolution over 1440p, and is limited to 60hz, whereas 1440p has tons of new monitors coming out supporting 75, 100 and even 144hz inputs.

So for me: I grabbed 4K for productivity, and I grabbed SLI in case I wanted to game. I love this setup and it is perfect for my needs. Other people may want to do differently if their first-priority is gaming.
 
Been using 4K for a year now and I love it, never regretted it and I love the extra space and pixels. It's a shame that not many games can run more than 60 FPS under max settings but overall I'm happy with it.
 
5150Joker said:
I've got Titan X SLI and it's not enough for 4k. What's that say for the average buyer out there?
Click to expand...

What games are you even playing? I played Lords of the Fallen, AC: Unity, GTA5, DA: Inquisition, CoD: AW, Fifa 16, MGS: V, all in 4k with zero problems. Obviously i had to use FXAA or no AA with my 980 Ti SLI (all games maxed otherwise), but you running into issues with Titan X SLI sounds silly.
 
I can't run any new AAA game at 4K with my 970 currently, but then again half of the games I play are older and run with perfect 60 fps. With the new games I drop down to 1440p with 40-60 fps usually and some settings toned down, which nets me the best overall experience. I could play 4K at 30 fps, but I prefer the smoother gameplay over sharper details. Though what I like best about my 4K display is the 5000:1 contrast and the sheer size of it. I'm just waiting and saving for a nice 14 nm GPU the get the most out of it.
 
Hellz no I don't regret 4K for a second. Just got the second 4K monitor to go with the first and have a 4K TV--4K OLED is next.
 
Comixbooks said:
I read these reviews on Amazon where people dable with 4k but end of going back to 1080P or more so 1440P just because the FPS is bad on the newer games out there with 4k because the optimization is bad or their computer can't handle it. I'll never run SLI myself due to the cost and problems running SLI.
Click to expand...

I have three 4K TVs as monitors. The Seiki 50" TV in the living room, the 39" Seiki as my main system's monitor, and I use a 40" Samsung at work running off the IGP of my Intel i3-4160

I have never regretted moving to 4K.
 
i love my p2715q and it was only 500 bucks. I tolerate the blur for gaming but will love a fast 4K screen whenever that comes.

Never buy TN 4K screens you will have regret. FYI.
 
Comixbooks said:
I read these reviews on Amazon where people dable with 4k but end of going back to 1080P or more so 1440P just because the FPS is bad on the newer games out there with 4k because the optimization is bad or their computer can't handle it. I'll never run SLI myself due to the cost and problems running SLI.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 4K is still a while off from being both a single-gpu thing AND an enthusiast option.

Single GPUs can run 4K no problem... if you turn the settings down.

I run SLI and I still have to turn settings down on the most graphics-intense games, but I'm also happy to play games between 45 and 60FPS. Some people see 60FPS as a minimum and 120+ as an average, in which case there is simply NO SLI or CFX solution that can push that at 4K (not to mention there are no monitors that support that refresh speed at 4K),

I do not regret 4K, though: I use it for productivity. For productivity, there is no other option to consider, as 5K monitors all have such high PPi counts that they loose the productivity aspect. I'm waiting for 55"+ for 5K monitors.
 
I'm trying to decide between curved and flat 48" Samsung 6700 (or the Costco alike model) for desktop use. Primary use will be on Linux coding, office stuff and trading. Without taking a unit home and living with it, it's hard to figure out whether the curve would be beneficial or not. I'm not really up for that hassle, so wanted to get some thoughts from here.

edit: sorry, I had meant to post this in the samsung 4k thread, but since it already got a reply here I'll 'un-remove' it ;) Thanks
 
Last edited:
This is just my personal opinion. I find a curve to be detrimental for a home entertainment center where you'll potentially have people sitting in a living room viewing the display from all angles. But for personal use, like on a desk, I prefer a slight curve. For VA panels is helps to slightly offset the gamma shift that can be seen on the edges. For IPS panels, it helps reduce edge/corner glow. It's subtle yet appreciated.
 
No!

I've had 40" 1080p tv and the picture was horrible. Now I have a 4k 48" and it's so beautiful!
Overclocked GTX 980Ti is perfectly capable of running newest games on max settings in 4k.
The toughest games on my system were:
The Witcher 3: 30-50 FPS, Everything maxed (including Hairworks).
Fallout 4: 40 fps with Godrays on low - made no difference from high, Godrays killed performance.
GTA V: About the same performance as The Witcher 3. Everything maxed.
DayZ: 30-60 FPS maxed.
Rust: Haven't measured FPS here, didn't feel like 60 fps but was definitely not laggy.
Old games run like a charm!

But really, you don't go 4k resolution without planning to have a high end card(s).
But since I want even resource heavy games to run well, I've ordered a second 980Ti.

I see no point in going 4k over 1440p on sub 30" screens.
I think 34" ultrawide 1440p monitors are really sweet, but just a bit small for my taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top