• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

27" 1440p vs 4k

D

DeadByDawn

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
477
Anybody gaming with a 4k monitor yet?
I am stoked about the resolution, but I want a new monitor.

I am debating on just going with a good 27 with 1440p or just hold out for a quality 4K monitor.

Thoughts?
 
Its hard to know without how long you want to wait, the cost of 60Hz 4K displays, your budget, the gfx power you will have, the quality settings you will accept, not sure what I've missed off the list :)
 
I game on my 4K UHD though currently at only 40Hz.
60Hz isn't far away actually the board are rolling of thy shelves as we speak.
However we all know that Asus will vastly overprice their 60Hz monitor.

I think it is worth the wait but not to wait for Asus' overpriced model.
Me, Moddermike, Ubiquityman, Mark Rejohn, Sinhout are currently trying to get 120Hz working though we will probably first go non custom with Innolux's Tcons.(60Hz)

Btw with your 580's it is key that you keep down the AA since you will already be running high pixel count and Vram is one of the things they don't have in abundance (I have a 1.25GB GTX570 so I know)
 
Last edited:
There is shitload more to important on a LCD then only resolution.
I would never play more than $600 - $800 for a 27" - 32" 4k LCD display except for one that would be as good as an CRT but that will neve happen they should push OLED displays but it looks like they try to rip of people with the 4k LCD displays and then they will release OLED. HD-Ready all over again. :D
 
Last edited:
Outbreaker said:
There is shitload more to important on a LCD then only resolution.
I would never play more than $800 for a LCD display except there will be one as good as an CRT but that will neve happen they should push OLED displays but it looks like they try to rip of people with 4k LCD and then they will release OLED. :D
Click to expand...
Upsides: Great viewing angles(slightly less than IPS), the best possible contrast, 2x 1440P in terms of pixels, Same PPI but more density @39inch.

Though the downside of current 4k panels(including built in bl) slower pixel transitions, less even lit, lower backlight frequency.
 
It's very early adopter days for 4K monitors and TVs, with just a few models available that need two Displayport cables to run, and driver issues being worked out. Meanwhile, 27" 1440p monitors are really high quality right now and there are some very good well-understood choices if you read the forum here. I would get a good 1440p monitor now, and in a year or two look at how things have settled with 4K displays that use single HDMI 2.0 cables to run.
 
evilsofa said:
It's very early adopter days for 4K monitors and TVs, with just a few models available that need two Displayport cables to run, and driver issues being worked out. Meanwhile, 27" 1440p monitors are really high quality right now and there are some very good well-understood choices if you read the forum here. I would get a good 1440p monitor now, and in a year or two look at how things have settled with 4K displays that use single HDMI 2.0 cables to run.
Click to expand...
That is not correct a single DP cable can do it using MST you however need 2 HDMI 1.4 cables or a single HDMI 2.0 cable for the needed bandwidth.

What people should understand is that there are more important bottlenecks than cables.
the 2 main bottlenecks are the input controller and the Timing controller.
 
Its going to take time for nVidia and AMD to get GPUs out that will properly play games on 4k monitors I'm thinking. I'm betting those GPUs won't be cheap either. The costs with 4K gaming is going to be much higher I think.
 
Skott said:
Its going to take time for nVidia and AMD to get GPUs out that will properly play games on 4k monitors I'm thinking. I'm betting those GPUs won't be cheap either. The costs with 4K gaming is going to be much higher I think.
Click to expand...
Going by a 10/25% increase in performance per gen for al remaining releases on silicon with a few that shall yield more.
4K UHD is only 4x 1080P which a lot of gpus can already handle nowadays.
 
Skott said:
Its going to take time for nVidia and AMD to get GPUs out that will properly play games on 4k monitors I'm thinking. I'm betting those GPUs won't be cheap either. The costs with 4K gaming is going to be much higher I think.
Click to expand...
Some of today's GPU's can actually handle 4K 60fps now at reduced detail. 7970's and Titan's. A single Geforce Titan can, at reduced settings or in older Source engine games no problem. And you can already use SLI of Titan's to get Crysis 3 at 60fps at 4K, if you skip the AA or just use FXAA.

Microsoft used a CrossFire of three 7970's to do 3-monitor 4K surround at 60+ frames per second. You'd only need 1 card to do the same on a single 4K monitor. Do CrossFire/SLI, but on a single monitor, and you'll easily run Crysis at 4K at 60fps. Yes, the cards are expensive, but the cards are already available today.

I think we can even pull off 4K 120fps, given some people (Vega) pulling off three-quarters of the number of pixels (1080p 120Hz triple surround is three-quarters the number of pixels as a single 4K monitor at 120Hz). Running Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3 at triple-digit framerates with maximum or near-maximum detail settings (just with FXAA). So a quad Titan already has enough brute power to push 4K 120fps at really high detail settings in more than half of current games, if shove came to shove, on those pixels. Expensive. But the horsepower is here today. Inevitably, such power will be available much more cheaply in a single card eventually. I'd like to see see 4K 120Hz happen.
 
Last edited:
The best 1440p monitors have much better image quality vs. the Asus 4K display (750:1 contrast vs 900-1100:1, smaller color gamut/low sRGB color space coverage, worse viewing angles vs. 1440p IPS/PLS), unaware of any 4k Sharp tests.
 
DeadByDawn said:
I am debating on just going with a good 27 with 1440p or just hold out for a quality 4K monitor.
Click to expand...
If you have the money for the GPU to push those pixels, don't need wait. Get something now -- such as one of the 2560x1440p Korean overclockable monitors with great color quality, or go for one of the CRT-quality-motion blur-free LightBoost monitors if motion quality is preferred by your eyes over color quality.

Either route is only $300-$500; which is probably cheaper than the GPU you already bought to power the 1440p or 4K. Gaming quality 4K at reasonable prices will come relatively soon, but "not soon enough" (aka this year) unless you don't mind 30Hz.
 
Not sure I would bother with 4k purely for gaming. It's nice, but the compromises and horsepower required are non-trivial to say the least.

http://sancus.off.net/4k - here are a bunch of random games at 3840x2160. I actually find it the best for strategy/3rd person rpgs where you commonly end up with a much wider field of view than normal due to whatever details of game engines being unprepared to handle the resolution as a normal 16:9 variant.

For FPSes, I think current 4k panels are inferior to those that offer faster response times(lightboost and the best 120hz OCable 27 inchers), but I don't really care about that side of gaming much so it's not relevant to me. In terms of color quality and contrast, the Asus is pretty good - there are IPS panels with somewhat better contrast and slightly better sRGB coverage, but for its massive size it's actually pretty good. It's pretty similar to a U3014.

Where I will say 4k is simply far superior to everything is for general desktop tasks/work. Having the equivalent of 4 15.6(okay, .75) inch 1920x1080 laptop screens on your desk is pretty neat, and has significantly changed the way I work. You cannot achieve this with a 1440p monitor, it's a completely different experience and I like it much better than a 3 or 4 monitor setup too.

My experiences reflect an Asus PQ321, sitting roughly 20-24 inches away. I imagine this is quite different from the large 39 inch and 50 inch 4k panels that are currently available. To me, those are simply too big to be comfortably placed with my current desk setup(honestly, I'd prefer if this monitor were a couple inches smaller, even), but some people prefer sitting back further so it's really all up to personal preference.

Basically, if you are going to primarily use the monitor with full screened games, I wouldn't really bother with 4k. Especially not if you are stuck with refresh rates below 60hz, with this monitor at 30hz it's just totally awful, even the mouse pointer motion blur drives me mad. Otherwise, if you are going to take advantage of the real estate, I can't really recommend anything other than 4k :)
 
NCX said:
The best 1440p monitors have much better image quality vs. the Asus 4K display (750:1 contrast vs 900-1100:1, smaller color gamut/low sRGB color space coverage, worse viewing angles vs. 1440p IPS/PLS), unaware of any 4k Sharp tests.
Click to expand...

And remember reading the above that the 4K panels currently, and for the visible future, cost a hell of a lot of money.
 
4K will be too mich for you if you plan on using it as a monitor. trust me. you need distance for those screens and they will usually be much bigger than 27"
 
mizaco said:
4K will be too mich for you if you plan on using it as a monitor. trust me. you need distance for those screens and they will usually be much bigger than 27"
Click to expand...

I use 30" monitors at work at 8" to 12" away; that's 1600p Dell U3011's.

And I have good vision. They're just really that close!

Also, how would backing away from a higher resolution monitor make the situation better than viewing from a closer distance? Doesn't that sound backwards to you?
 
Dont worry, he's been making some strange posts.
I think he's after quantity not quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top