Are you planning to buy a 4K monitor for gaming soon?

I’d like to know if you are planning to purchase a 4K monitor in the near future.

  • I plan to buy a 4k monitor within the next month or so.

    Votes: 18 12.8%

  • I want a 4k display but can’t afford it.

    Votes: 17 12.1%

  • I want a 4k display but my graphics is not powerful enough for it.

    Votes: 32 22.7%

  • 1080p is good enough, bugger off!

    Votes: 49 34.8%

  • I already have a 4k display.

    Votes: 25 17.7%
  • Total voters
    141
W

Warsam71

AMD Community Manager
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
140
Hello Everyone,

Hope you had a great Holiday Break :)

I’m conducting a poll to help my colleagues at work get an idea about 4K Gaming, specifically 4K monitors.

I’d like to know if you are planning to purchase a 4K monitor in the near future. In addition, could you please post your thoughts as well? (Listing the Pros & Cons for whether you are planning to buy one or not).

Thank you in advance
 
Looking at getting a freesync 4k display along with next gen cards as needed if my R9 280x CF setup can't keep up and they can't handle adaptive sync. So... sometime this year... ;)
 
Once those get to 42" or so, and have good gaming quality features, I will bite. Till then, I will stick with Surround/Eyefinity.
 
Not a monitor, but I'm potentially looking for a 4K television that I'll end up using as a monitor. Now that the sets have HDMI 2.0 I'm far more likely to do it.
 
I'm currently using a 27" 120hz 1080P monitor. For me the higher refresh rate was more important than a higher resolution. I really want to stick with this until I can get a 120hz 4K monitor that is at least ~30". I think I'll be content with my current monitor for a few more years though.
 
When there's a solid upgrade available for my Seiki 39" I'll buy a new one. Until then, however, I'm just fine with what I have. Especially so since most of the time I'm developing rather than gaming.
 
Speaking only for myself, but for the foreseeable future, I'll be sticking with 1080P for gaming purposes.

I'm not really a hardcore gamer anyway, but even the prettiest big budget games I've played, with all the eye candy maxed out, in the last twelve months seemed like they'd benefit more from an increase in poly count and higher resolution textures than they would from an increase in display resolution. When I say this, I'm thinking of Assassin's Creed Unity and Dragon Age Inquisition, but they're not the only ones.
 
notarat said:
Especially so since most of the time I'm developing rather than gaming.
Click to expand...

Same.

I'd actually be a lot more interested in a 4K PC monitor for desktop use than I would for playing games. I develop iOS apps, and especially now that they sell a 1920 by 1080 iPhone, using the emulator on anything less than a 4K monitor is really hard.
 
I've a 1440p monitor, have had it for about 2 years now, and I do not see myself getting a 4K monitor anytime soon.
 
Talking about pros/cons, the biggest con is definitely driving it graphically. Everything else is minor at 32". Price is no big deal. The 37W3 was this much back in the day, and the ultra wide monitors are this much or more now.

To be honest, I didn't think significantly higher pixel density would be a big deal. I was just looking for a monitor that wasn't riddled with issues because of the current state of quality control. After all, smartphone displays are to the point where higher resolutions aren't as big of a deal as a higher quality panel.

Everything looks pretty damn amazing at 137 PPI. At this point I kind of wonder just how crisp the 24, 27, and 28 inch 4k displays look, but I think they'd suffer from desktop usage issues on Windows. I've been using it with no scaling lately after originally using 125%.

Games look really crisp and sharp, there's not really any other way to describe it. It is noticeable compared to the 34" ultra-wide which has the same PPI as 27" 1440p monitors. All of the MMOs, MOBAs, and RTS games I've tried scale well with no tweaking. These genres are both easier to drive and more tolerable to lower FPS. If any of these are your main genre, you'd probably be happy.

Newer FPS games are difficult to drive. It reminds me of playing Crysis back in 2007 at 1080p. I still remember when [H] got us those BFG 8800GTS 512MB cards.

It's a trade-off in titles like those. To use FC4 as an example, turning down the draw distance (Terrain and Geometry) results in pop-in, and that results in some pretty big FPS gains. Ultra textures are usable and SMAA's performance penalty is really small for what you get. You can definitely see more detail in the textures at 4k compared to 2560x1440, having seen 32" monitors of both resolutions side by side. Getting up close to people, objects, or just looking at the weapon(s) you're holding.

Sometimes I feel like the oddball being interested in newer hardware but typically playing older or less demanding games, but it's probably the biggest upgrade I've seen in visual fidelity in a long time.
 
I would love to have a 4K, flicker-free CRT, but all existing flickerless 4K monitors are LCDs and current CRTs can't do above about 50Hz at 4K, which flickers horribly. And I obviously can't afford to have a 4K@90Hz CRT built. So I probably will never own a 4K monitor...
 
No. But I'm not staying at 1080p.
I want a bigger than my current(24") monitor, and it's going to be 1440p. It has to have high refresh rates(120-144 Hz) and it must support AVS. Preferably AHVA but if the monitor has good uniformity and good color accuracy, that's less of an issue.

The reason for all of this is that doing maximum settings at 1080p in demanding games like Crysis barely gets past 60 fps with significant AA. 1440p will have long legs. 4K gaming will not be mature until at least 2018 or so when a single GPU can drive around games on very high/ultra at 60 fps.
 
When I can get a 24-27" 4K display with an IPS panel and freesync for around $500-600, I'll bite.
 
I am very happy with my Dell 32" 4K monitor. I paid through the nose to get it, but what the hell.
 
No...I'm not going to spend $800++ for a good quality 4k display and then $1000 in SLI'd video cards that wont even work correctly to run it in max detail when I can just game at max detail at 1920x1080 on a 970...without any problems.
 
WHen a performance segment, like 970, will be able to run 50-60 FPS on single card, I'll consider 4K. I'll not bother with SLI/Crossfire, not only because of cost, but also because of several issues with dual cards, power, heat and noise.

I'll stay on FHD, but move to some nice curved MVA Samsung screen.
 
After trying VSR at 3200 x 1800 for a bit, I believe that I need at least a 40" 4K display to truly enjoy it. Also I think that we need 2 more generations of graphics cards to come out as we all know that SLi and Crossfire don't work 100% of the time. The alternative to waiting for faster cards is to get a 40" 4K display with FreeSync / GSYNC that can handle 30 fps with ease. I don't want to have to deal with VSYNC again.

Every time that I fire up my older games and Crossfire or SLi didn't work it left a bad taste in my mouth. One thing that AMD could pioneer in is getting Crossfire to work at a reduced rate at least in games that don't officially support it. Some type of conjoined twin mode that allows the second card to do something would give me a piece of mind that I didn't waste money. Even if it could only do the low latency mode from Civilization Beyond Earth I would be happy.
 
When 4k @ 90+Hz is viable, then I'll be interested. For the next few years it looks like 1440p at 120-144Hz will be the sweet spot for me when it comes to gaming. 60Hz in motion just makes my eyes bleed, I don't care how great the still picture quality is.
 
I am running 6040x1080 in eyefinity and this is enough pixels for my AMD 290.
 
UPS just dropped off a 4k screen on my front porch last Friday, however, I didn't purchase it. Personally, I run 3x 1920x1080p monitors for gaming and I'm not opposed to 3x 4k monitors but I'll need a faster video card to run that :-D
 
Where is the "I'm planing on buying a QHD (1440/1600p) screen, not 4K" option?
 
1080 here. 4K for movies maybe on a big ass screen but for a monitor under 27", 1080 suits me just fine and I don't need $1000 in video cards to play everything maxed out. Not saying I wouldn't like one but at this point I consider it a luxury. If I could shit money I'd go for one of but for the marginal increase in image quality vs the investment, it ain't worth it yet at least not to me
 
Last edited:
Been using 4K for months now and haven't looked back, I can't see myself using a 1080p screen anymore, just wish there were GPU's to run every game at full settings at a decent framerate.
 
Been on 4k since may 2014. Easy choice, got an upgrade to a 32 inch 4k ips sst 60hz one a couple of months ago, and as with 2560 resolutions in 2008 and 1680x1050 in 2004, I will not be looking back. However I would really like to see raw performance gains at this point, while my gtx 970 sli is great, I am really hoping amd or nvidia makes a jaw dropping card when 16nm with hbm gen2 memory is available. First one to do that with reasonable heat and noise profile is winner winner chicken dinner :D. I am fine with the speed I have today, but newer and upcoming games are definitely aching for more. And if 4k is to become more common, midrange cards need to be able to handle it at moderate settings better than now.
 
KazeoHin said:
Where is the "I'm planing on buying a QHD (1440/1600p) screen, not 4K" option?
Click to expand...
Under the "you're at the trailing end of the bell curve" options. Or, you know, the ones mentioning you don't plan on going 4k now like the poll already has.
MacLeod said:
1080 here. 4K for movies maybe on a big ass screen but for a monitor under 27", 1080 suits me just fine and I don't need $1000 in video cards to play everything maxed out. Not saying I wouldn't like one but at this point I consider it a luxury. If I could shit money I'd go for one of but for the marginal increase in image quality vs the investment, it ain't worth it yet at least not to me
Click to expand...
It's hardly marginal. Even going QHD 2560 res is a night and day change from 1080. 4k is 2.25x the resolution of 2560x1440, and marks a colossal image quality change due to the higher ppi and more texel space for mid and further range in games. And the desktop space is beautiful ;).
 
Not until SLI and CF can reliably push 100fps (and of course 120+Hz monitors available).
 
GoldenTiger said:
Under the "you're at the trailing end of the bell curve" options. Or, you know, the ones mentioning you don't plan on going 4k now like the poll already has.
Click to expand...

No, it has a "1080p is fine" option. Hardly the same as "1440p, please"
 
For me it's about specs and monitor size. If I go to a single 4k display it needs to be pretty damn large without having the pixel pitch of a TV. Otherwise it comes down to needing to wait until we have the power to handle 3x IPS 120Hz+ G-Sync 4k monitors in Surround/Eyefinity.
 
I have a 2560x1440 144Hz display.. I will bite on 4K once they have a 120Hz+ model.
 
ips g-sync 120-144-240hz refresh rate 4k 10-bit panel. < $1000 i'm there!
 
KazeoHin said:
No, it has a "1080p is fine" option. Hardly the same as "1440p, please"
Click to expand...

For the purposes of a poll asking "Are you planning to buy a 4k monitor for gaming soon?", it doesn't matter what you're getting if it's not that ;). It's beside the point of why it's being asked :).

AndreRio said:
ips g-sync 120-144-240hz refresh rate 4k 10-bit panel. < $1000 i'm there!
Click to expand...

While we're on wishlist future tech... may as well bump that up to a 5k 32" panel alongside the rest of those specs :D.
 
I would maybe go to 2560x1440 from 1920x1080, but it'd have to be:

-120 Hz+
-IPS
-very low response time
-GSYNC
-Not 800 fucking dollars
 
MavericK96 said:
I would maybe go to 2560x1440 from 1920x1080, but it'd have to be:

-120 Hz+
-IPS
-very low response time
-GSYNC
-Not 800 fucking dollars
Click to expand...

This is what I am looking at, but I am willing to forgo the 120Hz/GSYNC requirement personally. Not interested in 4K as the GPU power needed for it still is too much $$ for my liking.
 
My eyes are getting old. (54) So I don't think I will see the difference from 1080. Unless the size of my monitor changes greatly. (currently 23.5)

Kid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top