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
i want 4k at some point, but i also want IPS, 60hz, and then the graphical power to run it.

so, maybe sometime in the next few years. until than, hopefully the 27" 1440p i just got will hold me over.
 
Really hoping the 390(x) comes out soon. I would've jumped on a 4k (Phillips) VA panel if I was able to drive it with a single card, but thats not likely to be the case anytime soon. Picked up an ultrawide 34" instead and even my 290 struggles a bit with that, so keen to upgrade.
 
It all about your intended purpose. Do you need color fidelity and good viewing angles? Is a response time critical for you? or are you more interested in a multipurpose functionality?

Are you doing cad/cam work?

But base your decisions on what YOU need and what you want.

I can get by on a 20inch dell IPS and a 19inch HP(unknown) I would like to move into freesync with an R9-290x but that will have to wait awhile.
 
I already have a 4K monitor, I bought it last summer. I needed some getting used to for desktop applications because I have to use DPI scaling for comfortable reading, but after a few months my eyes adjusted and I feel no drawbacks anymore, only the benefits of 4x desktop space. (over 1080)

As for gaming, it was an instant hit, I haven't experienced such a sudden jump in visual quality since I first installed my Voodoo 1 in 1997. There is just so much more detail in games, that it's amazing. The only drawback is that you need very beefy GPUs. And I must say two 290x cards are not always enough to get decent fps in 4K.
 
I'd love a 4k monitor.

GPU's are just not powerful enough yet.

1950x1200 for the next few years.
 
I'd vote but it lacks this option: I want a 4K display, but the monitor is not suitable (refresh rate/TN etc).

Also either the display or GPU should offer proper pixel doubling option for scaling 1080p content. Refresh rate should be at least 75Hz and I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
 
How can you see or appreciate 4k resolution on a 27 inch monitor? Thats way too small!!! You people are crazy!
 
I am buying the Philips 40" BDM4065UC the day it his the US. If by March it isn't here I'll buy one from China.
 
KazeoHin said:
Should I break it to him that those two are not compatible? Right now a 1440p GSync screen is over $800...
Click to expand...

Hence why I said IF I was going to upgrade that is what it would take. Have I upgraded yet? No, because those conditions, as you mentioned, have not been met yet.

I don't think GSYNC/Freesync/whatever has much of a future if the prices continue to be $600-800. I imagine eventually they will fall more in line with what normal monitors are.
 
pheonix991 said:
I'd love a 4k monitor.

GPU's are just not powerful enough yet.

1950x1200 for the next few years.
Click to expand...

Same sentiment here. I don't want to have to dish out the $$$ to push 4k gaming. Hell I can barely afford to push 1080p.
 
I have a 4k monitor, it's great for desktop space, like having 4 1080p monitors, Some games look much better at 4k and others there does not seem to be much of a difference than 1440p. If I have trouble running a game at 4k I just switch to my 1440p 27" monitor. Both my monitors are 27" so it isn't that big of a deal switching between the two for gaming.

Edit: After going over the thread I can't believe so many people are still at 1080p/1920x1200. With 1440p monitors being affordable for the past 4 years I don't really understand it, unless it's 120hz I guess. Still, the difference between 1440p and 1080p alone is huge, I can only imagine the switch to 4k from that being even bigger.
 
Last edited:
I went ahead and bought an Acer XB280HK and after spending a few days using it, I went back to my QNIX QX2710. The Acer was just flat out ugly in comparison, heavy on dithering and 60hz even with G-sync just feels like a deal breaker to me now that I'm used to 100+hz. The 4k resolution didn't really seem to do much to improve the looks of anything either, but that's probably down to the terrible panel in the Acer which made me feel like I was looking through a screen door.

On a side note, G-sync was okay but I feel like it's a bit overrated. If you can maintain your fps at or above your refresh rate in SLI/Crossfire on a 1440p monitor you can just use adaptive sync and get an incredibly similar experience. It would really be more useful in a single card setup at 1440p but if you have a relatively high end multi-gpu rig it's just not necessary.

So yeah, my first foray into 4k and G-sync was disappointing to say the least and the XB280HK is on its way back to the store. I'll be ready for 4k when there is a quality IPS monitor that's 120hz capable along with the GPUs that can meet or exceed the fps required for smooth play at that res/refresh, until then 1440p IPS is where I'm sticking.
 
4k is nice but my 2560x1440 is nice too. Not to mention my single gtx 780 plays games just fine on it and it looks extremely sharp.
 
I didn't vote either, none of them applied to me.

I currently have 23.5 inch 1080p 75hz IPS surround and a 32" 1440 87hz VA. Perfect middle ground for me. The 4k screen I buy would have to be 32"+ IPS and at least 60hz and price must be reasonable.
 
convexion said:
I went ahead and bought an Acer XB280HK and after spending a few days using it, I went back to my QNIX QX2710. The Acer was just flat out ugly in comparison, heavy on dithering and 60hz even with G-sync just feels like a deal breaker to me now that I'm used to 100+hz. The 4k resolution didn't really seem to do much to improve the looks of anything either, but that's probably down to the terrible panel in the Acer which made me feel like I was looking through a screen door.

On a side note, G-sync was okay but I feel like it's a bit overrated. If you can maintain your fps at or above your refresh rate in SLI/Crossfire on a 1440p monitor you can just use adaptive sync and get an incredibly similar experience. It would really be more useful in a single card setup at 1440p but if you have a relatively high end multi-gpu rig it's just not necessary.

So yeah, my first foray into 4k and G-sync was disappointing to say the least and the XB280HK is on its way back to the store. I'll be ready for 4k when there is a quality IPS monitor that's 120hz capable along with the GPUs that can meet or exceed the fps required for smooth play at that res/refresh, until then 1440p IPS is where I'm sticking.
Click to expand...

TN panels are bad... what else is new? Get a 4k IPS panel like the Acer B326HK and get back to us ;).... I tried the 28" TN and was very disappointed coming from a Dell UP2414Q IPS 4K monitor, but going to the 32" 4K IPS was great. I came from an X-Star DP2710 PLS 2560x1440 @ 110hz, by the way.
 
GoldenTiger said:
TN panels are bad... what else is new? Get a 4k IPS panel like the Acer B326HK and get back to us ;).... I tried the 28" TN and was very disappointed coming from a Dell UP2414Q IPS 4K monitor, but going to the 32" 4K IPS was great. I came from an X-Star DP2710 PLS 2560x1440 @ 110hz, by the way.
Click to expand...

I've seen better 1080p TN panels than the Acer XB280HK @ 4k. There's something definitely not right with that one.
 
Missing the option of 2560x1440 is good enough for now. :D

4K... eh... maybe in another year.. but thats a big maybe. I think I'd rather have one of those extra wide curved screens that I'm seeing pop up lately.
 
Yeah, ~27" 1440p high-refresh is going to be the sweet-spot for me for the next good while. 4K is alright for a living room 50+ 60hz screen, but I couldn't imagine a sub 32" 4k screen being painless to use as a productive desktop.
 
Personally, I will not invest in a 4K display until game's can be run at 60 FPS with max in-game settings at 4K with dual-GPU. I would want two 8GB video cards (no more than 2, and 8GB VRAM as a minimum), and be able to run all the current games of the time at 60 FPS with maximum in-game quality settings.

Until then, 1440p at 60 FPS with dual-GPU will work just fine.
 
Last edited:
not really a good answer for me.

more than happy with 3x 1920x1200

when i replace it it will be with a 34" 3440x1440 curved Active-Sync monitor.

4k doesn't really come into the equation at all.
 
I'd buy a 4K monitor in a heartbeat if it had the requisite technologies attached. That is, 120hz+ and ULMB (or whatever you wish to call backlight strobing for motion clarity).

Since that doesn't exist and dp 1.2 won't actually do 120hz 4k to my knowledge, I won't be purchasing a 4k monitor in the near future.

1080p sucks though what a terrible resolution. That resolution was last [H]ard a decade ago
 
If I could afford it I would go for a 4k monitor, but that would also require that I upgrade my video card. Right now it is an expensive proposition.
 
My 5 biggest reasons for not going for 4k:

1) It is limited to 60hz.

2) No GPU is powerful enough, even in SLI/Xfire, to drive 4k comfortably with latest games

3) 4k's lowest effective resolution is 4k, lowering resolution further would end up either blurry and/or pixelated

4) The biggest one: DSR exists.

5) UI scaling issues in games. I would not play games with inelligible text, I'd like to see what I am doing/reading.

Each one would probably be a dealbreaker for me, let along combined all together.
 
Agreed with some of the others, I'm looking for an inbetween in 1440p. My next purchase will likely be a freesync/gsync 1440p monitor and a card new enough/powerful enough to power it.
 
My 1600P Dell 30" is going to be on my desk for quite a while.

Where's the poll option for: No plans to buy 4K at the moment.
 
chenw said:
My 5 biggest reasons for not going for 4k:

1) It is limited to 60hz.

2) No GPU is powerful enough, even in SLI/Xfire, to drive 4k comfortably with latest games

3) 4k's lowest effective resolution is 4k, lowering resolution further would end up either blurry and/or pixelated

4) The biggest one: DSR exists.

5) UI scaling issues in games. I would not play games with inelligible text, I'd like to see what I am doing/reading.

Each one would probably be a dealbreaker for me, let along combined all together.
Click to expand...

My dual 290x setup drives BF4 on ultra fine at 3840x2160.

I've been playing BF4, Alien Isolation, Titan Fall, and the Metro Redux games... no scaling issues for text/elements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top