I jumped too soon on the 4K bandwagon

Spoonie_G

Spoonie_G

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
285
Had my 4k monitor for a year, and now I'm looking at replacing that monitor with a 1440p 144hz model. I picked 4k 60hz, over 1440p 144hz and it was a big mistake. For some reason I feel now as though I can get more out of the gaming experience with the added refresh rate vs the added resolution. Now all I need is a good recommendation for a 28"-32" Freesync monitor. I'm starting the think that I'm the only person in the world downgrading from 4k. lol
 
I'd agree that at 27 inches like your XG-2700 4k doesn't make a whole lot sense. However, at 40 inches or above, it makes all the difference. (Someone has to make a 4k, +40inch, +120hz display soon, right?)

I haven't come across a 144hz screen larger than 27. That AUO 144hz AHVA panel seems to be the best bet for a high speed IPS style screen. In Freesync versions it's getting pimped out by Asus as the MG279Q and Acer as the XF270HU.

If the size is more important the something like the HP Omen at 32" might be worth looking into - however it is MVA, so much better contrast and no IPS glow, but some off axis color/chroma issues and it's only 75hz. That's only what, 25% faster than your current screen?
 
Last edited:
Decibel said:
I'd agree that at 27 inches like your XG-2700 4k doesn't make a whole lot sense. However, at 40 inches or above, it makes all the difference. (Someone soon has to make a 4k, +40inch, +120hz display soon, right?)

I haven't come across a 144hz screen larger than 27. That AUO 144hz AHVA panel seems to be the best bet for a high speed IPS style screen. In Freesync versions it's getting pimped out by Asus as the MG279Q and Acer as the XF270HU.

If the size is more important the something like the HP Omen at 32" might be worth looking into - however it is MVA, so much better contrast and no IPS glow, but some off axis color/chroma issues and it's only 75hz. That's only what, 25% faster than your current screen?
Click to expand...

Thanks. The Acer and the ASUS were the models I was looking at. Going to look into the AUO 144hz AHVA.

Thanks
Again
 
Spoonie_G said:
Thanks. The Acer and the ASUS were the models I was looking at. Going to look into the AUO 144hz AHVA.

Thanks
Again
Click to expand...

AUO makes the panel, which is then put into products from Asus, Acer, Viewsonic and the rest...
 
Spoonie_G said:
Had my 4k monitor for a year, and now I'm looking at replacing that monitor with a 1440p 144hz model. I picked 4k 60hz, over 1440p 144hz and it was a big mistake. For some reason I feel now as though I can get more out of the gaming experience with the added refresh rate vs the added resolution. Now all I need is a good recommendation for a 28"-32" Freesync monitor. I'm starting the think that I'm the only person in the world downgrading from 4k. lol
Click to expand...

I have 38" LG ultrawide (1600p) and it's 75hz with Freesync.

If you can afford it it's definitely a good monitor. Gaming immersion is fantastic. 1600p vs 1440p really does make a difference, trust me. (i own both 34" 1440p asus and 38" 1600p LG)
 
StormClaw said:
I have 38" LG ultrawide (1600p) and it's 75hz with Freesync.

If you can afford it it's definitely a good monitor. Gaming immersion is fantastic. 1600p vs 1440p really does make a difference, trust me. (i own both 34" 1440p asus and 38" 1600p LG)
Click to expand...

My last monitor was a dell 1600p. Not a fan of the 16:10 accept ratio. I have been looking at the untrawides.
 
Yep. here you go. Even the cat likes it.

Kgpco0i.jpg
 
Spoonie_G said:
Had my 4k monitor for a year, and now I'm looking at replacing that monitor with a 1440p 144hz model. I picked 4k 60hz, over 1440p 144hz and it was a big mistake. For some reason I feel now as though I can get more out of the gaming experience with the added refresh rate vs the added resolution. Now all I need is a good recommendation for a 28"-32" Freesync monitor. I'm starting the think that I'm the only person in the world downgrading from 4k. lol
Click to expand...
It wasnt too soon, it was just a bad choice IMO. I have a 40" 4K monitor, and it rocks. I returned my 30" 4K and my 32" 1440P display and settled on this.
 
I have a 390x and never have any issues dropping below 60fps. I mainly play BF1.
 
Spoonie_G said:
Had my 4k monitor for a year, and now I'm looking at replacing that monitor with a 1440p 144hz model.
Click to expand...

I've been gaming at 4K for over 3 years now. I haven't regretted it a moment.

Later this year we're going to see a 144 Hz 4K monitor and the Titan XP can already make full use of it with older games. Before it comes out, we'll see the Pascal refresh and the 1100 series of GPUs, and by next year - maybe even the end of this year - monitor prices will be more reasonable. I'll likely be upgrading with the release of Volta.
 
I really like the Dell S2716DG and am considering it for my upcoming 6 monitor build. Although it's a TN, colors can get pretty decent by messing around in the settings and calibrating it well. It's also sturdy in terms of build quality, pretty much outpacing every other gaming monitor with comparable specs (from Asus/Acer/Benq).

There are two problems though: First of all, it's pricey, and second of all, it has G-Sync instead of Freesync (which I only list as a negative because I think you want to go Freesync, correct?)
 
Panel said:
I really like the Dell S2716DG and am considering it for my upcoming 6 monitor build. Although it's a TN, colors can get pretty decent by messing around in the settings and calibrating it well. It's also sturdy in terms of build quality, pretty much outpacing every other gaming monitor with comparable specs (from Asus/Acer/Benq).

There are two problems though: First of all, it's pricey, and second of all, it has G-Sync instead of Freesync (which I only list as a negative because I think you want to go Freesync, correct?)
Click to expand...

Yes... Its Freesync for me. Thanks... My current monitor is an IPS. Had TN's before didn't have an issue. Just like the way the colors pop out more on an IPS panel.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I've been gaming at 4K for over 3 years now. I haven't regretted it a moment.

Later this year we're going to see a 144 Hz 4K monitor and the Titan XP can already make full use of it with older games. Before it comes out, we'll see the Pascal refresh and the 1100 series of GPUs, and by next year - maybe even the end of this year - monitor prices will be more reasonable. I'll likely be upgrading with the release of Volta.
Click to expand...

That's the issue I have with 4k right now. Its at the extreme high-end. When I purchased the monitor over a year ago I thought that there would be 4k capable cards in the near future at around the $600 range. Its a year and a half later and that isn't the case :( I really want a high refresh rate. Even though I've never even seen a high res display in action I'm sure that I'll be able to game a little better, see more details while in motion etc... I'll definitely be revisiting 4k in a couple years or so. Just have to wait for the prices to go down.

Thanks
 
Spoonie_G said:
That's the issue I have with 4k right now. Its at the extreme high-end. When I purchased the monitor over a year ago I thought that there would be 4k capable cards in the near future at around the $600 range. Its a year and a half later and that isn't the case :( I really want a high refresh rate. Even though I've never even seen a high res display in action I'm sure that I'll be able to game a little better, see more details while in motion etc... I'll definitely be revisiting 4k in a couple years or so. Just have to wait for the prices to go down.

Thanks
Click to expand...
It seems you can never get what you want.

I have two TitanXPs in SLI that can crush anything, but i can't game on small 1440p screens, my eyes hurt. And there are no larger screens with high refresh rates.

:(
 
StormClaw said:
It seems you can never get what you want.

:(
Click to expand...

Tell me about it. I went from a 30" 1600p (60hz) monitor to the 27" model I have now. The 27" is too small. But I'm looking to replace it with another 27" monitor? Doesn't make sense. I'm thinking twice about getting another 27" model. But they're aren't too many choices for the gamer. In a perfect world we would have 40" 4K 144hz monitors. The panels only seem to get produced by a small number of manufacturers that seem to want to do things at their own pace :(
 
4k is all about research, research and more research.

First of all, you can get an outstanding 4k experience for around $300 dollars. 40" Samsung that has 18ms latency and supports 4:4:4 chroma

2nd, you don't need 1070's in SLI, 1080's in SLI or a Titan(s) to push a 4k.

All you need is 2 x 980 ti's in SLI to push 4k beautifully. I should also note that the 980 ti is very close in performance to the GTX 1080 at 4k. Some game's run nearly identical.

Go look at the 980ti SLI vs 1080 SLI at 4k benchmarks on youtube. There are plenty. The 980 ti SLI is always within about 10 - 12%. Some games they are both matched.

I really do not know WTF some of you are smoking that you think or have these bad experiences.

btw, I paid around $550 for 2 x 980 ti's and I am absolutely positive I can stomping nearly all of your asses out there on game performance for less money. Im 30% faster than a Titan Pascal and 45% faster than a 1080, or, 50% less in price than a pair of 1080's in SLI that 's within 10 - 12% maybe 15% of the performance

Also, take it from me. Do not listen to anyone else, I could care less the flak I get ... do not ... do not buy a 27" 4k display. Even at 32" at 4k your most likely going to regret it. 40" to 43" is where you want to be for 4k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Savoy
like this
Spoonie_G said:
That's the issue I have with 4k right now. Its at the extreme high-end.
Click to expand...

I think you have that the wrong way around: game designers are putting 4K at the extreme high end. When I got my 4k monitor, I was using a 780 Ti. I could play the then-current Tomb Raider at a mixture of medium and high settings, and earlier games at max settings. I expect a single Titan XP would play Borderlands 2 at 4K at 144 Hz with everything maxxed.

SixFootDuo said:
All you need is 2 x 980 ti's in SLI to push 4k beautifully.
Click to expand...

You could find yourself VRAM-limited, but yes, my Titan Xs work wonderfully at 4k.

SixFootDuo said:
I could care less the flak I get ... do not ... do not buy a 27" 4k display.
Click to expand...

Different people have different experiences and different use cases and I'm loving my 28" 4K monitor. I also love my 24" 4K monitor. And my 24" 1200p monitor.
 
SixFootDuo said:
4k is all about research, research and more research.

First of all, you can get an outstanding 4k experience for around $300 dollars. 40" Samsung that has 18ms latency and supports 4:4:4 chroma

2nd, you don't need 1070's in SLI, 1080's in SLI or a Titan(s) to push a 4k.

All you need is 2 x 980 ti's in SLI to push 4k beautifully. I should also note that the 980 ti is very close in performance to the GTX 1080 at 4k. Some game's run nearly identical.

Go look at the 980ti SLI vs 1080 SLI at 4k benchmarks on youtube. There are plenty. The 980 ti SLI is always within about 10 - 12%. Some games they are both matched.

I really do not know WTF some of you are smoking that you think or have these bad experiences.

btw, I paid around $550 for 2 x 980 ti's and I am absolutely positive I can stomping nearly all of your asses out there on game performance for less money. Im 30% faster than a Titan Pascal and 45% faster than a 1080, or, 50% less in price than a pair of 1080's in SLI that 's within 10 - 12% maybe 15% of the performance

Also, take it from me. Do not listen to anyone else, I could care less the flak I get ... do not ... do not buy a 27" 4k display. Even at 32" at 4k your most likely going to regret it. 40" to 43" is where you want to be for 4k.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'd like to ask you a few questions out of sheer laziness to find the answers myself:

1. Any idea how much SLI 980Ti's cost today? They sound like a great option until we see 120Hz, G-sync/Freesync 4K displays with enough graphics horsepower to push such framerates.

2. Does the 980Ti have an HDMI 2.0 port?

3. Do you think it's a better idea to go for the cheap $300 Samsung 4K, or to spend a little more on a TV that an do 1080p at 120Hz as well as 4k at 60?
 
Last edited:
Panel said:
Okay, I'd like to ask you a few questions out of sheer laziness to find the answers myself:

1. Any idea how much SLI 980Ti's cost today? They sound like a great option until we see 120Hz, G-sync/Freesync 4K displays with enough graphics horsepower to push such framerates.

2. Does the 980Ti have an HDMI 2.0 port?

3. Do you think it's a better idea to go for the cheap $300 Samsung 4K, or to spend a little more on a screen that an do 1080p at 120Hz as well as 4k at 60?
Click to expand...


This is what I struggled with in my post asking a similar question.

There aren't many panels that accept true 120HZ from a PC at 1080, but I believe the sony's do.

I decided on stretching to the LG OLED, but still in the back of my mind I'm thinking of the x850D for the added 120 benefit.

The thing is, when I went to 40 Inch 4K on the TV that he's talking about it blew me away. It's BEAUTIFUL.

I didn't regret losing the Hz at all and I thought that I would. It was like SD to HD for me, which is extreme obviously, but it impacted me that much.

4K at 40+ is the fucking shit. Not to mention the colors on a quality TV panel. Prices are just too high on these gaming monitors, man. Ultimately, that's why I decided against it.

How can I walk out of a store with a 144HZ gsync ultra wide at 34 inches when I can spend virtually the same cash and get a 55 Inch curved 4K Samsung with colors that are off the hook, and respectable input lag in the low 20's to high teens.

PC monitors are too costly and too compromising to me. 60HZ isn't ideal, but for the quality? Definitely take that all day.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
This is what I struggled with in my post asking a similar question.

There aren't many panels that accept true 120HZ from a PC at 1080, but I believe the sony's do.

I decided on stretching to the LG OLED, but still in the back of my mind I'm thinking of the x850D for the added 120 benefit.

The thing is, when I went to 40 Inch 4K on the TV that he's talking about it blew me away. It's BEAUTIFUL.

I didn't regret losing the Hz at all and I thought that I would. It was like SD to HD for me, which is extreme obviously, but it impacted me that much.

4K at 40+ is the fucking shit. Not to mention the colors on a quality TV panel. Prices are just too high on these gaming monitors, man. Ultimately, that's why I decided against it.

How can I walk out of a store with a 144HZ gsync ultra wide at 34 inches when I can spend virtually the same cash and get a 55 Inch curved 4K Samsung with colors that are off the hook, and respectable input lag in the low 20's to high teens.

PC monitors are too costly and too compromising to me. 60HZ isn't ideal, but for the quality? Definitely take that all day.
Click to expand...
See, I misspoke in my post. I asked if I should "spend a little more on a screen that an do 1080p at 120Hz" but I meant to say "TV" instead of "screen" (I've fixed this in my post). Point being, I'm not considering a gaming monitor at all and agree that the prices are off the hook. I definitely want to get a TV, but the decision seems to be between the $300 Samsung and the $600 Sony that can do 4K plus 1080 at 120Hz.

I've stuck to my guns that 1080p at 120Hz is nice to have, but the new knowledge that SLI 980Ti's hold up well in 4K is making me question whether or not I'll ever actually lower the resolution to 1080. I may just stay in 4K, in which case the cheaper $300 Samsung is better option. I could also still spend $600 but get the HDR X800D instead. Heck, when you take 120Hz out of the equation, the options got up quite a bit.
 
Panel said:
See, I misspoke in my post. I asked if I should "spend a little more on a screen that an do 1080p at 120Hz" but I meant to say "TV" instead of "screen" (I've fixed this in my post). Point being, I'm not considering a gaming monitor at all and agree that the prices are off the hook. I definitely want to get a TV, but the decision seems to be between the $300 Samsung and the $600 Sony that can do 4K plus 1080 at 120Hz.

I've stuck to my guns that 1080p at 120Hz is nice to have, but the new knowledge that SLI 980Ti's hold up well in 4K is making me question whether or not I'll ever actually lower the resolution to 1080. I may just stay in 4K, in which case the cheaper $300 Samsung is better option. I could also still spend $600 but get the HDR X800D instead. Heck, when you take 120Hz out of the equation, the options got up quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I'm with you.

There's always a new wrinkle. It's so difficult sometimes. To be honest I'm running a single 980TI, granted it's the Zotac AMP edition and the benchmarks are the highest for that card because it's clocked to the skies, but I haven't had any issues pushing 4K performance with minor tweaking.

Post in one of these threads when you decide, we are both sort of in the same boat.
 
Panel said:
I've stuck to my guns that 1080p at 120Hz is nice to have, but the new knowledge that SLI 980Ti's hold up well in 4K is making me question whether or not I'll ever actually lower the resolution to 1080. I may just stay in 4K, in which case the cheaper $300 Samsung is better option.
Click to expand...

I recommend 4K; if you can add Gsync to that, so much the better.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Yay! Now I just have to look up the price of two 980Ti's.
JMFitzy85 said:
Post in one of these threads when you decide, we are both sort of in the same boat.
Click to expand...
Which threads? This one?
Quartz-1 said:
I recommend 4K; if you can add Gsync to that, so much the better.
Click to expand...
Just to make sure we're both on the same boat, I am going 4K no matter. I'm just wondering if I should get one that can't do 1080p at 120 or one that can. It's nice to have a bonus, faster 1080p mode on a 4k monitor. For games where raw speed is important.
 
JMFitzy85 said:
4K at 40+ is the fucking shit. Not to mention the colors on a quality TV panel. Prices are just too high on these gaming monitors, man. Ultimately, that's why I decided against it.

How can I walk out of a store with a 144HZ gsync ultra wide at 34 inches when I can spend virtually the same cash and get a 55 Inch curved 4K Samsung with colors that are off the hook, and respectable input lag in the low 20's to high teens.

PC monitors are too costly and too compromising to me. 60HZ isn't ideal, but for the quality? Definitely take that all day.
Click to expand...

I agree with so much. I've tried several of the latest "gaming" monitors on the market in $500 - $1300 range and they are all basically crap for how expensive they are. Just picked up a Sony X800D and pretty happy with it. I think I'm going to stick with it for awhile.
 
So I picked up the 55 inch LG OLED, and granted I don't have my desk situation set up yet so I'm too close..

But, I have this nagging feeling that it's over kill, it's an obviously fantastic picture but I've lost some of the sharpness going from 40 to 55.

Part of me wants to drop to the Sony or Samsung 49 inch offerings. Never thought I'd hear myself say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
JMFitzy85 said:
So I picked up the 55 inch LG OLED, and granted I don't have my desk situation set up yet so I'm too close..

But, I have this nagging feeling that it's over kill, it's an obviously fantastic picture but I've lost some of the sharpness going from 40 to 55.

Part of me wants to drop to the Sony or Samsung 49 inch offerings. Never thought I'd hear myself say that.
Click to expand...
I don't actually think it's that dumb or far fetched. I always thought that 55" at 4K just would be too big and too fuzzy. After all, people love 24" 1080p (same PPI as 48" 4K TV) and hate 27" 1080p (same PPI as 54" 4k TV), so it only made sense to me that the TVs wouldn't be too appealing at anything over 50".
 
I run my 50" 4k Seiki at 120hz. Totally agree with the OP, high refresh rates are more important than 4k resolution. Yes, 1080p is pushing it at that screen size size but it's still a very immersive gaming monitor.
 
Last edited:
JMFitzy85 said:
This is what I struggled with in my post asking a similar question.

There aren't many panels that accept true 120HZ from a PC at 1080, but I believe the sony's do.

I decided on stretching to the LG OLED, but still in the back of my mind I'm thinking of the x850D for the added 120 benefit.

The thing is, when I went to 40 Inch 4K on the TV that he's talking about it blew me away. It's BEAUTIFUL.

I didn't regret losing the Hz at all and I thought that I would. It was like SD to HD for me, which is extreme obviously, but it impacted me that much.

4K at 40+ is the fucking shit. Not to mention the colors on a quality TV panel. Prices are just too high on these gaming monitors, man. Ultimately, that's why I decided against it.

How can I walk out of a store with a 144HZ gsync ultra wide at 34 inches when I can spend virtually the same cash and get a 55 Inch curved 4K Samsung with colors that are off the hook, and respectable input lag in the low 20's to high teens.

PC monitors are too costly and too compromising to me. 60HZ isn't ideal, but for the quality? Definitely take that all day.
Click to expand...

Which 40" 4k samsung for $300 are you guys refering to ? It's using a VA panel ? Does it have HDR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top