I don't recall any RX 480's being sub $150.
Which is still intriguing, as the whole crypto-bubble still hasn't died down, as we've not seen RX 570 4GB's at the sub-$150 mark. They are still at >$250.
I also think that "4k" gaming still has a way to go. I don't see a noticeable difference in games played at 4k over 1080p on a 43" screen. Except for games with video sequences, most game play is preferable at a higher FPS than a higher resolution.
I see a lot of commenting that people don't move to 4k from 1440p because (affordable) video cards can't hit 100+ FPS at 4k yet. Unless the next gen video card has about 30-40% increase in FPS @4k resolution, I don't see that changing. Also, until we see monitors ~100+ Hz at 4k, serious FPS gamers will stick with their 1440p.
Recently a 4k monitor with 120 Hz was announced at $1400. That is not a mainstream price and only serious computer geeks would sell their 1440p monitors to upgrade. Remember most will have paid a premium for 1440p @ 144Hz.
I think your predictions are at least 3-4 years away. Personally, had I just bought a monitor, it would be at least 3-4 years before I would upgrade. Same with video card.
I personally have a 2560x1440 monitor at 27". I've been on one side 2011? I think (across two different models), and believe it's the sweet spot in general, especially now you can get 144+hz versions of it. It's 'challenging' for lower to mid tier cards to run, but is suitable for higher end cards, has a good pixel density, and doesn't require any type of scaling from windows.
I've refused to move from this res, and probably won't for a long time.
my original was a Dell U2711H, now on a BenQ in my sig.. Next will be a high refresh rate monitor! But likely only when my current dies because.. Well.. Money.
I can tell you that games in 4K look significantly better than they did when I had a 1080P monitor. For me at least resolution is much more important and significant than high frame rates. I would much rather game at 4K 60FPS than 1080P or 1440 at 144Hz. It just doesnt impress me much. Steadiness of FPS is much more important in my view than top FPS. Steady 60FPS looks much smoother to me than something bouncing up and down between 50 and 100. Would 120Hz 4K look better than 60Hz? Sure, but I enjoy the resolution more than frame rates I do not really think are noticeable. I see people on these forums stating that they refuse to game under 144Hz. Clearly they see something I do not. FWIW, I play almost no twitchy first person shooters.
You figured it out right at the end there; it's mainly for fast-paced stuff like Quake III Arena/Live/Champions, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, etc. that you want silky-smooth refresh rates and the ability to track your targets better.I see people on these forums stating that they refuse to game under 144Hz. Clearly they see something I do not. FWIW, I play almost no twitchy first person shooters.
I already know that games in 4k look significantly better. I should have been more clear in my posting. I have a 4k 43".
A game that was designed five years ago, like Battlefield 4 for 1080p gains no real benefit on a 4k set-up. It isn't a better picture, it is just a 1080p game played on a 4k monitor. A game like tomb raider is different, it actually needs a strong graphics card and 4k monitor for maximum enjoyment.
I concur, I appreciate a 4k game at 60 Hz (with maybe 70-80) FPS over say 1080p at 100-144Hz. I prefer clarity over FPS. Law of diminishing return after 60 "SOLID" FPS. If it dips to 30s and 40s then no.
What? Old games look so much better on a native 4k monitor all the time. And why would you want above 60fps on a 60hz monitor? That just creates a ton of tearing and goes above gsync/freesync range.
I can't stand playing basically any game at 60hz anymore. My 4k monitor looks great, but the smoothness of 180hz is far more enjoyable.
In games like GTA V, ARMA 3, and RTS games, I play on my 4k monitor because I am CPU limited.
We will all have 4k144hz soon.
But the problem is getting reasonably priced 4k GPU's that don't cost more than the monitor :/
We are kind of getting off topic. The OP was referring to cheap cards @1080p and that we are reaching a point of diminishing returns. Right now its kind of a three way balance of a) higher resolution b) higher FPS c) cheap cost.
I think you are mistaken that old games look better in 4k, if the game were natively built for 1080p, then the computer would have to make up pixels to get to 4k by scaling up. I don't see it. That's me just me, opinions may vary.
As for FPS, yes, 180 Hz is more enjoyable than 60 Hz, but you can't get an affordable 4k monitor that does 180 Hz yet, so I can't comment on that. (also not with a $50-100 GPU so pointless to the discussion)
As for Not seeing a difference of 60 FPS at 60 Hz vs. 180 FPS at 60 Hz, then you are crazy. I see the difference. Yes, there is some tearing, but there is a huge difference in response and choppiness. (again, you won't be buying a $50-100 GPU which can display at 4k at anywhere near 60 FPS, so that is also moot to the OPs question)
Again, its about the OP's question of a $50-100 video card handling 60-100 FPS being available in the near future. I may have gone a little off explaining myself in a an earlier post, but I am trying to keep it relevant to the OPs question.
I meant having a low res 144hz monitor and a 4k60hz monitor. They are both available under $300. But that is why I do not see the point in a 1080p60 monitor anymore. Some 1080p144hz monitors are going for under $200.[/QUOTE
I understand, but this thread kind of went down a rabbit hole. Even if the OP could get a $50-100 video card that could do 1080p at 60 FPS, a 144 Hz Monitor and a Video card that can support that will be well above the $100 price point.