1440P or 4K?

[Wei_Reaper]

I am planning on buying a new monitor, and for that i am going to do the 980TI SLI. I am not sure which monitor i should go for. 1440P or 4K? it seems like 980Ti sli can't handle the 4K well for some games which gets below 60FPS. and any advice for the monitor?
here is my setting:
Core I7-4790K 4.00GHz
MAXIMUS VII HERO motherboard
Hyperx 16GB DDR3 2400MHz
Sumsung SSD 850 PRO 250GB
GTX 980 TI EVGA CLASSIFIELD
1000W EVGA POWERSUPLLY

 

[Nexures]

i personally wouldnt go for 4k. i myself think it is very pointless, as the current hardware cannot properly handle 4k at 60fps. unless you want to game at 30

2k is a bit better decision, but youd need to spend a lot for a GOOD monitor, an ips and 144hz for example. and the one that has good ppi too !

 

[tsuneo6]

i personally wouldnt go for 4k. i myself think it is very pointless, as the current hardware cannot properly handle 4k at 60fps. unless you want to game at 30

2k is a bit better decision, but youd need to spend a lot for a GOOD monitor, an ips and 144hz for example. and the one that has good ppi too !

deathklok yea!

anyway, I agree with your opinion. 4k mainstream gaming is still some years away. 1440p however is perfectly doable and your single GPU wont have any problems pulling it off. you wouldnt even need a second one.

an SLI setup should be able to handle most games well tho

I can see 1440p becomming the new 1080p

my advice, settle for 1440p

 

[Nexures]

or 2k. 1440p is higher than 2k, so the worst case scenario, 2k. but for how long... xd i cant argue enough how horrible games are these days. each game that will come out will have ridiculously higher requirements. best to have a full hd monitor just in case your 2k wont handle it. because if you use 2k to run full hd, it wont look that good

DO ANYTHING FOR DETHKLOK

 

[pasow]

SLI 980TI's are about the best option out there for 4k if you did want to go for it. however if your more interested in a nice balance between speed and resolution, the current crop of 1440p (2.5k) offerings are quite nice these days. you can get a G-sync 144Hz IPS display which will give an exceptionally smooth experience, allow high frame rates, and be a fair step up over 1080p (2k) for resolution.

 

[Nexures]

1080p is not 2k kind sir

 

[pasow]

1080p is not 2k kind sir

Do enlighten me then. I am well aware that referring to UHD as 4k is incorrect, but people do it anyways. I'm just applying the same "its close" logic here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Ultra_HD

Would it not be correct to assume that half of "4k" (UDH 3840x2160) is FHD 1920x1080 instead of QHD 2560x1440 (which is half of 5k, but double of HD)?

 

[Wei_Reaper]

i personally wouldnt go for 4k. i myself think it is very pointless, as the current hardware cannot properly handle 4k at 60fps. unless you want to game at 30

2k is a bit better decision, but youd need to spend a lot for a GOOD monitor, an ips and 144hz for example. and the one that has good ppi too !

how is the ASUS ROG PG278Q? is it good for gaming? why is it so expensive!! more expensive than a 4K !

 

[Nexures]

More expensive than shitty 4k monitors*

 

[Nexures]

Pasov, oh yeah if youre applying "close enough" logic then yeah hahaha. 1080p is 1920x1080 😛

I alao thought that ultra hd is 4k hahaha

 

[pasow]

i personally wouldnt go for 4k. i myself think it is very pointless, as the current hardware cannot properly handle 4k at 60fps. unless you want to game at 30

2k is a bit better decision, but youd need to spend a lot for a GOOD monitor, an ips and 144hz for example. and the one that has good ppi too !

how is the ASUS ROG PG278Q? is it good for gaming? why is it so expensive!! more expensive than a 4K !

The ROG is a very good monitor for gaming. It’s a TN panel with G-sync and 144Hz refresh. Its color reproductions even not that bad for a TN display. From a pure gaming stand point it’s one of the best displays available. (For me though, the TN factor kills it, off angle color distortion drives me nuts) Now to why it’s so expensive, it’s running at 2.4 times the frequency of a 60Hz display with a far lower scalier response time and offers frame rate synchronization with the GPU to eliminate tearing and judder. Meanwhile similarly priced "4k" displays are locked between 30 and 60Hz without refresh rate to frame rate synchronization, and likely slow scalers that will increase input lag.

Pasov, oh yeah if youre applying "close enough" logic then yeah hahaha. 1080p is 1920x1080 😛

I alao thought that ultra hd is 4k hahaha

There’s a lot of marketing BS that's been flying around due to how new higher than FHD resolutions are to general consumers. (Reminds me a lot of when HD and FHD resolutions were being popularized) I'm commonly seeing people throw around the term "2k" when in reference to 2560x1440 rather than the correct term of 2.5k. It seems odd to me that such an error has managed to stay alive and propagate. I can understand the 4K - UHD one as the resolutions are quite similar (4K is 6.7% wider than UHD). However the difference between 2048x1080 (2k) and 2560x1440 (2.5k) is much larger with 2.5k having 66.7% more pixels than 2k. (But 2K is only 6.7% wider than FHD)

 

[hatib]

hey i use the asus strix geforce gtx 980 ti in sli in witcher 3 at ultra settings including hairworks and aa and with some overclocking i play that with 60fps but on windows same with daying light you can get above 60 fps with some overclocking