[SOLVED] 4k 240hz?

Jun 6, 2019
82
1
35
0
When should we expect 4k 240hz, but also with hdr and good screen quality monitors? About how much will they be? And by the time those come out, will there be a graphics card that can do 4k 240hz? (I'm talking single gpu, not sli)
 
Perhaps that will be practical in 10 years? : P Its probably not worth concerning yourself with at the moment, as 144 Hz 4K monitors have just started to appear, and they are typically priced in the $1000+ range for even just a 27" display. And even today's fastest $1000+ graphics cards can't push 144fps at 4K in recent games, so anything higher than that would not be particularly useful for some years. The only 240Hz screens available now are at 1080p resolution.

Plus, as raytraced lighting effects catch on, it will likely become even harder to even maintain playable frame rates in games set to max graphics settings at 4K. The handful of games that support raytracing so far require a top-end graphics card just to maintain 60fps at 1080p with those effects enabled, and it may be a few years before new top-end cards can push raytracing at 60fps at 4K, let alone 144Hz or higher.
 

Eximo

Titan
Herald
Well, the DP 2.0 spec theoretically supports 4K 240hz. That was just released in June, so going to be a while before that makes it into anything, let alone displays.

Short answer, a few years and really expensive. Going to need a fast LCD panel, a really fast scalar, etc.

GPUs to do it would need to be about three times faster than they are. Not seeing that in the next few years. Not a huge market for it yet.
 
Yeah I think you are right. But, 4k 240hz hdr and a gpu to handle that is pretty much guaranteed in future, right?
Why do you ask?

Technically, I suppose, you could get this right now if you had the money. Spend the dough to get someone to custom-engineer that kind of monitor and a powerful enough video card. I mean, that will make it a a one-off and will cost a fortune, but it can be done.

I'm not sure what the purpose of your question is.
 
Reactions: chickenballs
Jun 6, 2019
82
1
35
0
Why do you ask?

Technically, I suppose, you could get this right now if you had the money. Spend the dough to get someone to custom-engineer that kind of monitor and a powerful enough video card. I mean, that will make it a a one-off and will cost a fortune, but it can be done.

I'm not sure what the purpose of your question is.
I'm asking if, as now for example 4k 60hz or 1440p 200hz is a common thing now, in the future normal people and gamers will be using 4k 240hz
 
Perhaps that will be practical in 10 years? : P Its probably not worth concerning yourself with at the moment, as 144 Hz 4K monitors have just started to appear, and they are typically priced in the $1000+ range for even just a 27" display. And even today's fastest $1000+ graphics cards can't push 144fps at 4K in recent games, so anything higher than that would not be particularly useful for some years. The only 240Hz screens available now are at 1080p resolution.

Plus, as raytraced lighting effects catch on, it will likely become even harder to even maintain playable frame rates in games set to max graphics settings at 4K. The handful of games that support raytracing so far require a top-end graphics card just to maintain 60fps at 1080p with those effects enabled, and it may be a few years before new top-end cards can push raytracing at 60fps at 4K, let alone 144Hz or higher.
 

TJ Hooker

Glorious
Herald
Consider that 4K60Hz gaming was starting to gain attention as early as 2013-2014, and today you still need to spend $1000 on a 2080 Ti to be able to get 4K 60+ FPS in every game at max settings. I'm sure it won't be long until games come out where even a 2080 Ti can't manage 60+ FPS. And of course if you factor ray tracing into 'max settings' then we're still nowhere close.
 
Last edited:
I'm asking if, as now for example 4k 60hz or 1440p 200hz is a common thing now, in the future normal people and gamers will be using 4k 240hz
200-240Hz at lower resolutions isn't normal now - though obviously it's available. It's bragging rights for the few who have convinced themselves they can see that speed and who call themselves competitive gamers.

Time progresses. It eventually will be a thing for gamers who have too much to spend, if the economics of it make it worthwhile for companies to develop.
 
Well, HDMI 2.1 supports that resolution/refresh rate, so I guess as soon as NVIDIA/AMD put out HDMI 2.1 capable GPUs someone could make a monitor at that resolution.

DP won't support that combination until DP 2.0 hits, likely in 18 months or so.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS