5760x1080 (Triple 1080) VS. 1 4k monitor??

[Syndicution]

What is better to get? I will not get a 1440p monitor since it is the same price as a single 4k monitor.

What are the ups and downs for 4k and triple 1080p?

 

[Xyos]

What is this for? Is it for general work or gaming, or content creation? If you go for 4k, you will need at least over 30 inch monitor, UI scaling is very small, so anything less than 30 inches will be difficult to read. 4k (as well as 3x1080 monitors) are very demanding for gaming. 2 980's are MANDATORY for running games at decent settings at 4k and maintaining 60fps.

Content creation or just general work I think 3 monitors would be more beneficial.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

"4k is dead to me"....that's Linus's quote and it's one of the things we agree on.

1. Scaling issus are just too annoying....
2. Twin 980s in SLI don't "cut it" on 4K

Triple monitors give you the bezel issue which is kinda cool for racing and FS's but you may find annoying in other games....Angling the side monitors OTOH does give a nice sense of immersion.

While you may see some lower quality 4k moniitors at the same price as good quality 2560 monitors, that does not mean equal quality units cost the same.

To my eyes 2560 res at 144 hz and 8 bit color is where it's at .... at this point in time.

 

[bootcher]

1440p can have high refresh rates, up to 144hz. Currently 4k monitors can handle 60 hz with hdmi 2.0, and that is only a few monitors. Most 4k will support only 30hz.

Also with 4k most games will have some content being upscaled.

So basically 4k is good for DTP, editing, etc, but not (yet) for high fps gaming.

 

[Syndicution]

What is this for? Is it for general work or gaming, or content creation? If you go for 4k, you will need at least over 30 inch monitor, UI scaling is very small, so anything less than 30 inches will be difficult to read. 4k (as well as 3x1080 monitors) are very demanding for gaming. 2 980's are MANDATORY for running games at decent settings at 4k and maintaining 60fps.

Content creation or just general work I think 3 monitors would be more beneficial.

The thing is that I'm going to play games and streaming, rendering and other "multitasking" stuff. The gpu I have is the 295x2 so I could run some games at max....

 

[bystander]

2. Twin 980s in SLI don't "cut it" on 4K

While am I'm not saying 4k is the way to go, there is no requirement to play at maxed settings on the most demanding game on the PC. There are settings for a reason.

 

[Xyos]

"4k is dead to me"....that's Linus's quote and it's one of the things we agree on.

1. Scaling issus are just too annoying....
2. Twin 980s in SLI don't "cut it" on 4K

Triple monitors give you the bezel issue which is kinda cool for racing and FS's but you may find annoying in other games....Angling the side monitors OTOH does give a nice sense of immersion.

While you may see some lower quality 4k moniitors at the same price as good quality 2560 monitors, that does not mean equal quality units cost the same.

To my eyes 2560 res at 144 hz and 8 bit color is where it's at .... at this point in time.

You pulled the highest demanding PC game right now, completely maxed with Anti-aliasing cranked up (not really needed with 4k resolution)... 2 980's are capable of running MOST games max and maintaining 60 fps (excluding anti-aliasing in most cases except FXAA as with that high a resolution AA really is not needed anymore).

Still though, 2 980's are expensive, + the 4k monitor, that's a lot of money to invest just for gaming (if you have it great, but this is what you should expect if you want to game at 60 fps @ 4k).

 

[JackNaylorPE]

While am I'm not saying 4k is the way to go, there is no requirement to play at maxed settings on the most demanding game on the PC. There are settings for a reason.

The settings are there for a reason..... That "reason" being you don't have enough horsepower to support your resolution in that game.

You pulled the highest demanding PC game right now, completely maxed with Anti-aliasing cranked up (not really needed with 4k resolution)... 2 980's are capable of running MOST games max and maintaining 60 fps (excluding anti-aliasing in most cases except FXAA as with that high a resolution AA really is not needed anymore).

Still though, 2 980's are expensive, + the 4k monitor, that's a lot of money to invest just for gaming (if you have it great, but this is what you should expect if you want to game at 60 fps @ 4k).

There's quite a few misstatements in there:

1. I don't want to game at 4K. I don't want to deal with the scaling issues, I don't want to give up 144 Hz and 3D, I don't want to turn off AA completely

2. Read the article / look at the graphs. There is no anti aliasing used on the 4k setting or the 5760 setting.

3. I pulled a very old but demanding game from a very limited list.... current demanding games and upcoming games should be considered

4. Really not interested in most games because most peeps don't play most games. We are talking about the ones most folks most want to play

Crysis 3 does 27 at 4k no AA
BF4 can't do 60 at 4k no AA
Crysis does 31 at 4k no AA
MetroLL can't do 60 at 4k no AA
Watch Dogs can't do 60 at 4k no AA

That's 5 outta 17 or 30% that can't do 60 fps even with no AA.

So you can play a "barely passing grade" of 70% of popular games at 4k with no AA. I'd rather play at 2560 and 144Hz where only 1 game gets below 60 and that's with 4AA on.

 

[bystander]

While am I'm not saying 4k is the way to go, there is no requirement to play at maxed settings on the most demanding game on the PC. There are settings for a reason.

The settings are there for a reason..... That "reason" being you don't have enough horsepower to support your resolution in that game.

I have big question for you. What would you choose to do, as this is definitely something that could be done.

Would you play a game at 640x480 at some SuperUltra settings, or play at 1080p at Ultra?

This is basically what we are talking about here. The dev's simply give settings based on what resolution most people have, if everyone had 4k resolutions, they might change the settings they offer. If you have a 4k resolution, you have a higher IQ at the same settings. Reducing a few settings other settings to make it playable is not necessarily a loss in overall IQ. It's just a different set of settings.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I don't know how I could word in any differently to change the meaning. I am simply not interested in playing at lower settings. Your analogy is akin to saying I could eat more pizza if I was willing to eat cheap frozen pizza instead of fresh made quality stuff. I'd rather have one slice of good pizza than 2 slices of frozen stuff.

Given the choice between:

1. 2560 res @ 144 Hz with ultra settings / AA at 55 - 100 fps

and

2. 3960 res @ 60 Hz with lower settings at 30 - 60 fps fps

I'm doing option 1.

To me it's like CLC's.... everyone wants to make the jump to water cooling despite the fact that cheaper air coolers do the job better and with less noise. And I say that as a water cooling enthusiast .... but water cooling is ONLY of interest to me when it actually accomplishes something..... lower temps with less noise.... CLCs don't deliver / 4 k doesn't deliver.

Ya can't have everything.... I'd rather have lower resolution than lower settings. And that doesn't even account for the fact that I won't do 4k anyway until a it's 144 hz I don't have to "handicap" the games i wanna play and c) the horrendous scaling problems disappear.

As far as "if everyone had 4k resolutions, they might change the settings they offer".... the fact is everyone doesn't have 4k resolutions simply because a) scaling issues b) horsepower issues c) no 144 hz and d) cost issues.....

Take away d) and a, b and c still control the day. 3860 res just doesn't improve the experience as much as the lower fps or reduced GFX settings take away from it.

 

[bystander]

I don't know how I could word in any differently to change the meaning. I am simply not interested in playing at lower settings. Your analogy is akin to saying I could eat more pizza if I was willing to eat cheap frozen pizza instead of fresh made quality stuff. I'd rather have one slice of good pizza than 2 slices of frozen stuff.

Given the choice between:

1. 2560 res @ 144 Hz with ultra settings / AA at 55 - 100 fps

and

2. 3960 res @ 60 Hz with lower settings at 30 - 60 fps fps

I'm doing option 1.

That was not the question, as yours is too subtle, and not everyone would agree with you there. I would, but not everyone.

I asked you between 640x480 at SuperUltra, vs 1080p at Ultra, for the same FPS. I ask it, because it is a choice of higher end settings vs resolution, and a resolution I'm sure you feel is inferior. We don't have these SuperUltra settings, simply because dev's do not offer them. If we used 640x480 still, they'd offer higher end settings. If they offered higher end settings today, would you turn down your resolution to use them, or lower your settings?

 

[bystander]

Let me pose a slightly different question, one you are more able to relate to.

If you are playing a game at 1080p and not able to max out the settings, what do you do? Do you lower your settings, or lower your resolution?

If you lower your settings, you clearly see that resolution also has value, and can be worth more than the settings. The same applies to 4k. And it is not like 980 SLI can't play most game at 4k at Ultra. You just picked the most demanding game there is.

 

[Xyos]

While am I'm not saying 4k is the way to go, there is no requirement to play at maxed settings on the most demanding game on the PC. There are settings for a reason.

The settings are there for a reason..... That "reason" being you don't have enough horsepower to support your resolution in that game.

You pulled the highest demanding PC game right now, completely maxed with Anti-aliasing cranked up (not really needed with 4k resolution)... 2 980's are capable of running MOST games max and maintaining 60 fps (excluding anti-aliasing in most cases except FXAA as with that high a resolution AA really is not needed anymore).

Still though, 2 980's are expensive, + the 4k monitor, that's a lot of money to invest just for gaming (if you have it great, but this is what you should expect if you want to game at 60 fps @ 4k).

There's quite a few misstatements in there:

1. I don't want to game at 4K. I don't want to deal with the scaling issues, I don't want to give up 144 Hz and 3D, I don't want to turn off AA completely

2. Read the article / look at the graphs. There is no anti aliasing used on the 4k setting or the 5760 setting.

3. I pulled a very old but demanding game from a very limited list.... current demanding games and upcoming games should be considered

4. Really not interested in most games because most peeps don't play most games. We are talking about the ones most folks most want to play

Crysis 3 does 27 at 4k no AA
BF4 can't do 60 at 4k no AA
Crysis does 31 at 4k no AA
MetroLL can't do 60 at 4k no AA
Watch Dogs can't do 60 at 4k no AA

That's 5 outta 17 or 30% that can't do 60 fps even with no AA.

So you can play a "barely passing grade" of 70% of popular games at 4k with no AA. I'd rather play at 2560 and 144Hz where only 1 game gets below 60 and that's with 4AA on.

You just pulling numbers out of thin air? Battlefield averages over 60 fps easy with no AA at 4K with 2x 980s:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6725/4k-showdown-asus-gtx-980-4gb-in-single-sli-3-way-sli-and-4-way-sli/index9.html

Again you are taking super high demanding games and using them as a benchmark for 4k. 4k can still be enjoyed with super high end games settings turned down slightly, or less demanding games (with 2x 980's).

You can enjoy any game at 4k with 2x980's. FEW you will not be able to completely max, but they will all be playable at 60 fps with good graphics settings.

Personally I would give 4k 5 years for tech to catchup and it becomes more affordable, but if you want it now go for the 2x 980's.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

That was not the question, as yours is too subtle, and not everyone would agree with you there. I would, but not everyone.

I asked you between 640x480 at SuperUltra, vs 1080p at Ultra, for the same FPS. I ask it, because it is a choice of higher end settings vs resolution, and a resolution I'm sure you feel is inferior. We don't have these SuperUltra settings, simply because dev's do not offer them. If we used 640x480 still, they'd offer higher end settings. If they offered higher end settings today, would you turn down your resolution to use them, or lower your settings?

I didn't answer the question as to borrow the words from Marissa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny, .... "it's a BS question".

640 by 480 ...... really ?

Let me pose a slightly different question, one you are more able to relate to.

If you are playing a game at 1080p and not able to max out the settings, what do you do? Do you lower your settings, or lower your resolution?

Again, stop limiting my choices to ones that fit your position. I pick option 3 ....design the system so you are not in that situation.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

You just pulling numbers out of thin air? Battlefield averages over 60 fps easy with no AA at 4K with 2x 980s:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6725/4k-showdown-asus-gtx-980-4gb-in-single-sli-3-way-sli-and-4-way-sli/index9.html

Again you are taking super high demanding games and using them as a benchmark for 4k. 4k can still be enjoyed with super high end games settings turned down slightly, or less demanding games (with 2x 980's).

You can enjoy any game at 4k with 2x980's. FEW you will not be able to completely max, but they will all be playable at 60 fps with good graphics settings.

Personally I would give 4k 5 years for tech to catchup and it becomes more affordable, but if you want it now go for the 2x 980's.

Maybe ya should looked at the graphics and links in previous posts

In my world, 53.8 is less than 60

In my world, 26.7 is less than 60

In my world, 30.1 is less than 60

In my world, 49.4 is less than 60

In my world, 58.1 is less than 60.

While a "passing grade" of 70% might be something you find acceptable it is something I and many others don't, it's all about what people are willing to "settle for" ... whether it be video games, sports team performance or even college admissions offices.

We are in agreement that the technology (both 4k and GFX horsepower) is years away from "catching up" .... which is kinda confusing BTW given your above argument..... but my guess is, it will be about 3 years before these problems are resolved. But right now:

Horrendous scaling issues ...... not acceptable
No 144 Hz..... not acceptable
Only 70% of TPU tested games above 60 fps, not acceptable

 

[bystander]

That was not the question, as yours is too subtle, and not everyone would agree with you there. I would, but not everyone.

I asked you between 640x480 at SuperUltra, vs 1080p at Ultra, for the same FPS. I ask it, because it is a choice of higher end settings vs resolution, and a resolution I'm sure you feel is inferior. We don't have these SuperUltra settings, simply because dev's do not offer them. If we used 640x480 still, they'd offer higher end settings. If they offered higher end settings today, would you turn down your resolution to use them, or lower your settings?

I didn't answer the question as to borrow the words from Marissa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny, .... "it's a BS question".

640 by 480 ...... really ?

Let me pose a slightly different question, one you are more able to relate to.

If you are playing a game at 1080p and not able to max out the settings, what do you do? Do you lower your settings, or lower your resolution?

Again, stop limiting my choices to ones that fit your position. I pick option 3 ....design the system so you are not in that situation.

Why is it BS to drop to 640x480 to play at maxed settings, but it is not BS to drop to 1080p to play at maxed settings?

Or

Why is it okay to play at 1080p with lowered settings, but not okay to play at 4k at lowered settings?

Sounds pretty hypocritical.

 

[yangyang]

Guys, think about it for a sec.
The Mac Pro Retina 13" crams a QHD+ screen into 13-INCHES! That's over 220PPI and there's no UI scaling issues there. Oh yeah, it also plays Crisis 3 without any problems. Best of all? It has no dedicated graphics card lol!
Any moderately decent graphics card can run 4k. Don't worry about it!

 

[yangyang]

Personally, I prefer an 2440p screens because their price to performance can't be beat. Color accuracy FTW!

 

[Syndicution]

Where do you guys get these benchmarks/ franerates?