Gaming At 3840x2160: Is Your PC Ready For A 4K Display?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

aberkae

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
102
29
18,610
I would like to see 2 gtx 770s with 4 gigs of ram versions a $900 value in 4k resolution with and without anti aliasing. Im pretty sure the results will be playable.
 

LonelyMan

Honorable
Jun 22, 2012
241
0
10,690
I do not even have the money (yet) for 2560x1600, and now they talking about this, with monitors costing 3000 at least, plus 2 high-end gpus at least for pushing this resolution? Maybe in 6-8 years.
 

aberkae

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
102
29
18,610
I think sooner than that. Volta gpu is 3 years away which probably can handle 4k with one flagship gpu.
Plus sony came out with cheaper 55 inch 4k tvs for $3500, that's a $1500 drop in 6 months from 4k availability. At that rate we probably are going to see $2000 4k tvs in a year or so, which would reflect the prices for 4k monitors as well.

 

Grandmastersexsay

Honorable
May 16, 2013
332
0
10,780



Your comparison of a screen to a photograph is actually a perfect illustration of what is wrong with 4k displays. Increasing resolution is the cheapest to produce and easiest to market way for display manufactures to improve upon their displays. Unfortunately, it is also probably one of the least effective methods to actually improve image quality. It is a lot harder for display manufactures to improve upon qualities like contrast ratio and color saturation. It is even harder to market such qualities.

But who am I to criticize you for following the rest of the tech sheep and their marketing drums.

99.9% of people can not notice any resolution based distortion, end of discussion.
 

BigMack70

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2007
141
3
18,715
My wife can tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p.... and that is much less of a difference than 1080p and 4k. I don't know how anyone can think higher resolution is unimportant.


While contrast ratio is pretty important and noticeable, color accuracy is irrelevant past a certain point for anyone not a graphics professional.
 

cypeq

Distinguished
Nov 26, 2009
371
2
18,795


What are you trying to do here is not have a discussion but to just bash wide screen because you are apparently owner of 5:4 screen.
I have explained to you fov mechanics that are now in place but you have decided to not listen, your screen has lowest fov in games out of all aspect ratios (this is independent of resolution).
Yes 5:4 gives you more viewable area, great for work, great for gaming when not playing FOV locked FPP (otherwise it feels like way back CRT)
16:9 - biggest production (best value) good for movies, good for all FPP games.
16:10- <- all go back to making this the best proportion for gaming screens.

 

gwolfman

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2007
782
0
18,980
In addition to the numbers you report for frame pacing, you should report the maximum time. Remember the whole 4k write SSD debacle? If you simply looked at the 95% of all IO access times, things looked great. It was the seldom long delay that made the SSD felt like it was at a crawl. Granted, with the benefit of graphics if we skip a frame (i.e., hitting the max delay as the entire frame was dropped) we can still continue. In other words, we don't have to wait for a graphics frame like we have to wait for data to be committed to an SSD, but having the metric is very important in comparing results/implementations.
 

traumadisaster

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2011
110
0
18,690
Been playing at 4k since the Spring as an early adopter experiment and I love it. Even at 30hz I would never play at 1080 again. With 1 titan and the 50 inch Seiki at 4 feet away 2 AA I look at old games and cant believe it. Tried 1080 at 120hz and looked like 1300x700.
 


Haha, right? I just found out my 1440x900 monitor can push up to a custom res of 2160x1350, and I tried Crysis Warhead: 35fps, but I vastly prefer it to my native res even with 16xQ AA and 45+fps.
 






To everyone asking why AA on such a high display, yes a 2xAA makes a difference. AA isn't just about easing the "jaggies" it's also about smoothing heavy contrast lines from overlapping polys and textures. Some alpha blending, shading, and transparency effects also are notably better with light AA. Going above 2x is mostly overkill on higher res screens.



I still have two 5:4 screens and would love to see a comeback as well.
 

dpoverlord

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2012
9
0
18,520
Reading this makes me think, that it makes no sense....

I can take 3 30" Dell monitors in Surround 1600p 7680 x 1600 landscape or 4800 x2560 which is still better than 1 4k. With Bezel correction the bezels are not bad at all.
 

Raheel Hasan

Honorable
Apr 17, 2013
1,019
0
11,660


Pixel density is the main thing.
 

f-14

Distinguished
dvi or lightpeak!
display port and hdmi are for consoles using 1080p only.

damn sony and their @#$% blu ray we should have been at 108" monitors playing global thermalnuclear war with HAL by now and looking forward to directing a system battle with cortana against the covenant on living room wall sized monitors in 2014.
 

LordHaHa

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2010
77
0
18,640
I suppose if I wanted to be flippant I would have suggested that you could have just written "no" instead of writing a long article. *grins*

I think the big thing though, on a more serious note, will be support for higher refresh rates (120Hz and higher) at these resolutions. Sharper images are excellent, but I've found that reverting to lower resolutions (if necessary) is less irritating than running at 60Hz now that I've "seen the elephant" in that regard.
 

basekid

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2010
3
0
18,510
I think the future will be oculus rift like devices. A lot cheaper than those kind of displays, and the graphical experience is 10000x more immersive.
 

Sam Hain

Honorable
Apr 21, 2013
366
0
10,960
Waste o' money out of the gate... But, if you've got $3K-$5K that is just burnin' and itchin' for you to throw around, I guess you can go for it at 60Hz, WOW!
 

SilverWolf9000

Honorable
Jul 10, 2013
89
0
10,640
I feel as if they are focusing on size rather than quality and productivity... Compensating for something? 4K seems over the top and ridiculous IMO. I would much rather prefer the comfort of a 27" 1440p monitor suitable for gaming and videos with amazing color.... at a fraction of the cost.
 

Bondfc11

Honorable
Sep 3, 2013
232
0
10,680


Completely agree. The problem is gaming on these 4K panels now is a bit "off." I have played an hour or so with one and while I agree it looks great with no movement on the screen, 30FPS is garbage once things start going. I started to get a little headache from blur. I will stick with my 120hz Overlord Tempest at 1440. That for me, right now and for the next year or so, is the sweet spot for serious gamers.
 

daekar

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2009
83
0
18,630
I couldn't care less about 4K television, but 5-10 years from now when this technology gets much cheaper I'll definitely be onboard. With resolution that high, you would never need AA again unless you game wearing a pair of magnifying glasses. Ah the miracles of technology...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.