Value 4K vs Top-of-the-line 1080p vs G-Syncless 1080p

Denthil

Reputable
Aug 24, 2014
27
0
4,540
1
So, I'm getting a new monitor. I think you guys must have guessed that already. The Samsung U28D590D intrigued me at first view, and still does. 4K at $500 seems pretty freakin' good, especially given the 1 ms GTG response time, and 1.07 billion colors. Yes, I know it's a TN panel, I don't mind all that much, although I would prefer IPS.
This brings me to my second option. I could go with a top-of-the-line, G-Sync 1080p monitor such as the BenQ XL2420G (although I would prefer something IPS and something 27 inch, so if any of you know of a monitor that fits that description PLEASE say so).
And last, and honestly least, my third option. I like G-Sync. But I don't think it is a must have. Monitors without the feature, but with the same specs, are SO much cheaper. This is a viable option to me.

Thanks all :)

A quick note: Yes. I know there isn't much 4K content. If that is what you are going to say, stop, hit the back button in your browser, and tell it to someone who doesn't know. That isn't the question I asked.
 

someguynamedmatt

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2010
1,551
0
20,160
165
I have an Asus PB287 myself, and will never be able to go back to 1080p, though I do miss my IPS panel a bit. So, that should pretty much sum up my opinion on the matter - provided you have the graphical power to drive a 4K monitor to its full potential, there's really nothing quite like 28" of ~150 pixel-per-inch goodness. For a TN panel, the viewing angles seem excellent, though it's definitely noticeable coming from an IPS 1080p display. On the downside, I also run Windows 7 and things don't exactly scale spectacularly which might be a negative to some, but I personally prefer the tiny little UI elements, and having more space to actually work in.

I wouldn't say any 'top-of-the-line' 1080p display would be worth it. My old one was a $180 Dell IPS panel, and it outmatched monitors that cost upwards of five times its price... it was pathetic, how little the extra money offered. With all I've heard about G-Sync, for me it's a solution to a problem that never existed - maybe this is just personal opinion, but I've never had vertical tearing so bad that good old VSync couldn't take care of it, especially not for a $200 premium.

Then you've got the group of people who's vision has apparently pushed beyond human possibility and can see the difference between 80 and 120 FPS on a high refresh-rate monitor; if you can run a full 60Hz, you will NEVER think to yourself, "wow, this isn't smooth enough" no matter what all these blowhards want to believe. Sorry if I offend anyone by saying that, but it really irritates me when someone goes out and buys a $1000 video setup where $200 would work just fine, just because they were told they need a higher framerate for something to be playable/watchable. Unless you'll be using 3D and need to push 60Hz to each eye, a standard 60Hz monitor with good color and a fast response time will serve you just fine.

Just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. My recommendation: go ahead and buy either an entry-level 4K display, or buy a solid, reasonably priced 1080p IPS panel. You can get a professional Dell UltraSharp these days for $300 or so - an outstanding unit with excellent color reproduction, minus all the marketing that 'gaming' monitors charge extra for. I really do love my 4K display.
:)
 

chenw

Admirable
Oct 25, 2014
1,666
0
6,460
211
I didn't consider 4k because at the current state of game programming and hardware performance, there are too many problems in 4k that can't be worked around compared to a 1080p or 1440p. For example, some games have UI scaling problems in 4k, and, very unfortunately, the games that I could do with the higher res are also the worst offenders in this: Strategy games. I cannot see the UI at all in 4k resolution.

Not all games suffer from this, and the trend is quite erratic. For example, Mass Effect 2 scales fine, Mass effect 3 has that problem.

Hardware-wise we are still 1~2 years before single GPUs can drive games at 4k with any decent frame rates.

And, the best 4k monitor is still limited to 60hz, while there are monitors out there with 144hz (albeit TN). If I wanted 4k textures, I could DSR/VSR to 4k, but I would still be able to keep 144hz refreshrate if the game is light enough to go that high. A 4k screen displaying upscaled 1080p is still 60hz.

It boiled down to this for me:

1. I find the problems with TN over IPS somewhat work aroundable (calibrating monitor, using profile enforcer and/or running games in windowed mode to force the game to not use its own color profile), but the problems with IPS over TN are not (60hz refresh rate isn't work aroundable).

2. I didn't jump on the 4k because I feel I am sacrificing far too much for it. Games don't support 4k properly and by the time they do, 4k 144hz might be popping up and 4k 60hz would have come down in price. For now, I use a lower res higher refresh rate monitor and DSR to 4k if there is GPU power to spare.

If you value out of the box Experience, and don't mind sticking to 60hz, go IPS. I wouldn't go 4k because there is just too many problems and not enough gains for it.
 

-Lone-

Admirable
Nov 5, 2014
3,489
0
7,460
380


Have you tried BF4 4k@ultra? I've just started, the graphics is totally insane :D
 

-Lone-

Admirable
Nov 5, 2014
3,489
0
7,460
380


It really depends on your hardware as of this moment, unless you're willing and determined to spend a lot of money to stabilize 4k, then I wouldn't recommend it. But if you really wanna do it and go to the extreme, then yeah, I'd say go for 4k :)
 

Denthil

Reputable
Aug 24, 2014
27
0
4,540
1

My Rig:

Intel 5820K running at factory speeds
Gigabyte Gaming G1 Geforce GTX 980 Windforce
16GB of 2133 speed DDR4 RAM

Thoughts? My GPU can drive a 4k display independently.
 

-Lone-

Admirable
Nov 5, 2014
3,489
0
7,460
380


Oh yeah, you should get more GPU and join the party, definitely try BF4 first, I've never seen this kind of graphics in my life, lol.

Edit: although the 5820k may not be able to run up to 3-4 GPUs as well, I think chen told me that in another thread.
 

-Lone-

Admirable
Nov 5, 2014
3,489
0
7,460
380
Hmm, kinda a hard decision, if you had the 5930k, I'd say go for it and eventually reach 4 GPUs, but since you can't, I think maybe wait a bit for the price of the Asus Swift to go down and get that instead. That's pretty good too in ultimate gaming experience. You'd need the 4 GPUs to truly stabilize 4k, so with the 5820k, I don't think I'd recommend 4k right now.

Edit: You could get 2x 295x2 like me and get a 5930k then you wouldn't have to put 4 in, just 2 :) Mantle certainly helps with BF4 gaming 4k@ultra. For some reason I lag when I reset the API to Direct3D 11, so I have to stick with mantle for BF4.
 

Denthil

Reputable
Aug 24, 2014
27
0
4,540
1


Would you say to wait, or to go ahead with a 1080p display?
 

-Lone-

Admirable
Nov 5, 2014
3,489
0
7,460
380


Without 4 GPU capability, I'd say go with 1080p IPS or 144Hz, whichever you want. Or you can get a 2nd 980 later then you can play 1440p gaming with no problems like I said above. It'd still look better than 1080p of course if you want to upgrade the graphics a bit.
 

someguynamedmatt

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2010
1,551
0
20,160
165
Ah, I just now found this thread again. No, Lone, I haven't yet - right now, I'm running the thing on a poor little GTX 760 until my 980 setup gets here in the mail on Tuesday. Fun will be had once that happens! It's doing an admirable job, though - Guild Wars 2 pulls 40 FPS or so maxed out at 4K... I laughed a bit when I saw my VRAM usage after that one.

With everything that's already been said so far, I'd personally go with a good 1080p IPS or maybe a 1440p if you're feeling adventurous - even though 4K really is a glorious sight, it's still a bit immature and is quite a ways ahead of our current GPU technology; unless you're willing to sink quite a bit of money into beefing up your system with another GTX 980, you might not be happy with the performance in a lot of new(er) titles. One 980 will run a lot of titles at a good framerate, but I'd put at least a second one in there to handle current- and next-gen titles like BF4, The Witcher 3, or whatnot.

I value the color reproduction and uniform viewing angles of a good IPS panel much, much more than a 144Hz capable monitor, but that's just me throwing my opinion around again, so take it for what it's worth. :) If you do pick up a 1080p display, kick up nVidia's DSR on your 980; it really does make textures and edges look a LOT better, though the UI in your games is going to be tiny... it's a good demonstration of what 4K would scale like if you've never seen it in person before.
 

-Lone-

Admirable
Nov 5, 2014
3,489
0
7,460
380
I've just started playing FC4, and I think the graphics might be better than BF4. The binocular in the game looks like a 4k camera, lol, no matter where I zoom in, the picture quality is extremely precise, it's just unbelievably clear :) So you should try that too when you get the 980. But yeah, the things are tiny if you don't scale your DPI, mine is at 200% to look "normal".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS