2560x1440p/1600p @ 120Hz >>> 4k

[Irenicus]

I get they are trying to hype up gpu competence at 4k, but does anyone care at this point?

The current 4k tv's are too expensive, and frankly, I'm much more impressed by oled tv's even with the lower resolution due to the fact that the contrast make normal lcds look like etch-a-sketches.


CHEAP 1440p korean off brand panels have flooded ebay, and the cheap samsung PLS variants can often easily have the refreshed rates set up to 120Hz and beyond.

Who CARES about 4k? People just want higher res with better color and better refresh rates. How long will it take to do 4k at 120Hz?

nothing AMD or nvidia has on the market now can handle that well, you would have to get triple sli/cf or better and even there who knows how well it would do at that res. Nothing gained.

Long story short, do the 4k tests, but PLEASE try the more interesting tests on those 1440p monitors that can be clocked to 120Hz, and see how the new cards handle that res at faster refresh rates. THAT is the current frontier, not 4k. 1440p @ 120Hz is here TODAY, and it's crazy cheap to get.

 

[tulx]

I do agree with this. While 4k has been regarded as the holy grail of graphics for some time now, there's a lot of headroom left in 1440p and even 1080p in regards to framerate and general image quality. I currently play on 1080p monitors, but I plan to switch to 1440p after buying myself a 290X, probably.
That said, AMD does seem to concentrate on resolutions around 1440p when talking about the new cards. 4k demonstrations are always nice, but it's pretty clear that we're just not there yet.

 

[BrightCandle]

Having used 120hz for a while now I don't ever want to go back to 60. I am hugely disappointed that they aren't even considering 120hz at 4k resolutions right now, its not even in the standard for the cable connection. I want it all, I want high refresh, high density, more accurate colour. I don't want to go backwards in refresh rate!

 

[Anarchist420]

Having used 120hz for a while now I don't ever want to go back to 60. I am hugely disappointed that they aren't even considering 120hz at 4k resolutions right now, its not even in the standard for the cable connection. I want it all, I want high refresh, high density, more accurate colour. I don't want to go backwards in refresh rate!

i agree

I do agree with this. While 4k has been regarded as the holy grail of graphics for some time now, there's a lot of headroom left in 1440p and even 1080p in regards to framerate and general image quality. I currently play on 1080p monitors, but I plan to switch to 1440p after buying myself a 290X, probably. That said, AMD does seem to concentrate on resolutions around 1440p when talking about the new cards. 4k demonstrations are always nice, but it's pretty clear that we're just not there yet.

I agree. 4k res is a complete waste of fill rate, bandwidth, frame buffer, storage (id much rather see lossless video that is greater than 18 bit), doesn't reduce aliasing, and makes people forget about direct drive monitors or very minimal processing in monitors, monitors that dont frame skip much or at all with custom input refresh rates, viewing angles, pixel response time, higher color gamut without pwm, non-dithered RGB10, less backlight bleed, good static contrast ratio (850 or above at 330 cd/m^2.

so yeah, 1080p especially on 24 in displays is more than enough pixels for me.

I get they are trying to hype up gpu competence at 4k, but does anyone care at this point? The current 4k tv's are too expensive, and frankly, I'm much more impressed by oled tv's even with the lower resolution due to the fact that the contrast make normal lcds look like etch-a-sketches. CHEAP 1440p korean off brand panels have flooded ebay, and the cheap samsung PLS variants can often easily have the refreshed rates set up to 120Hz and beyond. Who CARES about 4k? People just want higher res with better color and better refresh rates. How long will it take to do 4k at 120Hz? nothing AMD or nvidia has on the market now can handle that well, you would have to get triple sli/cf or better and even there who knows how well it would do at that res. Nothing gained. Long story short, do the 4k tests, but PLEASE try the more interesting tests on those 1440p monitors that can be clocked to 120Hz, and see how the new cards handle that res at faster refresh rates. THAT is the current frontier, not 4k. 1440p @ 120Hz is here TODAY, and it's crazy cheap to get.

I agree

 

[Gunbuster]

"4k tv's are too expensive"

The Seiki 39" has been under $600 on sale. You call that too much?

 

[96Firebird]

I agree, you can get a 4K TV for cheap. Even if it is limited to 30Hz @ 4K.

However, 4K monitors are way too expensive and not that impressive.

 

[Bateluer]

However, 4K monitors are way too expensive and not that impressive.

They've dropped from 20K USD to 3.5K USD in a year. You can already game effectively on a single GPU card and get 60Hz with the right ports. Give them another year, and you'll have 4K displays for 800 dollars with the GPU power to easily crank up detail settings.


I game on a 1440P display now, and there's no game a Radeon 7950 3GB can't max out.

 

[Porter_]

I game on a 1440P display now, and there's no game a Radeon 7950 3GB can't max out.

if by 'max out' you mean:
no AA and medium-high settings
-or-
settings cranked and running at 30 fps

 

[BrightCandle]

Eurogamer did have a review recently of a 4k monitor and part of that was showing the difference in Crysis 3:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-asus-pq321q-review

The 3 images at the top compare the various resolutions and the jump to 4k is very noticeable when you zoom in on the face. Of course whether you see that at real viewing distances on a normal size monitor or not really depends on your eyesight and such but there is an increase in fidelity.

 

[chimaxi83]

They've dropped from 20K USD to 3.5K USD in a year. You can already game effectively on a single GPU card and get 60Hz with the right ports. Give them another year, and you'll have 4K displays for 800 dollars with the GPU power to easily crank up detail settings.


I game on a 1440P display now, and there's no game a Radeon 7950 3GB can't max out.

Lol. Sure man. Minesweeper and bejeweled don't count. I guess your statement is correct as long as you're good with <10 fps minimums and crappy gameplay.

 

[Vesku]

Who CARES about 4k? People just want higher res with better color and better refresh rates. How long will it take to do 4k at 120Hz?

Not long at all: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-.../dp/B00DOPGO2G

Whether it's any good? Does it have a quality up scaler? Different questions I don't have the answer for.

 

[96Firebird]

Not long at all: http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-.../dp/B00DOPGO2G

Whether it's any good? Does it have a quality up scaler? Different questions I don't have the answer for.

Not a true 120Hz, it interpolates at 60Hz.

Plus, at 4K resolution, it is limited to 30Hz.

Edit - Seems as though it can do 120Hz @ 1080p, but limited to 60Hz @ 1440p.

 

[toyota]

They've dropped from 20K USD to 3.5K USD in a year. You can already game effectively on a single GPU card and get 60Hz with the right ports. Give them another year, and you'll have 4K displays for 800 dollars with the GPU power to easily crank up detail settings.


I game on a 1440P display now, and there's no game a Radeon 7950 3GB can't max out.

lol never fails. someone can always "max out" all games no matter what reviews say other wise.

 

[tviceman]

At this point in time I'd rather have >=60fps @ 1440p with maximum in game details than medium details < 60fps @ 4k.

 

[Sohaltang]

lol never fails. someone can always "max out" all games no matter what reviews say other wise.

Some are not bothered by low frame rates.

 

[toyota]

Some are not bothered by low frame rates.

some games "maxed out" at 2560x1440 with a 7950 would certainly not be what any normal person would call playable. well I guess 24-30 fps would be more "cinematic" though. lol

 

[Sohaltang]

some games "maxed out" at 2560x1440 with a 7950 would certainly not be what any normal person would call playable. well I guess 24-30 fps would be more "cinematic" though. lol

True. Fwiw my 7950 struggles to run 70 fps in world of tanks @1440

 

[poohbear]

I just dont see how 4k will ever take off for gaming. You'd need a beast of a vid card ($1000 variety) to run a game @ 60fps @ that resolution. Whats the industry's response to that? Are they acknowledging its only for movies?

 

[bystander36]

I just dont see how 4k will ever take off for gaming. You'd need a beast of a vid card ($1000 variety) to run a game @ 60fps @ that resolution. Whats the industry's response to that? Are they acknowledging its only for movies?

It could work very well for the desktop. You can just use 1080p for gaming, and 4k for desktop use. Of course 1080p will work much better when they are true 4k displays, instead of 2 displays stitched together.

 

[BrightCandle]

4k will work for some older titles or in the modern ones its settings turned down to get at the high pixel density until GPUs catchup. Because 4k is exactly 4x 1080p its really easy to scale HD content onto it without quality loss so there is a reasonable approach to running games on the monitor until you have a cars that is fast enough. 4k is coming and it will replace HD on your desktop, the performance problem will get solved with newer cards.

 

[cmdrdredd]

"4k tv's are too expensive"

The Seiki 39" has been under $600 on sale. You call that too much?

It's a poor example. The panel isn't as high quality as a Sony for sure but beyond that you're limited to 30hz from a PC. That's bad.

 

[epidemis]

Too bad the new HDMI 2.0 prevents 4k 120 fps. Why are noone thinking of us gamers?

 

[Grooveriding]

Too bad the new HDMI 2.0 prevents 4k 120 fps. Why are noone thinking of us gamers?

Same goes for Display Port. Maximum 60hz @ 4K resolutions. None of that matters though. Even if you could do 120hz @ 4K, the video cards to run that are 10 years away at the current pace of progress.

 

[Smartazz]

I've used 120hz 1080p and my 60hz 1440p and I'll take the higher resolution any day. I haven't seen 4k in person but I'd imagine I'd pick the higher resolution over 120hz 1440p.

 

[tential]

"4k tv's are too expensive"

The Seiki 39" has been under $600 on sale. You call that too much?

I have NOT seen this, but the quality of this display compared to other displays is just sad. It's not that great of a display. Not all monitors are made equally (I saw this in a review for the 55 inch model?).

Also, 4K content is just lacking and the frame rates are barely playable.
I don't think OP is saying 4K tests are bad, it's just they shouldn't be the ONLY thing released. It gets ridiculous when companies "Leak" their 4K benchmarks as the only thing (AMD...). "Leak" something else lol.

------------------

I have to agree on the OLED comment even more. LED is great man, but really, I need better blacks, and brighter whites. Just better CONTRAST ratio/display quality. OLED delivers that. 4K isn't as interesting as an even 1080p OLED display. With Bright blacks and dull whites, even if you had 8K running at 60FPS, a washed out image just won't cut it.

Same goes for Display Port. Maximum 60hz @ 4K resolutions. None of that matters though. Even if you could do 120hz @ 4K, the video cards to run that are 10 years away at the current pace of progress.

10 years away? Over exaggerating much? I'd say 2 years if we're LUCKY, 3 years standard, 4 years if we're pushing it.
With how fast 4K displays have been moving towards affordability I won't be too surprised if we see 2.5K USD 70 inch 4K tvs by 2015 Christmas Season.

Currently we're at 3.5K USD for a 55 inch Sony 4K HDTV.