Go for 2k or 4k?

[slayer202]

Finally upgrading my pc with the following:
I7-8700k
Asus rog strix z370-e
16gb g.skill ripjaws ddr4-3000
And I've been debating between a gtx 1070 ti vs 1080 and I found a good price on a gigabyte 1080 g1 so I went with that.

Now, I already bought a 27" 2k monitor prior to that because I was anticipating buying a less capable card, but now that I'll have the 1080 I'm wondering if flawless 2k performance will still be wasting quite nice 4k performance.

Thoughts? I'm honestly not even sure what exactly I'll be playing but comments and insight is very welcome

 

[UsandThem]

The GTX 1080 will not be able to drive a 4k monitor in gaming without dialing back some settings. Even a GTX 1080ti can't keep it above 60 FPS in all modern games without dialing some settings back.

My vote is for 1440p. But also it depends on what games you want to play at those resolutions.

 

[killster1]

You dont know what you will be using the monitor for? well get a 4k monitor anyway, unless you think 5k or 8k is coming anytime soon and wish to wait for it. I own 4k lcd's and game in between 4k and 2k res. 1080 is not good enough to do 4k on all game with all settings so decide what game and settings/ other things doing and then just buy a 4k lcd when u see one you like.

 

[ElFenix]

get the 2160p monitor and play at 1440p if you need to. you can't tell in the heat of the moment that it's scaled.

 

[slayer202]

You dont know what you will be using the monitor for? well get a 4k monitor anyway, unless you think 5k or 8k is coming anytime soon and wish to wait for it. I own 4k lcd's and game in between 4k and 2k res. 1080 is not good enough to do 4k on all game with all settings so decide what game and settings/ other things doing and then just buy a 4k lcd when u see one you like.

It's kind of dumb, but I really shouldn't even be upgrading because I don't use my desktop very often anymore. But my setup is quite old and I couldn't play the current games even if I wanted, so I'm not sure what I'll be tempted to try out, and I had the itch to upgrade from sandy bridge

And thanks for the reality check everyone. I saw some benchmarks that made it seem like the 1080 could handle more than it seems is realistic, maybe they were older game fps numbers. I think I'm leaning towards sticking with 2k.

I also forget to ask about using windows at these resolutions. I assume 2k is easier to deal with? I don't really want to go bigger than 27" or 28" either, so I'm not sure if that makes 4k less appealing than if I wanted to go 32

 

[UsandThem]

I have a 32" 1440p monitor, which I upgraded to from a 1080p monitor, and I have no complains.....gaming or productivity wise.

I looked at some of the 27" 4k monitors before I made my decision, and that is too small for a 4k monitor (IMO of course, YMMV).

 

[maddogmcgee]

If you don't use it that often I would go 1440p. Your card will get good frame rates for much longer and in my opinion it looks almost as good to actually better. I have a bit of bias though, I really dont think anyone not willing to upgrade to the latest TI card should bother with 4k for games. Along with the reduced performancec you can also run into problems with UI which don't scale.....like any game ever made by Paradox Development Studio.

 

[ultimatebob]

I've been using a GeForce 1060 with a 27" 1440p monitor, and the framerates are pretty good in the games I play like Civ VI or Forza Horizon 3.

 

[slayer202]

I think I'm convinced that 1440 is the way to go for me. Though now the question becomes, the 75hz monitor I have vs 144 or free sync. I probably should have figured this stuff out before all my impulse buys

 

[shortylickens]

2k isnt really all that.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg

Go straight for the 4k.

For reference, I have an ASUS ROG at 2560x1440, which is the unofficial 3k. I like it mostly because the refresh goes up to 144 hz.

 

[CakeMonster]

For desktop get a 1600p monitor. The only downside is the lack of *sync support but 1600p at 30" has been my preference for the last 10 years and continue to be so when games are still struggling at 4K, windows scaling support is still bad, and 4K monitors still don't come with all the features and in all the sizes I want them to.

 

[Carfax83]

Go for 2K is my advice, provided that it's 2K with a fast refresh rate. You don't know the impact of a high refresh rate monitor until you play a certain high FPS game like Doom, and you see a HUGE improvement in clarity, smoothness and response. Yes, games at high refresh rate apparently look better due to less motion blur

I found that out when I bought my current G-sync 165Hz monitor and played Doom at up to 200 FPS, and noticed details that simply went unnoticed on my old 60Hz monitor. So yes, personally I think high FPS is more important than high resolution, especially when you play fast paced games.

 

[Midwayman]

1440p with gsync and high refresh is the way to go with a 1080. I mean if there were cheap 4k that could do 120hz and gsync I'd go that route, but 4k is still prohibitively expensive. Even at 1440p with a 8700k and gtx 1080 I'm dipping into 50's 60's on some games. There is still quite a bit of room for improvement even at 1440p.

 

[Headfoot]

I just went 1440p and 144hz. The resolution is nice but the high refresh rate is amazing. I also have a 4k TV I played on. The fast refresh >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1440p and 4k IMO.

 

[slayer202]

ah man, 144hz monitors are pricey, and g sync really limits the options. I think I'm going to try out the current monitor I bought and see how it is. I'm really not playing competitively so I'm hoping it's not a problem. Only paid about 175 for this https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EN3Z7QQ and it would be at least another $200 to get 144hz from what I see :/ ouch

 

[Midwayman]

Keep an eye on /r/buildapcsales

https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Gaming-S2716DGR-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B0149QBOF0

frequently goes into the 300s. Its a great monitor.

 

[slayer202]

Keep an eye on /r/buildapcsales

https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Gaming-S2716DGR-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B0149QBOF0

frequently goes into the 300s. Its a great monitor.

thanks, I'll set an alert

 

[Thunder 57]

2k isnt really all that.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Vector_Video_Standards8.svg

Go straight for the 4k.

For reference, I have an ASUS ROG at 2560x1440, which is the unofficial 3k. I like it mostly because the refresh goes up to 144 hz.

I thought 2560x1440 was "2K". This is why I like terms such as 1440p. A quick search on Newegg shows 2560x1440 (and a few others) under "2K".

Regarding the OP, I went with 1440p and I like it. Unfortunately I can't compare it to 4K as I have not used one, but it looks very sharp in Windows. In games, I don't have to worry about having a top end video card or dealing with resolution scaling. I would suggest 2K unless you really don't mind spending the extra money or just want something that you will likely hold on to for a very long time.

 

[wilds]

1440p144hz or 4k60. I would suggest one high refresh rate monitor minimum. 4k displays look amazing and I love mine for CPU limited games.

Do not use a 4k display for 1440p. it will not be a good experience. There are some great monitor deals all the time. you could find a cheap 4k60 display for around $200 and splurge on a good 1440p144hz. There have even been 1080p240hz displays for $250 lately.

Many 1080p144hz displays are going under $200.

 

[Organik]

No current video card can play 4k resolution and have all settings on or set to max or ultra. Your gonna get sub par 30fps maybe 40 at times.

 

[wilds]

No current video card can play 4k resolution and have all settings on or set to max or ultra. Your gonna get sub par 30fps maybe 40 at times.

There's a lot of games that can basically be maxed out from 2014 and older. I don't usually use AA at 4k.

I definitely prefer high settings at 4k than ultra st 1080p.

 

[WhiteNoise]

No current video card can play 4k resolution and have all settings on or set to max or ultra. Your gonna get sub par 30fps maybe 40 at times.

Thats not totally true. I have many games that can be maxed out at 4K and run at a constant 60 fps or more. But for the most demanding games then yeah..30 to 60 fps is more likely.

I play a lot of demanding games and my card has no problems playing the games at 4k with a mix of ultra, and high settings. When I first bought my 4k screen I was using the standard GTX 1080 and performance was a bummer on games such as BF1 so I put my 1080 into my daughters PC and put a 1080Ti in mine. Much much better performance but still cannot max out that game in 4k.

Some games I just run in 2k and it still looks fantastic and settings can be maxed out. Other games can be maxed out and run at 4k and get 60fps but these games are not always very demanding.

It's a crap shoot but if I were the OP I would stick with a 2k screen and the GTX 1080.

 

[slayer202]

so microcenter has a monitor that may or may not be exclusive to them but the specs look good for the price
http://www.microcenter.com/product/503505/KG271U_27"_WQHD_144Hz_HDMI_DP_FreeSync_LED_Monitor
144hz 2k, though no g-sync

I've been reading up but still a little unclear about when g sync kicks in and if I'll be hitting these fps discrepancies often with my setup. any time the gpu fps isn't exactly the 75hz the monitor displays? wouldn't that mean screen tearing almost all of the time?

 

[shortylickens]

I thought 2560x1440 was "2K". This is why I like terms such as 1440p. A quick search on Newegg shows 2560x1440 (and a few others) under "2K".

Regarding the OP, I went with 1440p and I like it. Unfortunately I can't compare it to 4K as I have not used one, but it looks very sharp in Windows. In games, I don't have to worry about having a top end video card or dealing with resolution scaling. I would suggest 2K unless you really don't mind spending the extra money or just want something that you will likely hold on to for a very long time.

No, look closer.
2k is 2048x1080 which is much higher than HD but still lower than some other standards.

 

[CuriousMike]

No, look closer.
2k is 2048x1080 which is much higher than HD but still lower than some other standards.

The problem is people use 2k to mean multiple things, including 1440p.

I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 28" 4k monitor. For *me*, the difference isn't huge in day-to-day productivity or gaming.
I'd say a 1440p monitor with higher refresh rate would get my nod (assuming the panel isn't crap.)