[Techspot] 4K Monitors: Can you actually see the difference?

[Mondozei]

Fascinating read.

 

[tential]

It's sad that you would need an article to tell you this.

It's obvious 4K resolution is something you can easily distinguish. Using DSR/VSR gives a poormans way of seeing that clearly we can gain benefits from higher resolutions and at native resolution of course it will look better.

I'm stupidly excited for 4K, although I want OLED, 120 hz, and a whole other host of things too =D.

 

[rancherlee]

Decent read but they seem to completely neglect proper viewing ratios, how many people actually have a screen bigger than 19" at a distance of only 24"? I just measured my viewing distance to my 27" monitor and it's right at 40" from my eyes, when I had a 21" screen it was at 32" away, any closer caused eye strain for me while gaming for more than an hour from all the eye movement trying to "see" everything. I recently replaced a 50" 1080p tv with a 49" 4K and you need to be less than 8' away to see any difference and that's with my 20/15 Vision.

 

[dark zero]

I am skipping 4K... Full HD is enough for me.... 8K on the other side seems to be a massive revamp (since 4K only increased resolution, but 8K needs to adapt it) and looks even more real than 4K or even more... it looks hyperreralist.

 

[tviceman]

I am still happily sporting a 1440p monitor and see reason to jump to 4k. I'd rather have a high frame rate at 1440p with all the graphics settings maxed in a game than reduced settings OR lower frame rates at 4k. The problem is that as new games come, the hardware requirements go up and moving from the industry standard 1080p to 2160p is a huge leap that will continue to take a long time before top end hardware can run new games at maxed out settings and great frame rates.

 

[3DVagabond]

I think HDR will be a massive IQ boost. I've done HDR rendering and it makes standard ray tracing look pretty bland. It just takes stupid long times to do with CPU. Like days to render a single HD scene.

 

[tential]

I think HDR will be a massive IQ boost. I've done HDR rendering and it makes standard ray tracing look pretty bland. It just takes stupid long times to do with CPU. Like days to render a single HD scene.

Which is why it sucks that we'll have to choose between 120hz 4K and 4K 60 Hz HDR.

But oh well, we'll see how it goes anyway. Maybe this display port standard won't last too long. Hopefully.

 

[vbored]

This debate reminds me of dvd to bluray, oh I can't tell the difference then when said people get a 1080p tv and bluray player oh how can anyone watch dvd's ..........

4k without aa looks way better than 1080p and aa cranked, on the same size displays anyway so far I've only used 27inch 4k models. Way harder to notice edge crawling and the image doesn't get so soft you start wondering if you need an eye check.

I'm sure once ~4k resolutions become popular/common the same thing will happen like dvd, omg 1080p is so bad.

 

[Udgnim]

This debate reminds me of dvd to bluray, oh I can't tell the difference then when said people get a 1080p tv and bluray player oh how can anyone watch dvd's ..........

4k without aa looks way better than 1080p and aa cranked, on the same size displays anyway so far I've only used 27inch 4k models. Way harder to notice edge crawling and the image doesn't get so soft you start wondering if you need an eye check.

I'm sure once ~4k resolutions become popular/common the same thing will happen like dvd, omg 1080p is so bad.

4K is obviously going to better than 1080

issue has to do GPU power, game engine, and API

can also throw in cost & desire for higher refresh rate in as well

 

[RussianSensation]

This debate reminds me of dvd to bluray, oh I can't tell the difference then when said people get a 1080p tv and bluray player oh how can anyone watch dvd's ..........

4k without aa looks way better than 1080p and aa cranked, on the same size displays anyway so far I've only used 27inch 4k models. Way harder to notice edge crawling and the image doesn't get so soft you start wondering if you need an eye check.

I'm sure once ~4k resolutions become popular/common the same thing will happen like dvd, omg 1080p is so bad.

IMO, 1080p/1440P maxed out @ smooth 60 fps is way better than sub-60 fps 4K on a $300 GPU, or Low/Medium 4K gaming. Right now the amount of GPU horsepower required to have high quality settings and smooth fps on a 4K monitor makes it extremely demanding even on a single Titan X.

Also, I've been using 32-37" monitors since 2007 which means I cannot buy a 27" 4K monitor as it would be a downgrade for other uses like media, etc. Windows DPI scaling also makes it harder to use 4K on a 27" vs. 32-40". I am guessing 4K on a 27" will require 150-200% scaling when browsing the web, working in Excel, reading articles, etc.

On one of my desks, the 37" monitor I have is sitting 30-32" from my eyes (not 24" as per the article) which means I'd need a way larger 4K monitor at a similar viewing distance but the price of 32-40" 4K monitors is steep right now, and if one wants GSync/FreeSync on those, you are paying even more.

I think lack of affordable + larger sized GSync/FreeSync 4K IPS/VA monitors is really the biggest obstacle on the monitor side and the GPU demands are just nuts.

32" 2560x1440 FreeSync = $400
32" 2560x1440 BenQ = $450
32" 4K Benq = $900 (double the price)

Some games honestly cannot even be maxed out at 1080P on a 980Ti so I cannot imagine what happens with 2016-2017 games. 4K => constant flagship GPU upgrades for modern AAA games.

Even without AA, some 2015 games murder a $650 flagship card at 4K:

Even less demanding games murder at 4K:

Of course all things being equal, 4K 60Hz > 1080p/1440p 60Hz but it's not that simple. That's not even bringing up 1440p 100-165Hz options.

 

[vbored]

The thread wasn't about the ability to hit max details with crazy rubbish like nvidia super shadows and god rays, it was if you could notice the difference. I also didn't say I play everything at 4k.

I generally play 1st person games on a 1440p 144hz display, I did play gta5 on the 4k display tho as I could hit 60 fps at high settings. Dying light could also hit 60fps aswell on high but I prefered the extra framerate on that so stayed on the 1440p. I play elite on the 4k monitor cause the aliasing is terrible at 1080p.

My original comment still stands 4k without aa looks better than 1080p aa cranked, and the fact people are wasting so much gpu on shadows that look worse because they are too sharp or god rays that you need to screenshot and examine to notice the difference or hair physics that look even more unnatural isn't my problem.

Oh I own nvidia cards because before anyone lines me up for that particular broadside.

 

[Mondozei]

I'm stupidly excited for 4K, although I want OLED, 120 hz, and a whole other host of things too =D.

By the time Volta is out, we should see 4K, 120 Hz OLED monitors with HDR. That's my next purchase. So hopefully not more than 2 years out.

The big unknown are the next-gen consoles. From the reports, it seems 4K and VR will be two big focus points. 4K TV adaptation is quite high and prices are soon converging with 1080p. Still, if the next-gen consoles stay at 1080p then PC gaming will move ahead even further.

 

[guskline]

Thanks for posting the article. Both of my monitors are 2560x1440 so 4k would be a natural progression. However, better have the Horsepower for gaming.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

4k is way way too demanding to get widespread appeal right now. Heck, even 1440p isn't widely adopted, and there are 8k monitors now coming onto the scene.

I would like a 2k 144hz freesync monitor, but none of my monitors will ever die, and I hate ebay. The first lcd I bought in 2004 still works, though it has world of warcraft's user interface burnt into it.

I bet this could be another cause of the slow adoption.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I would like a 144Hz 4K IPS gaming panel, and if one were to arrive I might be tempted, but my XB270HU (2560x1440) is just so ridiculously awesome and my system is fast enough to drive ~144fps in the games I play at 2560x1440 maxed out settings that I'd almost be afraid to mess with such a good thing.

Indeed, I would need a pair of top Pascal cards, maybe even three of them, in order to get the performance out of 4K that I'm looking for.

 

[tential]

By the time Volta is out, we should see 4K, 120 Hz OLED monitors with HDR. That's my next purchase. So hopefully not more than 2 years out.

The big unknown are the next-gen consoles. From the reports, it seems 4K and VR will be two big focus points. 4K TV adaptation is quite high and prices are soon converging with 1080p. Still, if the next-gen consoles stay at 1080p then PC gaming will move ahead even further.

4K will not be in next gen consoles.

I think we all realize that. Even if the next gen consoles output 4K, we know there will be zero 4K native games that look good.

 

[crisium]

2K (2560x1440)

Shame on every ignoramus who propagates this fallacy.

 

[Actaeon]

I am a 'couch gamer' and use a 75" 4K TV and sit about 9-10 feet away. The distance from the display is 'high' compared to a desk and monitor but with a 75" screen pixel density is much lower too. The difference of 1080p vs 4K is visible, specifically around aliasing. At 4k, it is impossible to see any 'jaggies' while at 1080p they are apparent.

Regarding hardware capable of playing 4K, I have been gaming at 4K using a OCed 980 Ti and the experience has been much more positive than I had thought going in after reading reviews and forum posts. I do turn off or lower non-essential settings like AA, Hairworks and 'Ultra' God-Rays but the essentials are all maxed out. It varies by game, but it doesn't really get any lower than mid 30s during gameplay. The average framerates are in the 50s which is plenty smooth.

I think whether 4K gaming is usable today is conditional. For someone really sensitive to framerates or need 100+ fps because they're playing a twitch shooter and competitive, 4K isn't an option. Unoptimized games like Assassin's Creed Syndicate may also struggle. But I think for your average gamer without any specific needs, in my experience 4K gaming is possible with current high end hardware. The next level of demanding games will be an interesting test for current hardware.

 

[kami]

Depending on the monitor scaling quality, you can run games at a lower resolution on 4k monitors and it looks fine. It does on my Philips 40" anyway. Most of the games I play (Blizzard games primarily) can run at 60fps in 4k, but for the games that can't I just run them at 1440p to get my 60fps. Defeats the purpose of 4k? Maybe... but I wanted a big screen and at this size my only options were 1080p or 4k.

My biggest problem right now for high resolutions is shoddy DPI scaling in Windows. There is no standard for apps so it's hit and miss. I hear Apple is way better in this respect.

 

[xorbe]

Probably depends on the game. For instance, lower resolution is harder to snipe in multiplayer games. But, a driving game may make little difference, as your focus is much more in the immediate area.

 

[tential]

I am a 'couch gamer' and use a 75" 4K TV and sit about 9-10 feet away. The distance from the display is 'high' compared to a desk and monitor but with a 75" screen pixel density is much lower too. The difference of 1080p vs 4K is visible, specifically around aliasing. At 4k, it is impossible to see any 'jaggies' while at 1080p they are apparent.

Regarding hardware capable of playing 4K, I have been gaming at 4K using a OCed 980 Ti and the experience has been much more positive than I had thought going in after reading reviews and forum posts. I do turn off or lower non-essential settings like AA, Hairworks and 'Ultra' God-Rays but the essentials are all maxed out. It varies by game, but it doesn't really get any lower than mid 30s during gameplay. The average framerates are in the 50s which is plenty smooth.

I think whether 4K gaming is usable today is conditional. For someone really sensitive to framerates or need 100+ fps because they're playing a twitch shooter and competitive, 4K isn't an option. Unoptimized games like Assassin's Creed Syndicate may also struggle. But I think for your average gamer without any specific needs, in my experience 4K gaming is possible with current high end hardware. The next level of demanding games will be an interesting test for current hardware.

Yup, I want your setup with freesync and crossfire.

I'll also eventually get a 4k projector to use too, but for now 4k monitor with freesync.

How do you feel about gaming below 50 fps? I can't stand it. Right now it's my biggest complaint about large screen gaming is very few options to break 60 hz.

 

[RussianSensation]

By the time Volta is out, we should see 4K, 120 Hz OLED monitors with HDR. That's my next purchase. So hopefully not more than 2 years out.

Will be waiting 5-10 years before there is an affordable 4K 120Hz HDR OLED.

1. Neither DisplayPort 1.3 nor HDMI 2.0a can support 120Hz + 4K + HDR.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9836/amd-unveils-2016-vistech-roadmap

> It'll be years before DP1.3/HDMI 2.0a are superceded given how long it took for DP1.3 to arrive.
> As a result, it'll be years before the next standards show up on GPUs.

2. The entire strategy right now behind OLED is high-end/premium experience => high prices. Given the steep price premiums we are already getting charged for LCD/LED PC monitors over LCD/LED TVs, it's hard to imagine a 4K 120Hz OLED being anything but reasonably priced.

Since OLED is primarily targeted at tablets, smartphones and TVs, the PC gaming monitor side is clearly not the top-of-mind for OLED manufacturers. This means to specifically make OLED PC monitors, the manufacturers now have to go out of their way ==> costs $$$.

The big unknown are the next-gen consoles. From the reports, it seems 4K and VR will be two big focus points. 4K TV adaptation is quite high and prices are soon converging with 1080p. Still, if the next-gen consoles stay at 1080p then PC gaming will move ahead even further.

Consoles will never catch up to PCs in terms of graphics because they have fixed hardware for 6-7 years of their useful life. It's also pretty pointless to compare a $1000-2000 high-end PC to a $300 PS4 (or PS5, etc.). Right now it's rumoured that next gen consoles are launching in 2019 and they are aiming for at least 5X the perf/watt. Assuming that translates to 5X the GPU power, they'd have a console with about 50% or so more horsepower than a Titan X. That's enough to play some games at 4K @ 30 fps. What's limiting graphics isn't resolution though so even if consoles are stuck at 1080p, the best looking PS5 game would blow away any 2016 PC game @ 4K. Either way, next gen consoles will undoubtedly have HDMI 2.0a/DisplayPort 1.3 if AMD is chosen to supply them and that means 4K BluRay and 4K gaming are going to be on the table. It will at least give the developers the option to run some games @ 1080P w/ 60 fps while others will be able to choose between 1080p->4K dynamic resolutions. Better that next gen consoles have the ability to drive 4K signal and then let the developers choose how they want to make their games.

Regarding hardware capable of playing 4K, I have been gaming at 4K using a OCed 980 Ti and the experience has been much more positive than I had thought going in after reading reviews and forum posts.

Ya, but keep in mind GTX980Ti is probably top 2% of all PCs in the world, or even less than 2%. Here in Canada, 980Ti costs well over $900 CAD after taxes. 4K won't really become mainstream until a $100-200 GPU can play games @ 60 fps at 4K easily and 4K monitors are cheap. On technical/enthusiast forums such as ours, there is a disproportionate representations of $300+ GPUs, GSync/FreeSync monitors, 1440p and above displays.

Also, 980Ti OC is beastly level of performance. You are talking almost 2X faster than 970/780Ti/290 at 4K.

Think about how long it'll take before even 980Ti's level of performance drops down to $149-199 price level in the new GPU buying market and unfortunately that doesn't take into account the more demanding 2016-2018 games. That means while 980Ti OCed could play many 2008-2015 games really well at 4K, by the time the mainstream consumer can purchase this level of performance affordable, that level of GPU horsepower won't be adequate anymore as next gen games will be more demanding than 2015 games. That's why 4K gaming imo = cutting edge where the user is willing to upgrade often and isn't concerned about $500-700 flagship GPU prices.

Sooner or later PC games will get more demanding. I remember people were saying that 8800GTX Ultra and then GTX280 would last them through the entire PS360 generation. Ya, that was nowhere close to the truth and that was just 1080p/1440p gaming, not 4K! Even when PS4/XB1 came out, people were saying how the OG $1K Titan would easily last the entire console generation. Ya, it sure can but not at 4K gaming resolution.

I think whether 4K gaming is usable today is conditional. For someone really sensitive to framerates or need 100+ fps because they're playing a twitch shooter and competitive, 4K isn't an option. Unoptimized games like Assassin's Creed Syndicate may also struggle. But I think for your average gamer without any specific needs, in my experience 4K gaming is possible with current high end hardware. The next level of demanding games will be an interesting test for current hardware.

True, but by definition, the average gamer doesn't need a 4K monitor and is unlikely to be even considering it. Most PC gamers today have a GPU at most at GTX970 level and that means almost none of these gamers has a 4K monitor. They might be gaming on a 4K TV because their parents own it

 

[hawtdawg]

I think HDR will be a massive IQ boost. I've done HDR rendering and it makes standard ray tracing look pretty bland. It just takes stupid long times to do with CPU. Like days to render a single HD scene.

It's still going to be pretty meh as long as sub 1000:1 contrast ratio's are the norm on PC monitors. 2000:1 is just a starting point, and VA panels are the only ones capable of doing it currently. I don't think it will really take off in the PC space until OLED monitors do

 

[UaVaj]

True, but by definition, the average gamer doesn't need a 4K monitor and is unlikely to be even considering it. Most PC gamers today have a GPU at most at GTX970 level and that means almost none of these gamers has a 4K monitor. They might be gaming on a 4K TV because their parents own it

4k with 60fps minimum dip with all the eye candy is a reality.
furyx x4 or 980ti x4 will deliver that.


back to the "can u see the difference" question.
given very few top gamers can game with "single" 970. highly doubt any of them will ever notice the difference.

source

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Either way, next gen consoles will undoubtedly have HDMI 2.0a/DisplayPort 1.3 if AMD is chosen to supply them and that means 4K BluRay and 4K gaming are going to be on the table.

That seems really optimistic, considering the fact that the current generation consoles cant even manage 1080p smoothly.

4k with 60fps minimum dip with all the eye candy is a reality.
furyx x4 or 980ti x4 will deliver that.


back to the "can u see the difference" question.
given very few top gamers can game with "single" 970. highly doubt any of them will ever notice the difference.

source

I heard 4 way sli was barely any better than 3 way.