Just too new IMHO, is like SSD's were when they came out.
Not even content for most things.
Not even content for most things.
Last edited:
It's a bit silly really. 4K is nice for work real estate without needing multi-monitor configs but for gaming I don't really see a major benefit (yet). And most of the 4K panels are TN based which kind of defeats the purpose for gaming.
Because of DSR/VSR, it's the best form of AA for 1080/1440p. 4K performance is thus applicable to everyone.
Its only applicable when the performance is there. Unless the player is sticking with 4+ year old games, the performance isn't there yet (except for those few running CFX or SLI on Fury X or 980 TI). Better to run at 1440p DSR or just use AA at 1080p right now.
Of course you don't have to play at max settings. There is a balance between high PPI and settings, and being maxed at either end has diminishing returns on IQ.
I think it depends on what you are doing. For text/ graphic work, the higher resolution would be nice, but that would depend on how well the OS and programs handle scaling. Just look at how much nicer the retina screen on an iPad, for example, looks compared to the original. For games, I wouldnt go 4k.
1080p for computers is getting a bit too low res, especially for monitors above 24".
Personally I find 1080p 24" good enough too for gaming / general usage. For larger 27-32" monitors for professional work, 1440P is still the "sweet spot" (fewer "scaling" issues in Windows, higher performance in games for same larger monitor size, etc). Can't work out the "hype" behind "not needing AA" (as some claim, whilst others disagree). There's nothing wrong with AA for most people, and stuff like SMAA is an order of magnitude more hardware friendly for most during actual gameplay (outside of side by side static screenshot comparisons often involving zoomed cut outs and red arrows to highlight relatively trivial differences for epeen).
I remember back in the day that we'd change resolutions all the time, and balance the settings to resolution until we found an IQ we liked. Now it seems people would rather play at 640x480 than turn down their settings at all.
Exactly this. There's many settings on maxed that kills performance for minimal image quality gains, it's best to manual config your games so you get the best fidelity & performance. It just so happens that a lot of games now don't even have MSAA, but come with blur AA, which is why I really like that NV added DSR and forced AMD to follow suit with VSR. Such a great feature to have, its a wonder why it wasn't available before!
Interestingly, I find that VSR incur less of a performance hit than actual MSAA, it must be due to engines moving to deferred rendering. In DA:I, I had better IQ & performance VSR from 1440p down to my 1080p monitor than running 1080p with 4x MSAA (which doesn't cover a lot of objects due to the deferred rendering Frostbite engine).
Still waiting for a nice 4K monitor with Freesync before I jump onboard the 4K train.
Summing up the reason I care about 4k performance. My 80 inch projector finally setup so happy to have my setup up and running again .The one benefit to 4K is at really high resolutions say at 70 inches or greater, you can see the individual pixels on 1080P televisions.. having it in 4K would eliminate that. If you do really have money to throw around, 4K on a large 30 inch computer monitor is viable because with a couple of 980 ti's, you can make 4K games like skyrim look stunning as some have mentioned here already. Also more screen real estate if you're a stock trader for charts and stuff.
Outside that nobody is going to notice much of a difference. I have nothing against 4K, I just don't see enough economic incentive to upgrade.. the gains are not there for me to respend on new hardware when my existing setup works fine.
Can't say I agree with that assessment. If anything it's resolution people don't want to change these days because of how LCD's work compared to the old CRT monitors. Native resolution is usually the highest priority.
It is just because 4k displays are out now, so obviously 4k must be the best?
Yup, just give me a 32", 1440p, 144Hz IPS, freesync monitor.
When I can get a single $400 GPU to game at 4K then I might care.
If you want 4K, I think 34" monitor is the minimum but then that means you need a minimum of 2 high end GPUs or preferably 4 to sustain a 60+ FPS.
And most of the 4K panels are TN based which kind of defeats the purpose for gaming.
The major advances in panel technology have been with G-Synch / Freesync along with IPS displays fast enough to game with
At over a grand, it's not exactly available.
4K monitors are great because of the super high PPI and fidelity you get from that. Unfortunately we don't have GPUs really up to the task to run that as a gaming resolution without compromises. So it becomes a choice of great pixel density but turning game settings down or maxing game settings at a lower resolution.
Me too mate, on my 18.4" screen on my Alienware 18, even 1920x1080 resolution is a bit too small for my liking so I have to do a DPI scaling of 125%, cannot even imagine they are selling bloody 15" laptops with 4K screens! that must be a big joke! I've had a friend buy a Lenovo Yoga 15" with a 4K display and she either has to hold a magnifier on the screen to see stuff or has to do a 250% scaling to see things at a good size but then not all programs play well with DPI scaling so you get wrongly placed buttons, text, etc.