• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

4K gaming makes mincemeat of current GPU's!

nalla said:
the only thing stopping 4k from being mainstream is the price, not the games, which is the same reason why 1600p monitors are not mainstream, because the average person is not willing to pay more than 2-3 hundred pounds on a monitor.
Click to expand...

I entirely disagree. I can afford whatever monitor I want but still actively choose 1920x1080 resolution in a 24" form factor.

Price has nothing to do with it. High resolution (single panel or multiple) is a niche market. Multi screen gaming is a niche market and super high resolution offers VERY LITTLE IQ improvement and is only really required when you wish to maintain pixel density at high physical dimensions.

1920x1080 is so popular because:

It is ideal for a 24" form factor
Is commonplace in digital video

Resolution does not dictate price. There are more expensive 1920x1080 panels than 2560x1600 ones, and visa-versa. If price was the sole dictator everyone would use super cheap panels in the highest resolution possible, that's simply not the case.

On the same note resolution does not dictate buying habits either.

OLED
Response times
Refresh Rate
Colour reproduction/black levels

and a whole host other other technical areas are far more important than resolution.

4K is expensive because it is cutting edge SUPER SUPER niche and, largely, not needed technology. If 4K was readily accesible now on a price point of view it would still not become mainstream because 1920x1080 panels offers FAR MORE outside of resolution alone in IQ, Response Time etc. A 1920x1080 OLED panel would beat the crap out of a 4K IPS panel.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, having used a 21:9 aspect monitor for a while now I have no interest in going back to 16:9 unless they stop producing 21:9 (which seems unlikely). A 5120*2160 screen would be lush :) hell a 3840*1646 would make a nice stop gap on the way.
 
the Asus 31.5 inch 4K is so expensive because it uses a flash new Sharp panel (igzoo or whatever they call it)... but Asus have also said they are doing a 39 inch version not using this tech, presumably using the same panel as the Sieki TV but with a decent controller and DisplayPort for 4K @ 60hz... now that I find far more interesting

a 39inch with a slightly higher DPI than a 30inch 2560x1440 screen... yes please
 
Until they put a 4k panel into a 24" size monitor it has no hope what so ever of becoming mainstream, as 99% of people don't want a 40" monitor for their computer.
Also think of this, the only content native to 1080p is Blu-ray and computers. There are still no programmes broadcast in the UK or the USA at 1080p (Sky is 1080i and so is Virgin, most of the USA is still 720p).

It could be argued that 1080p still isn't mainstream and this is six years after the first 1080p monitors hit the shelves. 4k has a long way to go yet.
 
bru said:
Until they put a 4k panel into a 24" size monitor it has no hope what so ever of becoming mainstream, as 99% of people don't want a 40" monitor for their computer.
Also think of this, the only content native to 1080p is Blu-ray and computers. There are still no programmes broadcast in the UK or the USA at 1080p (Sky is 1080i and so is Virgin, most of the USA is still 720p).

It could be argued that 1080p still isn't mainstream and this is six years after the first 1080p monitors hit the shelves. 4k has a long way to go yet.
Click to expand...

that would be pointless, the reason most people stick to 24" is because 1080p starts to look bad above this size, and people avoid 2560x1440 @ 30 inch sizes because of the extra GPU requirements

if you could have 4K at 32-39inches and GPU's to match for a far lower price point than currently, the uptake would be much higher

it is always the case with new tech that you have to start with the cutting edge high cost stuff and then let it bleed down in to the mainstream, you are right that this is a long way off from being mainstream, but one could easily argue that £200+ video cards are not mainstream, yet most people who read this board do have at least one of these - this forum is for enthusiasts, so getting enthusiastic about new things coming along is par for the course :D

I don't understand why so many people sign up to a PC hardware enthusiasts forum and then proceed to sling insults at anyone who is interested in new hardware
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
that would be pointless, the reason most people stick to 24" is because 1080p starts to look bad above this size, and people avoid 2560x1440 @ 30 inch sizes because of the extra GPU requirements

if you could have 4K at 32-39inches and GPU's to match for a far lower price point than currently, the uptake would be much higher

it is always the case with new tech that you have to start with the cutting edge high cost stuff and then let it bleed down in to the mainstream, you are right that this is a long way off from being mainstream, but one could easily argue that £200+ video cards are not mainstream, yet most people who read this board do have at least one of these - this forum is for enthusiasts, so getting enthusiastic about new things coming along is par for the course :D

I don't understand why so many people sign up to a PC hardware enthusiasts forum and then proceed to sling insults at anyone who is interested in new hardware
Click to expand...

+1

When is the 39inch Asus one out?
 
I heard the 39" will be around $4000! I guess we take 60hz for granted with standard TN/IPS panels.

edit: my mistake, $4000 for the 31.5". Apparently the 39" is a VA panel.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
that would be pointless, the reason most people stick to 24" is because 1080p starts to look bad above this size, and people avoid 2560x1440 @ 30 inch sizes because of the extra GPU requirements
...
Click to expand...

But before 1920x(1080 or 1200) became the norm people on widescreen still used 22"-24" monitors. Suggesting it wasn't the pixel density that was the deciding factor but the dimensions themselves.

Personally I can't see ever wanting to game on a 30+ inch monitor though I realise many people feel differently. Indeed I know a few people that do like big screens as monitors - they used to use 36" TVs as monitors in 720p. Personally I thought it was a horrific idea but half of the reason was the sheer size of the screen, not just the image quality.
 
27" is about my limit on screen size for my desk, 30" would be a push but any larger and i'm personally not intersted. What is the actual reason we don't see 24" HD+ monitors? I've always said if they sold 2560x1440 on a 24" pannel i'd be all over it.
 
Alkalinepro5 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7120/some-quick-gaming-numbers-at-4k-max-settings

Interesting article. Looks like Nvidia/AMD need to drastically increase performance 10-fold over the next couple of generations as 4K comes into play!

So what we can take away from this article is all current high-end GPU's blow hard!
Click to expand...

all high priced gpus are actually very poor

for instance you need a 800 pound single gpu to play 1080 t be able to play all games at 60 fps n max settings. thats a joke.
 
Kaapstad said:
+1

When is the 39inch Asus one out?
Click to expand...

supposedly announced in Q3 and availability Q4, so any time from now till end of september for solid specs I guess

David Bisset said:
But before 1920x(1080 or 1200) became the norm people on widescreen still used 22"-24" monitors. Suggesting it wasn't the pixel density that was the deciding factor but the dimensions themselves.

Personally I can't see ever wanting to game on a 30+ inch monitor though I realise many people feel differently. Indeed I know a few people that do like big screens as monitors - they used to use 36" TVs as monitors in 720p. Personally I thought it was a horrific idea but half of the reason was the sheer size of the screen, not just the image quality.
Click to expand...

your recollection is different to mine, I remember the norm being 640x480 around 15" and 800x600 being 17" and 1024x768 being 17-19"... 24" only really became the "norm" with 1920x1080 or thereabouts
I distinctly remember that each jump in resolution also came with a jump in physical size, from my own buying pattern
 
Last edited:
39" monitor for desktop gaming use.....sounds absolutely ridiculous....no way you can do anything but casual gaming on that or be sitting at a large distance...would need to move your head around to look in the periphery of your vision the monitor occupies!
 
~>Dg<~ said:
all high priced gpus are actually very poor

for instance you need a 800 pound single gpu to play 1080 t be able to play all games at 60 fps n max settings. thats a joke.
Click to expand...
That's because both camps are more interested in exchanging jabs and milk as much money as possible, rather than outright knocking each other out (i.e. offering huge performance increase over previous gen at affordable price). This is why we don't see hall of frame cards like 8800GTX or Radeon 9800 anymore. I knew the pathetic 10-25% progression pacing per gen is gonna come back to bite us in the rear in the long run...
 
Last edited:
Sin_Chase said:
39" monitor for desktop gaming use.....sounds absolutely ridiculous....no way you can do anything but casual gaming on that or be sitting at a large distance...would need to move your head around to look in the periphery of your vision the monitor occupies!
Click to expand...

For the games I play it would be ideal, like Civ5 and the upcoming RTW2
 
Orangey said:
2560x1440 on 24" would make text/icons very small and perhaps cause eye strain. Elf n safety mayhap???
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about 1920x1080 when that first came out. You find DPI of current O/S, websites, programs increases with time. This is very noticeable if you load up an old game/program/website designed for 1024x768 or lower or try to use Windows 7/8 on an older monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom