4k VS 1440p for gaming

scotsdragon said:
Is it just me or are titan blacks not worth the money now?
Click to expand...

Titan Blacks are the top single cards out and sadly come with a price that is tops for it. I don't think I could justify that price knowing that a 780 6GB isn't that far behind in terms of speed and at almost half price. For the odd frame or 3, I would sooner grab a pair of 780 6GBs

As for those who are saying that 4K isn't ready for gaming, I have tested 4K on a single card and with lowered settings and it looks far superior than 1080P at max settings to me. I would happily game all day long at 4K with lowered settings if I am honest and who here claims that games need to be maxed? Plenty of people are happily gaming at 1080P with lowered settings on mid range cards.
 
Quartz said:
Again, this is simply not correct. It's only correct if you want max settings on the most modern games. I'm running max settings at 4K on Borderlands 2, for instance. If you have a 3 GB 660 Ti or 7950 - both around £100 on your favourite auction site - then all you need to do is add another and you're set.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that a 2 year old game, using a 8 year old graphics engine (obviously heavily tweaked) is a sign that 4k is affordable?

I know older games run fine at 4k because I regularly use downsampling (SSAA) from 4k on my AMD R9 290x.

Most people who buy 4k will want to play modern games.

It's a bit like going back to 2010 and saying 1440p gaming is affordable as long as you play Doom 3.
 
VincentHanna said:
So your argument is that a 2 year old game, using a 8 year old graphics engine (obviously heavily tweaked) is a sign that 4k is affordable?

I know older games run fine at 4k because I regularly use downsampling (SSAA) from 4k on my AMD R9 290x.

Most people who buy 4k will want to play modern games.

It's a bit like going back to 2010 and saying 1440p gaming is affordable as long as you play Doom 3.
Click to expand...

What modern game will not play at 4K?
 
Are you following the argument I am making

I'm talking about on an affordable system...your definition of affordable might be different to mine but can 2x 7950's really max out Battlefield 4 or Elite Dangerous at 4k?

Edit: I'm one of those people who would rather have everything at Ultra with a decent framerate at the moment, hence I have a 1080p TV and 1440p monitor and 1x R9 290x.
 
VincentHanna said:
Are you following the argument I am making

I'm talking about on an affordable system...your definition of affordable might be different to mine but can 2x 7950's really max out Battlefield 4 or Elite Dangerous at 4k?

Edit: I'm one of those people who would rather have everything at Ultra with a decent framerate at the moment, hence I have a 1080p TV and 1440p monitor and 1x R9 290x.
Click to expand...

No, I am following the debate ;)

As someone who is also interested in maxing settings, I have done extensive testing with 4K and found that lowered settings look better to me than 1080P max settings. Of course you are entitled to only want to max games, even at 4K but you will be waiting years and years for that card to come that will max out 4K - Hell, you will be waiting years and years for that one card that will max 1440P.

The bottom line is even though I run a pair of Titans, they couldn't max out all games at 4K and we are a long long way off from a single card getting close to that. I am a graphics whore and was very impressed with how good the games looked at lowered details.
 
Having played competitive FPS to a reasonable standard and struck in more hours than most on computer games both new and old over the years.

4k isn't by my definition "gaming" ready.

People are happy to spend the money will tell you it's fine and they are enjoying it and I believe they are but for people used to slick and smooth movements should avoid 4k for now. Even with Gsync and 120hz maintaining 120fps or better would require some dramatic reduction in graphical quality which would be somewhat pointless if you're upgrading to improve visual quality.


Question is is 4k gaming at low settings better than 1440p gaming at higher settings. That is a question I can't answer. I love how CSgo looks on 1440p ips panels but hate the lag and I don't have a swift :(
 
Last edited:
I am leaning towards the ROG, my trouble is I like EYE candy I run BF4 MAX setting at about 90 fps but that's using 2.3-4 gb of vram so I need descent sized vram cards with grunt,


I loved the look of those 780 6gb's but they are very very thin on the ground and OCUK have said they wont get more stock
 
I just don't see how 4k is even a major noticeable difference to justify buying a system twice as powerful as 1440p to run with the same efficiency. Not worth it IMO.
 
Get out Gregster, you're not helping fuel any arguments ;)

Serious, when we have some decent GPU's that can play 4k at high settings (single) I'll consider it, I will also only consider an IPS 4k panel as I much prefer the image quality.
 
Noxia said:
Get out Gregster, you're not helping fuel any debates ;)

Serious, when we have some decent GPU's that can play 4k at high settings (single) I'll consider it, I will also only consider an IPS 4k panel as I much prefer the image quality.
Click to expand...

Fixed :p
 
I'd rather have Ultra wide 3440x1440 over any current 4K display on the market.

Let's face it, 21:9 is the more immersive for gaming.

Besides, all the current monitors out are too small in size for 4K. Where are the 34" and greater 4K monitors? That's when things will start to make sense surely.
 
mrk said:
I'd rather have Ultra wide 3440x1440 over any current 4K display on the market.

Let's face it, 21:9 is the more immersive for gaming.

Besides, all the current monitors out are too small in size for 4K. Where are the 34" and greater 4K monitors? That's when things will start to make sense surely.
Click to expand...

Amen, I love my lg 34" super wide monitor. I was so close to getting a Samsung 4k monitor, but I think I made the right decision.
 
Indeed you're not even getting the most out of 4k by buying a current gen one anyway so why waste the time and effort in the extra hardware required to run at that resolution when the extra cash can be used to buy a 21:9 instead..

I see it as more of a "I've got a 4k monitor and game at 4k" statement instead of a genuine gaming experience.
 
mrk said:
I see it as more of a "I've got a 4k monitor and game at 4k" statement instead of a genuine gaming experience.
Click to expand...

I mainly bought my 4K monitor for the better text. A physically larger monitor would negate that. Gaming at 4K is a bonus; if it didn't work, I'd just game on one of my other monitors.
 
mrk said:
I see it as more of a "I've got a 4k monitor and game at 4k" statement instead of a genuine gaming experience.
Click to expand...

That's very harsh and I got my 4K monitor to see what the 4K experience was like and went from not gaming much at all to gaming as much as possible. Games got the 'Wow' factor again and that was what I was missing. Play Tomb Raider in 4K and see what I mean.
 
Have you gamed on a 21:9 29" or above? It's got a greater wow factor than a 4K. I also notice people comment that text is better on a 4K monitor. While I haven't owned a 4K monitor I have given them a go on display models on the gaming machines set up for customers to try out in store and couldn't spot what all the fuss was about other than it being 4k. Yeah text is smaller but you'd expect that. It's using a high resolution on a smaller monitor so text would look sharper :p

I understand many just want to get the most out of their dual GPUs and whatnot and that's fine but there are also many who just are on the 4kbrigade.

It's not being harsh at all it's just observing the obvious really.

As has been mentioned in many other threads, 4K will be great once monitors make use of that resolution by increasing in size. At present everything is smaller and gives the impression of being sharper, are you really getting the best out of 4K on a 28" display the same way you would if it was more fitting for the resolution, say a 36", 38" or greater? Had you not been told that this new 28" you have is 4K and didn't check the video resolution in game would you still be wowed? I think it would be a very different story, for many anyway.

I don't see it yet and usually I'm the first to jump onto something new and cool even if I end up not liking it and returning it. It will be great, just not yet at current display sizes. 21:9 offers more and hurts the wallet less.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom