What if gaming wasn't your primary reason for wanting a 4k monitor?
Is upscaling from 1080p to 4K really that terrible?
Choosing monitor...4K or 1440p
- Thread starter Drojman
- Start date
What if gaming wasn't your primary reason for wanting a 4k monitor?
Is upscaling from 1080p to 4K really that terrible?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,528
Mate, I had both side by side on my desk... The benefits of 144hz and gsync outweighed the benefit of 4K by a large margin
Now, if you use your monitor from 6 inches away then yeah, otherwise it'll be 39" screens before I go back to 4K
I previously ditched 1080p/120 to go 1440/60, but with 1440/144 vs 4K, the 1440 has won
I can see what you are saying, but I get the point Vega is trying to make too, for the majority of people given achoice between ROG and 4K, it is probably preferable to go Rog, but as with most things the only way to tell is to try both side by side
I also said limited, not "no benefit"
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 8,578
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Yes you can, I do in every game, and so do most 4k owners.
It's subjective. There are objective differences, but the importance between the differences is subjective.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 375
Completely agree. You need to sit very close to 4k 28" monitors, perhaps 1ft away to see the benefit. With 1080p to 1440p it's very easy to spot even 2ft back at 27".
Another benefit i found with the ROG is being able to play games on max settings still if there are no SLI profiles like dead rising 3. I get in the late 30's to mid 40's in heavy areas at 1440p and with g-sync it's really playable. At 4k in the same area's i was getting in the 20's, totally unplayable even if you had g-sync. Although this game is badly ported i still want to play it and the ROG makes it possible with a single high end gpu. SLI profiles or lack of is a major consideration sometimes. If SLI was available for every game then sure with my triple SLI setup 4k 60fps would be great as it is on games that use SLI and i love it.
Overall the ROG can take advantage of SLI with super slick, low lag high fps gaming and when forced to use 1 gpu you still get really good fps aided by g-sync. 4k relies on SLI a hell of a lot so unless nvidia get there arses into gear the ROG makes more overall sense for now at least to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,528
Yes, I already said that and then gave my opinion on those differences. You countered by stating that to have come to that opinion I must be "blind". Last time I checked there were objective tests for blindness that dont involve the persons preference of 1440/144 vs. 4K.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 8,578
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I could never go backwards now from 4k, I bought one half expecting to send it back but when I fired up the desktop and BF4 everything was so crystal clear I couldn't believe my eyes, BF4 looked more like BF5, I felt like I was in a Optimax advert and everything went HD. Downscaling to 1440 or using 1080 at work now feels like I'm viewing the monitor under water, you don't realise how blurry it is till you've had it 4k sharp.
60fps, constant, MAX settings at 4k, in ALL games? Not possible, sorry.
I sat around 80cm from the Samsung UHD monitor when I was reviewing it and could very clearly see the benefit of the resolution. It depends on an individual's sensitivity and visual acuity and also on the content you're looking at. Some games tend to have certain elements that make good use of the pixel density but other that just don't. I have explored this notion in a recent article entitled "The '4K' UHD (3840 x 2160) Experience".
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 8,578
- Location
- Lincolnshire
No not 60fps constant, more like 90, my setup kills 4k, no need to apologise, we don't expect you to know everything
No not 60fps constant, more like 90, my setup kills 4k, no need to apologise, we don't expect you to know everything
Care to enlighten us on your set up then? Presumably it's quad cards?
no need for aggressive posts. Keep it friendly please
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 8,578
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Aww bless still have to result in using swear words do we? You probably haven't tired 4K as your 780ti setup wouldn't have the memory to run most games over 60FPS but it doesn't mean other people cant. I'm running 5930K and CF290X's.
For any-one that's interested, using BF4 as an example with my setup I used to average 120FPS with lows of 90FPS on 1080p, with 4k its down to 90FPS average and lows of 60FPS, I set V-sync on and limit FPS to 59 in the cfg file and its smooth as silk.
For any-one that's interested, using BF4 as an example with my setup I used to average 120FPS with lows of 90FPS on 1080p, with 4k its down to 90FPS average and lows of 60FPS, I set V-sync on and limit FPS to 59 in the cfg file and its smooth as silk.
Classic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,890
- Location
- Exmouth, Devon
This ^^
And with BF4 it isn't the GPU power that caused the lower frame rates it's the game. BF4 is well known that certain areas of certain maps are buggy and are lower on FPS especially with things like smoke & explosions.
The ROG is an oddity for me. You need Gsync for the lower fps where it's a benefit or run it at 144hz to get the benefit the other end I find that odd. And they dont run well at 144hz anyway or can't.If you are going from 1080p to 4k you'll be in for a treat 1440p to 4k not so much. 4k allows me to see so much further and see more detail in the distance. A must for Hardcore where there arent the triangle visual aids as in normal mode. It's like being able to see in the distance and not. HArdcore is all about who see's who first. Here 4k helps.
To say you wont see the benefit unless you are inches from the screen obviously has impaired sight or never seen one running with half decent GPU's. If you can run a ROG at 120-144fps then you have the 'juice' to run 4k at 60fps+ with game settings at max. If GPU's cant run 4k at 60fps then they cant run 1440 at 144fps either but G-sync will help with those lower framerates no doubt. ROG is a clever future profer, G-sync for todays mid range cards and 144hz for when you upgrade to run 144hz
All games have parts that run faster than others in terms of FPS but that is to do more with the game and or drivers. Otherwise you'll be forever chucking your money at chasing a minimum fps.
Yes, I already said that and then gave my opinion on those differences. You countered by stating that to have come to that opinion I must be "blind". Last time I checked there were objective tests for blindness that dont involve the persons preference of 1440/144 vs. 4K.
The difference between UHD and QHD at the same sort of sizes are big, objectively, as I think there's a lot more clarity.
However, that might just be me, I notice a big difference between 1080P and QHD on a 5.5" smart phone, where others have sworn blind that there's no difference (I don't even have particularly good eyesight either).
The subjective part I would say is whether that difference is more important than refresh. I prefer detail over refresh though.
1440p the sweet spot for now IMO and believe me can be hard enough to drive in savage titles e.g. crysis 3, any metro game.
4k for late 2015/early 2016 IMO.
Has has been said desktop scaling is currently poorly implemented.
Also see my thread re:gsync in monitors section, it helps but its not a get out of jail free card in all instances.
4k for late 2015/early 2016 IMO.
Has has been said desktop scaling is currently poorly implemented.
Also see my thread re:gsync in monitors section, it helps but its not a get out of jail free card in all instances.
Last edited:
Philips have an upcoming 40" VA-based UHD display. I was quite impressed with what I saw of it at IFA.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 8,578
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Philips have an upcoming 40" VA-based UHD display. I was quite impressed with what I saw of it at IFA.
Ooh, delicious. Do you have any more specs on it? Is it a TV or is it a monitor?