4k monitor @ 1080p?

RatmanGB · 18 Oct 2015 at 13:43

Apologies for the slightly odd question, but how well do 4k screens cope with being run at 1080p, mainly for gaming purposes?

I'm considering a second GTX 970 and a 4k screen, and I'm wondering if running the screen at 1080p is an option for games that require more than GTX 970 SLI, without things looking terrible.

My thinking is that since 2160p is 4 x 1080p it should scale pretty well, but is this true in reality?

setter · 18 Oct 2015 at 14:01

Id prefer native res with lowered settings over dropping the res down.

Quartz · 18 Oct 2015 at 14:23

RatmanGB said:
Apologies for the slightly odd question, but how well do 4k screens cope with being run at 1080p, mainly for gaming purposes?

The problem with running my 28" 4K monitor at 1080p is that while the scaling is a perfect 2x2:1, the resultant pixels are big enough to discern, much like 1080p on a 27" monitor. But 970 SLI should be more than enough to run 4K, as long as you pay attention to VRAM constraints.

Howling · 18 Oct 2015 at 14:55

Rather you than me running on a pair of 970s. But to the question, mine handles scaling pretty well. Before I got the Furys I'd have to run some games at 1440 and it didn't look bad by any means, though I've heard some others say theirs looked awful, so I guess it varies by model. I'm running the Samsung U28D590

Captain · 18 Oct 2015 at 17:40

Looks naff on a 28" 4K screen.

Combat Fighter · 18 Oct 2015 at 21:40

1440p would be better than 1080p.

I've tried that on a 4k monitor (BF4) that I was testing and it looked OK to me. I found it gives it a kinda AA effect so you did not need any in game AA to compensate.

Obviously native res looked better though.

elrasho · 20 Oct 2015 at 18:00

OP get this AOC 1440P monitor

Im going down the same path as you and getting this monitor now and then another 970 and PSU in the new year.

RatmanGB · 20 Oct 2015 at 18:45

Taking into account the replies, have to agree that 1440p looks like the best option! Thanks!

Quartz · 20 Oct 2015 at 19:02

I would suggest a 21:9 3440x1440 monitor.

regi · 20 Oct 2015 at 19:13

For purely gaming 1440p is probably still the best option, although I find for other uses eg programming 4K is very useful.

ukxenon · 20 Oct 2015 at 20:41

1140 is the spot till cards come out what can handle the grunt so to speak

TheCleaner · 21 Oct 2015 at 09:28

Combat Fighter said:
1440p would be better than 1080p.

I've tried that on a 4k monitor (BF4) that I was testing and it looked OK to me. I found it gives it a kinda AA effect so you did not need any in game AA to compensate.

Obviously native res looked better though.

I find that pretty strange as 1440p on a 3840x2160 doesn't physically scale anywhere near as neatly as 1920x1080, as the OP says, its a 2x2pixel grid to 1 1080 pixel. Although its a lower res (the whole idea being to increase gaming FPS), if the screen size is the same, eg. a FHD vs UHD@FHD 15" laptop monitor, the 2x2 block of pixels on the UHD screen should be the exact same size as the single pixels on the native FHD screen.

PCM2 · 21 Oct 2015 at 09:35

TheCleaner said:
I find that pretty strange as 1440p on a 3840x2160 doesn't physically scale anywhere near as neatly as 1920x1080, as the OP says, its a 2x2pixel grid to 1 1080 pixel. Although its a lower res (the whole idea being to increase gaming FPS), if the screen size is the same, eg. a FHD vs UHD@FHD 15" laptop monitor, the 2x2 block of pixels on the UHD screen should be the exact same size as the single pixels on the native FHD screen.

The interpolation process used by most '4K' monitors isn't as perfect as that. As such 1920 x 1080 does not scale 'more cleanly' than 2560 x 1440.