4k a sensible option with today's GPUs

bakes0310

bakes0310

bakes0310

Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2004
Posts
13,625
I have a 1080 graphics card that seems to compliment my lg superwide 34". I saw the rather nice LG 43UD79-B 43" on ocuk.
My questions is will the sheer size of it make the immersion amazing just like a superwide does?
Can a 1080 graphics card actually handle 4k yet for your demanding games at max or will I have to tweak settings?
Is it true that anti alising doesn't need to be hardly on as the 4k practically gets rid of jaggy edges?
 
Last edited:
AA isn't needed, thus deeming most of the 4k benchmarks redundant as they seem to insist on 4x AA I would say a 1080 is a nice fit
 
Honestly if you are playing games then it would be far wiser to opt for a 1440P 144Hz panel over 4K, The visual quality difference between 1440P and 4K is minuscule.
 
DONOHUE07 said:
Minuscule??? Really?
Click to expand...

Yep, Have a 1440P and 4K monitor right infront of me, The graphical difference between 1440P and 4K is tiny, Not worth the performance needed for 4K.

I should say more accurately, The performance required for the jump from 1440P to 4K doesn't mirror the visual upgrade you get IMO.
 
Last edited:
Going from an X34 to a 43" will net you greater immersion, but you WILL undoubtedly suffer FPS loss and the lack of G-Sync will also be noticeable. Personally, as an X34 owner myself, I do see the appeal of a 43" 4K screen, but the GPU horsepower to drive it just isn't there yet, certainly not for the demanding games anyway, plus the lack of adaptive sync is the killer blow. I'm sure that will change in the future though. My next upgrade won't be until 40"+, 120+Hz OLED or LCD w/HDR and G-Sync/Freesync. I may be waiting a while though lol! ;)
 
Wise idea. The difference isn't really that noticeable at all. 1440p is a sweet spot. The next big thing which is going to make an actual difference is HDR monitors. Very very noticeable difference there. By then Volta should have a street date and 4k and HDR would be used in the same sentence. Right now, I'd stick with my 34' widescreen.
 
Dicehunter said:
No, I have 20/20 vision, I'm just being realistic, 4K is nice and all but the performance needed doesn't match the visual quality you get.
Click to expand...
I see, so you do see the better sharper graphics, you just prefer the higher fps. Should have just said that then, no point being in denial :p

Even in a simple game like FIFA 17 I see a big difference. The grass looks so much more real instead of blurry in comparison to 1440p :)
 
Once again, it is so pointless just saying 4k is better than 1440 or that there is no noticeable difference without stating the screen size of said displays.... It is the PPI and viewing distance that people need to talk about! :p

When sitting at the appropriate distances, a 40" 4k display will look the same as a 34/27" 1440 screen where as take a 27" 4k display, it will look a lot better for clarity/sharpness.

Moving from a 34" 1440 to a 43" 4k display would be a downgrade for PPI.... However, chances are you would be sitting a lot further back so the perception of greater sharpness/clarity could be better....


But yes, I've found the same too, quite a few games don't have proper support for resolutions higher than even 1920x1080 (no surprise considering consoles games are all 1080, heck some can't even achieve 1080 and then most of the so called 4K titles are just upscaled from 1080 i.e. not native 4k :/)

Legend said:
Going from an X34 to a 43" will net you greater immersion, but you WILL undoubtedly suffer FPS loss and the lack of G-Sync will also be noticeable. Personally, as an X34 owner myself, I do see the appeal of a 43" 4K screen, but the GPU horsepower to drive it just isn't there yet, certainly not for the demanding games anyway, plus the lack of adaptive sync is the killer blow. I'm sure that will change in the future though. My next upgrade won't be until 40"+, 120+Hz OLED or LCD w/HDR and G-Sync/Freesync. I may be waiting a while though lol! ;)
Click to expand...

Unless you plan on running a 21.9 custom resolution, I would still say that 21.9 will provide far greater immersion. I've tried gaming on a 16.9 50" 4k TV and still prefer even my "small" 29" 21.9 screen for games in terms of "immersion" especially for FPS that have no FOV slider.
 
Last edited:
TNA said:
I see, so you do see the better sharper graphics, you just prefer the higher fps. Should have just said that then, no point being in denial :p

Even in a simple game like FIFA 17 I see a big difference. The grass looks so much more real instead of blurry in comparison to 1440p :)
Click to expand...

I see a difference but it's a small difference, No denial just being realistic about a monitor.
 
Nice post nexus about 4k thanks. So I guess getting a huge 43" might not be better if your not sitting far enough. Am I correct in saying 32" is generally the sweet spot for 4k monitors as it's just right. Still gonna stick to super wide as it's great.
 
Last edited:
Dicehunter said:
I see a difference but it's a small difference, No denial just being realistic about a monitor.
Click to expand...
This for depends on which game you play. Some seem to look much better in 4K than other. Say Witcher 3, it is not a small difference. I even remember doing a comparison on Witcher 2 and the difference in say Geralts face was very easy to spot. 1440p looked blocky in comparison.

People pay a lot of money for GPU's just so they can play games on ultra instead one setting lower (very high), yet there is much smaller difference between those settings than there is going from 1440p to 2160p. But people will drop hundreds of pounds extra for a higher tier GPU to get that extra performance just so they can keep everything on Ultra.

In the next few years the gap will become much bigger also as games are designed with 4K in mind.


bakes0310 said:
Nice post nexus about 4k thanks. So I guess getting a huge 43" might not be better if your not sitting far enough. Am I correct in saying 32" is generally the sweet spot for 4k monitors as it's just right. Still gonna stick to super wide as it's great.
Click to expand...

It is sweet spot if you must have windows scaling at 100%. But as someone who has had a 4K monitor since 2014, windows scaling has improved a lot. I am on a 27" monitor and have windows scaling on 200%. Apart from a hand full of programs, everything I use is supported and looks excellent and things will only continue to improve. Games look better at on 27" monitor vs 32" also due to much higher PPI.
 
As above really.

If you are wanting the sharpness/clarity benefit of 4k i.e. a higher PPI and like to sit rather close to the display then 27" is the one to go for. 32" 4k is still great though especially since you will/should be viewing it from further back than a 27" display.
 
I love my 40 inch 4k monitor. I find it extremely immersive and the detail is just incredible.

I just can't see myself using a 27 inch screen or smaller as I would simply miss being able to open 3 windows on one screen and still be able to see everything clearly. I hate using dual screens since the bezel is annoying.

Although it is a lot of fun gaming on a big 4k screen sometimes I am tempted to purchase a 27 inch 1440p 144hz monitor to try out high FPS gaming and the PPI would be the same as the 40 inch 4k monitor. I wouldn't leave it connected all the time though and only switch it on for when I want to play games that are more enjoyable with more than 60 FPS (shooting games for example).

At least then I will have the best of both worlds!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom