4k a sensible option with today's GPUs

[PCM2]

Yes Rossuk, you're quite right with respect to pixel density. And it's something users often forget. On a '4K' UHD monitor that's ~40", the pixel density is similar to a 27" 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) screen. So you don't gain advantage in terms of the level of detail or clarity on the game, just that it's displayed on a larger screen and takes a fair bit more GPU horsepower to run at decent frame rates. And of course, currently, you're limited to 60Hz rather than 144Hz with that route.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Games are also different than films/tv visual wise in my opinion, with games you either have AA or don't for the jaggies.. i don't think that's an issue with films. Like with games you might get things that suffer more from obvious aliasing like railings etc, with film it is just all the same pretty much. So games (probably?) benefit more from higher resolutions than pre rendered films would, maybe that's why I've seen people say 1080p Blu rays look good on a 4K telly? Also like others have said the sitting distance matters, with TV at normal sitting distance i guess you could go quite large with a 4K display, i think i read somewhere that 65" was the recommended largest size. Hell even my 65" 1080p TV still looks quite sharp to me and i usually sit around 8+ feet from it.

I just saw a video on the newer Dell 8K monitor as well where the guy games on it, basically saying it's pointless over 4K visually. But again size/distance comes into play. Overall it looks like 4K will probably be standard for a long time, like Richard (Digital Foundry) recently said, you would need a huge screen to benefit from 8K. In fact i don't even see how they will get people to buy 8K TV's if 4K is already at the point where more isn't needed? I genuinely wonder.

Personally though I'm happy at 1440p 165hz currently and I've only had it a little while, as a couple of others have said the responsiveness is much better in any game really with high hz, on the controls and on the eyes. I'll go 4K 144hz when the performance is there in a single GPU and prices aren't sky high.

4K 60hz is doable but you can't hit a constant solid 60 fps in demanding games.

 

[DONOHUE07]

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.

What size is your 4k monitor though?

 

[Jim99]

I've switched from 28" 4K to 27" G-Sync, and on balance I do prefer the latter for gaming. The detail was better on the 4K, but not huge, and I think 144Hz and G-Sync just makes the bigger overall difference.

In the long-run I plan to run games on 27" G-Sync as a main monitor, and have the 4K alongside for desktop, but will need to switch something on the graphics side as I only have on DP.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

I've switched from 28" 4K to 27" G-Sync, and on balance I do prefer the latter for gaming. The detail was better on the 4K, but not huge, and I think 144Hz and G-Sync just makes the bigger overall difference.

In the long-run I plan to run games on 27" G-Sync as a main monitor, and have the 4K alongside for desktop, but will need to switch something on the graphics side as I only have on DP.

How much different did it look to your eyes? Like stuff in the distance a bit clearer, or everything clearer overall on the screen vs 1440p? But yes i have noticed in benchmarks that there is a large difference in frame rates, especially minimums which can dip quite low at 4K.

 

[Jim99]

How much different did it look to your eyes? Like stuff in the distance a bit clearer, or everything clearer overall on the screen vs 1440p? But yes i have noticed in benchmarks that there is a large difference in frame rates, especially minimums which can dip quite low at 4K.

More that everything was clearer, and seemed more vivid. I had expected to see things in the distance more clearly, and perhaps they were, but it wasn't obvious to me. I think the difference over 1080p is far more pronounced though, for both 1440p/2160p than it is for 2160p over 1440p.

Problem is all of this is so perceptive.

 

[mahius]

If getting 4k, at the very least get something big. Otherwise things can be tiny unless you know to use the scaling option in Windows for some things. Other than that, the only GPU that can properly run 4k at this time is a 1080ti (or Titan XP if one cares little for £££). However, it doesn't mean you can't run games at lower resolutions and you could see a 4k monitor purchase now as a future-proof purchase, for when 4k GPUs become more common.

The 4k itself depends on what game you play. I've noticed that games like Skyrim and Planetside 2 look a noticeably better on 1440p compared to 1080p for example. And buying now, you'd be missing out on high-refresh rate. Best option is to probably wait till there's a ton more options of 4k144Hz monitors around. Once again, you get the option of playing at lower resolutions, but then making use of that higher refresh rate cap, or playing at 4k and around 60fps.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

If getting 4k, at the very least get something big. Otherwise things can be tiny unless you know to use the scaling option in Windows for some things. Other than that, the only GPU that can properly run 4k at this time is a 1080ti (or Titan XP if one cares little for £££). However, it doesn't mean you can't run games at lower resolutions and you could see a 4k monitor purchase now as a future-proof purchase, for when 4k GPUs become more common.

The 4k itself depends on what game you play. I've noticed that games like Skyrim and Planetside 2 look a noticeably better on 1440p compared to 1080p for example. And buying now, you'd be missing out on high-refresh rate. Best option is to probably wait till there's a ton more options of 4k144Hz monitors around. Once again, you get the option of playing at lower resolutions, but then making use of that higher refresh rate cap, or playing at 4k and around 60fps.

Native res is always best though because there's no perfect scaling, and you might be better staying put with what you have, rather than going 4K and running at a lower res because screens will be better/cheaper by the time you intend to run it full whack. Could switch between depending on game i guess.

But yeah the higher hz makes a massive difference even for non competitive gaming IMO, so i won't be going back to 60hz. The first 4K 144hz screen will also cost a fortune when it comes out, happy with 1440p @ 24" (which has pretty nice pixel density, basically same as a 34" 4K screen) for the next year or 2 at least personally. By then that 4K high hz screen should have some good competition too and single GPU's should handle 4K much better regarding minimum fps.