4K and refresh rates

Soldato
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
12,890
I've noticed that with 4K monitors they are limited to 60hz, that got me thinking even with the next wave of DX12 GPUs there isn't much point in a 4K monitor having anymore than a 60hz refresh rate as its going to take a serious PC to take advantage of it

My point is, I currently have a 1080p 120hz monitor, I can get a 4k monitor for around £300, sell my current monitor and see what 4k is all about but what I'm concerned about is if I'll regret the 4k visuals and wish I had the higher refresh rates of a 1080p or even 1440p screen on games like BF4, has anyone else made a similar move and regretted or not regretted it?
 
Chris, before you move you need to realise that 4k takes some *serious* graphical horsepower to run on max details etc (4 times the pixels of 1080p). If you compromise then you'll obviously be able to get by with a more modest card :)
 
Hi mate, I have a 290x at the mo and plan to change it when the new cards come out next year

Upgrade itch is getting the best of me and really fancy a new monitor but struggling with what to go for
 
Well that's the minimum I'd recommend tbh, and should be able to generally push Medium settings @4k (with a few at High) :)

(had a Philips 4k with a pair of Ti's ;))
 
I've noticed that with 4K monitors they are limited to 60hz, that got me thinking even with the next wave of DX12 GPUs there isn't much point in a 4K monitor having anymore than a 60hz refresh rate as its going to take a serious PC to take advantage of it

My point is, I currently have a 1080p 120hz monitor, I can get a 4k monitor for around £300, sell my current monitor and see what 4k is all about but what I'm concerned about is if I'll regret the 4k visuals and wish I had the higher refresh rates of a 1080p or even 1440p screen on games like BF4, has anyone else made a similar move and regretted or not regretted it?

if you are used to having a high refresh monitor, I think you'll regret going back to 60hz, having tried 4K@60hz and 1440@144hz side by side, that latter was a clear winner for me as the difference between 1440 and 4K is pretty minimal bu the difference between 60hz and 120/144hz is huge
 
Well that's the minimum I'd recommend tbh, and should be able to generally push Medium settings @4k (with a few at High) :)

(had a Philips 4k with a pair of Ti's ;))

When you say generally you really should add that you're talking about the latest games mainly, or at least the most demanding .

There are plenty of games that a 290X could max out at UHD with good frames.
 
I'm using a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and a 40" 4k as a monitor...the 2560x1440 is the better res. Technically they should both show icons and text at exactly the same size but i need to stand much further way to see the 40" screen, making the icons and text too small.
 
Did youget rid of the Phillips in favour of the LG34?

I swapped the Philips for a RoG Swift as I wanted to try Gsync and THEN I miss a bit of real estate and a good deal cropped up on the Lg and I got it. Lovely lovely monitor but in hindsight I should have kept the Philips for a dual-screen setup :)
 
I think I'm going to stick with 1440p and 120hz+

I've upped my budget to £400 so I just need to be patient and see if the BenQ comes back down in price, thanks for the comments
 
You would be better off waiting 6 months and see what new monitors are coming out from ASUS etc and then make a decision. High end Pascal will be getting closer too.
 
I can actually run BF4 with 3840x2160p textures ultra with 16X af and everything else in game low or lowest. It looks great, Much clearer and sharper and i average around 90fps on my 980. A Ti would do the same in some games obviously not Crysis/Syndicate but i would guess most online games for sure.
 
To run a 4k monitor faster than 60hz you'll need the hardware makers to start supporting connections better than Displayport 1.2a, so far none have been released.
 
Back
Top Bottom