4k Monitor or 2K?

Associate
Joined
12 Nov 2012
Posts
22
As the title suggests, I'm buying a new system and can't decide on what Monitor to go for.

System Specs:

i5 6600k Skylake CPU
Asus GTX 980Ti STRIX DC3 NVIDIA Gaming Graphics Card 6GB
16GB Corsair RAM
MSI Z170A KRAIT SLi/CrossFire GAMING Skylake ATX Motheboard

That's it really now I need to decide which Monitor I need as I can't find a clear answer. I'm hoping that PC can run 4k decently but I've heard on a 4k Monitor you can't really go back to 1080p properly? I don't know I'm here for your expertise.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/acer...descreen-led-monitor-black-red-mo-097-ac.html

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...n-led-slim-bezel-monitor-black-mo-070-as.html
 
Personally I'd go for a 1440p monitor, much sharper than 1080P but not going to be as he's to drive as 4K will be over time.

In reality 4K is going to have you wanting for a second 980Ti or a GPU upgrade within a year.
 
1440p.

Even with an SLI 980Ti setup, you're not going to be running 4K at extremely high frame rates all the time at higher settings (I'm certainly not at 3440x1440, a lower resolution than 4K).

At that price, I'd be going for an XB271HU rather than anything with a TN panel. It's only £50 more than the PG278Q.
 
Last edited:
Usually the GPU can upscale or downscale the source, 4k mkv for example, to your monitor resolution. I did have a 40" UHD monitor which had a great internal scaler so I used that a lot to play with resolutions such as a 21:9 1440p borderless window on the UHD monitor.

So now I have a 34" 1440p monitor which is ~5 million (UHD = 8m) pixels which a single 980 Ti is able to drive well in games.
 
If you are happy with smooth frame rates and not driven by the need for 60+ then there are many games which are perfectly playable at 3840X2160 on high or very high settings with the 980Ti. I have found my monitor looks great at 1440p so if a game is tough on '4K' then you can drop down, however if you go 1440p then you cannot play at 4K. Why not have both. If on the other hand you prefer 60fps on max settings then 2X 980Ti or wait for the next big upgrade. I feel once you have played at '4K' there is no going back. :D
 
Just changed from 4k 40" to 34" UW (3440 x 1440). IMHO this is the sweetspot; 4k is just too demanding, and even though you can drop to 1440p on your 4k monitor, you'll really notice the difference (depends on monitor size).

Even wiith a 980Ti I wouldn't go for 4k right now. Depends what you want though - I've just experienced Gsync and high refresh rate gaming, and seriously, it's a world away from 60fps V-sync, especially in FPS.
 
Yeah if you like turning stuff down a lot it can. The 6GB of Vram is also right on the limit for 4k, most AAA games already are using over this.
Two Titan X's is what you need if you want 4k at 60FPS, if not your going to want a gsync monitor to help with them frames in the 30/40 fps area.
 
Yeah if you like turning stuff down a lot it can. The 6GB of Vram is also right on the limit for 4k, most AAA games already are using over this.
Two Titan X's is what you need if you want 4k at 60FPS, if not your going to want a gsync monitor to help with them frames in the 30/40 fps area.

Tbf, Gsync helps a LOT with 4k. Pretty much a requirement tbh!
 
1440p.

28" is too small for 4k anyway IMO and your 980Ti won't be able to run it with higher settings.

1440p just makes complete sense at that screen size.

Incidentally '2k' is more like 2048 x 1024
 
3440x1440 or 2560x1440 is a good compromise and a 34" (21:9) or 27/28" (16:9) screen doesn't require any scaling under windows. The 40" UHD monitor I had was also the perfect DPi for zero scaling in Windows but it was quite imposing.

As for fps of course UHD is limited to 60 currently and at 3440 I tend to get 60-90 fps where a 2560 would be in the 100s more often.
 
^^ occasionally games at 3440x1440 with a single 980Ti also fall below 40-50 fps and g-sync also helps to smooth those little dips out.
 
Back
Top Bottom