4K users feedback

uksoldierboy · 4 Dec 2015 at 20:16

Dicehunter said:
Don't expect a world of difference going from 1440P to 4K.

Most of the time you'll be hard pressed to notice the difference from 1440P to 4K but 1 thing is definitely noticeable, The performance impact.

I have a 4K and 1440P monitor and I only do my gaming on the 1440P monitor as I honestly can't see that much of a difference between the 2.

+1

I used a 4K 60hz AOC panel for a while, while things looked great, when i dropped down to my 1440P 144hz freesync panel i was blown away, for me, the increase from 60hz to 144hz was far better than the extra pixels, in fact i struggled to tell the difference considering the performance impact.

i'm much happier gaming now than i was at 4k.

Each to their own though.

Born_2_Kill_83 · 4 Dec 2015 at 20:40

Dropped from 4k to 1440 and I could see the difference straight away it's not as nice as 4k not close, however the extra hz, 21:9 and ips colours made it a worth while switch. Will go 4k 120hz 21:9 asap.

Howling · 4 Dec 2015 at 21:52

Born_2_Kill_83 said:
Dropped from 4k to 1440 and I could see the difference straight away it's not as nice as 4k not close, however the extra hz, 21:9 and ips colours made it a worth while switch. Will go 4k 120hz 21:9 asap.

4k 21:9? The hell kind of ****ed up resolution would that be? ;D You mean 5040x2160 fella. And yeah - that'd be my next upgrade too ^_^

GAM8LE · 4 Dec 2015 at 21:58

4k here on an Asus PB287Q. Love it!!

For some games though I need to play at 1440p due my 980ti not being able to cope at 4k, but its still brilliant.

For non gaming, I keep it at 4k with 100% scaling and it is amazing to work within

Kaapstad · 4 Dec 2015 at 23:58

TNA said:
Well let us hope multi gpu improves by then. In the mean time, maybe it is wise I just stick with what I got. I have always been happy with 60hz I do not play online fps games. But if I go 144hz now, I may spoil being able to fully enjoy 60hz like I do now. This will make going back to 4k harder.

4k at 60hz should be a piece of cake for big pascal, hell even small pascal may do a decent job until big pascal is out.

What do you personally prefer, 4K 60Hz or 1440p 144Hz?

I have never used 144hz 1440p but having said that it would not matter as I always go for sharpness in any images on any format.

cadmunkey · 5 Dec 2015 at 00:47

Gone from a 28" 4k monitor to a 40" one this week and it's so much better. You definitely need the bigger screen for 4k gaming.

TNA · 5 Dec 2015 at 09:20

cadmunkey said:
Gone from a 28" 4k monitor to a 40" one this week and it's so much better. You definitely need the bigger screen for 4k gaming.

The thing is, as I understand it, the bigger the screen, the ppi goes down. 40" 4k would be very similar ppi to 27" 1440p. Image detail would look very similar as a result. But I can imagine the bigger screen looking more impressive.

I do think 40" as a monitor is too big. I would have to keep moving my head. Lol. 32" and 4k as I mentioned earlier would be perfect.

Kaapstad said:
I have never used 144hz 1440p but having said that it would not matter as I always go for sharpness in any images on any format.

Interesting to see good old kaaps not tried 144hz. I would have imaged you had even a 165hz monitor. Do you find games being any better having extra frames output even though you won't need more than 60? Usually after 50fps games feels smooth enough for me. I am even happy to play some games at 30fps.

Kaapstad · 5 Dec 2015 at 10:23

TNA said:
Interesting to see good old kaaps not tried 144hz. I would have imaged you had even a 165hz monitor. Do you find games being any better having extra frames output even though you won't need more than 60? Usually after 50fps games feels smooth enough for me. I am even happy to play some games at 30fps.

I am quite happy with 60fps as long as the image is sharp.

straxusii · 5 Dec 2015 at 10:48

Titan X here, I get 40-60 fps in gta5, w3, fo4 generally high/ultra settings. XSync is a must for 4k

Bear in mind any game not supporting sli will mean you will have to drop the settings.

cadmunkey · 5 Dec 2015 at 10:58

TNA said:
I do think 40" as a monitor is too big. I would have to keep moving my head.

Not true at all, I thought the same but you just don't do it. Got the 40 as there just isn't any decent 32" monitors out yet and Im very glad I did.

TNA · 5 Dec 2015 at 11:12

cadmunkey said:
Not true at all, I thought the same but you just don't do it. Got the 40 as there just isn't any decent 32" monitors out yet and Im very glad I did.

So you saying you don't have to keep moving your head around a lot? You must be sitting back a lot. I like to be close to my monitor and that would never work with 40".

Also there is a very decent 4K 32" monitor. The Dell UP3216Q.

Not knocking what you got as they seem good, but pretty sure the Dell is better. That is my opinion anyway

cadmunkey · 5 Dec 2015 at 11:47

TNA said:
So you saying you don't have to keep moving your head around a lot? You must be sitting back a lot.

Nope, your eyesight ok?

Quartz · 5 Dec 2015 at 12:05

smogsy said:
Tempted to move from a ROG SWift to 4K gsync

As long as you don't become VRAM-limited or turn on Hairworks in The Witcher, your 980s are more than enough. I ran my 4K monitor off a single 780 Ti for a year and still ran Tomb Raider at 4K at a mixture of medium and high settings.

MooMoo444 · 5 Dec 2015 at 12:07

4k is hard to see a major difference if you have a small panel. 4k is best reserved for 30 or higher imo.

TNA · 5 Dec 2015 at 12:09

cadmunkey said:
Nope, your eyesight ok?

My eye sight is fine. Each to their own I suppose

straxusii · 5 Dec 2015 at 12:16

MooMoo444 said:
4k is hard to see a major difference if you have a small panel. 4k is best reserved for 30 or higher imo.

It all depends on distance from the panel, my head is under 2 foot away from my 28 inch monitor and that feels fine, definitely couldn't have a bigger panel at that viewing distance.

Shiari · 5 Dec 2015 at 12:28

straxusii said:
It all depends on distance from the panel, my head is under 2 foot away from my 28 inch monitor and that feels fine, definitely couldn't have a bigger panel at that viewing distance.

Same, sitting anywhere between 60 to 80cm from my 27", I may already miss an enemy at the edge of the screen.

TNA · 5 Dec 2015 at 13:23

straxusii said:
It all depends on distance from the panel, my head is under 2 foot away from my 28 inch monitor and that feels fine, definitely couldn't have a bigger panel at that viewing distance.

Shiari said:
Same, sitting anywhere between 60 to 80cm from my 27", I may already miss an enemy at the edge of the screen.

Exactly. Imagine a 40" screen sitting at that distance. lol.

Maybe we all have eye sight issues

crinkleshoes · 5 Dec 2015 at 14:37

TNA said:
The thing is, as I understand it, the bigger the screen, the ppi goes down. 40" 4k would be very similar ppi to 27" 1440p. Image detail would look very similar as a result. But I can imagine the bigger screen looking more impressive.

I do think 40" as a monitor is too big. I would have to keep moving my head. Lol. 32" and 4k as I mentioned earlier would be perfect.

Exactly... I don't see any IQ/density/clarity/resolution benefit from using a 40" 4k screen.

Like I've said before... it's like sticking 4x 20" 1080p monitors together which isn't all that special.

As you mention, it's also very similar to the PPI of a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and coming from that size/resolution, I wanted an improvement - not just more real estate... if I wanted more real estate at the same size, I could have just bought another 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

cadmunkey said:
Not true at all, I thought the same but you just don't do it. Got the 40 as there just isn't any decent 32" monitors out yet and Im very glad I did.

You're mistaken... the BenQ is a good monitor, the Samsung and Dell are both exception monitors... and they're cheaper than a premium ultrawide.

I bought the dell because the image quality just slightly edged it out for me as being a bit better than the samsung (contrast ratio mostly).

The pixel size of 31.5/32" 4k is absolutely perfect for 100% scaling at normal desktop viewing distances... ie, 2-3 feet.

TNA said:
So you saying you don't have to keep moving your head around a lot? You must be sitting back a lot. I like to be close to my monitor and that would never work with 40".

Also there is a very decent 4K 32" monitor. The Dell UP3216Q.

Not knocking what you got as they seem good, but pretty sure the Dell is better. That is my opinion anyway

32" is the right size for that for me too... with a 40", I would be moving my head around a lot... any bigger than 32 at my viewing distance would be too big and might aswell just have a second monitor.

Quartz · 5 Dec 2015 at 16:34

MooMoo444 said:
4k is hard to see a major difference if you have a small panel.

I've got to disagree. The image quality is significantly better.