Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
I was seriously considering 4K 24" for a while... I just wanted to stick to 1:1 scaling while scaling options, code and graphics are still quite poor.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
4K users feedback
- Thread starter smogsy
- Start date
well the new bunch of acer monitors got me thinking, i wonder if any other manufacturer will release a 27-30" 4K gsync.
wondering if it would be worth waiting, currently pre-orders the new Swifts 4K, im not bothered about 60hz ive been testing 60hz it wouldnt bother me to much & got little chance of 120fps at 4K atm
i don't want an acer with all the quality issues i'm hearing
but benq/Dell could release a 4K 30" with gsync soon, downside is could not run 3. (as they looked different to my swift.
whats your thoughts?
wondering if it would be worth waiting, currently pre-orders the new Swifts 4K, im not bothered about 60hz ive been testing 60hz it wouldnt bother me to much & got little chance of 120fps at 4K atm
i don't want an acer with all the quality issues i'm hearing
but benq/Dell could release a 4K 30" with gsync soon, downside is could not run 3. (as they looked different to my swift.
whats your thoughts?
I considered 4K, though 60Hz monitors really puts me off.
The difference between 60hz and 144hz is just immense.
Perhaps if you're not playing competitive games, 60hz is ok, though even in relaxed games such as Witcher 3, the faster refresh rate really can be noticed.
1440p @ 144HZ is the sweet spot atm, imo
The difference between 60hz and 144hz is just immense.
Perhaps if you're not playing competitive games, 60hz is ok, though even in relaxed games such as Witcher 3, the faster refresh rate really can be noticed.
1440p @ 144HZ is the sweet spot atm, imo
I considered 4K, though 60Hz monitors really puts me off.
The difference between 60hz and 144hz is just immense.
Perhaps if you're not playing competitive games, 60hz is ok, though even in relaxed games such as Witcher 3, the faster refresh rate really can be noticed.
1440p @ 144HZ is the sweet spot atm, imo
see i swapped back from 144hz to 60hz for testing & their not much difference... feels a little smoother but not ground breaking.
also considered 3440x1400 but ive had 2560x1080 and annoyanbce when games dont support it is very off putting.
Been doing some reading and it does appear people who bang on about 144hz pretty much all enjoy fps games. As I will not be playing any online games, I am thinking going to 144hz may end up being a negative thing for me as I will be dropping from 4K to do it.
Was close to picking up an acer 1440p 144hz monitor, but so many people having issues with poor backlight bleed and their customer service seems horrid. Now I am left thinking I may as well wait another year and get a new 4K monitor direct from Dell. By then they will have at least nice freesync one that is 32" and a little cheaper.
Great thing about dell is, if I have a dead pixel or backlight bleed, no problem, a replacement will be at my door the next day and I don't need to run through loops to make it happen. Have had 6 dell monitors over the years and they are second to none when it comes to customer service.
so i tested 4K using DSR. (ok think it was 3460x2036) had to turn off off gsync & SLI for it to work. but
Text,
On Steam overlays Easily to read slighty small but not much different than than i had before on my 1600p 30"
Remember this is a single 980
Rocket League Constant 60FPS Maxed
Bioshock Inifite 45-60fps Maxed
Witcher 3. Ultra 22fps. High 32fps,
WOW 4K Maxed (No AA) 45-60FPS
we all know Witcher is not going to get 60fps 4K maxed on any single gpu. Dont Think even 2 could do it. Maybe 3 depending on scaling.
But even if a get an extra 22fps, thats 54fps on Witcher 4K high, not somthing thats great joy to me but maybe some Medium may help.
Is 4K hand to run, yes. Are light games ok?, appears so.
from this, the ONLY things im worried about is:
ASUS PG27AQ quality issues at launch
How more often i going to HAVE to upgrade my cards
going to have to be constantly using SLI, Profile issues.
Text,
On Steam overlays Easily to read slighty small but not much different than than i had before on my 1600p 30"
Remember this is a single 980
Rocket League Constant 60FPS Maxed
Bioshock Inifite 45-60fps Maxed
Witcher 3. Ultra 22fps. High 32fps,
WOW 4K Maxed (No AA) 45-60FPS
we all know Witcher is not going to get 60fps 4K maxed on any single gpu. Dont Think even 2 could do it. Maybe 3 depending on scaling.
But even if a get an extra 22fps, thats 54fps on Witcher 4K high, not somthing thats great joy to me but maybe some Medium may help.
Is 4K hand to run, yes. Are light games ok?, appears so.
from this, the ONLY things im worried about is:
ASUS PG27AQ quality issues at launch
How more often i going to HAVE to upgrade my cards
going to have to be constantly using SLI, Profile issues.
Last edited:
I have a 27" 1440p and a 28" 4k screen pushed by 290s in CF
Performance in the top end games isnt amazing but generally quite playable (40-50fps with low AA levels) when crossfire works (not too often on newer games -.- )
I think the big time for 4k and other such big resolutions is certainly on the next gen pascal and AMD equivalent cards.
While i don't regret for a second buying my 4k screen, If i was purchasing today id be getting a 34" 1440p ultrawide.
That said, I'd really hate to lose the 2160 vertical res so i guess ive got to wait for 5040x2160 21:9 ultra wides to come around (if that ever happens)
Performance in the top end games isnt amazing but generally quite playable (40-50fps with low AA levels) when crossfire works (not too often on newer games -.- )
I think the big time for 4k and other such big resolutions is certainly on the next gen pascal and AMD equivalent cards.
While i don't regret for a second buying my 4k screen, If i was purchasing today id be getting a 34" 1440p ultrawide.
That said, I'd really hate to lose the 2160 vertical res so i guess ive got to wait for 5040x2160 21:9 ultra wides to come around (if that ever happens)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,192
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
And the winner of the most ridiculous comparison goes to.....
How so?
It is EXACTLY the same as 4 20" 1080p monitors stuck together without a bezel
That's hardly ridculous...
How so?
It is EXACTLY the same as 4 20" 1080p monitors stuck together without a bezel
That's hardly ridculous...
No its not!
That would just be a larger sized monitor but still at 1080p resolution!
You must think stacking 4 40" HD TV's would give you an 80" 4k telly???
Last edited:
No its not!
That would just be a larger sized monitor but still at 1080p resolution!
You must think stacking 4 40" HD TV's would give you an 80" 4k telly???
Um if you have 4x 1920x1080 images then assuming you spanned the image over all of them that does make the equivalent of 1x 38480x2160 image.
What he said was...
1080p resolution no matter what the size is not the same as 2160p resolution!
What he was saying is that 1080p resolution in a bigger size is comparable to 2160p resolution in that same size...
That's simply not true...
Put a 60" 4k TV next to a 60" 1080p TV... The difference in picture quality is enormous...
So how does stacking 4 smaller 30" 1080p resolution TV's together to make a 60" size TV... make it have the quality of a single 60" 4k native resolution TV sat next to it?
If your talking about creating a native resolution... Then you wouldn't need to mention multiplying using physical monitor sizing... You just talk about pixel density
What would more accurate would be to take 4 x 40" 1080p monitors... Sticking them together... Then shrinking them all back down into 1 x 40" monitor!
Then you would have condensed the pixels into a 4k resolution on a single 40" monitor...
And then picture quality would be greatly improved!
Thus rendering his thoughts that "he doesn't see any IQ/density/clarity/resolution benefit"... ridiculous
As silly as standing in front of a 40" 4k monitor and 40" 1080p monitor and saying they look the same in image quality!
1080p resolution no matter what the size is not the same as 2160p resolution!
What he was saying is that 1080p resolution in a bigger size is comparable to 2160p resolution in that same size...
That's simply not true...
Put a 60" 4k TV next to a 60" 1080p TV... The difference in picture quality is enormous...
So how does stacking 4 smaller 30" 1080p resolution TV's together to make a 60" size TV... make it have the quality of a single 60" 4k native resolution TV sat next to it?
If your talking about creating a native resolution... Then you wouldn't need to mention multiplying using physical monitor sizing... You just talk about pixel density
What would more accurate would be to take 4 x 40" 1080p monitors... Sticking them together... Then shrinking them all back down into 1 x 40" monitor!
Then you would have condensed the pixels into a 4k resolution on a single 40" monitor...
And then picture quality would be greatly improved!
Thus rendering his thoughts that "he doesn't see any IQ/density/clarity/resolution benefit"... ridiculous
As silly as standing in front of a 40" 4k monitor and 40" 1080p monitor and saying they look the same in image quality!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 2,895
- Location
- London
Not experienced 4K yet myself, gaming @1440p on a TX
But I'm gonna wait until pascal and next years monitors
But I'm gonna wait until pascal and next years monitors
What he said was...
1080p resolution no matter what the size is not the same as 2160p resolution!
What he was saying is that 1080p resolution in a bigger size is comparable to 2160p resolution in that same size...
That's simply not true...
Put a 60" 4k TV next to a 60" 1080p TV... The difference in picture quality is enormous...
So how does stacking 4 smaller 30" 1080p resolution TV's together to make a 60" size TV... make it have the quality of a single 60" 4k native resolution TV sat next to it?
If your talking about creating a native resolution... Then you wouldn't need to mention multiplying using physical monitor sizing... You just talk about pixel density
What would more accurate would be to take 4 x 40" 1080p monitors... Sticking them together... Then shrinking them all back down into 1 x 40" monitor!
Then you would have condensed the pixels into a 4k resolution on a single 40" monitor...
And then picture quality would be greatly improved!
Thus rendering his thoughts that "he doesn't see any IQ/density/clarity/resolution benefit"... ridiculous
As silly as standing in front of a 40" 4k monitor and 40" 1080p monitor and saying they look the same in image quality!
I think you need to go read his post again
If you are unsure what PPI is, google that, it will help you understand what he is saying.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
4k 40" isn't supposed to be special in that regard. The whole point people prefer the 40" over a smaller panel is that it has the right ppi. Saying it's no better than 4x 20" 1080p screens is absolutely missing the point. If you want a higher density panel, then there are 24" 4k monitors out there.
40" 4k is the sweet spot. Right density, low enough ppi that you can get away without scaling and about as physically big as you'd ever want to go.
40" 4k is the sweet spot. Right density, low enough ppi that you can get away without scaling and about as physically big as you'd ever want to go.
I think you need to go read his post again
If you are unsure what PPI is, google that, it will help you understand what he is saying.
I do know mate but that's not how he said it...
I have 1080p, 1440p and 4k monitors and not only understand their differences but can physically view their differences with my own eyes...
By his recogning... All this time running 2x 1080p mointors side by side with another 2 more on top and then spanning the picture across them all gave you a comparable picture quality to a single native 2160p resolution monitor???
That's just a larger 1080p picture....
That's how his comment reads to me and that's crazy!
Last edited: