Who is 4k ready?

I run a 4K monitor (the Phillips) on a rig that is mostly around 2 years old:

i5-2500K @ 3.3Ghz
650W Corsair PSU
16GB DDR3 ram
Asus P8Z77-LX mobo
Asus Strix 970GTX

I can run GTA V smoothly, but I'm not sure it's 60Hz - I haven't measured it. But it looks great at 4K and runs well enough for me.
 
Went 4K and TX, could never go back, I'd rather game at 4K with 40/60fps than 1080/1440 @ 60/120fps. Everything is so clear, I remember booting up BF4 a year after release and it was like I was playing BF5, unbelievable difference.
 
I love my 3440x1440 lg monitor will be keeping that for a good 3+ years yet. I would like to go 4k oneday, but at the moment I really don't have the rig to run it.
 
I thought about going 4k this year but the cost blows my mind :P

I have 2 770's and a i5-2500k which can run some games on 4k the 2gb ram really hurts it though in some of the newer games.

But i am hoping to get another year or so out of my pc and wait for next generation of graphics cards and cpus when i do upgrade i want to see a big difference.
 
Nope not me. I'm on 1920x1080 @ 120hz at the moment. Going to move to 2x 980/980Ti soon and then upgrade the monitor to something 2560x1440 @ 120hz at some point in the near future.
UHD/4K depends on the following for me:

-- GPU power required for a good 60fps (50fps-70fps) without having to sacrifice on graphics settings (except AA and things like blurring, DoF)
-- Developers creating some decent textures and tessellate more. Otherwise you're just rendering **** textures at a higher res. Polishing a turd.
-- Range of monitors available
-- Price of the monitors
-- Sync technology (There's no standard, nVidia are being ***** about it)


I'll probably step up in a couple of years, unless some of these things are addressed.
 
Last edited:
Dell u3014 (2560x1600)
Intel i5 2500K (4.6)
ATI 2x 6970 2GB
16GB Ram

For almost all games I play/own its powerful enough for that resolution. I will only move to 4K when the monitor fails or 36-40" 4K screens are available.
However I have hit the vram limit, in newer games so I am in the market for 1-2 new graphics cards.

Come on AMD or Nvidia. Where are those new 390x or 980Ti?
 
Cant see the point myself, the cost is way over the top for the gains even more so than normal, by the time they have sorted out the 4k connection issue the technology will be old hat and 8k the baby to have. 4k will be shorlived. Content creators are just getting to grips with and by then they might as well use 8k :)
 
4k is still not for 99.999999% of gamer's. Very expensive and therefor very niche.

As much as I love technology its not one of the most exciting things going on (does look gorgeous though :) ). Still have fingers crossed for VR.
 
VR is going to be just as niche, if not more so for the next 5-10 years. The impracticality and system requirements for it locked a lot of gamers out, others like myself simply don't think it's comfortable enough yet.
 
Halfmad said:
VR is going to be just as niche, if not more so for the next 5-10 years. The impracticality and system requirements for it locked a lot of gamers out, others like myself simply don't think it's comfortable enough yet.
Click to expand...

There are certain games with a big cult following, that are absolutely made for VR headsets. Elite Dangerous, the pending Star Citizen, and basically any flight and/or driving sim.

For folks who are seriously into those sorts of games, £400-£500 on a VR headset that they set down next to their 1080p monitor would be a viable purchase. If you can max out a game with say a 970 GTX at 1080p resolution, then you can max out the same game on a VR headset with 970 GTX sli.

Whilst VR headsets may be a bit of an indulgent luxury, 4K resolution monitors are on the otherhand the definition of the consumerist rat race. Right at this moment in time, one of the most stunning, graphically demanding, and from my own experience, well optimised games around is The Witcher 3.

At 4K, with all settings on Ultra, a Titan X will get you between 17-24 frames. I guess that a Titan X Sli configuration would get you around 35-45 frames per seconds. So with £2K worth of GPU, you are already having to knock the settings down and turn off luxury special effects in order to get an optimum playing experience (60 fps v-syncd). Sure, you can compromise with settings, turn everything down to high, turn Hairworks OFF, and you might scrape around 60 fps on your 4K monitor, with your 2K worth of GPU.......

......but what about the next tranche of graphically demanding titles that push the boat out 12 months down the line? Upgrade time already? Or what about the many titles that have issues with dual GPU configurations? Just play with one GPU and suck on consolesque 30 fps gameplay? Run the game outwith the native resolution of the monitor and get a horrible 'non-native' image, thus totally defeating the purpose of the 4K monitor to begin with? Everyone knows that Ultra on 1080p at 60 fps, is a much better experience than Medium on 4K at 60 fps, and certainly much better than Ultra on 4K at 30fps.

Expense.

Headaches.

Dissatisfaction.

Followed by yet more expense.

That is 4K gaming in 2015.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom