4K Gaming Swagger

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

Has anyone here tried/and or currently own a 4K gaming PC setup? I'd like to know what your opinions are about the resolution, is the difference massive compared to 1080p?

I'm thinking my next gaming PC will be designed for 4K. I reckon 1080p is wasted potential for a high-end gaming PC, especially when you consider the PS4 runs most games at 1080p now too (Yeah sure it's not 60fps and Ultra settings but you know what I mean).

I was looking online and It seems a few companies are bringing out affordable 4K monitors like this Samsung U28D590D which is a decent 28 inch and going for $749AU.

I know prices will come down over time for 4K TV's/Monitors but for anyone that can't wait, I reckon it's a great time to go for a 4K setup if you have the money of course.

So back to my question, has anyone here experienced the 4K difference in real life? How amazing is the picture quality compared to 1080p, would you say it's worth the price tag?

#2 Edited by cyloninside (499 posts) -

pointless and a waste of money.... all of it.

1080p on screen sizes of 24"-27" is perfectly fine. images are crisp and you dont have to spend 3 grand on a PC to get 60fps....

#3 Edited by Klunt_Bumskrint (3833 posts) -

I think 4K is not really need just yet. I'm still loving my 1440 screen.

#4 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@klunt_bumskrint: Yeah I reckon 1440p would be a nice upgrade too. Like I said I reckon for a high-end gaming PC, if you're running a GTX 780 Ti or the like 1080p is wasted potential. Since consoles are managing this resolution now, I reckon 1440p and beyond would be the sweet spot for a monitor.

#5 Posted by PredatorRules (7845 posts) -

I don't see any reason to buy a 27' 4k monitor, that resolution should be on 50+ TVs, it's like owning a smartphone with 1080p, except for heavy battery use there's no point to it as you won't notice difference until you move the phone close to your face.

What's next? a 4k smartphone?

#6 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3797 posts) -

I've been using 21:9 aspect ratio monitor for 8-9 months now and I can honestly say that resolution is no longer a turn on for me.

Next monitor I get will either be a IPS 144Hz montior or a 21:9 monitor that is bigger than 29 inches. Simple as.

Basically refresh rate and or wide aspect ratio... as a gamer those are my primary features I look for and I wont go with anything less than a IPS.

#7 Edited by Horgen (110079 posts) -
#8 Posted by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

Lol don't they already have 4K smartphones?

#9 Posted by PredatorRules (7845 posts) -
#10 Posted by Postmortem123 (7673 posts) -

I thought about getting the AOC one, it's the same as the Samsung but with a better stand and longer warranty.

You only need 290p crossfire to run games with high settings on 4k.

#11 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

I was just looking online again and another downside I found to some of these "affordable" 4K monitors is they only have a 30Hz refresh rate. As we know that's bad for gaming, so until we get 4K @ 60Hz with an affordable price tag there's really no point.

#12 Edited by PredatorRules (7845 posts) -

@BattleSpectre said:

I was just looking online again and another downside I found to some of these "affordable" 4K monitors is they only have a 30Hz refresh rate. As we know that's bad for gaming, so until we get 4K @ 60Hz with an affordable price tag there's really no point.

There's no point for them at all, as you see 30Hz refresh rate and they meant for bigger screens - means it's only good for console gaming, if they have enough horsepower for that.

#13 Edited by Postmortem123 (7673 posts) -

^There are affordable 4k monitors with a 60Hz refresh rate.

There's an ASUS, Samsung and AOC.

#14 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -
@Postmortem123 said:

^There are affordable 4k monitors with a 60Hz refresh rate.

There's an ASUS, Samsung and AOC.

What size though? 28" would be the lowest I'd go.

@PredatorRules said:

@BattleSpectre said:

I was just looking online again and another downside I found to some of these "affordable" 4K monitors is they only have a 30Hz refresh rate. As we know that's bad for gaming, so until we get 4K @ 60Hz with an affordable price tag there's really no point.

There's no point for them at all, as you see 30Hz refresh rate and they meant for bigger screens - means it's only good for console gaming, if they have enough horsepower for that.

How can you say that though? I'm not doubting you or anything, but I personally sit very close to my 24" 1080p monitor so why wouldn't 4K be worth it on a 28 inch or bigger sized screen?

#15 Posted by Cyberdot (3524 posts) -

I'm honestly happy with 1080p and my games look amazing on that resolution.

Why the rush for 4K? I have a concern about the UI and HUD at 4K though. Would it make them unreadable due to small size?

#16 Posted by Postmortem123 (7673 posts) -

What size though? 28" would be the lowest I'd go.

Yeah they're all 28"

#17 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

@BattleSpectre said:

What size though? 28" would be the lowest I'd go.

Yeah they're all 28"

You know this was coming, but could you please link or even tell me the exact model of these monitors? Thank you.

#18 Posted by Postmortem123 (7673 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

@BattleSpectre said:

What size though? 28" would be the lowest I'd go.

Yeah they're all 28"

You know this was coming, but could you please link or even tell me the exact model of these monitors? Thank you.

Samsung U28D590

AOC U2868PQU

Asus PB287

#19 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

If only I lived in the States, I found this 39" 4K Ultra HD 120Hz TV for only $499 with free shipping. A lot of people have been using it as a PC monitor and although it's limited to 4K @ 30Hz, for that price I'd just use It in 1440p which it does at 60Hz for gaming, oh man 39 inch would be so fucking boss as a monitor. Wish they brought it to Australia.

#20 Posted by Motokid6 (5463 posts) -

waiting for 1440p gsync

#21 Posted by PredatorRules (7845 posts) -

@Postmortem123 said:

^There are affordable 4k monitors with a 60Hz refresh rate.

There's an ASUS, Samsung and AOC.

What size though? 28" would be the lowest I'd go.

@PredatorRules said:

@BattleSpectre said:

I was just looking online again and another downside I found to some of these "affordable" 4K monitors is they only have a 30Hz refresh rate. As we know that's bad for gaming, so until we get 4K @ 60Hz with an affordable price tag there's really no point.

There's no point for them at all, as you see 30Hz refresh rate and they meant for bigger screens - means it's only good for console gaming, if they have enough horsepower for that.

How can you say that though? I'm not doubting you or anything, but I personally sit very close to my 24" 1080p monitor so why wouldn't 4K be worth it on a 28 inch or bigger sized screen?

Bigger sized yes, like I've said 50' and above, not less.

#22 Posted by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@PredatorRules: So you're saying 4K will never be worth it for PC gaming? Come on man we're never going to get a 50" monitor so...

#23 Posted by Kh1ndjal (2464 posts) -

Dell has a 24" 4k monitor.

the biggest problem is that UI scaling is horrible. so even if you managed to run games at ultra at that resolution, windows and every windows application would still look like overblown garbage. a lot of game UIs would suffer too.

#24 Edited by Nick3306 (2573 posts) -

@PredatorRules: So you're saying 4K will never be worth it for PC gaming? Come on man we're never going to get a 50" monitor so...

Yes he is saying that and i happen to agree with him. For the amount of money you spend you get a very little increase in picture quality especially on small screen sizes.

#25 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@Nick3306 said:

@BattleSpectre said:

@PredatorRules: So you're saying 4K will never be worth it for PC gaming? Come on man we're never going to get a 50" monitor so...

Yes he is saying that and i happen to agree with him. For the amount of money you spend you get a very little increase in picture quality especially on small screen sizes.

Well damn, I guess there is always 1440p for half the price hehehehehehe.

#26 Edited by intotheminx (599 posts) -

If you're ready to dish out that kind of money for a monitor go for it. I still believe we are several years away before making that transition. 1440 should be the next logical step for most.

#27 Posted by Daious (1261 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

waiting for 1440p gsync

I am too (Asus) but now I am tempted to keep waiting because the DP1.3 just got announced.

#28 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -
@daious said:

@Motokid6 said:

waiting for 1440p gsync

I am too (Asus) but now I am tempted to keep waiting because the DP1.3 just got announced.

Only problem with that Asus G-Sync monitor is it's a TN panel not IPS, dat colour difference mang - but I guess you can't have everything. Also in Australia it's going to cost around $1000, so taking that into account I'd rather go for the Asus PB278Q 1440p monitor which is half the price, and has blown everyone away that's reviewed it with it's awesome performance.

#29 Posted by Gogoplexiorayo2 (154 posts) -

1080p gaming has become incredibly easy and boring, it really has become a resolution for the poor and mediocre. Thats why more and more people are moving towards 1440p. we are not ready for 4k yet, unless you have money for 295x2.

#30 Posted by Old_Gooseberry (3601 posts) -

I came across a samsung 28 inch 4k monitor the other day... I was wondering the same thing also - is 28 inches too small for 4k? I have a 27 inch 1440p screen and that seems just about right... at 1440p i have more space to have windows open then over my 1080p, but its not overkill.

4k 50"+ maybe makes sense, but only if your sitting pretty close to it, and you wouldn't sit close to a big screen anyways. It almost seems they should have maybe gone middle range and put out 1440p hd tvs instead, 4k seems like a big jump, and 4k blu-rays don't have the storage space to properly contain a high enough bitrate for a 4k video. A new optical storage format is needed first to properly view 4k movies.

So i really think 1440p is a more logical choice for pc monitors at least until reasonable priced graphics cards can handle 4k without a problem.

If your doing lots of multitasking like video/3d editing or image editing or lots of spreadsheets, and need extra window space, your better off using multiple monitors rather then having tiny little windows all in one screen that you have to squint at to see... but then this comes around again to whether or not using a large sized 50-60 inch 4k tv as a pc monitor would make sense to people.

#31 Edited by BSC14 (3771 posts) -

Too much hardware required for that res....1440 is fine by me.

#32 Edited by Prexxus (1443 posts) -

I have a 4k monitor at work we use for different photo editing tasks and hooked my pc into it to see.

There really is a difference in quality when you see it yourself even if it's a 28in. But it takes a pretty beast video card setup too get any sort of decent FPS running at that reso.

I'm running a 290x and was averaging between 32-42 FPS on most games. Which isin't really terrible but when you're used to 55-60 it is a bit irritating.

Another thing to note is that there is a lot of software that is not optimized for that resolution and I had a hard time reading or using certain programs.

I probably won't be buying one until I can get much more stable frames then that. Until then I'll just stick with 1440p.

#33 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@Prexxus said:

I have a 4k monitor at work we use for different photo editing tasks and hooked my pc into it to see.

There really is a difference in quality when you see it yourself even if it's a 28in. But it takes a pretty beast video card setup too get any sort of decent FPS running at that reso.

I'm running a 290x and was averaging between 32-42 FPS on most games. Which isin't really terrible but when you're used to 55-60 it is a bit irritating.

Another thing to note is that there is a lot of software that is not optimized for that resolution and I had a hard time reading or using certain programs.

I probably won't be buying one until I can get much more stable frames then that. Until then I'll just stick with 1440p.

Finally someone that has actually experienced it first hand. Good to know the difference is noticeable but how much better is it than 1440p would you say? Is the extra price tag worth it for 4K compared to your 1440p monitor. .

#34 Posted by Prexxus (1443 posts) -

@Prexxus said:

I have a 4k monitor at work we use for different photo editing tasks and hooked my pc into it to see.

There really is a difference in quality when you see it yourself even if it's a 28in. But it takes a pretty beast video card setup too get any sort of decent FPS running at that reso.

I'm running a 290x and was averaging between 32-42 FPS on most games. Which isin't really terrible but when you're used to 55-60 it is a bit irritating.

Another thing to note is that there is a lot of software that is not optimized for that resolution and I had a hard time reading or using certain programs.

I probably won't be buying one until I can get much more stable frames then that. Until then I'll just stick with 1440p.

Finally someone that has actually experienced it first hand. Good to know the difference is noticeable but how much better is it than 1440p would you say? Is the extra price tag worth it for 4K compared to your 1440p monitor. .

You can find some pretty good 4k monitors at a good price nowadays. I think I payed about the same price for my 1440p and the 4k we have at work. About 700$ give or take. But remember the strain it will put on your rig even a high end rig.

We'll never get a leap in graphics like we did when we moved to HD. But that's no reason to top there. If you can tell the difference between 1080 and 1440 you'll see the difference between a 1440 and a 4k maybe even more so.

If you got a 295x2 then I'd say go right ahead :P Just be ready for some annoying UI issues in some software.

#35 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -
@Prexxus said:

@BattleSpectre said:

@Prexxus said:

I have a 4k monitor at work we use for different photo editing tasks and hooked my pc into it to see.

There really is a difference in quality when you see it yourself even if it's a 28in. But it takes a pretty beast video card setup too get any sort of decent FPS running at that reso.

I'm running a 290x and was averaging between 32-42 FPS on most games. Which isin't really terrible but when you're used to 55-60 it is a bit irritating.

Another thing to note is that there is a lot of software that is not optimized for that resolution and I had a hard time reading or using certain programs.

I probably won't be buying one until I can get much more stable frames then that. Until then I'll just stick with 1440p.

Finally someone that has actually experienced it first hand. Good to know the difference is noticeable but how much better is it than 1440p would you say? Is the extra price tag worth it for 4K compared to your 1440p monitor. .

You can find some pretty good 4k monitors at a good price nowadays. I think I payed about the same price for my 1440p and the 4k we have at work. About 700$ give or take. But remember the strain it will put on your rig even a high end rig.

We'll never get a leap in graphics like we did when we moved to HD. But that's no reason to top there. If you can tell the difference between 1080 and 1440 you'll see the difference between a 1440 and a 4k maybe even more so.

If you got a 295x2 then I'd say go right ahead :P Just be ready for some annoying UI issues in some software.

Unfortunately for me I've only got to experience 1080p, I'm currently using a BenQ G2420HD monitor. It's alright but nothing special, since you've tried both 1440p and 4K I wanted to know how big you thought the difference was, and whether or not it's worth spending the money to be 4K ready? (at least 2 GTX 780's etc.)

I guess with a 4K monitor though, you could always run it at 1440p and have 4K there ready for when you can run it/ and or when they sort out the UI issues (downside right now for me is these 4K panels are TN, and not IPS panels which I wish they were). Since the price is very similar between the two it makes it a hard decision.

#36 Edited by Prexxus (1443 posts) -

They are TN but damn good ones too be sure. And is it worth getting 4k ready right now? I don't think so honestly. It's so expensive just to get there and even though it is beautiful to play at that reso, for me the price does not match up. Right now it's just a little too steep but in a year from now I'd say we'll probably be there.

#37 Posted by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@Prexxus said:

They are TN but damn good ones too be sure. And is it worth getting 4k ready right now? I don't think so honestly. It's so expensive just to get there and even though it is beautiful to play at that reso, for me the price does not match up. Right now it's just a little too steep but in a year from now I'd say we'll probably be there.

Thanks again, and I really hope by next year some affordable 39" monitors are released, that'd be sexy.

#38 Posted by blangenakker (2311 posts) -

Would we even be able to tell the difference?

#39 Posted by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@blangenakker: Well if people can tell the difference from 1080p to 1440p why wouldn't we be able to tell the difference at 4K? That's how I see it anyway, I could be wrong with that analogy though.

#40 Posted by Horgen (110079 posts) -

@horgen said:

@predatorrules: yes that is needed.

Explain.

Thought it was obvious. More pixels = better experience.

Imagine how much more content you can have on-screen if you have a cellphone with a 4K display. Of course you had to be dragging a microscope along with you, but that isn't much of an inconvenience, is it? The same goes for PC... Though we really need 32K monitors or so to match the 4K of a 4.5-5.5' cellphone screen.

Honestly if it isn't clear now. I am not serious here. 4K on anything less than 32' is probably a waste of resources with only small gains in visuals

#41 Edited by evildead6789 (7644 posts) -

@blangenakker: Well if people can tell the difference from 1080p to 1440p why wouldn't we be able to tell the difference at 4K? That's how I see it anyway, I could be wrong with that analogy though.

you can see the difference I have a monitor that supports 2500 x 1600 (or something like it) and you can really see the difference, when I play oblivion it looks like another game.

#42 Posted by PredatorRules (7845 posts) -

@horgen said:

@PredatorRules said:
@horgen said:

@predatorrules: yes that is needed.

Explain.

Thought it was obvious. More pixels = better experience.

Imagine how much more content you can have on-screen if you have a cellphone with a 4K display. Of course you had to be dragging a microscope along with you, but that isn't much of an inconvenience, is it? The same goes for PC... Though we really need 32K monitors or so to match the 4K of a 4.5-5.5' cellphone screen.

Honestly if it isn't clear now. I am not serious here. 4K on anything less than 32' is probably a waste of resources with only small gains in visuals

LOL you had to put that spoiler XD

I used to use sarcasm all the time, but then my friends hated me :D

#43 Posted by Horgen (110079 posts) -
#44 Posted by thereal25 (412 posts) -

pointless and a waste of money.... all of it.

1080p on screen sizes of 24"-27" is perfectly fine. images are crisp and you dont have to spend 3 grand on a PC to get 60fps....

They probably said that about 1080p back in 720p days.

#45 Edited by thereal25 (412 posts) -

My opinion is that trying to have 4k right now would be too expensive.

It's hard enough getting top performance on 1080p.

Just wait a few more years.

#46 Edited by Horgen (110079 posts) -

@thereal25 said:

@cyloninside said:

pointless and a waste of money.... all of it.

1080p on screen sizes of 24"-27" is perfectly fine. images are crisp and you dont have to spend 3 grand on a PC to get 60fps....

They probably said that about 1080p back in 720p days.

What days? I can't remember them... And I know PC computers had higher res monitors back in the day... As in 1600*1200... 4:3 monitors were more common.

#47 Posted by darksusperia (6911 posts) -

so, heres a thought..

Why not Downsample instead of forking over the $$$ for 4K?

Myself, like grey elf, have a 21:9 monitor. Its great. Wouldnt go back to 16:9. Lately I set up a custom res for some games, 3840 x 1620. Nice a sharp IQ. But, be aware for UI problems as mentioned earlier. EG: Kingdoms of amalur's quest screen is bugged on any res greater then 1080 vertical it would seem. (doesnt even show, its blank, you can here the selection change via sound as you move through the choices.)

#48 Posted by thereal25 (412 posts) -

@horgen said:

@thereal25 said:

@cyloninside said:

pointless and a waste of money.... all of it.

1080p on screen sizes of 24"-27" is perfectly fine. images are crisp and you dont have to spend 3 grand on a PC to get 60fps....

They probably said that about 1080p back in 720p days.

What days? I can't remember them... And I know PC computers had higher res monitors back in the day... As in 1600*1200... 4:3 monitors were more common.

Well, I just vaguely remember something about people saying that hd wasn't really necessary and barely made any perceptible difference compared to "standard" definition.

Although, admittedly, that was probably more about tvs rather than pc screens.

#49 Posted by groowagon (2804 posts) -

lol 28" 4K. useless. maybe if you get a 40" and use it fairly close.

2560 x 1440 is good for 27-28". good quality monitor at even that resolution costs shitloads though. 28" 4K under $800 must be ultra-shit quality.

#50 Edited by BattleSpectre (5989 posts) -

@groowagon said:

lol 28" 4K. useless. maybe if you get a 40" and use it fairly close.

2560 x 1440 is good for 27-28". good quality monitor at even that resolution costs shitloads though. 28" 4K under $800 must be ultra-shit quality.

Samsung's U28D590D 4K monitor costs $749AU and is anything but shit. Here's LinusTechTips review on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5YXWqhL9ik