Is a 4k monitor worth it?

I am debating on wheather I should get a 4k monitor or not.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ITORJRQ/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3KJSQSBL7XK3O&coliid=I1PMOJSD0GKAHO

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IEZGWI2/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3KJSQSBL7XK3O&coliid=I1ZF1JD9K1GLJ9&psc=1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009HNEBLK/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

pc specs are i54690k, geoforce 970 and 16 gig ram

I was looking at these three monitors, what do you guys/girls think?

No. Three reasons very good reasons.

1) Higher pixel density doesn't automatically mean better picture quality (meaning you could get better monitors for the money that aren't 4k)

2) There's no 4k content (only thing you'd be getting it for are games, TVs and Monitors that are planned to take full advantage of 4k Blu Rays aren't even available to consumers yet, so you aren't exactly future-proofing yourself if that's the intention)

3) It takes a very strong computer to run games at 4k. You'd need to get another GTX 970 before you should even consider it. And then take into consideration that your setup will be limited by your native resolution and VRAM utilization. A year from now when the latest games require 6gb of VRAM for 4k resolutions, you'll need to upgrade again if you want to stay up to date. If you bought a 1440P monitor instead, you'll be comfortable for the next year or two without having to buy an additional GTX 970 or 6GB VRAM cards down the road to support your 4k native resolution. Of course it's not a huge problem if you don't mind turning down the settings in your games, but then it doesn't seem like a good idea to me to buy a sharper monitor so your can view blurrier graphics. Especially after spending all that money.

I was thinking the same thing as well, the whole "future proof" stuff makes me laugh when I hear it. I just ask myself the basic question, what can I do with a 4k moniotor besides game on it? I think you elaborated on it the best. Then I was wondering if my gtx 970 could even handle 4k gaming at all, which I figured it would not. So should I go with a 1080p monitor or 1440p one? and is the picture quality that much better with a display port over hdmi 2.0? I am currently using this one http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009HNEBLK/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 with a hdmi 2.0 port, but it has support for a display port. I am not impress with the picture quality at all.

Yeah, for strictly gaming there is no point in getting 4k monitor or TV. I have a 4K TV though, and having the desktop in 4k 60hz is awesome. And 4k demos and movies is just insanely detailed. But games are just too demanding to run at 4k. When it comes to 4k BluRay, I really don't understand how they are going to screw it up. The BD player will do all the processing and will have to have the latest codecs, which they are working on. So as long as the TV has HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, it will support 4k 24p at least. The problem with some 4k TV's and monitors now has been being able to do 4k at 60hz with full 4:4:4 chroma. But all 4k TV's support 4k at 30hz, and the new BD standard will probably be 4k 24p/hz.

IMO not even 1440p is worth it. 1080p will be more than enough for now especially with just a single 970.

They are planning on supporting and standardizing a new color gamut that isn't supported by any TVs currently, so if you intend to get a 4k TV thinking it's the right time to future-proof yourself with a TV that won't be very soon outdated, it's probably better to hold out. I have no idea how big the difference the new gamut will be but if they're putting a lot of effort into it getting standardized then I'm going to assume it's not an imperceptible one. It's really not an issue of current 4k TVs not being supported, it's just an issue of better spending your money. Unless you plan on getting an enormous TV or a big monitor that you're going to sit within 2-ft away from, odds are you won't see a big of a difference between 4k and 1080P anyways. At least not one that warrants the additional money spent IMO.

Other qualities in monitors that you should seek that you can actually notice without having to have your face in your screen: framerate/refresh rate, response time (input delay), black levels, contrast, viewing angles, color accuracy

Just about all these qualities being more important than a super-high resolution. It's not worth spending money on a monitor that has 4k resolution when you could've spent money on a 1080P/1200P/1440P monitor that has any better of the aforementioned qualities.

I would say that depends on the size of the monitor. 1080P is a bit low on 27" or larger monitors.

Regarding 4k, I agree with most of what has already been said plus I'll add that a lot of the 4K monitors that are available now are not great monitors. I'd much rather get an Asus Rog Swift 27" with 144hz refresh, super thin bezels, and G-Sync than get a 4k with none of those other features (so I did).

-Byshop

Have you used a 1440p display?

own one myself.

I'd say you hold a rare opinion, then. I don't think there would be many 1440p users who would agree with you.

I agree with you on that one C_Rule. I have a Samsung 32", 1440p monitor and looking back at my wife's 27", 1080p, Asus MX279H (a great monitor in its own right), I don't think I'll ever go back.

1440p or 1080p are the types i would go for.

I've tried 4k via the DSR option in nvidia and even in older games my 970 can't keep the framerate high enough for smooth gameplay... i can feel a fair bit amount of input lag even when im apparently near 60fps. So unless you wanna try your luck in SLI with 2 or more video cards, 4k isn't something to go for yet.

I actually used to use a 1440p monitor but got a 1080p monitor which looked better and had a much better response rate so i ended up actually using that as my main monitor. So resolution isn't everything. It seems 2560 x 1440p has become common now and single video cards can run at this resolution.

If i were you i would wait until more games start being optimized for 4k... and when a single gpu can run 4k without having to require multiple gpus.

Your single 970 wouldn't be able to pull it.
You're better off with a 1440P monitor - 27" Qnix - $215

This...at 27" 1080p looks a bit rough. 1440p is the only way to go imo and a single 970 should not have a problem at 1440p.

Especially for work, since some of us actually use our several thousand dollar investment for more than just video games. :)

1440p is a bit of a jump perf-wise, but as BSC14 said the vast majority of games should run fine on a 970 at that resolution. There are only a handful of exceptions, and in pretty much all of those cases the deficieny is on the part of the game and not the machine running it (i.e. the Dead Rising 3 port that's unplayable on any machine at resolutions over 1080p).

-Byshop

I game on a 24 inch so that might be the reason. The performance dips so much pushing 1440p that it isn't worth the difference I was seeing.

I'd go triple 1080p anyday before getting 4K monitor

4K is pointless on anything less than 50"

Those tiny monitors are good for 1080p and that's it.

For 4K gaming your better off waiting till the new Nvidia and AMD GPU to be honest I would just skip monitors and go for a low input lag television with decent contrast and black levels for LCD at least. Sony seems to be the best in this regard they make some of the lowest input lag television money can buy good enough for gaming with a mouse.

For your system, a 4K monitor is not worth it. You need 3 or 4 cards in SLI to get good performance at 4K. Even then you would be limiting yourself to 60fps. 1440p @144hz is preferable.

From what I have read and seen a good 1440p monitor can get very pricey...I heard a good one can cost you around 500+ dollars..... Are there any good 1440P monitors for under 500 dollars?

Right now I have the 4k moniotor (500 dollar value)...I listed up above...It seems like a good 1440P monitor can cost you around the same price as good 4k monitor.

i would go for a ultra wide screen 21:9 monitor they are amazing and you dont need 800 bucks worth of gpu to run it.

Your 4k tv will stop working by the time there is enough 4k content to justify having one now. All HDTVs are made so cheaply and designed not to last that long, regardless of the brand.

Unfortunately, just like 3D TV and smart TV, the trend will be for manufactures to just bundle all features into most every model regardless if you want it all or not. It's getting to be increasingly difficult to buy just a basic HDTV. Or least the choices for one are rapidly decreasing.

i dunno about that... a single 970 is not able to hold 60FPS @ 1080p in DA:I maxed out.... the witcher and future games are going to be even more demanding. i think an SLI 970 setup is required for 1440p gaming.

I wouldn't say it's future proof, but then again even my dual 980xs won't run -every- game at 1440p.

-Byshop

4K is over rated shit, 21:9 3440x1440 is much better for immersion

I'm running a single R9 290 at 1440p and have had no problems. Now that's not to say every single game is going to run maxed out at 60 fps...that's just not the case. Of course mileage will vary depending on the game. For example metro redux slows down a bit at ultra even with aa off but I can run it at high setting instead of ultra and get 60 fps.