To naysayers of 4k

  • 157 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

I have seen topics from anything calling 4k a gimmick or saying it wont take off until a new generation of consoles to prices will not fall that soon. It seems 4k might be closer to become mainstream than we previously thought

Samsung launches a 4k monitor for less than $700 . That is great news not just for us users but for nvidia and Amd as well and their gpu departments

Also mind you this monitor despite been cheap ( for 4k ) is not limited to 30hz only. Using display port not only you get a more desirable 60hz but it also has 1ms response time

#2 Posted by _Matt_ (8743 posts) -

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

#3 Posted by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

point is prices are dropping much faster than predicted and this one is 60hz already and seems some of the problems 4k are facing are been solved

#4 Posted by _Matt_ (8743 posts) -

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

point is prices are dropping much faster than predicted and this one is 60hz already and seems some of the problems 4k are facing are been solved

It's not just the prices of the monitors themselves though, it's the price needed for systems powerful enough to run games at those resolutions, and having the media in 4K.

You need around 4GB video memory or more to play most modern games at that resolution, and even more if you hope to use AA.

And at 28 inches, the visible difference between 1440p and 4k will be minimal.

#5 Posted by nini200 (9354 posts) -

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

#6 Posted by Netret0120 (1885 posts) -

Lets concentrate on getting 1080p/60FPS consistently first.

#7 Edited by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

@_Matt_ said:

@adamosmaki said:

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

point is prices are dropping much faster than predicted and this one is 60hz already and seems some of the problems 4k are facing are been solved

It's not just the prices of the monitors themselves though, it's the price needed for systems powerful enough to run games at those resolutions, and having the media in 4K.

You need around 4GB video memory or more to play most modern games at that resolution, and even more if you hope to use AA.

And at 28 inches, the visible difference between 1440p and 4k will be minimal.

well thats why i believe its good news for nvidia and Amd. Back when 1080p started to get mainstream you couldnt find a single gpu to drive 1080p monitors with acceptable frame rates while nowdays even a $120 r7 260x can allow you to game at 1080p and i believe in a couple of years will be the same with 4k

#8 Posted by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

#9 Edited by nini200 (9354 posts) -

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p to 4k, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

#10 Posted by magicalclick (22217 posts) -

It is rather useless for TV smaller than 50 inches.

#11 Posted by Heil68 (42552 posts) -

Not worth it.

#12 Posted by CrownKingArthur (3672 posts) -

i'm a pixel noticer, and i'm keen to adopt 4k.

that's a bloody good price. apparently this model will do 4k @ 60 Hz via displayport, which is great.

although, i suspect that the truly affordable "4k suitable" gpus, and 4k monitors will only start to flow once manufacturers drop hdmi 1.x for 2.y.

#13 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3670 posts) -

Prices arent falling... Those are TN panels.

IPS 4K is still $$$$£££!!!

#14 Posted by handssss (1620 posts) -

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

I thought this was console talk. After all, I'm sure plenty of serious PC gamers are used to that resolution or one brought by multiple monitors. For consoles, nobody really games only a meter away from the tv/monitor.

Of course, if you are talking about consoles, even that is null. There is a reason why people say that it's not gonna catch on until a future set of consoles. The answer is simple. The consoles are only barely managing 1080p in many instances. 4k? only next gen will we see anything on a console native in that gen and that's if the companies go all-out. They both debatably didn't put enough power into the systems this time around. (and nobody is expecting the wii to be on par)

#15 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6570 posts) -

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

#16 Edited by TheTruthIsREAL (750 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p to 4k, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

Go take a look out your window.

#17 Posted by ermacness (7015 posts) -

Well, what the TC fail to realize is that most cable channels aren't even broadcasting in 1080p yet. According to Netflix, in order to stream a movie in a 4k resolution, one will need a internet connection with speeds no less than 15 MB per sec. I wouldn't call 4k a "gimmick", but from the evidence gathered as of now, 4k won't be catching on for a while. 1080p went down this same road as well.

#18 Edited by musicalmac (22650 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p to 4k, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

That's wrong in a big way. The three following photos are the original Bioshock maxed out at 1440p, 720p, and 480p. I'll bet you can tell which is which...

Click to expand. Let's put this myth to rest.

#19 Posted by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

at 28" 4k resolution results in a PPI of just 157

Also while there is an argument of benefits of over 300dpi up until 300dpi is easily detectable by the human eye

human eye can not discern granular detail when it is higher than 300 PPI and considering 4k is only 157 at 28" there is alot of room for improvement

#21 Edited by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

@ermacness said:

Well, what the TC fail to realize is that most cable channels aren't even broadcasting in 1080p yet. According to Netflix, in order to stream a movie in a 4k resolution, one will need a internet connection with speeds no less than 15 MB per sec. I wouldn't call 4k a "gimmick", but from the evidence gathered as of now, 4k won't be catching on for a while. 1080p went down this same road as well.

ahh that is exactly what i'm saying. In 2005-6 1080p content was rather rare yet 1080p monitors were abundant and affordable and the same is happening with 4k. I never said they will become the norm but i expect the next 1-2 years $300-400 4k monitors to be available and have a rather decent market share

#22 Posted by nini200 (9354 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

at 28" 4k resolution results in a PPI of just 157

Also while there is an argument of benefits of over 300dpi up until 300dpi is easily detectable by the human eye

human eye can not discern granular detail when it is higher than 300 PPI and considering 4k is only 157 at 28" there is alot of room for improvement

Took you a minute to Google that info didn't it? Lol

Here's the link you got that info from lol

Now lets take your 28 inch monitor which is only slightly bigger than laptop monitors, now lets say you are playing a PC game at 1440p then you take the jump to 2160, with a 28 inch monitor, you're only truly doubling the pixel count but on a monitor that small, once you pass 1080p, there will not be much of an improvement.

Now this would be different if we were saying a 48 inch 4K tv, but 28 inches just is not a big enough monitor to see much of a difference.

#23 Posted by f50p90 (3747 posts) -

TO ALL THE NONBELIEVERS

My question is since these monitors now exist for $700, about the same price as a nice 1440p monitor - and we can get a nice KOREAN brand (samsung panel) 1440p monitor for $3-400. Does that mean we will see these 4k monitors from QNIX and etc for $3-400? 4k is must be right around the corner.

#24 Posted by nini200 (9354 posts) -

@f50p90 said:

TO ALL THE NONBELIEVERS

My question is since these monitors now exist for $700, about the same price as a nice 1440p monitor - and we can get a nice KOREAN brand (samsung panel) 1440p monitor for $3-400. Does that mean we will see these 4k monitors from QNIX and etc for $3-400? 4k is must be right around the corner.

Even if you did bag a 4k monitor for those prices, where would you be able to see 4k content? Not enough people are even putting out 4k content yet so it's still pointless as of now.

I think the only person I've seen with 4K content is FrankieonPC and even that's not real 4k due to youtube's terrible compression.

#25 Edited by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

@nini200 said:
@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

@adamosmaki said:

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

You actually believe that you wouldnt notice a resolution difference past 720P on a 28" monitor 1 meter from your face ?

With a 28 inch monitor, the difference of 720p or heck even 1080p, the ppi would be so minimal it wouldn't be noticeable. You do realize that the human eye can only see so many ppi before it becomes unnoticeable right? Regardless of how close to your tv you're sitting lol

at 28" 4k resolution results in a PPI of just 157

Also while there is an argument of benefits of over 300dpi up until 300dpi is easily detectable by the human eye

human eye can not discern granular detail when it is higher than 300 PPI and considering 4k is only 157 at 28" there is alot of room for improvement

Took you a minute to Google that info didn't it? Lol

Here's the link you got that info from lol

Now lets take your 28 inch monitor which is only slightly bigger than laptop monitors, now lets say you are playing a PC game at 1440p then you take the jump to 2160, with a 28 inch monitor, you're only truly doubling the pixel count but on a monitor that small, once you pass 1080p, there will not be much of an improvement.

Now this would be different if we were saying a 48 inch 4K tv, but 28 inches just is not a big enough monitor to see much of a difference.

yes i google it so whats the problem ? So basically you went from there is barely a difference from 720p to saying there is indeed an improvement . And again sitting 4-5 meters from the 48" tv will have the same results as from a 28' monitor half a meter from you

BTW is not that site i got my info from

#26 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3670 posts) -

@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

...

#27 Edited by Wasdie (49300 posts) -
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

#28 Posted by Twizded (96 posts) -

There is still very little 4K content, besides PC. Cable and satellite hasn't hit 1080p yet.

#29 Posted by iambatman7986 (383 posts) -

@nini200: I see a big difference between 720p and 1080p on my 24" monitor. I imagine 28" would be even more noticable.

#30 Edited by f50p90 (3747 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@f50p90 said:

TO ALL THE NONBELIEVERS

My question is since these monitors now exist for $700, about the same price as a nice 1440p monitor - and we can get a nice KOREAN brand (samsung panel) 1440p monitor for $3-400. Does that mean we will see these 4k monitors from QNIX and etc for $3-400? 4k is must be right around the corner.

Even if you did bag a 4k monitor for those prices, where would you be able to see 4k content? Not enough people are even putting out 4k content yet so it's still pointless as of now.

I think the only person I've seen with 4K content is FrankieonPC and even that's not real 4k due to youtube's terrible compression.

Gaming...derp? It's also incredibly useful for any type of graphics design. All the extra screen real estate really helps with any type of CAD or any type of work in general.. Not everyone uses their PCs only to browse forums. Get out of here with your pessimism guy. Hit the X^ and pls go

#31 Posted by _Matt_ (8743 posts) -

@f50p90 said:

@nini200 said:

@f50p90 said:

TO ALL THE NONBELIEVERS

My question is since these monitors now exist for $700, about the same price as a nice 1440p monitor - and we can get a nice KOREAN brand (samsung panel) 1440p monitor for $3-400. Does that mean we will see these 4k monitors from QNIX and etc for $3-400? 4k is must be right around the corner.

Even if you did bag a 4k monitor for those prices, where would you be able to see 4k content? Not enough people are even putting out 4k content yet so it's still pointless as of now.

I think the only person I've seen with 4K content is FrankieonPC and even that's not real 4k due to youtube's terrible compression.

Gaming...derp? It's also incredibly useful for any type of graphics design. All the extra screen real estate really helps with any type of CAD or work in general.. Get out of here with your pessimism guy. Hit the X^ and pls go

Oh that would definitely be the biggest use in my eyes. Would be amazing to have a couple of 4k monitors for photo and 3D work, I'll stick with my 1440p monitors for now though.

#32 Posted by bobbetybob (19086 posts) -
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Yeah, if you sit like 10 feet away. It's a monitor, you sit close to it, you'll notice a big difference.

Anyway this is cool, I think next year will be when 4K really starts getting into peoples homes. The real problem at the moment is the lack of media and playback devices, monitors are useful as is because anyone with a powerful enough graphics card can take advantage of them, but TV's don't have much use when you can hardly get any movies for them.

#33 Posted by Desmonic (12636 posts) -

Nay I say, nay!

Good day, sir!

#34 Posted by CrownKingArthur (3672 posts) -

yeah. or even just composing work documents and having pdf / reference material open, a monitor like this would seriously improve my workflow. less minimising/maximising/alt-tabbing.

#35 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16033 posts) -

I would fully embrace 4K, but I'm not going to spend 700 dollars on it.

I know the thread title says under 700 dollars but 699 is pretty much 700, it's just a marketing trick. If it were 350-400 I would be keen on getting one.

#36 Posted by silversix_ (13539 posts) -

Its impossible to be a naysayer unless you're blind or have very poor vision and don't wear glasses. I can only imagine a highly detailed game like Crysis 3 in 4k... the godness

#37 Posted by roulettethedog (10927 posts) -

4k for TV's won't be a gimmick like 3d TV's. As for monitors, when the price comes down, they will be mainstream.

#38 Edited by GhoX (4653 posts) -

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

I bought my 1440p monitor for 800, so yeah, monitor prices are dropping like hell and it won't be long before 4K become cheap.

Then again, it's not really the monitor cost that gets expensive. 4K gaming requires quite a beast to power that 4K, and those components will be a much more significant factor than the price of a mere monitor.

#39 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3670 posts) -

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

#40 Posted by Cranler (7703 posts) -

Funny how people say you need such and such size screen to see the benefits. They should contact all the smartphone manufacturers to let them know what a waste it is to use high resolutions on such small screens.

I have the Galaxy Note 3. It has a 1080p 5.5 inch screen and San Andreas is so freaking sharp due to the insanely high ppi.

#41 Posted by adamosmaki (9351 posts) -

@GhoX said:

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

I bought my 1440p monitor for 800, so yeah, monitor prices are dropping like hell and it won't be long before 4K become cheap.

Then again, it's not really the monitor cost that gets expensive. 4K gaming requires quite a beast to power that 4K, and those components will be a much more significant factor than the price of a mere monitor.

That holds truth for now but remember we were in the same situation back in 2006 and 1080p. The only gpu able to play 1080p was the $500-600 8800gtx and it wasnt up until a year later when mid-high end 8800gt made affordable 1080p and i believe the same will happen to 4k. I cant wait for nvidia to show maxwell ( if a 60W 750ti offers that much performance i imagine what a 150W gpu will do ) and AMD for its next line of Gpu's ( and its about time we see some big jumps in gpu performace )

#42 Posted by _Matt_ (8743 posts) -

@GhoX said:

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

I bought my 1440p monitor for 800, so yeah, monitor prices are dropping like hell and it won't be long before 4K become cheap.

Then again, it's not really the monitor cost that gets expensive. 4K gaming requires quite a beast to power that 4K, and those components will be a much more significant factor than the price of a mere monitor.

I bought mine for £400 a piece about 6 months ago.

#43 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (6570 posts) -

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

#44 Posted by Cranler (7703 posts) -

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

If a high end monitor is a gimmick then what technology isn't a gimmick?

#45 Posted by bobbetybob (19086 posts) -
@_Matt_ said:

@GhoX said:

@_Matt_ said:

700 is still more than expensive to the average consumer. Why get a 4k monitor when you can get 2x 1440p monitors for the same price?

Also they will allow 60 Hz unlike most 4k monitors.

I bought my 1440p monitor for 800, so yeah, monitor prices are dropping like hell and it won't be long before 4K become cheap.

Then again, it's not really the monitor cost that gets expensive. 4K gaming requires quite a beast to power that 4K, and those components will be a much more significant factor than the price of a mere monitor.

I bought mine for £400 a piece about 6 months ago.

$700 is only £420. Of course we'll get screwed over on the conversion so it would be more like 5-600 but these 4K monitors are pretty damn cheap considering 4K has only really been a thing for 2 years or so.

I actually find 1440p monitors way too expensive considering the resolution bump.

#46 Edited by Shewgenja (7899 posts) -

Wanna know some funny shit? It's actually cheaper for manufacturers to make flat panel TVs than it was for them to make the old CRT TVs. They weren't able to sell flat panels at a premium until they were able to marry the technology with HD.

The biggest reason you are going to see 1080p TVs go the way of the dodo bird in the next five years is because introducing this new super high definition picture format allows them to continue making the kind of money off the markup on price as they were able to do with HD. 720p and 1080p panels are going to hit stupid low prices in the not so distant future.

You can also bet that in 8-9 years, you will start to see 10K TVs start to come out and the process will be repeated. It will still be less expensive to make than CRTs, too. But you will be paying 2-3K for them because it's the new shit. Rinse/repeat.

#47 Posted by CrownKingArthur (3672 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It is just a gimmick, and like all other gimmicks, will only gain popularity when it is affordable to the masses.

How exactly is resolution a gimmick?...

gim·mick

[gim-ik] Show IPA

noun

1.

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention orincrease appeal.

If a high end monitor is a gimmick then what technology isn't a gimmick?

yeah. it doesn't meet the criteria of a 'gimmick'.

there are displays available from lower pixel counts to very high pixel counts, once a certain pixel count is exceeded we're not in some magic gimmick land or anything.

for as long as i can remember, display resolution has been increasing. there's a reason why, it's because we want more pixels on the screen because it essentially increases the usable space on the screen for productivity, detailed rendering, etc.

absolutely not a gimmick. a further enhancement of an already existing technology.

#48 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9257 posts) -
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

this.

its just a 28 inch monitor.

Came back when its a 48 inch TV

#49 Edited by hoosier7 (3658 posts) -

Monitors aren't really the problem though it's the fact that the dual 780ti's you'd want is a good £1000 before you even consider anything else and it's not like you can throw those into a budget rig or skimp on cooling.

It's nice but it's still niche. No one has any doubt about it in the future but right now the cost for the performance doesn't add up for the majority.

#50 Posted by glez13 (8498 posts) -
@Wasdie said:
@nini200 said:

LOL 28 inch monitor. You wouldn't even notice much of a resolution difference past 720p on a 28 inch monitor lol

Maybe if you're 15 feet from the screen but not when it's less than 3 feet away on your desk.

4k is a great resolution for a PC monitor.

The ideal distance for this 28" monitor should be a little less than 2' maybe around 1'10" or something like that. Still a little small but almost near usual PC usage of around 2'-3'. Most probably something like 34" would be ideal for more people.