4K Gaming Swagger

Game developers don't even come close to utilizing all the pixels in a 1080 resolution. That's why games look nowhere as sharp as movies, even the all CGI animated movies. So you might as well get 4K out of your head before you become delirious.

Talking about 21:9, have you seen this?...

I want it so bad.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Yes I have but Im waiting.. I want the 5K monitor thats coming. 5120 x 2160.. do want.

@darksusperia:... That's a TV.

I hate CES... They show things that won't be out for 3+ years and some things end up never coming out. I'm still waiting for OLED monitor's and have been since 2010... :(.

I know its a tv. a 5K monitor is coming though.

21:9... 42"... 5k?...

most definitely

I think so too, as PC monitors have been higher res for a long time... I think our old CRT monitor had a res of 800*600... And it was old, 10-15 years before HD was a thing at all.

Read and understand the opening post, dude - it's directed at people who want more than just 1080p.

That LG 34UM95 monitor looks insane, but for that price tag I might as well build a new PC altogether lol.

Also the future is looking very bright indeed (pun intended). I'd love to park one of those 105 inch 5K TV's in my house, hell who wouldn't?

I don't have a basement. Also, you are as paranoid as you are presumptuous.

Of course that's what you thought, since you are paranoid.

I could settle for a 21:9 monitor... But I want one with 1440 or 1600P... not 1080. Or if we speak of this with the new 4K.. Then 2880 or 3200 instead of 2160.

I only have one small concern about 21:9 monitors. Right now I have a 24" monitor and if I was upgrade it I'd obviously want my new screen to be bigger, not just wider. When it comes to height would a 21:9 monitor be taller than my 24" monitor? If not I don't see the point to be honest.

Also I forgot to mention, wouldn't the cons outweigh the pro's at 21:9? I doubt a lot of older games support that aspect ratio, and like you mentioned a few bugs to deal with, and not just for gaming I'd assume.

3200... 21:9 is actually 64:27. Closest you can get is 7680x3240... That would be 24 Megapixels!

4K is 8.5 Megapixels... That would be like running 3 4K monitors!

This is how you play 4k games

Hahahah ^

My previous monitor was a 24 inch 16:9. I thought moving to the 29 inch 21:9 would be so much bigger physically. I was wrong. It wont take up much more space then your current monitor does, and the extra horizontal view is great. I dont want the space of 3 monitors on my desk. I hate seeing the bezels in between when you do. 21:9 is that perfect mix between extra FOV and less clutter on the desk.

Older games have issues no matter the res. Some are just locked at lower res and will letterbox/pillarbox on whichever monitor. The Kingdoms of amalur bug happens on any aspect ratio once you go above 1080 vertical it would seem. Some say that if you kept your horizontal lower then 4096 it would work, but not for me or other people. It was an engine limitation.

I havent found many cons for 21:9 at all, and if there are any issues with 21:9, those issues also tend to effect multi monitor users as well. Like the skyrim UI bug which would cut off the top and bottom of the menus. or Assassins creed black flag 21:9 implementation was really then using a multimonitor res squished to 21:9. However, there are a lot of community support for this stuff. flawlesswidescreen.org I find works well for those problematic games. Ive used widescreenfixer, didnt like it. WSGF is a great place for finding those annoying problem solutions to the few that are lazy devs (cause thats what it all comes back to).

thats 3 games, recently, out of the 100+ on my list that had an issue with 21:9.. Pro's outweigh the cons ;)

Dark Susperia thank you for clearing that up for me, most people online make it seem all doom and gloom when it comes to 21:9 monitors, so it's good to see a positive outtake from someone that actually owns one.

I would also like the extra immersion when playing games but I don't want 3 monitors sitting on my desk as I don't have the room, I hate the bezels like you mentioned and there'd just be too much messy wires for my liking.

I really want that 34" 21:9 Monitor from LG that's an IPS panel and resolution of 3440X1440. Only problem is it's over a grand here, and that's a lot of money no matter how good the monitor is.

That 34" 21:9 monitor I mentioned is about as tall as a 27" monitor which would be perfect for me, how about your 29" monitor you're using? how tall would that be compared to a 16:9 monitor? Cheers.

@BattleSpectre: I have this monitor: its 400mm from base of stand to top of monitor. exact same hieght as my old 24" 16:9

http://www.lg.com/au/it-monitors/lg-29EA73

I got my monitor from harvey norman for 550$ when everyone else still wanted 700$$+

EDIT: linked the wrong one.

Nice, very nice. They still have it in stock at Harvey Norman (I presume since it still shows up on their website) for $599. This LG 29EA73 model is it an IPS monitor? Because on the Harvey Norman page for it, under specs it says screen type: LED LCD. Am I missing something here?

IPS.

Harvey norman derps.

I know we can't predict the future or anything like that, but I have a bad feeling if I was to go out and buy that 29" LG monitor tomorrow, 6 months after the 34" released we'd see a decent price drop on it. Or do you think it be years before that happens? I'm so undecided on whether I should wait or not. Most I'd pay for that 34" one is $800, right now it's estimated to be like $1,300AU.

Or do I just swallow my pride and go the 29" which will be a bit easier to run at 2560x1080 compared to 3440x1440. Decision, decisions lol.

Ive had mine for a year or so, the price hasnt dropped really. I got mine during a sale they had going, I paid cash and asked what he would knock off of it for cash.

Id just buy the 29" (go in store and look at it naturally). Otherwise you will be forever waiting in this backwards country. You can always downsample the res for the games you have the power to run, and use native for the more demanding ones. The highest Ive managed to set a custom res maintaining the aspect ratio is 3840 x 1620. Anything else seems to be hardware limited. Oh, and it looks real nice at that res.

2560 x 1080: 2.37:1 (640:270) 2764800 pixels.
3840 x 1620: 2.37:1 (1280:540) 6220800 pixels..

quite a nice bump without the additonal cost, or limiting refresh rates over 4K. (for now). Still gotta have that GPU power though.

I never knew you could set higher resolutions on the monitor, that's really got me interested now. Thanks again for your time and answering these questions. 21:9 looks like the clear way to go for the complete immersion without going 3-way monitors.

Edit: Huh interesting, they also have a 34" version of this monitor at 2560x1080. http://www.lg.com/au/it-monitors/lg-34UM65

I guess it's the same thing just bigger.

@BattleSpectre: You arent actually changing the resolution on the monitor.

The games get rendered at the custom res and downsampled. You may be interested in reading:

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=346325

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

3200... 21:9 is actually 64:27. Closest you can get is 7680x3240... That would be 24 Megapixels!

4K is 8.5 Megapixels... That would be like running 3 4K monitors!

Well I can I settle for less for now.... :P

Did find this...

34 inch, 3440x1440... Perfect I say.

he's basicly saying that "it's good for the price but TN panel is still shit". i rest my case.

after watching that i actually semi-want 4K screen. i would love to have it for working with various softwares because of all the screen real estate.

i would hate to play games on it, though. why? at that size (23-28") even lower resolution screens look good when gaming, especially after applying heavy anti-aliasing. the image quality boost you get with 4K is simply not worth it, considering you need to have seriously sick hardware to run even Solitaire at that resolution. i would just get IPS display with lower res for more vivid colors. i bet it would acutally look better at that size and you wouldn't even need sick hardware to run games on it.

so, 28" 4K as a workstation? hell yeah. for gaming? lol waste of money and hardware resources. you would need a bigger screen to make the benefits of 4K more apparent in gaming.

Sounds very fair. But if your main concern is a workstation setup go the new Ultra wide 21:9 monitors ;)

i heard samsung is releasing a PLS 31,5 inch 4k monitor soon. thats a great size for 4k.

@horgen said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

3200... 21:9 is actually 64:27. Closest you can get is 7680x3240... That would be 24 Megapixels!

4K is 8.5 Megapixels... That would be like running 3 4K monitors!

Well I can I settle for less for now.... :P

Did find this...

34 inch, 3440x1440... Perfect I say.

Yeah... I'm pretty much going to buy that thing day 1 and Vesa mount it on my desk. I posted the Linus review of it above. Here it is if you can't scroll up... :D.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf : Thanks, because scrolling up again is way to much work for me.

I found one store that will sell it here in Norway... And it isn't cheap... More than twice the price I paid for my current monitor... I don't have the GPU to drive it either though. I will however say I want one of them for my next birthday... Hopefully in the meantime Dell has released their version as well. They will have almost a year.

Of course I will try to game on it with my current GPU if I still have it, I don't expect good results though... But just one of these monitors and I'll say goodbye to any dreams I have about 3 monitor set up.

I'd rather we see increases in contrast ratio and lower black levels before 4K. This makes a huge difference in how good a game looks when you compare the same game running at the same resolution on two displays but one has much deeper blacks and hence higher contrast ratio its looks much better on that one despite being the same game PC monitors have been stuck with almost no improvement in this department for years the average monitor is so far behind the best T.V's in this regard its not even funny.

I would also never buy a pc monitor that used a non T.V standard resolution or aspect ratio. I like being able to clone my pc to multiply displays and be able to seamlessly switch between them to much. I use one as a monitor at a desk and another one I use infront of my bed and also had it hooked up to the T.V in the living room at one point. Unless all the displays are the same resolution can't do this I'd be stuck using only my monitor or having to change resolutions on each and everygame I want to play when outputting to my T.V and changing it back when wanting to use the monitor to its fullest cause we all know upscaling from a non native resolution looks like crap on pc monitors.

Personally I'm looking into getting a new LCD T.V to use as a monitor when I finally upgrade my display been using a 32" Panasonic LCD for 4 years now and has served me very well as pc monitor but I really want something with better blacks while still having very low input lag and not having any risk of burn in since so has to be LCD. I currently use looking at some reviews Sony has some models that offer just that but there both 42" in size which is still feasable for my setup would not be happy about having to drop to an even lower ppi but superior image quality otherwise will make up for it.

30 frames per second lol even 60 is a joke

@BattleSpectre:

You might want to check this out. From Durante, his new downsampling tool.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=807472

just like 480p was fine back in the day..standards evolve, people get used to things

Cheers I'll look into it.

To you maybe, but I've been gaming on consoles pretty much my whole life, only these past few years I've dived into the glorious world of PC gaming. So as you can tell my standards aren't that very high to begin with.

30FPS and max settings makes me happy, that's all I need to enjoy myself. Anything above that is a bonus to me.

back in what day? during world war 2? because 1024 x 768 was a standard in CRTs already in the late 80's.

480p is only a video stream standard, but it has never been a screen size standard.

Playing games whilst the bombs were falling, good times, good times.

I'm probably going to hold out Dell U3415W as well, the ergonomics and menu's are always better than LG counterparts.

It would be great if Samsung could jump in with a PLS version... *fingers crossed*.

Honestly 30 fps at ultra settings for single player games is usually ok with me. Online gaming and single player games with lots of high speed action like a GTA4, Watchdogs etc etc I want 100 fps minimum. I will even tone my graphics down a little to achieve higher frames. That one thing that I really love and want in all my games is for them to run buttery smooth.

edit: lol did that little beast jump off a cliff?

I don't get why you need 100fps for it to feel buttery smooth to you though? I finished the game Killzone Shadow Fall on my PS4 and that only runs at 30FPS at 1080p. It felt very smooth for a first person shooter and fluid, even with plenty of fast movements nothing chugged and the online experience was smooth too.

I reckon 60fps would be more than enough for a buttery smooth experience and no offence but aiming for 100fps for most games must be expensive as hell driving all that power to reach those results, but hey different strokes for different blokes I guess.

Edit: Also what lil beast?

@BattleSpectre: I notice a huge difference (for the games I can manage 120+ fps) when using a KB/M. I'm not really too bothered about it when using a 360 controller for games such as Batman.

LG will still produce the screen itself though :P If they are popular enough I think Samsung will make one as well. And that will hopefully drive the prices down.

wait 4 years for 4k, right now pcs are too weak to handle this kind of resolution with a decent single gpu fps.

Yup, but luckily they are improving with every generation... Still a 21:9 monitor at 1440P has something like 40% less pixels than a 4K monitor so a single GPU on them is possible, though SLI/Crossfire is still preferred if you want stable 60fps...