4K Importance to you in 2014

[Deders]

not even got a full HD monitor yet, I'm not in the market for 4k just yet.

 

[n0x1ous]

I want the next monitor I buy to last many years so I need to see how gsync/freesync shakes out and I also would prefer to wait for HDMI 2.0/DP 1.3. Honestly I may not pull the trigger until we see 4k/120hz @ about $500

 

[imaheadcase]

Zero interest, like others said until the content is available, makes zero sense to jump on 4k bandwagon.

Reminds me of old CRT monitors could do really high rez, but no one used it because old OS could not scale correctly with it, nor games. heh

 

[boxleitnerb]

I'm not interested yet. GPU performance is not there and I don't want to sacrifice fps or details/AA. If the performance hit vs 1080p were only about 40%, I could live with it, but ~65% is a bit much. I would rather see investments in better physics and lighting and effects first.

 

[Gunbuster]

Already there. Got my wife running on a Seiki 39" for wireframing work with a surface pro 2. As a bonus it works as our living room TV.

I think midsized TV's will be the sweet spot for at home professionals because you can do your work on the TV without it looking like a playschool my first OS giant interface that you would get at 1080p and then switch it over to TV use without any penalty.

 

[KingFatty]

I am driven by what my eyeballs can perceive.

Monitors are used a bit further from the eye, compared to tablets/phones, so I am happy with a lower resolution that still reaches close to the "retina display" where I cannot see individual pixels.

So at 3-4 feet away, how big would the display need to be for 4K pixel density to approach retina density? I think 40 inches? That might work.

I'm also wondering how the introduction of affordable 4K displays will affect pricing on 30" 1600p displays, and 27" 1440p displays. I really really want to get a nice 30" 1600p display with the 16:10 aspect ratio, to match the 16:10 aspect ratio of the pair of 1920x1200 24" displays I already have, so I can do eyefinity with the center display providing a 'zoomed' effect.

With a 4K display, I'm not sure this would work without some distortion. But there is hope - anyone have a 4K display and can comment on how it handles switching to aspect ratios like 16:10, instead of its native 16:9? I'm very curious if it can do that by using letterboxing, without stretching? Meh probably I'll just end up running my 1200p displays at 16:9, as perhaps there is no way to predict from one 4K display to another, what kind of technique it will use to handle non-native resolutions and aspect ratios? Like what kind of scaler it will use etc.

 

[Insomniator]

I'm definitely interested. My current monitor is a 6 year old 19x12 that is due for an upgrade... but I don't think I want to deal with the increased GPU requirements, or added cost atm.


Also, Netflix buffers and switches to SD all the time on my 85/35 FIOS connection, I don't get how 4k is going to work anytime soon.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I actually think 1440p and 1600p panels will stay expensive. Production on them will likely stop. Why make them when manufacturers are all making 4k panels?

I think 4k prices are going to drop surprisingly fast because sales of 1080p TVs have got to be slowing. Everyone has one and the manufacturers need a reason to sell more stuff.

Vizio has already said they will have a $1000 4k big screen this year.

 

[Hauk]

zero.

The Asus 27" 2560x1440, G-sync, 120Hz monitor is more interesting IMHO.

This is what I'm thinking too. I'm finally thinking of migrating away from 1080p, and this seems a very good next step.

 

[adairusmc]

Also, Netflix buffers and switches to SD all the time on my 85/35 FIOS connection, I don't get how 4k is going to work anytime soon.

Try going into your billing options on the website and fix your bandwidth to whatever it is you want to run at. I have found that just by fixing it there, I get a much more stable netflix experience and it doesnt switch on me anymore.

There used to be an option in Hulu plus for that too, but last time I was looking around on my billing information the option seems to have disappeared.

 

[PricklyPete]

Zero unless one of my 7+ year old TV dies and I decide to replace it.

 

[tential]

Considering the amount of enthusiasts on this forum, quite surprised that very few people are interested. I thought there'd be a couple of people with Crossfire R9 290 setups that would be very interested in 4K.

Also thought that considering AMD and Nvidia put a heavy emphasis in late 2013 in benchmarks, that we'd see chips that do even better at high resolutions in 2014. I know it's early in 2014 to make decisions obviously, especially when we know nothing about the power of Nvidia or AMD's new chips, but just interesting to see the lack of interest in 4K.

For me, 4K is great, but I'm more interested in OLED, since that'd improve my image quality a lot more.

 

[frozentundra123456]

To rich for my blood, not only the monitors, but the supporting hardware. I am happy with 1080p for the forseable future.

 

[cmdrdredd]

zero.

The Asus 27" 2560x1440, G-sync, 120Hz monitor is more interesting IMHO.

This... 4k is worthless without video content (games look fine at 1440p + AA to me) and HDMI 2.0 standardized in all screens. HDMI might be more relevant to TVs but it's a step closer to having 4k become a standard and begin pushing content out.

 

[bystander36]

^+1 but would also like 3D Vision to be supported as well.

 

[cmdrdredd]

^+1 but would also like 3D Vision to be supported as well.

I must admit, I do like 3D more than I thought. At first I said "I don't need more glasses and 3D is ok at the theater and Universal Studios/Disney World" Then I got a new TV that happened to do 3D so I bought a couple 3D movies and got hooked. I love it now. I can see how it would be niche and I would take a 100% pure 4k signal from some media format or HDD at full bitrate with lossless audio over 3D for sure, but it's not there yet. Probably not for a long time.

Also, Netflix buffers and switches to SD all the time on my 85/35 FIOS connection, I don't get how 4k is going to work anytime soon.

This is a huge problem right now. Netflix can advertise what they want but the way the internet works simply cannot keep up and Netflix servers are constantly overloaded. I have 50/10 from Comcast and I can just barely sustain their SuperHD streams all the time. Sometimes it drops down to 720p because the bandwidth available from the server is limited by how many users are connected.

Netflix is rolling out 4K pretty aggressively- they are trying to put a built in Netflix app into every 4K TV that hits the market, every single series produced by Netflix from now on will be in 4K, and they are going to be trying to obtain 4K masters of films from studios. They're our best hope for 4K content right now.

Their 4k is using less than half the bandwidth of the best 1080p Blu-Ray. How is that a visual upgrade? It's so compressed it'll probably look as good as your 1080p blu-ray and require 15MB/s internet connection. The average internet spoeed in the US is 8Mbps.

4K in 2014 in the "affordable" range is still TN panels. Plus if you already got 2560*1440 like me, its a rather minor upgrade.

For TVs, there is zero 4K content. So pointless upgrade there. And the visual improvement for a TV over 1080p is minimal.

Maybe 2015.

Probably right because the source isn't always going to be 4k. Upscaling and digital conversion isn't the same as filming the entire thing in 4k. When that happens and we have a way to deliver content at full bitrate, then I will look at 4k.

 

[zephyrprime]

I was looking to get a 4k monitor myself but they seem a little undeveloped for the time being. There isn't any tv content so 4k tv's aren't very useful. If 4k drives down the prices for high end 1920 panels, I may be interested in buy a really big lcd like a 70" or something.

 

[wand3r3r]

Running BF4 with 290x crossfire on 1200p it's in the mid 100's. Basically you need 290 crossfire to maintain 120 FPS as a minimum and that's not even 1440p. Either way you are looking at a lot of GPU power, probably not far off whether it's 4k or 1440p 120Hz.

 

[Venomous]

I think we're 2 GPU generations away from fluid gaming on 4k. The panel choices are still expensive or they are cutting out features and refresh rates to get you to buy in early. Although multidesktop and 2d productivity will be fine on current cards, gaming is going to be an entire different animal.

4k panels are not ready for PC gaming and PC gaming hardware isn't ready yet either. There is too high of a cost for buy in for either panel and GPU to even make it partially enjoyable.

Learned my lesson already buying into early LCD tech both tv and PC when it was just becoming mainstream only to watch the panel industry milk it slow and profit off features that should of been there from the get go... Ie: refresh rates and panel quality.

 

[skulkingghost]

I am very interested as a full time digital media designer / SEO specialist. The extra space the resolution would provide is drool-worthy.

I need a color accurate display, atleast 60hz displayport. I'd purchase tomorrow if I could get a good panel 33-37" (40 would be pushing it but I would be willing to try) at ~1k. Scaling would need to be good too, my single GTX680 probably wouldn't handle gaming very well on it.

 

[Mand]

Pretty important.

60Hz 4k with G-Sync for under $1k, and I buy it on the spot. If that looks unlikely in the next few months when my new rig is to be built, then I'll probably settle for the ASUS 120Hz 1440. And I'll be sad, because I know it wouldn't be much longer to get the 4k.

 

[Wag]

I'm definitely getting a 4k something this year, if not a monitor, then a TV (maybe both).

If that Dell 4k display turns out to have 60Hz support, it just might be sooner than later.

 

[JDG1980]

Considering the amount of enthusiasts on this forum, quite surprised that very few people are interested.

I get the feeling that this forum is very gamer-heavy, and 4K isn't really going to be a great option for "AAA" gaming for some time; you need at least two top-end cards in SLI or Crossfire, and even then, the settings have to be turned down to keep frame rates up; for gamers, things will probably look about as good at 2560x1440 with all the bells and whistles, and frame rates can be more consistent.

Where 4K really shines is on applications where you want more working space. Photo editing, for instance - even a cheap digital camera can take pictures with a resolution greater than standard monitors. Or if you actually want to use the multi-tasking features of your OS, and have multiple windows open at the same time, able to quickly switch between them. (I know, as Windows 8 indicates, even Microsoft seems to have forgotten that people actually do this.) 39" monitors would work really well for this, assuming any are actually released. (The Seiki TV works OK for people who are satisfied with 30 Hz, but I need 60 Hz for when I'm watching videos or firing up Nestopia or bsnes.)

 

[cmdrdredd]

Running BF4 with 290x crossfire on 1200p it's in the mid 100's. Basically you need 290 crossfire to maintain 120 FPS as a minimum and that's not even 1440p. Either way you are looking at a lot of GPU power, probably not far off whether it's 4k or 1440p 120Hz.

120hz panels can benefit you even if you aren't getting 120fps. Motion clarity is the big one.

 

[24601]

Running BF4 with 290x crossfire on 1200p it's in the mid 100's. Basically you need 290 crossfire to maintain 120 FPS as a minimum and that's not even 1440p. Either way you are looking at a lot of GPU power, probably not far off whether it's 4k or 1440p 120Hz.

You're CPU bottlenecked. I get 120hz @ 1080p with 1x 290 @ 1000 core 1250 memory.

125% Scaling to get rid of most of the stupid blur in the game. It really doesn't look like the game is at native resolution @100% Scaling because of the crazy amount of blur in the game even when you turn all the blur off in the command line. This is because of the way they are utilizing deferred rendering in the game.
100 FOV
Ultra everything with MSAA and post process AA off as well as HBAO off
MSAA is so bad in BF4 its totally worthless.