4K Importance to you in 2014

[tential]

I'm just curious how important to you is the ability of your video card(or cards) to be able to push 4K content on your TV? After CES, we've seen a LOT of 4K HDTVs, and a company (I forget which I just read the article this week), that they will commit to bringing a 4K HDTV under 1K, and we already have multiple ones.

We can also assume that 4K Monitors will be coming this year as well with the amount of HDTVs we saw during CES 2014 that were 4K capable.

So I just would like to know:
How important is being able to push 4K pixels in 2014?
When do you plan to make the jump to a 4K capable display (2014, 2015, 2016????)?

Been getting real antsy as I've recently seen a commitment during CES to bring a 70 inch HDTV under 3k (I paid around 2.3K for mine so on sale, that new one will be quite similar in price).

 

[JDG1980]

I'm waiting for the arrival of a 39" 4K monitor with a 60Hz DisplayPort input. Asus announced one a while back, but nothing yet. It should be possible to release this relatively cheaply, since it would use the same panel as the Seiki 39" 4K TV.

A monitor like this would allow the use of a modest DPI scale factor (probably 125%) and provide a lot more screen real estate than the 32" 1080p TV that I am currently using. If I bought the Dell 24" monitor, I'd get much nicer-looking text (at 200%), but no more room on screen.

 

[Imouto]

I don't see the 4K pushed at all this year or the next. It's just the next thing to make you purchase a new monitor.

You need an obscene amount of graphics horsepower to play at 4K.
You won't be able to get almost anything in 4K for mainstream TV/Cinema. Unless you want to get the Star Wars trilogy again after VHS, DVD, Bluray and now 4K.
I've seen it promoted as really cool for designers but I can't really understand it as 1080p at "24 and 1440p at 28" are the DPI sweet spots. Even more resizing and more eye strain.

 

[96Firebird]

Not important to me. Not only because of the horsepower needed to push 4K in games, but because I just don't have the room for such a big monitor. I think 24" is as big as I want to go, I use a 27" at work and it is just too large for me. I can't imagine they will make small-sized 4K monitors, so I have no interest...

 

[lavaheadache]

Not important to me. Not only because of the horsepower needed to push 4K in games, but because I just don't have the room for such a big monitor. I think 24" is as big as I want to go, I use a 27" at work and it is just too large for me. I can't imagine they will make small-sized 4K monitors, so I have no interest...

Dell makes a 24" 4k

 

[VirtualLarry]

I would love a 24" or larger 4K display for web browsing and 2D work. But my budget is only $300-ish per monitor.

 

[skipsneeky2]

4k will have to hit $300 and be in the 24-27'' size before i even jump while also a single gpu is capable of pushing 4k. Willing to bet this will be after the Maxwell 20nm generation is retired and replaced.

 

[Kippa]

I know we don't know the specs, but as a guesstimate do you think the upcoming Nvidia Maxwell due out later on in the year will be able to handle 4K gaming alright(with no AA on) on a single gfx card?

 

[lavaheadache]

single gpu's are capable of driving most games maxed out @ 4k

 

[itsmydamnation]

4k is only important in 2014 is there is a rift with 4k :awe:

 

[zebrax2]

Personally 2016 would be the earliest before i seriously look at jumping ship to 4k. I'm still waiting for DP 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 as well as looking at how the g-sync/freesync thing would unfold.

 

[amenx]

I would be looking at 1440p as my next step before 4k in 2014/15. Once there are single GPUs that can do 4k gaming (maybe 2016?) I would consider it.

 

[biostud]

zero.

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

 

[wasabiman123]

Only interesting with Gsync and SST with displayport, none of this MST BS for me or those I'm recommending 4K to. Those display scalers/controllers need to beef up.
Our next TV will be 4K, and I'd rather not be an early adopter, next year seems like a likely point to jump in unless our 6 year old TV takes a shit this year.

 

[Subyman]

I could see replacing my two 27" monitors on my workstation with one 39" 4k eventually. I highly doubt I will be gaming on one until we see 60hz at a decent price.

 

[Arkaign]

No interest. Maybe in 2016 at the earliest.

 

[adairusmc]

No interest. Still very happy with my Dell U3011.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Zero unless my current monitor dies then I'll give it a look.

 

[NTMBK]

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

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.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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.

You need 12-20mbit or so to even stream 4K. How many does that leave out? Not to mention the amount of customers that Netflix even got around the world

http://bgr.com/2013/09/26/netflix-4k-streaming/

To put it roughly, you need fiber, VDSL, or cable in terms of land lines for 4K. ADSL and SDSL might work, but it can easily go bad on you.

 

[NIGELG]

Maybe in a couple of years...but not 2014.

 

[BrightCandle]

Depends on price and gsync availability. On the one hand I don't want to get a monitor that is below that resolution since 4k is coming soon, but I also don't want to wait all year to not have gsync when other monitors are available. 4k is important to me, but not as important as gsync is.

 

[wand3r3r]

4K as a monitor doesn't require waiting for "4k content" and I would rate it as my number one anticipation for the past 1-2 years or so.

4K as a tv is pretty early still.

 

[dangerman1337]

The next monitor I want is basically a 2560x1440 version of Eizo's Foris FG2421 (120Hz VA panel) with G-sync. I won't get a 4K monitor until strobing OLED monitors become widely available at a reasonable price.