Why are 4k monitors considered gaming monitors?

[SlickR12345]

Its always struck me that these huge monitors are called gaming monitors and "gaming enthusiasts" buy them.

In my limited experience and it is limited, but from shows and conventions and just using intelligence large monitors are actually bad for gaming.

I personally can't see properly on any monitor larger than 23'inch. Its too big for my eye focus and I end up stretching to see at the borders. The higher the monitor the further back you need to play from in order to have a decent view of everything, but going further back really interferes with the mouse and keyboard control.

The further back I sit from the monitor, the harder it is for me to precisely use the mouse.

Same with TV's. The larger the TV is, the further back you need to sit, which in a way defeats the purpose of a big TV. Console controllers are different in that way, you don't lose the precision the further back you sit, but it does feel less engaging I want to say sitting further back.

So I don't know how anyone games or plans to game on a 4k display monitor. The size is just too huge and your eye focus is too narrow, requiring you to sit further back to see the full screen, which in turn reduces the gaming experience with mouse and keyboard.

To me bigger monitors are great for watching movies or work if you have several programs opened at once(though then you might as well get more monitors), but not at all for gaming.

 

[exar333]

Couple points....

A 4k monitor isn't necessarily a 'big monitor'. It could be, but it could also just be a hand-held size as well...4k is the resolution, not the size....

One of the reasons you probably see mostly larger-display 4k monitors is that DPI scaling for Windows is still pretty poor, so anything smaller than ~30'' would be pretty tough to use IMHO (at present).

I would argue 4k are better professional monitors right now...you could make the argument that they are gaming monitors because there is no replacement for better resolution (generally) in gaming. That's maybe why...

Also, a 4K display helps put a more enthusiast-type setup (3-4SLI/CF) GPU rig to full-use rather than maxing-out a display with a smaller resolution.

Edit: I would say the ideal gaming monitor is a QHD display right now, honestly. Best choice of panels, refresh and so forth without costing a fortune.

 

[notty22]

I bought the samsung 28 4K (TN). Could not help myself. Last Christmas, I told my cousins the 'news' was 4K monitors would be available for under 1000 dollars. Well 9 months later Amazon had the 590 for 399.99. I said what the heck! If I don't like it, I know many persons working in graphics division, who would like a discounted 4K monitor.
As far as gaming with many of my fav driving games, play fine at 4k. Other more demanding games look fine at 1920x1080.
So as of today am happy!

 

[melloyellow]

It probably depends on the game, and its fov. If you can increase the fov to add coverage to your peripheral vision, that would probably be beneficial. Also depends on the type of game, as some types of games don't require you to be able to see the whole screen in the central part of your vision all the time. For example, for fighting games I'm looking at my opponent, and for racing games, I'm looking off into the distance towards where I'm headed. So for these games, it may be beneficial to have the extra fine details at the area where you're looking.

One good thing about gaming is that there's no lack of 4k content - you can always increase the rendering resolution if you have the GPUs. Easiest applications for 4k are photo editing and replacing multi-monitor setups, imo. Gaming needs faster GPUs and Video needs more content availability. Still doable if you want to, but just not as easy.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Anarchist420]

good question; 1920x1200 at 22 in could be sufficient to me.

 

[lehtv]

The main reason 4K is considered a gaming resolution is because the sharper the resolution, the more authentic the graphics render. Meaning fewer aliases, pixellation artifacts... everything just looks smoother and more lifelike, especially everything that moves. 4K is just one aspect of pushing the boundaries of gaming graphics quality. It looks damn awesome to game on a 1080p monitor with 4K downsampled to 1080p, and it looks even better on native 4K. Why would you not consider 4K a gaming resolution? The higher the resolution, the better it is for gaming, provided capable enough hardware.

Apart from that, I don't understand your issue, OP. If you're using a large monitor, don't sit as close to it as you would to a <24 incher. It sounds to me like your whole argument is based around the user sitting too close to the monitor.

 

[Piroko]

'cause Quake 3 Arena looks better in 1024*768 and if you can run it at 120+ fps anyways, why not pick that over 800*600? /blast-from-the-past

Higher resolution makes games look nicer, gives gamers more options in how large/protruding the UI is (speaking of strategy games/MMOs) and doesn't stop you from using lower resolutions (downscaled or native with black borders).

Also, I can't help but think that mouse aiming and eye focus problems really have more to do with you not being used to these screens.

 

[Sohaltang]

Same with TV's. The larger the TV is, the further back you need to sit, which in a way defeats the purpose of a big TV.

The main driver behind 4K is to correct that. With 1080P you cant buy a 70 inch TV unless you sit waay back. If 4K ever becomes standardized (more content) you can sit 5 feet away from the TV and the picture will remain crisp. Depending on viewing distance but I would say anything over 60 inches in 1080p is likely too large for Average Joe. Same applies to computer monitors. 27 inches is just too large for 1080 at normal viewing distance. Manufacturers NEED 4k/UHD to pan out so they can sell larger and larger sets to Average Joe.

 

[Black Octagon]

I'm not sure I agree it's widely claimed that 4k is for gaming...would like to see a couple examples of where the OP read this claim. Needless to say, monitor marketing material doesn't count.

 

[alcoholbob]

Probably because most people who want 4K currently are gamers...seeing as games are the only source of reliable 4K content.

 

[HurleyBird]

Pixel hunting is easier with larger displays and more pixels.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Skurge]

I can actually see distant targets better with a 4K display in BF4. Things are much sharper so it's easier to pick out targets from the terrain at distance.

 

[know of fence]

Anand always wanted for Anandtech reporting to be level headed, calm and rational, which in turn lead a lot of people to trust this sites conclusions and recommendations.

I don't think this is a site for enthusiasts mainly, who focus their attention on bigger and better numbers, like "4,8 GHz, wow" rather than the big picture. As a case in point, AT articles never recommended dual, tri or quad GPU setups.

Or maybe we all start as enthusiasts, who want to build computers using those kickass components, though after 10 years of reading AT, my recommendations for a PC build in many way mirror what Dell or Lenovo would select and offer. Thanks to AT I understand why for instance the big retailers always use the smallest wattage power supply, whereas in my enthusiast days that is something that used to annoy me.

Still it is the arguably irrational or maybe the badly informed (a.k.a. enthusiast) crowd that is willing to spend most or buy 1st generation 4K monitors, even when there isn't a fast enough standardized interface (HDMI/DP 1.x) to drive them.

4K is the obvious "lowest common denominator" buzzword for all things monitors and TV, it is actually a quite fitting, evokative and in many ways brilliant signifier and successor to HD, full HD, 3D and now 4K.