you talking about the loud enthusiast minority who like to hang on tech forums all day ?
No they are not everyone hehe
No they are not everyone hehe
Rubycon
Madame President
- Aug 10, 2005
- 17,768
- 485
- 126
Far from hype. Staring at a screen larger than 15" that's 1920x1080 is really hard on the eyes. High DPI displays are here to stay. A 36" 4096x2160 IPS panel configured so you have the equivalent of four 1920x1080 displays is a great productivity tool. No pesky bezels in the way and modern gen GPUs are more than capable of driving this configuration.
But why stop at 4K? 8K and 16K will be next.
With bigger, ceiling to wall screens, these will provide the experience of larger format film and will be great for personal cinema, for example.
The only rant I have is 4K as most dub it as is NOT 4K. UHD is 3840x2160. 4K is 4096x2160 and is the proper professional format.
But why stop at 4K? 8K and 16K will be next.
With bigger, ceiling to wall screens, these will provide the experience of larger format film and will be great for personal cinema, for example.
The only rant I have is 4K as most dub it as is NOT 4K. UHD is 3840x2160. 4K is 4096x2160 and is the proper professional format.
I just want to add my own opinion here. I'm waiting for 4K prices to go down before I get "obsessed with 4K". From my point of view though, when I put my 25" HP monitor at 1080p and played a 4K video of birds of prey on Youtube, I was practically blown away. I wish I could remember the link to the video I saw of 4K/1080p comparisons. I remember though that the cameras focused on a sidewalk, etc. I could see the differences even though I have to wear reading glasses. I was truly amazed. I don't say that often.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
$650 for a 55" 4K TV already tells me it's mediocre. There are no great quality 4K panels at this price. "Everyone" is easily defined here as people who have no clue what a high quality panel is like and probably 100% of these "everyone" who commented on your TV think LED/LCD > plasma. Still, I'd bet anything every one of these same people who wowed at your TV would pick a 1080P OLED over your 4K panel because one would have to be legally blind not to.
That's not just my opinion, but nearly every professional reviewer or anyone on AVS forums. There is still not 4K LED/LCD that can beat the best 1080p plasmas in overall IQ. Even with Panasonic's dynamic contrast, plasma still mops the floor with LED tech easily. Considering there isn't even much 4K content out now, I bet 90% of the time your TV is playing 1080P or downscaled 4K content which means you are at the mercy of all the negative qualities of LED/LCD tech.
No, you seem confused by the argument. The point is very simple here -- for videophiles, LED/LCD isn't good enough to replace plasma TV in the living room. The only way to have a real IQ upgrade across the board from a high quality Panasonic/Samsung/Pioneer plasma is to get an OLED. This may change in the future. Getting a 4K LED/LCD is a downgrade in almost all key areas except the resolution. 55" isn't even large enough to resolve the 4K resolution at a viewing distance of 8-12 feet which is how most normal people watch television in their living room. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is very little 4K media content to begin with, which means you trying to sell 4K for TV usage in the living room is like a sales person at BestBuy convincing the world it's worth paying extra for a marketing number. 4K streaming is extremely bandwidth intensive and requires an uber fast Internet connection, large data caps. Even then, most 4K streaming content isn't even real 4K.
The fact that you are defending 4K TVs despite having just a 55" 4K TV just goes to show you bought into the marketing here because the human eye can't even resolve that many pixels on such a small screen in a normal living room. I am sure the TV manufacturers are loving selling 4K > 1080P though. Most of the 4K TV upgrades are happening for 3 reasons right now:
1) Natural purchases for new generation of consumers - this includes someone getting their first apartment/condo/house/new family or just new people growing up that moved out of their parent's house and need a new TV;
2) Size upgrade - someone who has an older TV sizes 37-46" might consider upgrading to a larger screen at which point they are more likely to just get a 4K TV since that TV will last them another 6-10 years.
3) Necessity - their TV broke or they need another TV in another room.
Not many consumers are ditching their perfectly working 1080P TVs for 4K outside of these 3 groups. Between all my co-workers, friends and family, the number of people I know who are specifically getting a new TV for 4K is 0. This is not at all like it was when moving from 480P to Plasma/LED 5-10 years ago.
Despite you getting all defensive about 4K, I am one of the biggest proponents of 4K PC gaming but even I recognize that statistically speaking, 4K is going to take 5+ years to take off worldwide.
As of Sept 2014, a global survey of executives in the industry had 42% forecasting 4K TVs taking off in 5-7 years, 22% in 8-10 years, and 10% in 11+ years. Just 22% believed that 4K would become mainstream in 2-4 years (that's as of Sept 2014).
http://www.intelsat.com/wp-content/...efinition_TV_Adoption_and_Business_Models.pdf In other words, less than 1/4 of executives believed 4K would become mainstream by 2016 at the earliest.
And just because you bought a 4K TV, doesn't mean anything at all as you still bought into outdated LED tech. It really doesn't even matter if your TV is 4K, 8K or 16K when it's using inferior technology that pales in comparison to OLED and Super AMOLED in all key metrics.
For PC gaming, it's already been mentioned why 4K sits in no-man's land right now. Even if one can afford a 32"+ 4K monitor, most of current 4K monitors/TVs don't even have adaptive sync which is really helpful at 4K since 4K induces so much stress on the GPU where you really would benefit the most from A-Sync to smooth out your low fps / fix the tearing in the 30-60 fps range. Secondly, even if one were to acquire a 32" 4K high-quality PC panel, as has been mentioned by ignored by you, get ready to drop $1300+ on a pair of flagship cards every generation unless you play old games. Thirdly, most GPUs don't yet support HDMI 2.0 and most TVs don't have DP1.2a or greater and most PC gamers don't game in the living room to start with.
You haven't actually addressed this point at all. Even if one could technically purchase a 4K PC screen, what happens after? Even a single 980Ti can't cut it in modern AAA games and once UE4 games come out where SLI/CF don't even work, what are you going to be doing exactly? 30 fps with medium settings here I come -- sounds awesome!
UE4 games are so demanding, 4K is going to be wishful thinking on any current GPU tech.
But even non-UE4 games mop the floor with current GPUs at 4K:
So you can be one of those guys waving his 4K e-peen online and telling everyone on a technical forum how it's viable today but running PC games with all settings turned way way down just to have 4K pixels at the sacrifice of other more important IQ settings isn't proving that 4K is viable for PC gaming for 97% of the PC gaming market as of now. Considering how many PC gamers worldwide are from China, Brazil and Russia, it's going to take even longer for 4K to take off on the PC because in a lot of those countries the average income of a PC gamer makes it prohibitive to buy a 4K PC monitor + dual flagship GPUs. Considering there are between 8-12 million dGPUs sold each quarter, 4K TV/PC monitor adoption is laughably low at the current time. On a month-to-month basis, it's not even making a dent in Steam's Hardware survey. 1-2 years ago I predicted 4K to take off but now that I've seen the current state of broken AAA PC games and the extremely demanding demands of UE4, I am going to reset my expectations and say that 4K won't take off in PC gaming until about 2018-2019, right around PS5/XB2. Even if Pascal doubles the performance of Maxwell's 980Ti, UE4 games will wipe out all of these gains without much effort. I would say around Volta GPU generation after Pascal is when people are going to start taking 4K gaming a lot more seriously. A lot of PC gamers are paying attention to next gen game engines, state of broken AAA games and 4K gaming benchmarks which is why even on enthusiast forums such as ours, most PC gamers aren't upgrading to 4K just yet.
Last edited:
Azix
Golden Member
- Apr 18, 2014
- 1,438
- 67
- 91
IMO quality of display is far more important. I'd get a reasonable resolution based on distance from screen and a monitor with good image quality.
I am thinking 1080p for now since going 1440p or 4k means having to reduce settings in video games much sooner and those resolutions are just not suited to keeping a GPU for long. For the average person 1080p is king (which is one reason I dont understand why freesync screens are all these expensive high res ones)
Those samsung examples don't have to be accurate. Variations exist between LED screens
etc.
I am thinking 1080p for now since going 1440p or 4k means having to reduce settings in video games much sooner and those resolutions are just not suited to keeping a GPU for long. For the average person 1080p is king (which is one reason I dont understand why freesync screens are all these expensive high res ones)
Those samsung examples don't have to be accurate. Variations exist between LED screens
etc.
You can call it mediocre if you like, but I think I'll stick with the opinion of the people who have actually seen it, mostly myself. I'm sure OLED is the dog's bollocks (never seen one), but it's not at a price point where anyone cares at the moment. When it is, I'll care. I use my TV as a monitor and it displays static images for long periods, plasma is out for me from the get go. 4k LED is the best picture quality I could reasonably attain, so that's what I got.
I disagree with their opinions, too. Yes, there is a lack of 4k content, but since I mostly use it for gaming, that doesn't particularly bug me. 1080p looks the best it ever has (for the most part) so I don't see the problem with watching it on my 4k tv until 4k content becomes more available.
I sit about 6 feet from my screen and can most assuredly tell the difference between this and the 42" 1080p TV it replaced.
You haven't actually addressed this point at all. Even if one could technically purchase a 4K PC screen, what happens after? Even a single 980Ti can't cut it in modern AAA games and once UE4 games come out where SLI/CF don't even work, what are you going to be doing exactly? 30 fps with medium settings here I come -- sounds awesome!
Every game in my collection runs great in 4k on my new 980 Ti. I don't know what you're on about, but I don't only play brand new games that are super demanding/unoptimized just so I can whine about how my card can't run them. In more demanding games, I crank the settings and run them at 30fps, because I sit 6' from my 55" TV and play using a controller, and am not concerned with perceived disadvantages of running at 30fps. Doesn't bother me any.
The guy bragging specs for his PC in his signature giving it to someone over epeen, how ironic. I never said 4k was for everyone, but to cherry pick super-demanding games and go "SEE? SEEEEEEEE? NOT VIABLE!" is more of a stretch than saying it is viable, because it is. It works for me, I love it, and I don't care if everyone feels the same way. I just see tons of 4k bashing and decided I'd offer up a different opinion as one of the few people opining on the subject who actually owns a 4k display.
shady28
Platinum Member
- Apr 11, 2004
- 2,520
- 397
- 126
I don't know why people continue to argue about 4K LED/LCD vs plasma,
but I have to thank you all because I just noticed that plasma is dying fast.
As far as the discussion - plasma is and has been known (to all who research the topic) to be superior to all but the best and most expensive LCD technologies (ie, OLED). You can find that info from professional review sites everywhere, and no it isn't a conspiracy.
I've had a 720p plasma for 7 years now. While I know a lot of people who have upgraded TVs 2-3 times in that time frame, I haven't simply because every time I go look at these LCD/LED TVs they don't look as good as my plasma. If you are used to plasma all these LCD/LED TVs just look like utter crap unless they are displaying a static image.
And it's dying fast.
So if you want the best display - especially for gaming - that you can buy without forking over $2500+ for an OLED (55" 1080p OLED is ~$2-3K) you best get a plasma now.
I just looked at Best Buy and they have ONE Plasma. Frys has a bunch listed but they ALL say "while supplies last".
Plasma is dead so get the last and best of a fantastic TV technology now or forever hold your peace.
but I have to thank you all because I just noticed that plasma is dying fast.
As far as the discussion - plasma is and has been known (to all who research the topic) to be superior to all but the best and most expensive LCD technologies (ie, OLED). You can find that info from professional review sites everywhere, and no it isn't a conspiracy.
I've had a 720p plasma for 7 years now. While I know a lot of people who have upgraded TVs 2-3 times in that time frame, I haven't simply because every time I go look at these LCD/LED TVs they don't look as good as my plasma. If you are used to plasma all these LCD/LED TVs just look like utter crap unless they are displaying a static image.
And it's dying fast.
So if you want the best display - especially for gaming - that you can buy without forking over $2500+ for an OLED (55" 1080p OLED is ~$2-3K) you best get a plasma now.
I just looked at Best Buy and they have ONE Plasma. Frys has a bunch listed but they ALL say "while supplies last".
Plasma is dead so get the last and best of a fantastic TV technology now or forever hold your peace.
True, but the good news is OLED prices are starting to drop. Yesterday Fry's had a one day promo code sale for the curved LG 55" 1080p OLED TV for $1500... I'm kicking myself for not picking it up.
As much as I love desktop use on a high DPI display, 4K screens still have lots of caveats from poorly performing display scaling in some apps to being limited to 60 Hz refresh rates (just having 120Hz+ means less motion blur even at lower framerates), no ULMB mode afaik and the hefty GPU requirements on top of that.
I'll give it a few years and then 4K will hopefully be where 1440p is now, being able to run roughly 60 fps with a single top end GPU and at 30 fps on a midrange one.
I'll give it a few years and then 4K will hopefully be where 1440p is now, being able to run roughly 60 fps with a single top end GPU and at 30 fps on a midrange one.
I got my 32" 4k LED IPS for £670 that's about $1040 converted to USD, it's probably cheaper in the US though since electronics in the UK are a rip off. That's a top end IPS however, there's much cheaper TN panels if you're on a budget.
4k is expensive, but so what? It's a newer and better technology, of course it's more expensive.
Again not really interested in what most gamers can afford, that doesn't change the fact that the tech is better, in time we'll see cheaper and cheaper variants of these panels no doubt finding TN panels at 32"+
This misinformation that you need SLI 980Ti is just hyperbole and we keep seeing this over and over. There is only a handful of games out that require more than 1 high end card to run in 4k, I have a steam list of 500 games and only maybe 10 don't run maxed out at 4k with a single 980, the few that don't I just turn some of the settings down, GTAV looks beautiful in 4k with a few settings turned down.
The other 490 games in that list are all going to run fine at 4k, even many new titles do, I just got through my 2nd play through of wolfenstein the old blood this time in 4k and it runs fine maxed out with 2xAA. Lets face it most games are targeted at the mediocre console hardware and rarely extended to make use of PC hardware. This argument might have made sense 10 years ago, after all I had to maintain 2 cards to power my 2560x1600 panel for years but once I got to the 580 in SLI I simply didn't need to upgrade, I didn't get another card until the 980 there was stagnation of graphics for 3 generations of video cards and outside of the consoles leap to next gen we'll probably not see any more serious advancements. That aggressive PC upgrade cycle is long dead now.
Again this is just hyperbole, I'd like you to quantify 2-3x better in terms of just IQ much less in the apples/oranges judgement of IQ vs resolution. That doesn't even make any sense.
TV's != monitors by the way, I don't know why you're rambling on about TVs, we're talking about 4k gaming here, gamers aren't videophiles the vast majority of gamers play games on TN panels which are much worse in all ways other than refresh/response to IPS displays, so arguing that OLED is much better than a technology which is already better than what gamers generally speaking refuse to use is basically a moot point. Resolution matters in games because games are rendered and not pulled from film, they can be rendered to the native resolution of the screen, gamers have historically always wanted bigger and bigger resolutions, throughout my own gaming lifespan I've gone from 640x480 to 800x600 to 1024x768, 1600x1200, 1680x1050, 1920x1080, 2560x1600, 3840x2160
All I see is "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE 4k RABBLE RABBLE" as if this isn't just 1 other resolution in a long, rich history of increasing resolutions over the years, as if it's somehow special and itself won't be superseded by another set of resolutions further down the line. I've heard these same arguments about resolution damn near every time it has increased, "you'll never need more than X", seen it before, will see it again, round and round.
In less than a decade gamers will be using 4k as a standard like they are with 1080p now, that's not a particularly controversial estimate, it's just common sense given the progression of displays for the last 3 decades. Unless OLED can come down in price relative to TN/IPS in the monitor space then it won't be popular in the gaming sphere, again historically gamers tend not to care about IQ to that degree, adoption of IPS has always been bad and continues to be bad today, people only switch to IPS when they absolutely have to for larger panels where TN isn't really as appropriate or even available.
Last edited:
Yeah see this is exactly the problem, the benchmarks of a handful of top end demanding games is NOT EQUAL to all of PC gaming.
Gamers play all sorts of games and the brand new AAA titles which really push the graphical boundaries are a handful each year. This does not represent what gamers are doing on average which is logging millions of gaming hours a day in TF2, CS:S/CS:GO, DOTA2 and things like that.
This is the Steam top 99 games by current player count, source here - http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Of all these 99 games you can't max only a few with a single high end GPU such as the 970/980. GTAV, ARK, Arkham Knight, The Witcher 3 and probably Arma/Dayz. That's about your lot.
Furthermore how many of those can you max out at 1080p? Well you can't with GTAV, and you can't with ARK, I'm not sure about The Witcher 3 and Arma, maybe. So using this as a metric we can also say that 1080p is not "viable" which is profoundly stupid.
So to say that gaming isn't viable at 4k with a single card because these few games of the top popular 99 games need to have a few of the settings dropped to run, is obviously idiotic. Either you have to concede that gaming at 1080p is also not possible based on this metric, or you have to argue that somehow 5% games is unacceptable but magically 2% games is fine? How do you draw that distinction between 2% and 5%? Can anyone here actually answer that?
It gets even worse once you adjust for how many hours get pumped into each game, you'll find that these few core games are even less significant to gamers in general, we're talking about much less than 1%.
Current Peak Game
610,055 841,653 Dota 2
327,812 507,539 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
73,309 147,469 Terraria
62,100 83,701 Team Fortress 2
41,991 57,916 Clicker Heroes
36,340 59,262 Grand Theft Auto V
34,365 75,311 ARK: Survival Evolved
30,776 64,594 Football Manager 2015
24,869 44,436 Garry's Mod
21,575 50,721 Sid Meier's Civilization V
19,636 40,663 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
17,383 25,163 Warframe
14,485 22,489 Counter-Strike
12,907 14,904 Unturned
12,502 21,332 Rust
11,633 20,033 PAYDAY 2
11,265 27,538 Arma 3
10,460 16,796 War Thunder
9,769 15,412 AdVenture Capitalist
8,802 22,183 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
7,729 13,569 Left 4 Dead 2
7,690 13,257 Counter-Strike: Source
7,296 15,396 DayZ
7,290 19,767 Fallout: New Vegas
6,959 13,195 Euro Truck Simulator 2
6,775 14,006 Total War: ROME II - Emperor Edition
6,284 15,280 Borderlands 2
5,947 14,251 Europa Universalis IV
5,607 8,115 Robocraft
5,397 10,499 Dirty Bomb
5,297 10,520 TERA
5,253 9,985 H1Z1
5,215 10,668 Football Manager 2014
5,032 10,834 7 Days to Die
4,993 11,459 Mount & Blade: Warband
4,839 9,219 Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead
4,392 6,869 Heroes & Generals
4,276 11,132 FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn
4,185 7,832 The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth
4,002 10,337 Batman™: Arkham Knight
3,784 8,762 Cities: Skylines
3,522 7,339 Total War: ATTILA
3,362 8,092 XCOM: Enemy Unknown
3,335 6,794 Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Multiplayer
3,251 4,744 Counter-Strike Nexon: Zombies
3,035 4,705 NBA 2K15
2,965 6,510 Company of Heroes 2
2,788 6,016 Elite: Dangerous
2,768 7,235 Age of Empires II: HD Edition
2,710 5,588 Path of Exile
2,676 6,050 Empire: Total War
2,599 5,224 Total War: SHOGUN 2
2,547 6,117 Crusader Kings II
2,535 3,164 FreeStyle2: Street Basketball
2,437 5,359 Don't Starve Together Beta
2,362 5,944 Kerbal Space Program
2,269 5,207 DARK SOULS™ II: Scholar of the First Sin
2,144 3,813 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Phantoms - EU
2,127 3,937 Marvel Heroes 2015
2,080 3,629 Neverwinter
2,020 4,454 Anno 2070
1,995 4,030 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer
1,959 2,957 APB Reloaded
1,918 4,203 Farming Simulator 15
1,867 3,868 PlanetSide 2
1,816 2,314 BLOCKADE 3D
1,742 5,094 Fallout 3 - Game of the Year Edition
1,724 3,763 Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition
1,721 3,541 The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited
1,657 3,119 Starbound
1,651 2,874 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Phantoms - NA
1,617 2,972 Warface
1,604 4,652 Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel
1,592 3,378 Portal 2
1,575 3,412 Football Manager 2013
1,554 1,895 S.K.I.L.L. - Special Force 2
1,550 3,465 Chivalry: Medieval Warfare
1,537 3,557 Space Engineers
1,499 2,431 The Mighty Quest For Epic Loot
1,499 3,534 Prison Architect
1,497 4,313 Borderlands
1,486 3,291 Medieval II: Total War
1,475 3,652 Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth
1,417 3,805 Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare - Multiplayer
1,412 2,352 ArcheAge
1,411 3,122 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
1,410 2,730 Echo of Soul
1,410 2,977 Napoleon: Total War
1,402 2,399 Don't Starve
1,389 3,299 Insurgency
1,373 3,090 The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Enhanced Edition
1,339 2,245 Fallout: New Vegas
1,310 2,838 Pro Evolution Soccer 2015
1,286 2,908 Banished
1,235 2,537 Dying Light
1,233 2,776 Company of Heroes (New Steam Version)
1,189 2,709 Batman: Arkham City GOTY
1,175 1,641 No More Room in Hell
1,167 3,252 Pillars of Eternity
Sorrynotsorry for the wall of text. The point needs to be visually made of how stupid this has become.
Last edited:
Piklar
Member
- Aug 9, 2013
- 109
- 0
- 41
Was looking at two very flash looking TVs today, a very slim LG OLED next to a slim Samsung ultra HD led 4K, both curved 55" displays , both running their showcase demos ..OLED demo appeared to have better color saturation and contrast but noticed some image pixilation.. the Samsung 4K had no visible pixilation great color but inferior contrast . If I were to take one home for gaming? Would be the 4K Samsung.
Unless you have spent time gaming on a 4K screen (preferably your own) please refrain from this "4K is hype" BS.. I remember peps bleating the same nonsense about "1080p in Mad Onion forums back in the day...
Ultra HD is yet another logical step towards lifelike image quality , in a few years we will likely read peps comments "8K is just hype" or perhaps "VR is hype" these short sighted pep remind me of a quote from the bible .. "If you think this is so then U know nothing John Snow"
Also two gtx 970s or 290s is all U need to get a great 4K (ultra HD) gaming experience in the more demanding titles, if it means dialing down a few settings from high to medium and disabling AA it still looks amazing in Ultra HD as there are no visible pixels.. take it from my experience you see everything gaming on a 70" Peen ..
P.S OO========D
Unless you have spent time gaming on a 4K screen (preferably your own) please refrain from this "4K is hype" BS.. I remember peps bleating the same nonsense about "1080p in Mad Onion forums back in the day...
Ultra HD is yet another logical step towards lifelike image quality , in a few years we will likely read peps comments "8K is just hype" or perhaps "VR is hype" these short sighted pep remind me of a quote from the bible .. "If you think this is so then U know nothing John Snow"
Also two gtx 970s or 290s is all U need to get a great 4K (ultra HD) gaming experience in the more demanding titles, if it means dialing down a few settings from high to medium and disabling AA it still looks amazing in Ultra HD as there are no visible pixels.. take it from my experience you see everything gaming on a 70" Peen ..
P.S OO========D
Last edited:
shady28
Platinum Member
- Apr 11, 2004
- 2,520
- 397
- 126
This is a really good point and something a lot of enthusiasts ignore. The excuse review sites make is they are trying to push the GPU to its limits, but in reality 90%+ of games can't make use of 970+ class performance even at higher resolutions. It doesn't say much when they post benchmarks where everything runs at 120+ FPS.
Having said that though, many of the games that have those lower requirements also don't add much at higher resolutions. ie, I just finished playing Mass Effect 3 with all settings max and vsync locked at 60fps (60 hz monitor) at 1440p - and on my 750 Ti I never saw it drop below 60fps.
However, *most* textures aren't detailed enough to make use of 1440p. In other words, I can see the pixel blocks in many of the textures even if they are blurred by AA.
By comparison BF 4 and DAI easily overtax my 750 Ti but the textures are mostly flawless vs ME 3 at 1440p. I have to tune the games a fair bit to get a decent mix of quality and FPS.
So another way of saying what you stated, is that most games can't make use of 4K resolution because they're designed for 1080p or 720p.
Azix
Golden Member
- Apr 18, 2014
- 1,438
- 67
- 91
screen resolution is ultimately just pixel count and density. Quality of the display is more important and MAYBE they put higher quality into the 4K screens. Even a640x480 res can look as good on a tiny screen as 4K on a large screen.
If 4K suits your viewing distance and screen size, good on you
If 4K suits your viewing distance and screen size, good on you
@scalesdni and Princess
Exactly my point people keep picking g only the cases 4k won't run games to go "see look your setup can't run 4k in this game so therefore it's not viable". Tons of games can't be run well at even 1080p with too many settings cranked. It's a trade off of settings for resolution.
There are tons of people who seem to want to find any reason to push against 4k. Truth is if you're an enthusiast spending 600+ on graphics and you're not excited about 4k I don't know what's wrong with you.
Exactly my point people keep picking g only the cases 4k won't run games to go "see look your setup can't run 4k in this game so therefore it's not viable". Tons of games can't be run well at even 1080p with too many settings cranked. It's a trade off of settings for resolution.
There are tons of people who seem to want to find any reason to push against 4k. Truth is if you're an enthusiast spending 600+ on graphics and you're not excited about 4k I don't know what's wrong with you.
I agree with everything you said until that last sentence. Truth is, not everyone has the same preferences. I'd rather have 144hz than 4K. I'll be purchasing a 1440p 144hz monitor when I replace my current monitor, unless the landscape changes by then.
Rebel_L
Senior member
- Nov 9, 2009
- 453
- 63
- 91
I suppose at some point I will likely have to adjust from 16:10 to 16:9, but 4k in a 24inch monitor is I think getting close to 200ppi, standard magazine print is 300dpi, with my monitors I still lean in by reflex when I want to see detail so I get to within about the 1ft standard magazine reading range... I probably wont need the high quality magazine print dpi of 720 as I will never lean in as far and get so close to my monitor, but even at 4k 24inch we still have lots of room to improve that the average person at a desk will be able to notice.
For me I really don't care nearly as much as many here about fps, I am happy with 25+ fps for my eyes and I will generally speaking only ever look for fine details when the there is not a lot of movement happening so dpi is very noticeable for me. I don't think I could ever downgrade on form factor or dpi without being unhappy about it. I will probably be at my visually useful limit with 27inch form factor at 300dpi.... better yet would be vr glasses at several K dpi, and im sure we will end up there eventually. I don't understand why anyone would be unhappy about the push towards the limits of our eyes, I mean I get if you can not actually visually see any kind of a difference anymore that you would not want to pay extra, but unless you do your gaming at far distances from your screen there is still a lot of improvement to be made.
For me I really don't care nearly as much as many here about fps, I am happy with 25+ fps for my eyes and I will generally speaking only ever look for fine details when the there is not a lot of movement happening so dpi is very noticeable for me. I don't think I could ever downgrade on form factor or dpi without being unhappy about it. I will probably be at my visually useful limit with 27inch form factor at 300dpi.... better yet would be vr glasses at several K dpi, and im sure we will end up there eventually. I don't understand why anyone would be unhappy about the push towards the limits of our eyes, I mean I get if you can not actually visually see any kind of a difference anymore that you would not want to pay extra, but unless you do your gaming at far distances from your screen there is still a lot of improvement to be made.
I'm not excited about it, because it doesn't support high refresh rates, and high FPS would be difficult anyway. I'd think 1440p is the better balance for me. I do understand why others are, however.
Rebel_L
Senior member
- Nov 9, 2009
- 453
- 63
- 91
All the resolutions started that way... be excited that there is still forward progress. Don't adopt until its a real upgrade for you, but appreciate that display tech is still moving forward.
I wouldn't spend money on any 4K display right now. OLED prices are dropping fast.
Street prices on the 55 EG9600 have fallen to $3800 now, it started at $5500 just earlier this year. And that is the curved model. The soon to be released flat versions are supposed to be even cheaper.
I bet we see a 55" 4K OLED for $2K beginning 2016, maybe even by Black Friday this year.
Street prices on the 55 EG9600 have fallen to $3800 now, it started at $5500 just earlier this year. And that is the curved model. The soon to be released flat versions are supposed to be even cheaper.
I bet we see a 55" 4K OLED for $2K beginning 2016, maybe even by Black Friday this year.
bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
wilds
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2012
- 2,059
- 674
- 136
I look forward to the day when we have enough 4k monitors for sale to match our own individual preferences.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter