Your 4k plans over next 12 months

[amenx]

Earlier I had thought I would need to buy a new desk to accomodate the size of a 4k unit. Just occured to me no need to if wall mounted. Would certainly free up a lot of space on my desk. As well as being a much better viewing distance away. This makes me more excited for one of these things. But still looking at 2 years (possibly 2 gens of vidcards away as well) for it to happen.

 

[dangerman1337]

I'll be wanting a 2560x1440 120Hz non-TN (not exactly farfetched with that Ezio 120Hz VA panel) with G-Sync first. 4k will be too costly for a long time, maybe when 10 or 7nm GPUs I'll think about it).

 

[nOOky]

This year I'll probably buy a 2560 x 1440 monitor and possibly a new graphics card. I'm keeping an eye on the new 290X cards with aftermarket cooling before I decide what I buy.

For the PC I don't see myself buying a 4k monitor for quite some time. I don't think it's a reasonable resolution for a desktop-sized display, and the amount of content available is very slim right now anyway and the tech is too new.

I'll probably buy a home theater monitor before I buy a PC monitor, when the 65" or larger screens drop down to a reasonable price that is. I'm guessing 2 years from now?

 

[Gunbuster]

I'm not going to pay Dell or Asus $3500 for a 31" screen and I'm not going to pay panasonic or sony $4000 for a 50" soooooo I'm in the cheap Chinese 39" boat.

Might pick up the current Seiki 39" once it goes sub $500. Otherwise will wait for their next model that has HDMI 2.0 or DP for 60Hz 4K

 

[Bateluer]

Not from any manufacturer any of us have heard of. All the grade A manufacturer are charging $3500 or more right now. There is no way any of them are suddenly going to start selling sub $1000 models next year. Even if by some miracle they could, they're not going to so they can preserve profit margins on the new tech. Panasonic just announced a 20" 4k tablet that's going to retail for $6000 in the US. Compared to other highend tablets, the only real difference in specs is the screen. So the vast majority of that cost is going to screen. But next year we're going to see grade A panels for under $1000. Right...

It's one thing to take a chance on a $350 Korean 1440p monitor. It is something entirely different to take a chance on a $1000 monitor.

Philips.
http://www.itproportal.com/2013/09/08/exclusive-sub-1000-238in-4k-monitors-coming-philips-2014/

4K panels are going to drop in price like stones in 2014. You'll see them well under 1000 dollars before the end of 2014.

4k will be too costly for a long time, maybe when 10 or 7nm GPUs I'll think about it).

Ack . . . people keep saying 4K gaming won't be possible until 7nm GPUs. Do you guys just skip over the 4K benchmarks in reviews or what? You can 4K game now, with 28nm high cards, if you turn off AA and tweak settings a bit. High end 20nm cards in 6 months will 4K game even more easily. Or just complain that you can't do it on a 200 dollar card?

 

[Gunbuster]

4K panels are going to drop in price like stones in 2014. You'll see them well under 1000 dollars before the end of 2014.

2014? The panels are already cheap, the Seiki 39" is right at $500. People have contacted wholesalers on Alibaba and gotten quotes in the $300's for TV's using the same glass.

Its just a race to see who will develop a cheap controller board that has HDMI 2.0 and DP right now.

 

[Genx87]

No plans, sticking with 1080p on a monitor. If I go 4K it will be on a television. I am probably done with monitors going forward. My plan for the winter is to finish up remodeling the bathrooms then building my mancave. That means putting my PC on a TV.

 

[Bateluer]

2014? The panels are already cheap, the Seiki 39" is right at $500. People have contacted wholesalers on Alibaba and gotten quotes in the $300's for TV's using the same glass.

Its just a race to see who will develop a cheap controller board that has HDMI 2.0 and DP right now.

I did see that Seiki TV at 544 on Amazon the other day. Thought about it. But I was referring specifically to computer monitors, not television sets. I don't think I'm alone in saying 39in is too large to fit comfortably on most desks.

 

[Aithos]

Philips.
http://www.itproportal.com/2013/09/08/exclusive-sub-1000-238in-4k-monitors-coming-philips-2014/

4K panels are going to drop in price like stones in 2014. You'll see them well under 1000 dollars before the end of 2014.

Ack . . . people keep saying 4K gaming won't be possible until 7nm GPUs. Do you guys just skip over the 4K benchmarks in reviews or what? You can 4K game now, with 28nm high cards, if you turn off AA and tweak settings a bit. High end 20nm cards in 6 months will 4K game even more easily. Or just complain that you can't do it on a 200 dollar card?

It isn't that 4k gaming isn't possible, it's that it's pointless. First of all: 30fps is unacceptable for gaming, especially multiplayer online gaming. Most benchmarks can't even hit 30fps on 4k in SINGLE player games, now add all the extra data that goes into multiplayer and you have a game that isn't even remotely playable.

Secondly, it's ridiculously expensive. Even if you somehow got a 60hz monitor for $1000 you still need $1500 in GPUs to even try to run at that framerate and you STILL don't have native 4k content. Which is the last and most important point: until you have native content you're just upscaling, which looks nice but isn't even close to what it SHOULD look like.

It's never worth adopting a new "standard" for resolution until it's been out and viable for around 5 years. 1080p was the same way, 1440p isn't even here with 120hz yet (except overclocking). 4k is just stupid.

 

[Pandora's Box]

No plans for 4k, quite satisfied with my current monitor. Gsync is interesting to me though, depends if they can put one out with a 1440P screen on a IPS panel.

 

[psolord]

I will start thinking about a 4k display, once I can get an affordable 40'' 4k HDTV, to replace my current one.

This, along with the second iteration of 20nm graphics cards and that's six months after they have come out, so I can get two R9 490s or two GTX 970s for less than 350 euros each.

And that is only if HDMI 2.0 brings 4K stereoscopic 3D with 60Hz per eye.

 

[Bateluer]

It isn't that 4k gaming isn't possible, it's that it's pointless. First of all: 30fps is unacceptable for gaming, especially multiplayer online gaming. Most benchmarks can't even hit 30fps on 4k in SINGLE player games, now add all the extra data that goes into multiplayer and you have a game that isn't even remotely playable.

Secondly, it's ridiculously expensive. Even if you somehow got a 60hz monitor for $1000 you still need $1500 in GPUs to even try to run at that framerate and you STILL don't have native 4k content. Which is the last and most important point: until you have native content you're just upscaling, which looks nice but isn't even close to what it SHOULD look like.

It's never worth adopting a new "standard" for resolution until it's been out and viable for around 5 years. 1080p was the same way, 1440p isn't even here with 120hz yet (except overclocking). 4k is just stupid.

Plug in two HDMI ports, there's your 60Hz. Or a single Display Port, there's your 60Hz. You'll need to spend about 400 on a video card today to have legit claim to 4K gaming, and there's faster cards. 400 is not out of plausibility price range.

When it comes to gaming, you're not upscaling.

 

[smackababy]

Plug in two HDMI ports, there's your 60Hz. Or a single Display Port, there's your 60Hz. You'll need to spend about 400 on a video card today to have legit claim to 4K gaming, and there's faster cards. 400 is not out of plausibility price range.

When it comes to gaming, you're not upscaling.

Are there currently any 4k displays that accept dual HDMI input or have DP? That is the problem.


Also, some no name company announced a $2000 55" 4K smart TV. Prices are dropping.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/12/hisenses-4k/

 

[Attic]

I prefer larger screens for PC gaming. Currently game on a 54" plasma. I'd love 4k, but right now I can get 60fps locked on quite a few games at 1080p with a midrange card without sacrificing to much graphics fidelity. I won't be considering 4k until a 300$ card can do it at above 60fps in a majority of games. I think 3-4 years, even then I'm still happy with 1080p.

I'd say in importance for gaming I'd go with 60fps consistent, then graphics fidelity, then resolution.

 

[taserbro]

Philips.
http://www.itproportal.com/2013/09/08/exclusive-sub-1000-238in-4k-monitors-coming-philips-2014/

4K panels are going to drop in price like stones in 2014. You'll see them well under 1000 dollars before the end of 2014.

Ack . . . people keep saying 4K gaming won't be possible until 7nm GPUs. Do you guys just skip over the 4K benchmarks in reviews or what? You can 4K game now, with 28nm high cards, if you turn off AA and tweak settings a bit. High end 20nm cards in 6 months will 4K game even more easily. Or just complain that you can't do it on a 200 dollar card?

Anywhere close to 1k on the screen is still way too much for me (even though I did shell out 2k for my new cintiq) and honestly, for people shopping for high end, it's not about the tech being too expensive, it's about the feeling that the tech is not mature enough yet...

When I can game at 4K with ~60fps in most games on medium-high settings with light AA on a 200 dollar card like I can on 1080 right now, that's when I'll consider the tech mature. Until then, there are a lot of other things to upgrade before I feel like the resolution holding things back.

 

[Bateluer]

Are there currently any 4k displays that accept dual HDMI input or have DP? That is the problem.

The Asus PQ321Q that everyone is running their benchmarks on has a DisplayPort.

Also, some no name company announced a $2000 55" 4K smart TV. Prices are dropping.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/12/hisenses-4k/

This reinforces my statements.
Also, HiSense isn't a no-name brand. Its the 5th largest television producer in the world.

 

[smackababy]

The Asus PQ321Q that everyone is running their benchmarks on has a DisplayPort.

Which costs $3500. No thanks.

This reinforces my statements.
Also, HiSense isn't a no-name brand. Its the 5th largest television producer in the world.

State owned Chinese company I've never heard of until today when I read that headline. Yeah, no-name brand.

 

[smackababy]

When I can game at 4K with ~60fps in most games on medium-high settings with light AA on a 200 dollar card like I can on 1080 right now, that's when I'll consider the tech mature. Until then, there are a lot of other things to upgrade before I feel like the resolution holding things back.

So, you want to pay for an expensive monitor to use budget parts and feel okay playing? That makes a lot of sense! Spend $1000 on a monitor, spend $200 on a GPU.

 

[taserbro]

So, you want to pay for an expensive monitor to use budget parts and feel okay playing? That makes a lot of sense! Spend $1000 on a monitor, spend $200 on a GPU.

That's not what I said at all.
Either you completely misunderstood me, or you're insinuating we still pay 1000usd for a 1080p monitor. Either way, what I meant was that the technology doesn't feel mature yet and not being able to build a 4k-adequate rig with a medium-end budget is a symptom of it being too new and inaccessible to so much of the marketbase that it's pretty irrelevant.

 

[Childs]

So, you want to pay for an expensive monitor to use budget parts and feel okay playing? That makes a lot of sense! Spend $1000 on a monitor, spend $200 on a GPU.

I think he is suggesting when 4K monitors reach current 1080p monitor prices, and $200 video cards can handle 4K gaming like they currently handle 1080p gaming. Thats pretty reasonable, and probably when 4K is mainstream. The monitors need to come down a lot n price before its important for gaming.

 

[smackababy]

I think he is suggesting when 4K monitors reach current 1080p monitor prices, and $200 video cards can handle 4K gaming like they currently handle 1080p gaming. Thats pretty reasonable, and probably when 4K is mainstream. The monitors need to come down a lot n price before its important for gaming.

They may not come down in price that much. Wasn't 4K just a stop gap until 8K? If that is the case, they may end up like 2560 monitors and never really hit a mainstream price.

 

[Childs]

They may not come down in price that much. Wasn't 4K just a stop gap until 8K? If that is the case, they may end up like 2560 monitors and never really hit a mainstream price.

Yeah, I wouldn't plan any builds around 4K. If it ever becomes feasible, there will be better cards to handle it. The one thing that makes 4K different than 1600p vs 4K is that 4K will also be pushed for TV. Its kind of the only reason 1080p has become the defacto resolution standard. But a 30" 4K monitor will probably always be expensive.

 

[blackened23]

Having thought this over more, i'll get 4k when it is ubiquitous in the living room - in my opinion , that will not happen for at least 2-3 years and will require prices to drop fairly substantially. If UHDTV's lower to reasonable price levels, PC 4k screens will follow but NOT until then. So it really is pretty ridiculous to pay 3500$ for a good 4k PC screen when 4k UHDTVs will probably be around the 1500$ mark 3 years from now...

I do see 4k being mass adopted at some point. It will happen, guaranteed - the new HDTV standard is based on it. The only variable preventing mass acceptable at this point is price, and that will slowly lower over time just like it did with 1080p. People were hesitant to adopt 1080p at release too due to price, but that slowly fixed itself over time. Same will happen with 4k. So i'm not too concerned about 4k until it becomes ubiquitous. And that isn't happening in the next year.

 

[Ajay]

Ack . . . people keep saying 4K gaming won't be possible until 7nm GPUs. Do you guys just skip over the 4K benchmarks in reviews or what? You can 4K game now, with 28nm high cards, if you turn off AA and tweak settings a bit. High end 20nm cards in 6 months will 4K game even more easily. Or just complain that you can't do it on a 200 dollar card?

20nm GFX is probably 2H2014, but still, I think a top draw Maxwell or whatever AMD has next would push 4K pretty well (or even a pair of GTX 780's or R9 290X's). The bad news is that computer displays will likely lag behind and be more expensive/sq inch than their TV brothers.

 

[Phynaz]

I've been on 19x12 for about a year and a half.

I'll get 4k somewhere around 2030 I think.