Your 4k plans over next 12 months

[blastingcap]

I'm on 3K already (3 1080p panels), so 4K is practically already here for me, plus I get extra field of view that no lone 4K monitor can give.

 

[Blue_Max]

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.

Well, if he doesn't need crazy game performance, it'd sure be nice for photo editing, etc!

 

[24601]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35723970&postcount=543

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2352166&page=22

Post 542 and on.

That also means no G-Sync @ 2560x1440 @ 120hz folks, if it truly is tied to displayport. Not enough bandwidth.

Hopefully they can overclock displayport????? or something.

 

[Arkaign]

I have zero 4K plans until :

27" 120hz is $300, along with single GPU for $300 that drives it. I have no interest in a big investment that can't do 120hz, no interest in multi-GPU, and no interest in spending $400+ for a GPU. I simply can't justify spending that much when I rarely have time to game anyway.

 

[Arkaign]

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.

ThisThisThisYes. Why do I always agree with you?

 

[blastingcap]

ThisThisThisYes. Why do I always agree with you?

Because blackened is one of the more level-headed people on this board? I agree with both of you.

But you know who would probably love 4K is professional artists/photographers/etc. who already pay $$$$ for their monitors anyway for better color, less backlight bleeding, etc.

4K is not really for mainstream gamers right now or for years to come. That said, Eyefinity/Surround and 3D and 120 Hz are non-4K reasons why someone might want massive GPU horsepower. And if you are a pro gamer you might want an obscene framerate, regardless of resolution.

 

[JDG1980]

My current monitor is a 32" 1080p Sony TV. Works nicely, but has very low DPI. I'd love to replace it with a 4K monitor of the same size, but right now, that's financially prohibitive. Once a 4K monitor or decent TV of that size class is available for under $1000, I'm probably going to upgrade.

Seiki has some very competitively priced 4K TVs, but they all are limited to a 30 Hz resolution, which is not adequate for PC use (at least not for me). This limitation seems to be due to the input controllers, not the panels, so Seiki could probably fix it without too much trouble. Currently, their 39" 4K TV costs $699 on Amazon. I suspect they could get a LOT more sales if they added a 60 Hz DisplayPort input and some better OSD controls - even if they bumped up the price to $999 to pay for these improvements.

 

[RussianSensation]

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?

You have to turn the settings down not by a bit, but by a lot to get playable frame rates.

Metro LL - all on low
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7481/59455.png

COH2 - all on low
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7481/59458.png

Crysis 3 - all on low
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph7481/59470.png

What's the point of getting 4x as many pixels as a 1080P monitor only to go from VH/Ultra to Low-medium settings and no MSAA? I can't see how a game with 4K on low will look better than a game at 1080P maxed out with MSAA.

Keep in mind, this is for current generation games, not next generation games. What happens when next games arrive in 2015-2017? As PS4/XB1 generation picks up, we will get next generation PC games that will be 2x more demanding on the GPUs than Metro LL and Crysis 3. Crank up the settings from Low to VH/Ultra on 4K to feel an upgrade and you probably increase GPU workload another 80-100%.

I just don't see how gaming on a 4K monitor for next gen games is viable as an actual upgrade (i.e., not on low-medium details at 40-50 fps) without getting 2 flagship 14nm GPUs (2016-2017).

 

[Shmee]

I will likely stick with my 30" for quite a while.