4K v HD

Marsden

Anyone here have a 4K monitor. Is there a difference in gaming. I'd read that unless you've a large screen ie > 50" TV you cant see a difference. I'm not planning on changing monitors just yet but would like to hear peoples opinions on UHD gaming.

Monotype

You're talking about a lot of pixels, which means a heck of a lot of graphics power behind it - at least two top end cards.
Since you sit so close to a PC, you'd notice the difference alright. Unless you're willing to spend a couple of thousand on upgrades to get smooth frames, a better option would be to opt for a 1440p monitor. It's a nice improvement from 1080p.

Ihackedboardz

Bought a G sync 4K & a 980GTX before crimbo, the monitor is a 28 inch & I have to say I see a massive difference coming from a 1080p monitor, plus I'm running BF4 & Elite dangerous etc on ultra @ 3840x2160 with no issues with frame rate what so ever...

Lu Tze

Ihackedboardz wrote: »

Bought a G sync 4K & a 980GTX before crimbo, the monitor is a 28 inch & I have to say I see a massive difference coming from a 1080p monitor, plus I'm running BF4 & Elite dangerous etc on ultra @ 3840x2160 with no issues with frame rate what so ever...

I thought it would take a lot more horsepower for those kind of settings - any chance of benchmark? The price of upgrading graphics cards (or doing a new build from scratch) is the main reason i wouldnt be upgrading in the next year or so.

Edit: Running a HD7970, which is grand for anything i play at 1080p

Ihackedboardz

Using fraps, getting a constant 40-50 frames in BF4, Elite - in stations I'm getting about 45 & in space I'm pretty much locked at 60 unless theres a massive battle going on (even then it never ever stutters).
BTW graphics card is at stock speeds (Galax SOC 980GTX) which is a bit faster then the ref card.

TerrorFirmer

Yeah I had a GTX980 Strix on my 4k monitor and it ran BF4 fine at ultra as well, no AA, averaged about 50fps. World apart from 1080 and 1440p. You would want to have a serious system behind it first though. GTX980 level card really as a minimum, sweet spot for 4K would be dual GTX970's or 290's.

But of course realistically if you're getting a 4k monitor you're hardly going to be settling for 4k low-medium settings.

Monotype

Here's a review that hardocp did recently of two GTX 980s with 4K.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/10/27/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_sli_4k_video_card_review/

You can see that you can get fairly good frames with two cards but in some, the frames dip a bit and more power than just the two is needed - that's assuming you want all your ultra settings etc. If you scale those back, you can do with a lot less. Drivers might have been updated since then, but even so, that's €1K worth of graphics cards.

Ihackedboardz

Yes forgot to mention, I'm not running AA in BF4 & running SMAA in Elite, in relation to serious system... running a 4770k, 32gb ram, water cooled, Samsung Evo SSD for boot drive etc etc... nay too shabby piece of kit if I do say so myself...

Getting back to the 4K question... myself & a buddy were on the fence about buying a 4k or a 1440 144Hertz monitor, delighted I went for the 4K, he purchased the 144 Hertz & averages approx 100FPS on the same games with the 980 same card.

Just waiting for oculus rift CV1 to come out & my transcendence will be complete