4K vs IPS?

[Chronos5618]

Hi guys,

 

So its has come to the time of the year when the PC is due a little upgrade, and thought I might treat myself to a couple of 970s. However, I thought that I would also splash some cash on a new monitor, bearing in mind that my current one is getting on for five years old.

 

So, my question is this- is it better to go for a 4K monitor (ASUS PB287Q I'm looking at you) or a 1400p IPS (possibly a cheaper Korean panel, though definitely not sure one that). I don't use my PC for gaming as much as I would like, so I'm looking for the monitor that is going to give me the best all round experience for editing, browsing etc, not just in games...but at the same time one that will also let me utilise the full power of my new graphics cards. Seems a shame to have a system capable of running 4K without the monitor to boot. I don't really have space for a multiple monitor set-up...though I will keep my current monitor for a handy second screen while working and was just wondering what your opinions are. My budget is around £400 ($600), so if there are any ones that jump to mind that would be super!

 

Cheers! 

[Paralectic]

I would go 1440p because of scaling and pricing in general.

[stijnverwaest]

I would go 1440p because of scaling and pricing in general.

me two scaling is still a big issue

[silenthill_69]

I'd like IPS+4K+GSYNC+144Hz+32'' if possible please  Dream on. few years before that happens

[ind3x]

The 970's aren't the greatest cards for 4k. Even 980 sli struggle now and then due to their memory. But for 1440p dual 970's are sweet and i would definately go for that solution!

[Fate]

1440p IPS unless you think medium-high in newer games is acceptable (two 970s). 

The screen real-estate you get from 4k is amazing though. I personally don't use scaling anymore (4k) so I don't have the scaling issues others do.

Dell has a 4k IPS monitor for $699, you might be able to get a coupon code or something and get that down to $600.

 

edit: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=210-ADOF

 

 

edit2: For games that you can't run at 4k high-utlra, you can always turn the resolution to 1440p. The Dell 4k IPS monitor is a really good deal imo.

[ForsakenLive]

While scaling can be annoying, that's all, It's annoying. Once you are in a program and have configured your browser correctly (there are extensions that help a lot with 4k on websites). Some things like the configuration settings on windows and some menus will still be crippled, but it won't affect your daily use that much.

Now, the problem with 1440p that many forget is that: not all games support the res (mostly old titles), most content is aimed at 1080p. Which means you will be running 1080p on a 1440p monitor a lot of times; when you do that you depend on your monitor sampling and deforming the content. You will have to tolerate black bars or image deformation when you display not native res content.

With a 4k monitor you always get 100% perfect 1080p image, because there is no weird sampling going on; it will use a 4:1 ratio and that's it. Games look better and you have much more screen realstate.

 

4k vs IPS? Why not both? Dell should have available their new monitors pretty soon; The P2415Q 24" IPS 4k $599 and the P2715Q 27"4k IPS $699. Currently you can only get them from the Dell Store; but they will be (if they are not already) available on most online stores. These amazing monitors have 10 bit tables (better color than most IPS) a great stand (I love Dell stands! they can do anything), and 8 MS GTG, which while doesn't seem great is much better than what you expected, mid and high end Dell monitos have virtually no image process delay, making them very nice for gaming; sometimes even more than the so called 'fast TN' monitors.

[ForsakenLive]

The 970's aren't the greatest cards for 4k. Even 980 sli struggle now and then due to their memory. But for 1440p dual 970's are sweet and i would definately go for that solution!

Really? All benchmarks I saw so far about 970 SLI show 60+ FPS in every game; and the 980 SLI not only goes over the 60FPS but has very good min fps too.

 

Remember that some benchmarkers use something like 16XMSAA which not only is stupid and extremely difficult to drive; but also doesn't have any noticeable graphic improvement.... Usually less times filters, or lighter and better filters like SMAA run much smoother, look really good and are not performance hogs.

[Chronos5618]

While scaling can be annoying, that's all, It's annoying. Once you are in a program and have configured your browser correctly (there are extensions that help a lot with 4k on websites). Some things like the configuration settings on windows and some menus will still be crippled, but it won't affect your daily use that much.

Now, the problem with 1440p that many forget is that: not all games support the res (mostly old titles), most content is aimed at 1080p. Which means you will be running 1080p on a 1440p monitor a lot of times; when you do that you depend on your monitor sampling and deforming the content. You will have to tolerate black bars or image deformation when you display not native res content.

With a 4k monitor you always get 100% perfect 1080p image, because there is no weird sampling going on; it will use a 4:1 ratio and that's it. Games look better and you have much more screen realstate.

 

4k vs IPS? Why not both? Dell should have available their new monitors pretty soon; The P2415Q 24" IPS 4k $599 and the P2715Q 27"4k IPS $699. Currently you can only get them from the Dell Store; but they will be (if they are not already) available on most online stores. These amazing monitors have 10 bit tables (better color than most IPS) a great stand (I love Dell stands! they can do anything), and 8 MS GTG, which while doesn't seem great is much better than what you expected, mid and high end Dell monitos have virtually no image process delay, making them very nice for gaming; sometimes even more than the so called 'fast TN' monitors.

 

What's the refresh rate on those monitors supposed to be. I've found that a lot of monitors have to run at 30Hz in 4K. I swore I would never go back to that...never again! I still have nightmares...

[ind3x]

Really? All benchmarks I saw so far about 970 SLI show 60+ FPS in every game; and the 980 SLI not only goes over the 60FPS but has very good min fps too.

 

Remember that some benchmarkers use something like 16XMSAA which not only is stupid and extremely difficult to drive; but also doesn't have any noticeable graphic improvement.... Usually less times filters, or lighter and better filters like SMAA run much smoother, look really good and are not performance hogs.

This is compared to the 290x which has a better price to performance ratio. (not saying 970's in sli isn't good, but there are better price/performance options out there)

[ForsakenLive]

This is compared to the 290x which has a better price to performance ratio. (not saying 970's in sli isn't good, but there are better price/performance options out there)

No, you said 970s and 980s 'struggle' to run games at 4k. That's not true at all; 'struggle' means it barely reaches playable framerates (40+fps); if it's running 60+fps without a hitch on high settings, then it's not struggling, it's working. You never mentioned price/performance, comparisons, or anything similar.

[ForsakenLive]

What's the refresh rate on those monitors supposed to be. I've found that a lot of monitors have to run at 30Hz in 4K. I swore I would never go back to that...never again! I still have nightmares...

60Hz natively, they use Displayport 1.2a, which is totally supported by the 970s.

While it's not listed in the spec, several articles confirm it, and also there is user reviews and comments of people in EU that is already using the monitor and is running at 60Hz using the display port connector.

[Chronos5618]

60Hz natively, they use Displayport 1.2a, which is totally supported by the 970s.

While it's not listed in the spec, several articles confirm it, and also there is user reviews and comments of people in EU that is already using the monitor and is running at 60Hz using the display port connector.

Just did a quick Google, and came up with the same result. Price is a little high, though it looks absolutely gorgeous, so I'll have to think on it a little. Don't suppose anyone has experience with the Korean panels. For £250, you can have a 27" IPS overclocked to ~120Hz (if you are lucky). Seems like a sweet deal. 

[SurvivorNVL]

In the next few months Dell is likely to release more IPS 4k panels, as is Samsung and other vendors, but for now - 1440p 27" IPS is the sweet spot.  The benQ GW2765HT is a ridiculously good monitor / panel, AHVA(IPS performance, lower lag) and all in all I think $340 right now at Amazon.

[ForsakenLive]

Just did a quick Google, and came up with the same result. Price is a little high, though it looks absolutely gorgeous, so I'll have to think on it a little. Don't suppose anyone has experience with the Korean panels. For £250, you can have a 27" IPS overclocked to ~120Hz (if you are lucky). Seems like a sweet deal. 

I'm using a Qnix 27" 1440p IPS monitor right now; they are a very good deal; you can get cheaper too. I went with Qnix because they know their way around light-bleed a bit more.

The overclocking is not as it sounds; while you can make them go faster, and sometimes up to 120hz, stability is not there. They get hot, show artefacts, weird colors, etc. A conservative 80hz (20hz OC) did worked nice in my case, I followed a very good guide I found online and got it working. But actual support for 80hz is very little; it was a lot of work to get the driver to understand it should run stuff on 80hz, and once it got it most games I used had no setting for it. Only a couple of shooters had it.

 

Personally the main downside, is what I already told you; 1080p scaling is bad on 1440p; I play lots of games, incluiding indies, and they not all support 1440p. Also even watching 1080p youtube videos feels a bit weird on full screen. I'm doing a new build soon on Q1 2015; will probably jump to 4k after finishing it.

[Chronos5618]

I'm using a Qnix 27" 1440p IPS monitor right now; they are a very good deal; you can get cheaper too. I went with Qnix because they know their way around light-bleed a bit more.

The overclocking is not as it sounds; while you can make them go faster, and sometimes up to 120hz, stability is not there. They get hot, show artefacts, weird colors, etc. A conservative 80hz (20hz OC) did worked nice in my case, I followed a very good guide I found online and got it working. But actual support for 80hz is very little; it was a lot of work to get the driver to understand it should run stuff on 80hz, and once it got it most games I used had no setting for it. Only a couple of shooters had it.

 

Personally the main downside, is what I already told you; 1080p scaling is bad on 1440p; I play lots of games, incluiding indies, and they not all support 1440p. Also even watching 1080p youtube videos feels a bit weird on full screen. I'm doing a new build soon on Q1 2015; will probably jump to 4k after finishing it.

That makes sense, thanks. I'm looking to future-proof as well, so 4K IPS is an attractive option at the moment. Seems to cover all my bases- the improved colours of IPS that I can appreciate day to day and the graphical grunt of the 4K when I get those blessed moments of free time where I can get my game on! 

[Thony]

4K is not thete (perfect) yet so 1440p IPS is the way !

[freemini]

I have 1440p IPS and it's pretty good, though your budget is really close to 4k IPS monitors (the Dell, Acer S277HK and Asus PB279Q)

[HardHue]

600$ is what I spent on the Samsung 590d 4k monitor. I chose it over the Asus 4k because I had heard a lot of bad things on forums about the way the Asus panel is two separate panels that could get desynced (or something don't trust me do your own research  ), giving you massive tearing right down the center of your screen.

In my experience with Xfire 290s either the drivers aren't there, my cable is trash, or the monitor is artifacting itself. It's not too bad. It shorts itself to 1440p every now and then until I replug the DP cable, flashes black every few hours, and the image almost "fidgets" back and forth every couple days. I use it 8+ hours a day and usually don't see anything twice a day.

A while ago I tested with an old 780 and I also got artifacts so I'm not sure.

If you set the latency mode to "fastest" which I found sufficient to play FPS like CS or BO2 (said from someone with all CRT 100+Hz and 144Hz previous experience) you get pretty annoying ghosting, but very little (that I can notice) on the "fast" which is enough for me to play slower FPS like BF4 or any other game type.

It can be annoying but the pixel density is amazing. I'll probably be buying 2 more for surround.

[Cleft]

I'd stick with the 1440p monitor, unless you're rocking several gtx 980's solid 4k 60fps is still kinda hard to do. Also say you get the 4k monitor, if you turned down the resolution to 1440p it would look worse then the monitor that's native 1440p. I think 4k JUST came into the realm of being barely affordable, still expensive as opposed to two years ago when a 4k monitor was stupidly expensive

[GoodBytes]

Why not both?

Dell released 27inch and 24inch 4K monitors IPS true 8-bit panels, with sRGB color profile manufacture calibrated ready to be selected once out of the box, and affordable

Dell P2715Q: http://accessories.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&sku=210-ADOF

Dell P2415Q: http://accessories.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&sku=860-BBFF

Both are new.

[felixthemaster1]

me two scaling is still a big issue

Me three.

[ObeseWalrus]

1440p

[typographie]

SLI GTX 970's can likely handle many games at 4K, but you'd be relying on perfect SLI support for each game. I really don't think SLI support is reliable enough to know you wouldn't be stuck with a single 970 at 4K sometimes, and that's not going to be fun when it happens. I think 1440p is still more practical for gaming. A single high-end card can still game at 1440p when necessary. 1440p displays are cheaper (or at least better for your money), the products are more mature, and 120/144 Hz refresh is an option.

 

I wouldn't stress too much over IPS vs. TN unless you need absolute color accuracy for professional work. High-end TN panels have gotten very, very good and often hide the shortcomings of TN very well.