4k with lower settings or 1440p on Ultra?

[mapegl]

4k. Undoubtedly. Speaking from experience. 

I love my new 4k monitor. Heck, I only have a 7950, but you just have to be realistic. I KNOW that I can't run anything on ultra, and most things I can't run great unless they're fairly low, but man it looks absolutely STUNNING. So many people are still stuck on recommending 1440p monitors since 4k isn't easy to drive, but if you have realistic expectations, then it truly is a fantastic experience. And it honestly surprises me that I can run some things very well. Dark Souls 2 is a consistent 60 fps at 4k. Heavily texture modded Fallout New Vegas (not able to handle ENB, sadly) runs at 60 all day. Even Bioshock infinite runs from 40-50 if you turn down SSAO and leave everything else at ultra.

And you guys who claim that just because a panel is TN means it's complete rubbish really need to see the panel that the samsung and asus 4k monitors use. Yes, it's TN. Yes, it has color shift. But it actually looks incredible for a TN panel. I would say that it's on-par with my Asus PB238Q, except the samsung 4k I have now has almost no motion blur, whereas the PB238Q wasn't the prettiest choice for gaming because it was distracting when you turned.

 

The benefits of having 8 million pixels compared to a measly 3.5 million is hugely noticeable. The thought of playing something at 1080p or 1440p is just shocking. It honestly feels like games were meant to be played at 4k. It is a completely different graphical experience.

What monitor do you have?

 

EDIT: Just saw it. Nevermind.

[mapegl]

I'm disregarding the fact that it's a tn panel. The problem is properly driving a 4K monitor. At this present moment, it's pretty stupid to even consider a 4k monitor because the graphics cards aren't able to keep up. When a single card is able to deliver 50 fps on ultra, on the most demanding titles, then 4k becomes a great investment. 

 

Be patient, 4K will have its time in the spotlight. By that time, prices on 4k tn panels will be much cheaper too.

Don't say stupid. That's not very nice of you! ;-)

 

But thanks for your input and helping me out with that. ;-)

[mapegl]

*snip*

Maybe you could tell us how well scaling looks on your monitor.

 

If 1440p and 1080p scaling are well-done on this monitor and it still looks great, there is no point in buying a 1440p monitor for me and paying basically the same price but getting less (at least less what I care about, I don't mind a good TN panel vs IPS, I just don't)

 

Would you mind trying that out for us, or have you already? Could you share how it looks? Maybe take a picture of your monitor or two? That'd be awesome, because I think there are more people than me evalutating a buy like this, and if it is very usable for lower res gaming, it is a definite buy for me.

[angst92]

Mt samsung 4k is the best quality panel ive owned, outclasses my old ips.

[eLucid]

Mt samsung 4k is the best quality panel ive owned, outclasses my old ips.

You're crazy.

[Sk3l3]

im also debating on either 4k or 1440p cant really decide still looking at each benefits of both sides 1440p seems more reliable as i could get that nice rog swift or swap that out and go half and half and look at 21:9 monitors like the lg curved 34UC97 as i also watch alot of anime and movies 

 

 

wish those lovely gtx 980s would come out already so i could power any of those resolutions 

[angst92]

You're crazy.

Mine has no backlight bleed at all and the colour shift is so minor as to not be noticeable in standard use. It is a very good panel by all accounts.

[mapegl]

Mine has no backlight bleed at all and the colour shift is so minor as to not be noticeable in standard use. It is a very good panel by all accounts.

Would you mind sharing some more thoughts on playing at 4k with us? How is scaling when you set resolutions to 1080p or 1440p?

 

What panel do you have exactly?

 

And: Would you mind posting a pic or two of a scaled image?

[LemonSpice]

1440p because ips panels are also reasonably priced at that point and 4k you can only get tn unless ur spending more tn 1,400 dollars or you are going 30hz

[angst92]

Would you mind sharing some more thoughts on playing at 4k with us? How is scaling when you set resolutions to 1080p or 1440p?

 

What panel do you have exactly?

 

And: Would you mind posting a pic or two of a scaled image?

 

 

Sure.

I have the Samsung U28D590, the panel is the best tn ive used/seen. It's colours pop and are better than a few ips panels i have used although it will obviously be outclassed by ips panels of a similar price range. There is no motion blur or input lag that i can detect and im sensitive to these coming from 120hz and as stated before i cant see any noticeable colour shift or backlight bleed and ive hand a monitor with this quite badly before so i know what it looks like.

Scaling from 1080p works perfectly as its a 1:1 ratio for mapping the pixels which means it looks exactly as it would if you were using i 1080p monitor, i have not tried 1440p scaling but i imagine it would not work aswell and would be like scaling 720p to 1080p.

Gaming on the monitor is great, with the extra detail it makes games much more immersive and as its a tn its also great for fps etc. The benefit that you will get from it does depend heavily on the games that you play, for example in crysis, metro redux, borderlands 2 and top down games such as dota 2 the difference is night and day it really is that stunning but in other games for example tf2 you wouldnt know it was 4k. It is reliant on the games design and art style etc as to whether it scales well and you can see extra detail.

Performance wise on 2x 280x I achieve:

BF3: 100fps solid ultra

Crysis 1: 60fps solid ultra

Borderlands 2: 60fps solid at 60% gpu usage

Metro redux: 50-60fps on high

Pro's:

OMG Jizz detail

Con's:

1080p looks like 800x600 now

Hardware requirements

Not 120hz

[MegaDave91]

Performance wise on 2x 280x I achieve:

BF3: 100fps solid ultra

Crysis 1: 60fps solid ultra

 

At 3840x2160?  I don't believe that.

[angst92]

At 3840x2160?  I don't believe that.

What reason do i have to lie? Thats what i get if you want i can screencap bf3 with fps counter later.

[MegaDave91]

What reason do i have to lie? Thats what i get if you want i can screencap bf3 with fps counter later.

 Please

[angst92]

Here you go http://i.imgur.com/rKlTjfU.jpg

[MegaDave91]

Here you go http://i.imgur.com/rKlTjfU.jpg

1. That map is very small for TDM

2. The sky takes up a good portion of your FoV

3. The frame isn't very populated.

 

Try Gulf of Omen with 64 players

[angst92]

1. That map is very small for TDM

2. The sky takes up a good portion of your FoV

3. The frame isn't very populated.

 

Try Gulf of Omen with 64 players

That all effects cpu usage not gpu mostly.. but just to satisfy you i get mins of 60 with explosions and gun fire all around me

[MegaDave91]

That all effects cpu usage not gpu mostly.. but just to satisfy you i get mins of 60 with explosions and gun fire all around me

Yeah, I really doubt that...MINIMUM of 60? Maximum would be more believable.

[mapegl]

1. That map is very small for TDM

2. The sky takes up a good portion of your FoV

3. The frame isn't very populated.

 

Try Gulf of Omen with 64 players

Gotta say, you are right.

 

1. That map is very small for TDM

2. The sky takes up a good portion of your FoV

3. The frame isn't very populated.

 

Try Gulf of Omen with 64 players

I have had this argument a few times already, and I personally always look for the worst spot in-game for fps and record that. In Battlefield 4 that's on the smoking aircraft-carrier on paracel storm. If I fly through the smoke with a helicopter that's where frames really drop.

So yeah it would be great if you could test under a heavier load.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful already that you are sharing all this experience you have with us. But what I really care about is minimum fps. Average and Maximum is nice, but when Minimum is too low despite a decent Averate it becomes unplayable.

[MrDucco]

1440p on ultra, although having more pixels a lot of games are not very optimised and it's more expensive, and also the windows scaling

[angst92]

Gotta say, you are right.

 

I have had this argument a few times already, and I personally always look for the worst spot in-game for fps and record that. In Battlefield 4 that's on the smoking aircraft-carrier on paracel storm. If I fly through the smoke with a helicopter that's where frames really drop.

So yeah it would be great if you could test under a heavier load.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful already that you are sharing all this experience you have with us. But what I really care about is minimum fps. Average and Maximum is nice, but when Minimum is too low despite a decent Averate it becomes unplayable.

 

Mins of 60

http://i.imgur.com/tKJbPyC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3kURS1Z.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2bgfk7J.jpg

[MegaDave91]

Gotta say, you are right.

 

I have had this argument a few times already, and I personally always look for the worst spot in-game for fps and record that. In Battlefield 4 that's on the smoking aircraft-carrier on paracel storm. If I fly through the smoke with a helicopter that's where frames really drop.

So yeah it would be great if you could test under a heavier load.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful already that you are sharing all this experience you have with us. But what I really care about is minimum fps. Average and Maximum is nice, but when Minimum is too low despite a decent Averate it becomes unplayable.

Another great fps killer is when you're being shot at by the light armor vehicle and you have active protection engaged. Dips for days - even at 1440p...

[MegaDave91]

Mins of 60

http://i.imgur.com/tKJbPyC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3kURS1Z.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2bgfk7J.jpg

I tell ya, If I got a hold of your rig, I'd make it dips into the 20s. Something isn't right there; there's no way xfire 280x can sustain that framerate. 

[mapegl]

I tell ya, If I got a hold of your rig, I'd make it dips into the 20s. Something isn't right there; there's no way xfire 280x can sustain that framerate. 

He is talking about Battlefield 3 though....I mean not saying anyone is wrong or right, that I don't know for sure, but Battlefield 3 and 4 have very different performance numbers for me.

[angst92]

I tell ya, If I got a hold of your rig, I'd make it dips into the 20s. Something isn't right there; there's no way xfire 280x can sustain that framerate. 

 

Even with evidence theres no pleasing some people.

[mapegl]

Even with evidence theres no pleasing some people.

Well I am very thankful for your help. Really! Thank you very much. It is great that you contributed to this discussion.

 

If there is any other input you can give us, that'd be great and I would love to read it. Otherwise, great to have gotten your help.