4k with lower settings or 1440p on Ultra?

[MegaDave91]

Even with evidence theres no pleasing some people.

 

My 4k monitor (Asus PB287Q) will be delivered any time now. If I can't reach and sustain those framerates with my 780s, then I'm calling BS.

 

All settings on ultra, AA off and AO set to HBAO? 

[angst92]

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.

 

I would say unless your getting a second card dont go 4k go 1440p, if your into fps 120hz is worth looking at also.

[mapegl]

I would say unless your getting a second card dont go 4k go 1440p, if your into fps 120hz is worth looking at also.

That was your plan all along. First make me want to have a 4k monitor, and then say I should get 1440p. ;-)

[Tiazmat]

The scaling at 1080p is exactly what you'd expect. 4 pixels for every pixel, so it's "perfect". Except for the fact that 1080p at 28" is ugly imo, so I wouldn't do that regardless. But it works just fine if you sit far away, or you want to get the most out of your games.

 

1440p is.... decent. Since it has to interpolate, it's going to be blurry. But to be fair, it could be worse. Games were okay, for the relatively short amount of time I tested it. It's a bit blurry, but it's perfectly usable. But if you want to use the 1440p on a 4k monitor more than the 4k, then honestly I think that the cheaper 1440p monitors (sometimes getting down to a bit over $200) are a better option. But I think you'll be alright with your 290 at 4k, and whenever you upgrade, you'll certainly love it. And if you HAVE to have the best performance, then using it in 1080p is great and 1440p is good as well.

 

Text scaling, on the other hand, is horrid. It looks terrible. I have it turned off, so I always have full desktop space. Natively, things aren't exactly easy to see, but it isn't necessarily uncomfortably small, and it's something you adjust to (I sit about 2 feet away from the monitor, for reference).

[angst92]

The scaling at 1080p is exactly what you'd expect. 4 pixels for every pixel, so it's "perfect". Except for the fact that 1080p at 28" is ugly imo, so I wouldn't do that regardless. But it works just fine if you sit far away, or you want to get the most out of your games.

 

1440p is.... decent. Since it has to interpolate, it's going to be blurry. But to be fair, it could be worse. Games were okay, for the relatively short amount of time I tested it. It's a bit blurry, but it's perfectly usable. But if you want to use the 1440p on a 4k monitor more than the 4k, then honestly I think that the cheaper 1440p monitors (sometimes getting down to a bit over $200) are a better option. But I think you'll be alright with your 290 at 4k, and whenever you upgrade, you'll certainly love it. And if you HAVE to have the best performance, then using it in 1080p is great and 1440p is good as well.

 

Text scaling, on the other hand, is horrid. It looks terrible. I have it turned off, so I always have full desktop space. Natively, things aren't exactly easy to see, but it isn't necessarily uncomfortably small, and it's something you adjust to (I sit about 2 feet away from the monitor, for reference).

Using windows 8.1 my text scaling looks great, i dont understand why peoplesay it is bad tbh.

[Tiazmat]

Using windows 8.1 my text scaling looks great, i dont understand why peoplesay it is bad tbh.

Also using Windows 8.1. Thing is, you expect it to be able to basically replicate 1080p, and just be much sharper. But it fails to do that, and even looks more blurry imo. I suppose I was a bit harsh. It's still perfectly usable, but I would NEVER trade the extra space for simply bigger text. If it actually took advantage of the pixels and made it look clearer, then I'd be sold.

[mapegl]

The scaling at 1080p is exactly what you'd expect. 4 pixels for every pixel, so it's "perfect". Except for the fact that 1080p at 28" is ugly imo, so I wouldn't do that regardless. But it works just fine if you sit far away, or you want to get the most out of your games.

 

1440p is.... decent. Since it has to interpolate, it's going to be blurry. But to be fair, it could be worse. Games were okay, for the relatively short amount of time I tested it. It's a bit blurry, but it's perfectly usable. But if you want to use the 1440p on a 4k monitor more than the 4k, then honestly I think that the cheaper 1440p monitors (sometimes getting down to a bit over $200) are a better option. But I think you'll be alright with your 290 at 4k, and whenever you upgrade, you'll certainly love it. And if you HAVE to have the best performance, then using it in 1080p is great and 1440p is good as well.

 

Text scaling, on the other hand, is horrid. It looks terrible. I have it turned off, so I always have full desktop space. Natively, things aren't exactly easy to see, but it isn't necessarily uncomfortably small, and it's something you adjust to (I sit about 2 feet away from the monitor, for reference).

 

 

Using windows 8.1 my text scaling looks great, i dont understand why peoplesay it is bad tbh.

Interesting about the scaling. That is important to consider.

 

I am planning to play 4k if possible.

Also I am testing Battlefield 4 at 200% resolution scale (people say that is as mcuh load as 4k, because 200% of 1080p is 2160p, etc.) and I got 48fps at the worst with almost all settings on high and no AA. I am still trying out if the experience is desirable, but is this valid testing or just utter bs? ;-)

[Peopie]

I might be a little late to the party, but when I saw Asus' PB287Q in person, I was pretty suprised at how good the viewing angles were. There wasnt really that bad of a color shift if at all. I was more shocked at how small the windows taskbar was.

 

I would say one reason not to go 4k though is the whole windows dpi scaling and stuff. I saw how it could be a problem when I was using a QHD laptop. Chrome and a bunch of other programs had fuzzy text, but windows programs, such as internet explorer, looked amazing. But I didn't want to start using IE 11.

 

If I were to get a 4k screen now, I would want it to be somewhere in the 35" ish size, so that the pixel density doesn't mess things up.

[m_tieu]

I got the asus pb287q 4k display on sale and I love it. It's one of the nicest monitors I've looked at. It has 10bit colour so it's a lot nicer than the generic TN panel. There is very little colour shift when looking at it strait on. Productivity is also good on it because you can have multiple windows open at once and they don't take up as much screen space due to higher pixel density and text does look noticeably sharper. For gaming I would recommend multiple gpu set ups for optimal results. I use 2x gtx 780ti to game on this in very high to ultra at 60fps.

[eLucid]

Even with evidence theres no pleasing some people.

There's plenty of 4K benchmarks that contradict everything you've said thus far.

[m_tieu]

Minimum frame rates I get with 2x GTX 780ti classified SLI is still 30fps on some really graphically intense games.

[MegaDave91]

Since getting my monitor and having played a variety of map sizes in BF4, I'm pleasantly surprised with my framerate. With all settings on ultra, no AA (who needs it at 4k anyway), no AO - my framerate comfortably sits around 60-80 with dips into the 20s-30s during heavy explosions. 

 

I honestly thought I would have to play at low-medium to even achieve 60fps, but to my surprise that isn't the case at all.

[Stagea]

So I don't care much for AA. That is something out of the way. Also the highest demanding game I play is Battlefield 4.

 

I tried running it a 200% scaling (which is basically 4k since twice the width and twice the height, or am I wrong here?) and with mostly high settings I was able to run it pretty well with only my single R9 290.

 

I am a great fan of high resolution and have been thinking about switching my 1080p monitor for something nicer. A Pb278Q 1440p monitor is around 450 bucks, but a Samsung U28D590D 4K monitor is actually sometimes even 20 bucks cheaper.....

 

What would you do? Scale every one in a while or turn down settings to enjoy the resolution? Or go 1440p and enjoy all the effects there are?

 

4K for me. I wouldn't mind turning down the details every now and then.

 

Besides, I keep my monitor between upgrades. My current 3D accelerator might not do 4K in Ultra, but the next one might.

[mapegl]

4K for me. I wouldn't mind turning down the details every now and then.

Besides, I keep my monitor between upgrades. My current 3D accelerator might not do 4K in Ultra, but the next one might.

That was one of my main concerns. I don't want to buy another monitor end of next year again because then my rig will be upgraded. Because of that I would go 4k now and live with the downsides. It actually costs me 10€ more to get the U28d590d over the pb278q.

Was my assumption with the resolution scaling in Battlefield 4 correct? 1080p x 200% =4k?

[Stagea]

That was one of my main concerns. I don't want to buy another monitor end of next year again because then my rig will be upgraded. Because of that I would go 4k now and live with the downsides. It actually costs me 10€ more to get the U28d590d over the pb278q.

Was my assumption with the resolution scaling in Battlefield 4 correct? 1080p x 200% =4k?

 

If your monitor currently runs at 1080p, setting res scaling to 200% should make the GPU render things in 4K internally.

[mapegl]

If your monitor currently runs at 1080p, setting res scaling to 200% should make the GPU render things in 4K internally.

Well then that should mean when I run it like that and it never dips below 48 (not on ULTRA settings of course, that is unplayable), it should be fine?

 

It actually looks much better with turned down settings and resolution scale opposed to Ultra with no resolution scale. Pretty interesting. The two screenshots below show the differences (you should be able to figure out which is which):

 

 

[MegaDave91]

Well then that should mean when I run it like that and it never dips below 48 (not on ULTRA settings of course, that is unplayable), it should be fine?

 

It actually looks much better with turned down settings and resolution scale opposed to Ultra with no resolution scale. Pretty interesting. 

 

You'd be right man. There's some blurring that's added with ultra settings and it's quite evident when you play on low because everything looks crisper. As a whole though, ultra obviously looks better even with that slight blurring.

[mapegl]

You'd be right man. There's some blurring that's added with ultra settings and it's quite evident when you play on low because everything looks crisper. As a whole though, ultra obviously looks better even with that slight blurring.

Great. Actually that is something I can definitely live with. It still looks beatiful, at least for my old eyes. ;-)

 

Well unless there is anything super obvious that we missed here, I guess I will go 4k. I will still wait till christmas, cuz then I will have some money to burn afterwards, but 4k is probably the way to go. I am usually using a monitor 5 to 6 years, at least it has been like that till now.

[MegaDave91]

Great. Actually that is something I can definitely live with. It still looks beatiful, at least for my old eyes. ;-)

 

Well unless there is anything super obvious that we missed here, I guess I will go 4k. I will still wait till christmas, cuz then I will have some money to burn afterwards, but 4k is probably the way to go. I am usually using a monitor 5 to 6 years, at least it has been like that till now.

You'll definitely have to scale Windows to 125% - 150% as text is so small that it's borderline painful to read without zooming in.

[mapegl]

You'll definitely have to scale Windows to 125% - 150% as text is so small that it's borderline painful to read without zooming in.

True. I just hope they will improve on that. Though I like having small icons and I don't work on my rig, I have a laptop for that with crappy 1366x768. ;-) On that res you can read everything easily.

[angst92]

There's plenty of 4K benchmarks that contradict everything you've said thus far.

Again why would i lie? I'm just trying to help mapegl out.

[angst92]

You'll definitely have to scale Windows to 125% - 150% as text is so small that it's borderline painful to read without zooming in.

Yea i use 125% i find it gives best balance of crispness, desktop workspace and readabillity.