Gtx 1080ti obsolescence at 4K, and 4K textures

[moidave]

Hi,

Here is my current hardware: core i5 4690 (boost 3.9ghz), gtx 1080ti, 16GB ram, acer 24' screen at 1200p.

 I play mostly AAA games, RPGs, actions games ( fallout, witcher, deus ex, super excited for anthem!) barely any shooters although BF1 gave me a few hours of fun. I like to take my time in games. 

 

After writing on forums about my dilemma between 1440p 144hz and 4K, I finally was able to make the 90 minute-long plane trip that took me to the electric town in Tokyo where are located quite a few pc stores.

 

I managed to see 144hz in action (doom 2016) and played with the monitor settings to change the refresh rate back and forth between 144hz and 60hz. It was definitely visible on the fois game, especially when turning.

 

I also saw 4k screen but they where ether displaying static 4k pictures, or running the ffxiv benchmark in a loop. On that game, the main characters were indeed very crisp but the textures muddy to say the least. When I asked if they had any other games, they told me they did not have the horsepower to run anything else in 4K. It was a disappointment. 

 

On the other hand, the difference 144hz-60 was visible but probably not essential, especially since I mostly do RPG, actions games and often stop in the middle of a game to just look around the details. 

 

Here are my questions: 

 

1. Do most recent AAA games offer textures for 4K right off the bat, or does it come later in the form of updates?

2. I am thinking of the 4K gsync 28' acer XB281HK. With gsync and by progressively lowering settings at 4K, how long will I be able to play at a comfortable frame rate, albeit lower than 60hz, with one 1080ti?

3. Just in case the 4K path does not seem the best, with my core i5 CPU at boost 3.9, will I be able to maintain high FPS at 1440p 144hz for a few years? Playing at 60hz or so at 1440p would kind of defeat the purpose. 

 

Thank you!

 

David 

[Bcat00]

I dunno what to say, your i5 will likely bottleneck either choice, now or in the near future.

[ARikozuM]

Personally, I would look towards an ultrawide 1440 panel. You'll [benefit] more from more screen space than just an increase in detail.

G-Sync will help your i5 should it come to a CPU-bound instance.

[LienusLateTips]

34 minutes ago, moidave said:

Hi,

Here is my current hardware: core i5 4690 (boost 3.9ghz), gtx 1080ti, 16GB ram, acer 24' screen at 1200p.

 I play mostly AAA games, RPGs, actions games ( fallout, witcher, deus ex, super excited for anthem!) barely any shooters although BF1 gave me a few hours of fun. I like to take my time in games. 

 

After writing on forums about my dilemma between 1440p 144hz and 4K, I finally was able to make the 90 minute-long plane trip that took me to the electric town in Tokyo where are located quite a few pc stores.

 

I managed to see 144hz in action (doom 2016) and played with the monitor settings to change the refresh rate back and forth between 144hz and 60hz. It was definitely visible on the fois game, especially when turning.

 

I also saw 4k screen but they where ether displaying static 4k pictures, or running the ffxiv benchmark in a loop. On that game, the main characters were indeed very crisp but the textures muddy to say the least. When I asked if they had any other games, they told me they did not have the horsepower to run anything else in 4K. It was a disappointment. 

 

On the other hand, the difference 144hz-60 was visible but probably not essential, especially since I mostly do RPG, actions games and often stop in the middle of a game to just look around the details. 

 

Here are my questions: 

 

1. Do most recent AAA games offer textures for 4K right off the bat, or does it come later in the form of updates?

2. I am thinking of the 4K gsync 28' acer XB281HK. With gsync and by progressively lowering settings at 4K, how long will I be able to play at a comfortable frame rate, albeit lower than 60hz, with one 1080ti?

3. Just in case the 4K path does not seem the best, with my core i5 CPU at boost 3.9, will I be able to maintain high FPS at 1440p 144hz for a few years? Playing at 60hz or so at 1440p would kind of defeat the purpose. 

 

Thank you!

 

David 

night theme friendly quote ^

-nightthemenotabot

[moidave]

2 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Personally, I would look towards an ultrawide 1440 panel. You'll [benefit] more from more screen space than just an increase in detail.

G-Sync will help your i5 should it come to a CPU-bound instance.

Ultra wide look sweet indeed but that would blow my already too large budget by 40-50%. Basically, given my location (Japan) and my budget (600$), I can only afford 2 gsync monitors, the Dell S2716DG (1440p, 144hz) or the Acer XB281HK (4K, 60hz). 

Edited August 12, 2017 by moidave

[faziten]

Quote

Here are my questions: 

 

1. Do most recent AAA games offer textures for 4K right off the bat, or does it come later in the form of updates? 

2. I am thinking of the 4K gsync 28' acer XB281HK. With gsync and by progressively lowering settings at 4K, how long will I be able to play at a comfortable frame rate, albeit lower than 60hz, with one 1080ti? 

3. Just in case the 4K path does not seem the best, with my core i5 CPU at boost 3.9, will I be able to maintain high FPS at 1440p 144hz for a few years? Playing at 60hz or so at 1440p would kind of defeat the purpose. 

1) No. Some of them do come with high res textures. Not necessary 4K. It's quite resource hungry to keep everything at 4k, plus you need a proper game engine to make use of such level of detail, shading and lights take the most resources, so you don't actually need insanely high texture quality for a AAA game to look amazing in 4k. Graphics come to life with proper lightning and shading rather than texture resolution. Upscaling is cheaper and close enough in most cases, you need a side by side to spot tiny differences. 

2) I don't know what you mean by comfortable... Steam mainstream pc is a quadcore CPU, 1080p monitor, 8gb of ram and a 1060. This is where most people are, so developers won't pay too much attention in the very minority gaming in 4K. Based only by hardware performance i'd say yes. You can expect between 30-60fps in most AAA games on high settings. 

3) Probably not for AAA games. It's not frequent to see developers favor high refreshrates. Most games are built for consoles where 1080@60fps is still a struggle. The trend in non competitive games always was high fidelity first, framerate second. And not many can archive both. I wouldn't blame too much on the hardware side of things, 144hz gameplay is not a priority outside E-Sports for many developers. They prefer to use that performance on higher level of detail. 

[moidave]

12 minutes ago, faziten said:

1) No. Some of them do come with high res textures. Not necessary 4K. It's quite resource hungry to keep everything at 4k, plus you need a proper game engine to make use of such level of detail, shading and lights take the most resources, so you don't actually need insanely high texture quality for a AAA game to look amazing in 4k. Graphics come to life with proper lightning and shading rather than texture resolution. Upscaling is cheaper and close enough in most cases, you need a side by side to spot tiny differences. 

2) I don't know what you mean by comfortable... Steam mainstream pc is a quadcore CPU, 1080p monitor, 8gb of ram and a 1060. This is where most people are, so developers won't pay too much attention in the very minority gaming in 4K. Based only by hardware performance i'd say yes. You can expect between 30-60fps in most AAA games on high settings. 

3) Probably not for AAA games. It's not frequent to see developers favor high refreshrates. Most games are built for consoles where 1080@60fps is still a struggle. The trend in non competitive games always was high fidelity first, framerate second. And not many can archive both. I wouldn't blame too much on the hardware side of things, 144hz gameplay is not a priority outside E-Sports for many developers. They prefer to use that performance on higher level of detail. 

Thanks for your answers. Concerning number 2, how long do you think I can keep playing AAA games at 4k within 45-60 fps? I haven't seen gsync in action but it seems to make a huge difference from regular sub 60fps, and eleminate stuttering. The movement would just be slightly slower. 

[faziten]

7 hours ago, moidave said:

Thanks for your answers. Concerning number 2, how long do you think I can keep playing AAA games at 4k within 45-60 fps? I haven't seen gsync in action but it seems to make a huge difference from regular sub 60fps, and eleminate stuttering. The movement would just be slightly slower. 

the rest of this year and probably the next full year. We already saw the "next gen" games. Most of them running of Unreal 4 and unity. It's highly possible games that come out within a year run with those too. So base requirement are about the same.

Overall is far easier to get 45-60 fps in 4K than 144hz in 1440p. High fps choke engine and CPU quite hard. 4K only choke GPU and Vram. Since you have a non OC CPU i'd target 4K 45-60fps. It's far more feasible.

 

[moidave]

12 hours ago, faziten said:

the rest of this year and probably the next full year. We already saw the "next gen" games. Most of them running of Unreal 4 and unity. It's highly possible games that come out within a year run with those too. So base requirement are about the same.

Overall is far easier to get 45-60 fps in 4K than 144hz in 1440p. High fps choke engine and CPU quite hard. 4K only choke GPU and Vram. Since you have a non OC CPU i'd target 4K 45-60fps. It's far more feasible.

 

The way I think is since I don't intend to upgrade CPU in a while, a 1440p monitor would probably get me frames in the upper 80s, gradually coming back down to 60, which would defeat the purpose of a high refresh monitor. 

 

With a 4K, I would gradually lower settings, and enjoy the gsync at frames lower than 60. If push comes to shove, I would be able to play at 1440p in windowed mode, keeping solid 60 fps. In 5 years or so, I could buy a new GPU or sli it.

[faziten]

7 hours ago, moidave said:

The way I think is since I don't intend to upgrade CPU in a while, a 1440p monitor would probably get me frames in the upper 80s, gradually coming back down to 60, which would defeat the purpose of a high refresh monitor. 

 

With a 4K, I would gradually lower settings, and enjoy the gsync at frames lower than 60. If push comes to shove, I would be able to play at 1440p in windowed mode, keeping solid 60 fps. In 5 years or so, I could buy a new GPU or sli it.

As i said before. Is more feasible to target 4K at 45-60fps cutting eye candy here and there, than try to keep a 1440p 144hz experience across every game.

Some games come with locked fps. 

Emulators for retro experiences have locked fps.

Media consumption is locked at 60fps best case scenario. 

 

But:

Some game's HUD simply don't scale or scale like total ass (LoL minimap is for ants). 

Some games will be just too demanding, optimization is not there in online MMO at all. 

4K hardware requirements are never displayed, like ever. You just asume it's 1080p framerate times 1/4 worst case scenario. 

Web content is definitely not prepared for 4K nor is for ultrawide. Like if web designers can't build a 16:9 webpage, it has to be like 5:1000 a long vertical sausage of information.

Youtube in 4K is underwhelming, twitch in 4K is nonexistent and reading anything is a pain unless you scale text, which by default will look like ass depending on the website and content.  

 

 

 

[Badger906]

first of resolution does not impact cpu performance so thats out of the window.

secondly 4k textures and 4k gaming is two completely different things. you can run a game from 1996 in 4k well.. as long as open gl isnt a bitch.. but my point still stands.

[moidave]

11 hours ago, faziten said:

As i said before. Is more feasible to target 4K at 45-60fps cutting eye candy here and there, than try to keep a 1440p 144hz experience across every game.

Some games come with locked fps. 

Emulators for retro experiences have locked fps.

Media consumption is locked at 60fps best case scenario. 

 

But:

Some game's HUD simply don't scale or scale like total ass (LoL minimap is for ants). 

Some games will be just too demanding, optimization is not there in online MMO at all. 

4K hardware requirements are never displayed, like ever. You just asume it's 1080p framerate times 1/4 worst case scenario. 

Web content is definitely not prepared for 4K nor is for ultrawide. Like if web designers can't build a 16:9 webpage, it has to be like 5:1000 a long vertical sausage of information.

Youtube in 4K is underwhelming, twitch in 4K is nonexistent and reading anything is a pain unless you scale text, which by default will look like ass depending on the website and content.  

 

 

 

Thanks for the counter point. The pc I have at home will be 90% for games, and the rest for watching glorious game videos in 4k on YouTube. 

 

I will probably do some emulators.

 

I use my tablet for web browsing, and don't use any other programs on my pc.

 

the HUD Is something I am indeed worried about. I guess I would have to play these games without hud, or play them at 1440p windowed. 

 

Going back on performance, it is funny how most people on forums refute the idea that the 1080ti can give solid frames at 4K, while all reviews I have read say quite the opposite, at least for most really demanding games at ultra. 

[moidave]

7 hours ago, Badger906 said:

first of resolution does not impact cpu performance so thats out of the window.

secondly 4k textures and 4k gaming is two completely different things. you can run a game from 1996 in 4k well.. as long as open gl isnt a bitch.. but my point still stands.

I am just wondering how would a 4k game look without the proper textures...

[StormEye]

5 hours ago, moidave said:

I am just wondering how would a 4k game look without the proper textures...

Sharper edges, similar details to whatever textures are designed for.

 

Essentially, you are just getting AA effect.

[IrisCZ]

1) Most of the new AAA games do offer textures for 4K resolution off the bat (not 4K textures, there is a difference), however sometimes you have to wait for a few weeks for a high-resolution texture patch or a fan made texture-pack of some sort. With indie titles and games with lower budget the case can be different, because the developers don't necessarily have enough resources to create better textures that only a small percentage of players would be able to use.
2) I believe that you would be set for at least 2-3 years on higher settings or 5 years on low settings provided the developers will start to optimize their games for high resolutions.
3) CPU could be a bottleneck on both of those resolutions, especially at that framerate at 1440p. 

I know I'm a minority with this opinion, but I would always go for 2160p@60 instead of 1440p@144. I can of-course see very well the difference in smoothness, however it is something I can live without. I game a lot, but I will never be a competitive FPS/MOBA/MMO player, so I opted for 4K monitor with that additional crispiness even though it can only run at 60Hz. As a RPG lover I like higher resolution more than additional frames. Also, I occasionally play a game with my friends on the last two PlayStations and the frame caps of those consoles already make me uneasy. I can't imagine how it would feel if I got used to playing on 144Hz and then came back to TV with 30FPS cap at barely 1080p. Furthermore, I use my PC also for studying and working and that higher resolution is just glorious while browsing web or typing up work or school related stuff.

Anyway I'm currently rocking the 1080TI STRIX from ASUS and Acer Predator XB281HK and the performance is great (just don't expect you will be able to turn EVERYTHING to max at every game, sometimes games have stupid settings making none to little visible difference yet they eat a lot of your FPS). Also, I would definitely recommend G-SYNC monitor. Combined with Fast-sync it makes everything much smoother and especially fast paced shooters (DOOM, Titanfall 2) look even a little bit smoother than regular 60FPS.

[moidave]

27 minutes ago, IrisCZ said:

1) Most of the new AAA games do offer textures for 4K resolution off the bat (not 4K textures, there is a difference), however sometimes you have to wait for a few weeks for a high-resolution texture patch or a fan made texture-pack of some sort. With indie titles and games with lower budget the case can be different, because the developers don't necessarily have enough resources to create better textures that only a small percentage of players would be able to use.
2) I believe that you would be set for at least 2-3 years on higher settings or 5 years on low settings provided the developers will start to optimize their games for high resolutions.
3) CPU could be a bottleneck on both of those resolutions, especially at that framerate at 1440p. 

I know I'm a minority with this opinion, but I would always go for 2160p@60 instead of 1440p@144. I can of-course see very well the difference in smoothness, however it is something I can live without. I game a lot, but I will never be a competitive FPS/MOBA/MMO player, so I opted for 4K monitor with that additional crispiness even though it can only run at 60Hz. As a RPG lover I like higher resolution more than additional frames. Also, I occasionally play a game with my friends on the last two PlayStations and the frame caps of those consoles already make me uneasy. I can't imagine how it would feel if I got used to playing on 144Hz and then came back to TV with 30FPS cap at barely 1080p. Furthermore, I use my PC also for studying and working and that higher resolution is just glorious while browsing web or typing up work or school related stuff.

Anyway I'm currently rocking the 1080TI STRIX from ASUS and Acer Predator XB281HK and the performance is great (just don't expect you will be able to turn EVERYTHING to max at every game, sometimes games have stupid settings making none to little visible difference yet they eat a lot of your FPS). Also, I would definitely recommend G-SYNC monitor. Combined with Fast-sync it makes everything much smoother and especially fast paced shooters (DOOM, Titanfall 2) look even a little bit smoother than regular 60FPS.

Thanks for your input. The monitor you have is precisely the one I am currently eyeing. It got a lot of bad press because it is TN but my current monitor is TN too and the colors look great to me. 

 

Do you play with a fps counter on? Is gsync as good as I hear it is? On the XB281HK, can you actually feel the extra crispness even though it is "only" 28 inches? 

[moidave]

Oh, and have you ever tried to play in 1440p on that monitor? How does it look?

[moidave]

Last question: you mentioned fast-sync, is it something you can do with gsync?

[IrisCZ]

First of all, TN vs. IPS. Yes, there is a difference. Is it really that bad though? No, not at all. I used to do graphics back in the day and therefore I'd used several good IPS monitors. Colours are definitely not 100% precise, blacks aren't because of backlight so deep and viewing angles are also far from good, but unless you plan to do some higher-end graphics, you will barely notice it. I've seen many panels in my life and this is by far the best TN I've had the opportunity to try. Just remember you will have to tinker with the settings a little bit or there will be ghosting and unnatural colours. It's nothing that a few minutes in settings wouldn't settle. Also, if you have a good desk and you can get the monitor at the right spot (which is surprisingly easy thanks to superb stand and surprisingly high brightness), you don't even have to care about viewing angles. On the other hand, I can confirm the monitor is super-fast in terms of its response times (1ms if I'm correct) which in games is further aided by G-SYNC. In conclusion, I think the speed and especially the price justifies every drawback of TN technology. In my opinion for gamers IPS is a little bit of overkill and unless I would have wanted to do graphics once again, I would always choose TN over IPS for gaming.

Regarding the FPS counter - it isn't a counter of frames but actually it shows the displays' refresh rate. This way you can see how G-SYNC is working. I turn it on usually if I want to check that G-SYNC is working fine, but for occasional monitoring of FPS I use either MSI Afterburner (which is using Riva Tuner) or CAM 3.3.4 by NZXT.

 

Fast-sync is a new technology (software only, it doesn’t require any special technology in monitor itself) by Nvidia available with the latest two generations of Ge-Force cards. It works similarly to traditional V-Sync, but it uses a buffer to remove the usually v-sync delay. It however works only when your FPS is higher than monitors' refresh rate. That's why it's best to combine these two technologies - G-SYNC takes care of frame dips and Fast-sync takes care of frame spikes and therefore your experience is really smooth without tearing and without any significant increase of response times.

Lastly 1440p looks quite good on this monitor. Definitely not as crispy as 4K but it could be used if you wanted to play a really demanding game in the future. It's similar as viewing 720p video on 1080p display. Nice, but not as sharp. You could try to sit a little further away from the monitor and you wouldn't notice such a big difference between 1440p and 2160p. I really recommend 4K display if you can sit close to it. Some people say that 28 inches is too small for such a resolution, but for my experience the PPI ratio is great (I sit about 50-60cm from the display which is closer then you should, that's true) and I wouldn't go bigger or smaller.

[moidave]

10 minutes ago, IrisCZ said:

First of all, TN vs. IPS. Yes, there is a difference. Is it really that bad though? No, not at all. I used to do graphics back in the day and therefore I'd used several good IPS monitors. Colours are definitely not 100% precise, blacks aren't because of backlight so deep and viewing angles are also far from good, but unless you plan to do some higher-end graphics, you will barely notice it. I've seen many panels in my life and this is by far the best TN I've had the opportunity to try. Just remember you will have to tinker with the settings a little bit or there will be ghosting and unnatural colours. It's nothing that a few minutes in settings wouldn't settle. Also, if you have a good desk and you can get the monitor at the right spot (which is surprisingly easy thanks to superb stand and surprisingly high brightness), you don't even have to care about viewing angles. On the other hand, I can confirm the monitor is super-fast in terms of its response times (1ms if I'm correct) which in games is further aided by G-SYNC. In conclusion, I think the speed and especially the price justifies every drawback of TN technology. In my opinion for gamers IPS is a little bit of overkill and unless I would have wanted to do graphics once again, I would always choose TN over IPS for gaming.

Regarding the FPS counter - it isn't a counter of frames but actually it shows the displays' refresh rate. This way you can see how G-SYNC is working. I turn it on usually if I want to check that G-SYNC is working fine, but for occasional monitoring of FPS I use either MSI Afterburner (which is using Riva Tuner) or CAM 3.3.4 by NZXT.

 

Fast-sync is a new technology (software only, it doesn’t require any special technology in monitor itself) by Nvidia available with the latest two generations of Ge-Force cards. It works similarly to traditional V-Sync, but it uses a buffer to remove the usually v-sync delay. It however works only when your FPS is higher than monitors' refresh rate. That's why it's best to combine these two technologies - G-SYNC takes care of frame dips and Fast-sync takes care of frame spikes and therefore your experience is really smooth without tearing and without any significant increase of response times.

Lastly 1440p looks quite good on this monitor. Definitely not as crispy as 4K but it could be used if you wanted to play a really demanding game in the future. It's similar as viewing 720p video on 1080p display. Nice, but not as sharp. You could try to sit a little further away from the monitor and you wouldn't notice such a big difference between 1440p and 2160p. I really recommend 4K display if you can sit close to it. Some people say that 28 inches is too small for such a resolution, but for my experience the PPI ratio is great (I sit about 50-60cm from the display which is closer then you should, that's true) and I wouldn't go bigger or smaller.

Thanks for the detailed answer.  You have answered to most of my doubts about this monitor. One more question, about gsync. I am quite sensitive to drops, and stutter. My whole point about getting/paying extra for gsync on a 4K is that in a few years, when games are more demanding and the frame rate will drop, I won't feel it as much as on a regular monitor. 

Did your fps counter already showed drops without you noticing while playing?  Is it that good? 

[IrisCZ]

5 minutes ago, moidave said:

Thanks for the detailed answer.  You have answered to most of my doubts about this monitor. One more question, about gsync. I am quite sensitive to drops, and stutter. My whole point about getting/paying extra for gsync on a 4K is that in a few years, when games are more demanding and the frame rate will drop, I won't feel it as much as on a regular monitor. 

Did your fps counter already showed drops without you noticing while playing?  Is it that good? 

You will notice that the frames dropped but not as severely. G-SYNC does help a lot in my opinion. I cannot back this claim by any source but I feel like a big part of G-SYNCs appeal comes from better frame timings. This way the game doesn't stutter so hard when frames drop. Anyway, I couldn't really tell the difference between 55 and 60FPS with G-SYNC on. Up to 45FPS everything is playable without a problem, you just feel, that "something is a little bit worse". So yeah, I believe that any adaptive sync technology is worth it. I won't deny though that G-SYNC is seriously overpriced and I'm mad that Nvidia straight-away refuses to add Free-Sync support even though it could be done in a day via drivers.

[moidave]

10 hours ago, IrisCZ said:

You will notice that the frames dropped but not as severely. G-SYNC does help a lot in my opinion. I cannot back this claim by any source but I feel like a big part of G-SYNCs appeal comes from better frame timings. This way the game doesn't stutter so hard when frames drop. Anyway, I couldn't really tell the difference between 55 and 60FPS with G-SYNC on. Up to 45FPS everything is playable without a problem, you just feel, that "something is a little bit worse". So yeah, I believe that any adaptive sync technology is worth it. I won't deny though that G-SYNC is seriously overpriced and I'm mad that Nvidia straight-away refuses to add Free-Sync support even though it could be done in a day via drivers.

Nice. The monitor is now priced about 600$ in Japan, since everything is overpriced here. But I now think it is worth it. I was hoping to wait for HDR but these gsync, HDR monitors will be way over 1000$ in the US and even more so in Japan so unless I wait for 4-5 years, I may as well get the XB281HK as soon as i can. 

 

Just by curisousity, what games are you playing, and what is your impression of them at 4K vs full HD?

[StormEye]

26 minutes ago, moidave said:

HDR monitors will be way over 1000$ in the US and even more so in Japan so unless I wait for 4-5 years, I may as well get the XB281HK as soon as i can. 

I live in Hong Kong and I quite often find shipping directly from US is much cheaper than the price locally.

 

You might want to look into it.

[IrisCZ]

5 hours ago, moidave said:

Nice. The monitor is now priced about 600$ in Japan, since everything is overpriced here. But I now think it is worth it. I was hoping to wait for HDR but these gsync, HDR monitors will be way over 1000$ in the US and even more so in Japan so unless I wait for 4-5 years, I may as well get the XB281HK as soon as i can. 

 

Just by curisousity, what games are you playing, and what is your impression of them at 4K vs full HD?

I wouldn't buy HDR monitor any time soon. The price isn't the only problem, there are software issues (Linus did video about it this week I think), lack of content and generally it is still not worth it. It will take about 3-5 years until HDR becomes a mainstream thing in monitors and not just in TVs.

Most of the games in my opinion look fantastic in 4K. Titanfall 2 runs great with every setting on max with 1080ti and it's just pretty. As rrubberr has said, Battlefield 1 needs to be set up in the right way to look good, but once you do, it's one of the prettiest games today. On the other hand, Mirror's Edge Catalyst runs on the same engine, has worse framerate and looks worse than Battlefield 1 - it's just about optimization and EA pushing out games before they are ready. There is a similar situation with Rise of the Tomb Raider which on the right settings is one of the most beautiful games today, however you need to try turning on and off a few settings. DOOM is brilliant, the fast pace works great with this monitor and 4K makes it even better (I always recommend checking the FOV settings and putting it to the max, it looks much better in my opinion at 4K). Dark Souls 3 feels extra responsive probably thanks to G-SYNC and Fast-Sync and is just gorgeous at 4K. Fallout 4 on the other hand could be way nicer, but the "consoles first" approach makes it sort of meh. I of-course don't have to mention what is the situation with Witcher 3, it's amazing just to look at while you are standing and doing nothing and while moving it gets even better.
 

Then there are some older games that still look nice - I've tried Guild Wars 2, Life is Strange, couple of older Assassin's Creed games, Dragon Age: Origins, couple of racing games from Dirt to Grid series and Batman Arkham games. They were all clear and pretty to look at despite sometimes smaller textures and unoptimized engines for such a large resolution. From competitive games CSGO isn't the best thing to play on this monitor and in this case, I would opt for higher refresh rate display. Playerunknown's Battlegrounds though is something else and thanks to 4K the game is much more entertaining for me, because you can see everything clearly which can give you a small advantage.

[moidave]

7 hours ago, StormEye said:

I live in Hong Kong and I quite often find shipping directly from US is much cheaper than the price locally.

 

You might want to look into it.

True. I thought about it but for the 600$ monitor, I get about 130$ of shipping and customs. Converted into Japanese yen, it is almost exactly the same price.