so whats the point in gaming at 4k?

[Virgule]

 

4K AND 60 FPS 

[Badger906]

the tittle says it all 

so why would play at 4k in 30 to 20 fps (average guy with average money)when u can play at 144fps at 1080p?

 

i just want to know your opinion or all u guys just going because it has more pixels 

 

you dont have to play on ultra settings to enjoy 4k, i play at medium settings and am still amazed by how good the image is.

Bragging rights mainly.

 

Most gamers will prefer 1080p / 1440p @ 144hz

1440p 144hz is harder to drive than 4k 60fps... well thats if you're aiming to hit near the 144hz limit, if you buy one and only get 70fps its a bit pointless.

[Badger906]

double post! 

[Sky Daddy]

24" 1440p 90-120hz would be perfect imo

[shert73]

Just waiting on that 4K swift.till than I'm happy with my 144hz 1080p. Looks good to me but I've yet to play in 1440 or 4K.

[typographie]

so why would play at 4k in 30 to 20 fps (average guy with average money)when u can play at 144fps at 1080p?

 

That's a false dilemma. 3840x2160 at 60 FPS is within the reach of the sort of gamer who is dying to upgrade to 4k.

[-TesseracT-]

Not worth it imo, I'd like 200 fps average for a 144hz monitor ideally.

[Davehaslanded]

I'm completely 4k60htz now on my 28" monitor and LG 42" ips TV. I couldn't go back. The level of detail, especially in the distance is amazing, but its not for everyone. My main rig has water cooled 290s in Xfire and my ITX TV rig had a GTX 980. Its worth noting that you don't need AA and some graphic settings in games can be turned down with very little notable affect, but provide massive gains in FPS. (Tree relief in Far Cry 4 for example)

Until you have played at 4k, and seen uncompressed footage, its hard to sell anyone on it. But once you make the jump, you'll never go back.

Side note, i'm a photographer, so on my desktop, the 4k has productivity benefits too. 

[Sauron]

one single 290? If you have multiple 290s then that would be above average. I mean people who have a 960 or a 280x who game at 4k @10fps

That is stupid.

 

What if all they play is CS:GO, LoL, sc2 or another similarly light game?

[Wirbelfeld]

Even with my 270 I quite enjoyed 4k with things like CS:GO, LoL, Arma, etc, it really depends on what games you play. Look at Linus' video for example, he played plenty of games at 4k 60fps with a R9 285, but if he tried to play DA:I for example that'd be a whole other story.

I just dont get buying a monitor more expensive than your system it self. I dont know what you like to do and I wont criticize you for doing it. You do whatever you want. Im sure there is a valid reason to do it but for me, I wouldnt do it.

[Laurysss]

Because your console friend cant do that.

[Davehaslanded]

I just dont get buying a monitor more expensive than your system it self. I dont know what you like to do and I wont criticize you for doing it. You do whatever you want. Im sure there is a valid reason to do it but for me, I wouldnt do it.

For the same reason you spend more on a television. You don't update you're monitor as often as you're PC. A monitor can easily see you through 2-3 rigs. And at 4k, which like it or not is the new industry standard, it's not going to be replaced by something better anytime soon.

[GrimNeo]

The point is that 4k at medium/high settings looks way better than 1080p at ultra. Tried both. And to get an enjoyable experience you don't even need to sell your car, my R9 290 handles it fine; besides you could get two and get very close to ultra, and it would be cheaper than buying, say, a 980.

 

Oh, and for coding it's Godsend. If you have the eyesight for it, that is.

Still not cheaper where I live and I get a free game if I go with the 980. Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.   Guess I need to travel to Mordor.

 

@ Everyone else: I don't see the point in gaming at 4k but that is just IMO. I will play at 1440p for the time being.

 

Edit: I will wait for 4k 144Hz

[Fate]

I just dont get buying a monitor more expensive than your system it self. I dont know what you like to do and I wont criticize you for doing it. You do whatever you want. Im sure there is a valid reason to do it but for me, I wouldnt do it.

My monitor was only $350

[GrimNeo]

My monitor was only $350

What monitor?

[Fate]

What monitor?

Acer B286HK on Black Friday

[GrimNeo]

Acer B286HK on Black Friday

I still have my 7 year old ACER 1200p monitor lol. I remember when 4k TV's were $60,000. I was at Sears and guy was trying to talk me into buying the tv lol. 55 inch.

[Columbo]

With DX12 coming later this year. 4K optimized games mean far better resolution and graphics. All the current game are developed for 1080P. 

[ACatWithThumbs]

one single 290? If you have multiple 290s then that would be above average. I mean people who have a 960 or a 280x who game at 4k @10fps

That is stupid.

4K isn't as hard to run as you think I get 27-40fps(around 35 average) in Battlefield 4 Ultra in 4K on a single GTX670.

There are only ver few games that would be for me unplayable in 4k like Crysis 3 or almost all Ubisoft games.

And most games aren't as demanding as Battlefield 4.

 

[GrimNeo]

4K isn't as hard to run as you think I get 27-40fps(around 35 average) in Battlefield 4 Ultra in 4K on a GTX670.

There are only ver few games that would be for me unplayable in 4k and if you have something like a Titan X 4k will be easy to run.

27-40fps gross. No thanks. Not even worth it. I will wait for 4k at 144Hz

[ACatWithThumbs]

27-40fps gross. No thanks. Not even worth it. I will wait for 4k at 144Hz

That is with a single GTX670 which is a 3 year old GPU! (You can get the card used for like $150)

A Titan X does 70-80fps.

I'll take 4K/60fps over 1080p/144fps any day,

[othertomperson]

Because for about £500 you can get two 290Xs or two 970s and max a lot of games at 4K and play at 60fps. For a few you will have to turn Ambient Occlusion and a couple of other settings down to "high".

 

It's just not true that 4K means limiting yourself to 30 or 20 fps.

 

 

That is with a single GTX670 which is a 3 year old GPU! (You can get the card used for like $150)
A Titan X does 70-80fps.

I'll take 4K/60fps over 1080p/144fps any day,

 

This is true. The only reason I upgraded from my 580s when I did was because their display interfaces (whether HDMI or DisplayPort) only supported 4K 30Hz. I would have upgraded pretty quickly anyway, but it only became urgent because of something that has nothing to do with the GPU itself.

[GrimNeo]

That is with a single GTX670 which is a 3 year old GPU! (You can get the card used for like $150)

A Titan X does 70-80fps.

I'll take 4K/60fps over 1080p/144fps any day,

I have 680 4GB also I'll wait for 4k 144Hz. Also I don't play at 1080p.

[InTechsicated]

when you are able to play a game at 144fps in 1080p, you should be able to play at 40fps in 4K as well.

 

As of the why ... it just looks better.

Not necessarily. Frame buffer is a huge concern with running 4k. A 780ti can game 1080p at 144hz but cannot power a 4k game very well because of the 3gb frame buffer. Hence the 12 gb buffer on the titan x.

[Wirbelfeld]

That is with a single GTX670 which is a 3 year old GPU! (You can get the card used for like $150)

A Titan X does 70-80fps.

I'll take 4K/60fps over 1080p/144fps any day,

I personally would rather have that extra fps. Sure it looks nicer but the 144fps makes everything feel so smooth