The state of UHD gaming - ArsTechnica

[MrFancypants04]

I average 45 in BF4 on my 280X with AA off with everything else set to ultra. The card doesn't have HDMI 2.0 so I run v sync and it''s locked at 30fps.

[LePawel]

52  weeks a year, 26 pay  periods for bi weekly,  save $40 a paycheck ... $1040 over the course of the year.

 

Quite easy  to save that up really, thats assuming you even want $1000 of upgrades each year which taht would be pusingit as GPUs are pretty much 2 year cycles and CPUs are only decent on desktop for a  'Tock" as a  "tick" is mostly just power reduction. So with 2 years of  save  your would have $2080 to kick  around on new parts for each refresh cycle. 

52 weeks a year, minimum wage, wife and two children, living back-to-back, managed to get cash for a mid-high PC 3 years ago - that's a more likely scenario. Get your head out of expendable income middle class zone. For many, saving $40 every two weeks means no food for few days, or no new shoes. Sure, if you live alone or have no kids it's doable, but It's much easier to say "save up for a year or two" than actually save up, there are too many unexpected or more important investments on such timescale for most of the people on this planet.

Not true. Two 970 will cost you around $750 and you don't upgrade for 2 years. You sell them for $550 and get yourself something better. Where do you come from to state that you need a $1000+ upgrade every two years?

I sell them for $550? Where do you live? Secondhandland? 670 (2 generations back) on ebay, used, £50-120, single new 970? £250-300. You need another £300+ if you sell them. IF you don't have 3, not as powerful PCs in the immediate family that could easily benefit from these. Maybe you don't need $1000, but forking out even $700 is not something most people can afford. And to play in 4K, you need a 4K display, so that one-off $500+ monitor or $1000+ TV is a bit on top of that. As I said to the buy above, most people don't have free cash, nor do they live alone. Spending 1-1.5 months worth of income just doesn't happen on the lower end - a.k.a the majority.

Entusiasts have a lot of high end stuff, it doesn't mean it's a thing if 90%+ of the market simple can't afford it.

[Master Disaster]

Guys remember, FPS is only a number.

[-TesseracT-]

Also, idiots who turn on AA @ 4K-when there is no excuse or reason to actually use it at such a high resolution.

if you're playing on a big tv you might need it.

[Phorlorn]

Anti-aliasing on 4K, seriously? Ability to play on 4K really depends on settings and game itself.

Anyway, I personally won't switch to 4K in, at least, two or three years - there is 1440p; however, I don't know what will or will not happen by 2018...

[Davehaslanded]

if you're playing on a big tv you might need it.

Well I play on a 50" UHD TV and i've seen no need for it yet.

[Davehaslanded]

New Nvidia Shield is 4K ready for streaming games and movies. Its definitely a thing as far as the companies producing 4K hardware are concerned.

[Dabombinable]

Well I play on a 50" UHD TV and i've seen no need for it yet.

4K is perfect for large TV's, and also is the only TV resolution I will pay attention to as even 2K pixelates too much on large screens.

[Davehaslanded]

4K is perfect for large TV's, and also is the only TV resolution I will pay attention to as even 2K pixelates too much on large screens.

Yeah. I have a 1080p projector that I barely use anymore. I am so desperate for 4K projectors to come down in price. But at the moment they are about £4000.

[Victorious Secret]

4K is a thing for me since I can afford to blow 1000-1500 in hardware to have it.

4K is not a thing for casual consumers (of which this industry is built off of) who are not spending that much on their equipment.

The day entry level cards like the 960 and 270 can do 4K, that's when 4K will be a thing.

[Bouzoo]

The day entry level cards like the 960 and 270 can do 4K, that's when 4K will be a thing.

Inb4 people "how could you compare those 2"?

[SixtyDashOne]

4K is a thing for me since I can afford to blow 1000-1500 in hardware to have it.

4K is not a thing for casual consumers (of which this industry is built off of) who are not spending that much on their equipment.

The day entry level cards like the 960 and 270 can do 4K, that's when 4K will be a thing.

 

Exactly my feelings. Back in December, I felt 4k was still premature (and still do), so I upgraded to a 1440p monitor instead of 4k. This spring, I upgraded from a 780 Lightning to 2 x 980s in SLI. This rig runs 1440p so well (even Project Cars in the rain doesn't dip below 60), that I'm now considering moving up to 4k. But, I spent a grip to get this kind of performance. I feel that I represent a relatively small sliver of the PC gaming demographic pie, the sliver that is willing to shell out 1300 bucks or more for top notch performance. 

 

I think that, until we have a ~400-500 dollar single card solution on the market that can run NEW games (not super old shit like Bioshock Infinite) in 4k at a steady 60fps, without turning down/off a bunch of settings, 4k will remain a fringe market.

[FreeDiver]

4K is a thing for me since I can afford to blow 1000-1500 in hardware to have it.

4K is not a thing for casual consumers (of which this industry is built off of) who are not spending that much on their equipment.

The day entry level cards like the 960 and 270 can do 4K, that's when 4K will be a thing.

4k is mostly definitely a thing.

 

It may not be the thing, but neither is 1440p or even 1080p.

 

Up-scaled 1080p is truly the thing most gamers play at.

[Altecice]

4 GB of VRAM (or even 3.5 + 0.5 GB) are not even remoteley enough for 4K gaming. Got Titan X or go home!

 

Or 980ti

 

---

 

Im more a fan of ultrawides myself, like Linus. 4K is just not that appealing with you take into consideration the scaling and other issues.

[Linusinium]

Back in December, I felt 4k was still premature (and still do), so I upgraded to a 1440p monitor instead of 4k. This spring, I upgraded from a 780 Lightning to 2 x 980s in SLI. This rig runs 1440p so well (even Project Cars in the rain doesn't dip below 60), that I'm now considering moving up to 4k. But, I spent a grip to get this kind of performance. I feel that I represent a relatively small sliver of the PC gaming demographic pie, the sliver that is willing to shell out 1300 bucks or more for top notch performance. 

 

I think that, until we have a ~400-500 dollar single card solution on the market that can run NEW games (not super old shit like Bioshock Infinite) in 4k at a steady 60fps, without turning down/off a bunch of settings, 4k will remain a fringe market.

I went through a similar thought process 3 years ago. I took a risk and bought a $300 Korean Catleap, it was the best deal on a brand new item I got in a long time, bought some cheap used components here and there but in terms of bang for the buck on new stuff, nothing compared to that deal.

 

4k is definitely still early adopter stuff but 980 marks the point where 4K became feasible with 2 cards. I'm not about to wait until a single card can get it done, guessing that will happen in 2-3 years. As with any early adoption, you either pay the price or take a gamble, I'm willing to jump in a little early. 1440p has been a huge payoff, 4K has a pricey entry level but definitely worth it to me.