• High Quality 4K Gaming Monitor without breaking the bank completely.
    30 replies, posted
I currently have a VG248QE 1920x1080p 144hz. Previously, I was deciding whether to buy 2 more and go with 3-way surround or sell the screen an buy a single 4k display. Considering my current monitor has G-sync installed, I would need to buy another GPU to run 3-way surround. Plus, due to Jayztwocents video regarding the same matter, 3-way surround isn't the best for FPS gaming. It only shines in simulators. So, as a result, I have decided to go with a single 4K display. Now this is where you wonderful folks come in. I have NEVER ran any kind of display larger than 1920x1080p, so I have no experience in the 4k field. My request is for you guys to suggest top-quality 4K monitors that aren't overpriced to the moon and back. Thanks in advance.
I can't really recommend any 4K monitors, but just so you know, you'll need a REALLY POWERFUL setup to run games at 4K. I'm talking multiple GTX Titan Z's to even go above 60fps in modern games I'd stick with the single 144Hz monitor for now, you'll get an overall better experience from that
If you have the hardware for it I hear the ASUS PB287Q is great.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;45318564]I can't really recommend any 4K monitors, but just so you know, you'll need a REALLY POWERFUL setup to run games at 4K. I'm talking multiple GTX Titan Z's to even go above 60fps in modern games I'd stick with the single 144Hz monitor for now, you'll get an overall better experience from that[/QUOTE] I'm guessing that's sarcasm. I have a i7-4820k OC'ed to 4.9 GHz and 2 GTX 780 Ti's.
[QUOTE=JC2Gamer1456;45318727]I'm guessing that's sarcasm. I have a i7-4820k OC'ed to 4.9 GHz and 2 GTX 780 Ti's.[/QUOTE] I wasn't being sarcastic? I just said you need a good setup for 4K gaming, and you didn't post your specs in the OP [img]http://i.imgur.com/q80XRim.png[/img] [url]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gtx_780_ti_sli_geforce_review,22.html[/url]
The new 2560x1440 144hz monitors might be more immersive. Or perhaps the new 3440x1440 screens. I don't know of any 4K monitors that are stunning for gaming. We're probably still some months or maybe a year for performance 4k monitors to show up more, we only just now are seeing single stream displayport monitors to fix the multistream patchwork to make 4k work.
For the record, those benchmarks have forms of AA turned on, which takes a massive hit to performance and would be completely unnecessary at 4k
Well now I'm completely lost on what I should do. Get 2 more Asus VG248QE monitors along with a 3rd card -or- Get one 4k screen and deal with lower framerates (along with diving into 4k too soon while new tech comes out)
you're first one let 4k mature a bit
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;45318786]I wasn't being sarcastic? I just said you need a good setup for 4K gaming, and you didn't post your specs in the OP [img]http://i.imgur.com/q80XRim.png[/img] [url]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gtx_780_ti_sli_geforce_review,22.html[/url][/QUOTE] Please also recognise that this is one of the most GPU demanding games that you can find.
[QUOTE=JC2Gamer1456;45318727]I'm guessing that's sarcasm. I have a i7-4820k OC'ed to 4.9 GHz and 2 GTX 780 Ti's.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting your GPU has to drive 4 times as much as your standard HD monitor. That takes a MASSIVE performance hit. [editline]8th July 2014[/editline] The only reason to sink money into 4K gaming right now is if you have too much money to spend. Like, 'robbed someone' level of money to spend.
Go with 2560x1440, it doesn't break the bank nor your FPS.
[QUOTE=Angus725;45326869]Go with 2560x1440, it doesn't break the bank nor your FPS.[/QUOTE] I think I'll just get 2 more G-sync monitors like my current and 1 more GPU. If I were to go with 1440, I'd have to sell this current monitor, buy 3 1440p screens ($700 a piece sicne I had my eye on the new Asus monitor) along with another GPU. $1,700 vs $2,800
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;45318564]I can't really recommend any 4K monitors, but just so you know, you'll need a REALLY POWERFUL setup to run games at 4K. [b]I'm talking multiple GTX Titan Z's to even go above 60fps in modern games[/b] I'd stick with the single 144Hz monitor for now, you'll get an overall better experience from that[/QUOTE] You are aware that the TITAN cards are more or less a bridge between gaming GPUs and workstation GPUs, right? In some cases, a GTX 780 Ti can outperform a TITAN Black. Two 780 Tis in SLI (or two R9 290s in CFX if you play for the red team) is enough to play many games at 4K and stay at 60FPS in most situations. Levelog is also right, those benchmarks are marred by the fact that they keep anti-aliasing enabled, which is entirely unnecessary at 3840x2160 due to the massive amount of pixels on screen effectively canceling out any jagged edges you may see on smaller resolutions with AA off. Yes, you are most certainly going to require multiple (but usually not more than two) GPUs in SLI or CrossfireX to maintain a stable framerate at 4K, but what you're suggesting is overkill of the highest tier.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;45326942]You are aware that the TITAN cards are more or less a bridge between gaming GPUs and workstation GPUs, right? In some cases, a GTX 780 Ti can outperform a TITAN Black. Two 780 Tis in SLI (or two R9 290s in CFX if you play for the red team) is enough to play many games at 4K and stay at 60FPS in most situations. Levelog is also right, those benchmarks are marred by the fact that they keep anti-aliasing enabled, which is entirely unnecessary at 3840x2160 due to the massive amount of pixels on screen effectively canceling out any jagged edges you may see on smaller resolutions with AA off. Yes, you are most certainly going to require multiple (but usually not more than two) GPUs in SLI or CrossfireX to maintain a stable framerate at 4K, but what you're suggesting is overkill of the highest tier.[/QUOTE] Exactly what I was thinking. I figured he was being sarcastic due to the overkill suggestion and how people use titan z as a joke (i.e.: I bought 2 Titan Z's and I can barely pull 30 fps in minesweeper.)
there is only one 4k monitor out right now that uses G-sync and it's made by ACER. acer sucks so therefore there are no gaymen grade 4k monitors out yet.
[QUOTE=meppers;45327880]there is only one 4k monitor out right now that uses G-sync and it's made by ACER. acer sucks so therefore there are no gaymen grade 4k monitors out yet.[/QUOTE] Yea, another reason to go with 3 way surround.
Surround portrait ftw.
[QUOTE=Levelog;45320552]For the record, those benchmarks have forms of AA turned on, which takes a massive hit to performance and would be completely unnecessary at 4k[/QUOTE] Its still reasonable to have some form of AA turned on. If your 4k screen actually had 4 times the pixel density, it would still only compare to 4xSSAA. Almost all the benchmarks use FSAA, AAA or 2/4xSSAA/MSAA. Which IMO is pretty reasonable. --- You're looking at 3-4x the GPU overhead when moving from 1080p to 4k. Personally i would very much prefer 60+ FPS, at (almost) maxed out videosettings, over increasing resolution. Like the charts show, if you want to keep your maxed out settings, even your setup won't cut it. --- Also 3 way surround is "meh" for gaming purposes, you never really look at the other screens, its just kinda cool when you can see things in your peripheral vision. I would go with 2560x1440, and optional portrait monitor(s).
[QUOTE=Cold;45343492]Its still reasonable to have some form of AA turned on. If your 4k screen actually had 4 times the pixel density, it would still only compare to 4xSSAA. Almost all the benchmarks use FSAA, AAA or 2/4xSSAA/MSAA. Which IMO is pretty reasonable.[/QUOTE] At the resolution and pixel density, FXAA or SMAA is perfectly reasonable. Running SSAA on that is not. Edit: Fuck quotes
[QUOTE=Cold;45343492]Its still reasonable to have some form of AA turned on. If your 4k screen actually had 4 times the pixel density, it would still only compare to 4xSSAA. Almost all the benchmarks use FSAA, AAA or 2/4xSSAA/MSAA. Which IMO is pretty reasonable. --- You're looking at 3-4x the GPU overhead when moving from 1080p to 4k. Personally i would very much prefer 60+ FPS, at (almost) maxed out videosettings, over increasing resolution. Like the charts show, if you want to keep your maxed out settings, even your setup won't cut it. --- Also 3 way surround is "meh" for gaming purposes, you never really look at the other screens, its just kinda cool when you can see things in your peripheral vision. I would go with 2560x1440, and optional portrait monitor(s).[/QUOTE] You also have to realize that AA only simulates it. 4x on 1080p still will not look as good as none on 4k because you actually have the pixels.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;45343936]At the resolution and pixel density, FXAA or SMAA is perfectly reasonable. Running SSAA on that is not. Edit: Fuck quotes[/QUOTE] SSAA, is always gonna be relevant as long as there is need for AA. FXAA/SMAA is certainly a good trade-off performance wise, but it only hides crimes using blur, while SSAA actually fixes them.
[QUOTE=Cold;45348969]SSAA, is always gonna be relevant as long as there is need for AA. FXAA/SMAA is certainly a good trade-off performance wise, but it only hides crimes using blur, while SSAA actually fixes them.[/QUOTE] does it matter if the difference is hardly perceptible?
[QUOTE=Levelog;45344562]You also have to realize that AA only simulates it. 4x on 1080p still will not look as good as none on 4k because you actually have the pixels.[/QUOTE] I totally agree, i am not sure what the actual visual impact is from AA vs Actually adding the data. Consider is an "estimate", maybe the actual visual impact of quadripling the pixel density compares to much less AA artifacts then SMAAx4 does, but if you go from 1080p to 4k is probably gets reasonably close.
please remember that the size of the display factors in lol [editline]10th July 2014[/editline] 4k at 24" is going to look a lot less aliased than 4k at 30" the only consumer grade 4k display i would reccomend at the moment is the dell UP2414Q. 4K TN panels imo are not price effective at the moment, response times may be a few ms larger but it's nothing really noticeable; if you want a low response time 4k display i would certainly wait a little while longer and hold out with your current displays
I specifically wrote "pixel density" in every single post.
There is always going to be a benefit from MSAA and SSAA even with 4K displays. They don't even come close to exceeding certain cases like vernier acuity and you are always going to have issues with moire patterns.
[QUOTE=.Lain;45348986]does it matter if the difference is hardly perceptible?[/QUOTE] I'm in this boat. The cost of SSAA vs negligible blur for cheap "good enough" AA? I'm gonna take the latter every time, even with the greatest rig ever.
[QUOTE=Cold;45348969]SSAA, is always gonna be relevant as long as there is need for AA. FXAA/SMAA is certainly a good trade-off performance wise, but it only hides crimes using blur, while SSAA actually fixes them.[/QUOTE] Oh definitely, I just mean that as pixel density rises, the negatives of post process AA like SMAA fade away. SSAA is obviously awesome and I do it for all my screenshots and videos if I can, but I often run MAYBE 2xMSAA and SMAA on that on my 30inch x1600 panel. Sometimes no MSAA. In practice I think it's even easier to argue for post process AA as the pixel density increases. Using PostAA over SSAA on 720p/1080p, obviously I'd go SSAA if I could. I don't think I'm disagreeing but simply shifting where that fulcrum is in terms of what is a good balance. Edit: Though FXAA generally sucks ass all the time I should mention. Even at high resolutions, especially UnrealEngine 3 games. Somehow FXAA on that looks worse than no AA at times. And I play at 2560x1440 or 1600 most of the time.
The Asus ROG PG278Q is a good monitor but its a 1440. [url]http://toptengamer.squidoo.com/top-g-sync-monitors[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.