![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CtNQSU4.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
Since the GTX 1080 is capable of 4K I have decided to upgrade to a 4K monitor
Should I get a 40 inch 5000:1 contast 4K monitor
or
27 inch 4K with G-sync
They're both the same price
>>338157826
A 40 inch 4K monitor is a waste
It's got to be small so you have high PPI
>>338157826
4K is a meme you idiot
>>338158681
>this luddite
>>338157826
You mean a 40 inch TV?
Good luck playing with 40+ ms input lag
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
>>338158937
thank you
>>338157826
Screen size over 27" is irrelevant on a monitor, so go with G-sync.
>>338159994
No I mean a 40 inch monitor
it's like 4 ms
Philips BDM4350UC
Dell P4317Q
Thank me later.
>>338160247
I still don't understand why it's so cheap
£500 seems way too little money to a 43 inch 4K IPS monitor
>>338157826
I use a 27in 4k display but with Freesync and now I can't live without Freesync. Go with the gsync display.
>>338157916
>so you have high PPI
>high PP
LOL
>>338157826
>27 inch 4K with G-sync
Enjoy windows shit scaling.
>>338157826
>not waiting for OLED
Samung is fixing the burn in issues. Buying a monitor this year makes you a cuck.
>>338160247
Holy shit that 43 inch
maybe I will get a 1080....
>>338160415
The Philips little brother is also very cheap, it's TN though.
But this 43" ips version has had quite a lot of bad panels.
So if you're getting it, be prepared to send it back till you get a good panel.
>>338160134
So I would go with the 40 inch monitor, it make better use of the 4k resolution.
>>338157826
Ultrawide IPS. I'd wait a bit longer if you want to tackle 4K. I just don't think it's there yet since we're still progressing from 1080p to 4k as a standard.
>>338160247
>750:1 contrast ratio
Absolute shit
>>338157826
> gtx1080
> 4k
no it's not
>>338161312
Yes it is
>1080
Literally cuck card for dumb cucks.
>>338161460
It can smoothly play games at 1440p@60, but dips below 60 in almost every game at 4k.
is the gtx 1080 capable of running modern vidya in 1440p 144hz?
Neither. Get a 27-inch 1440p/165hz monitor with G-sync. You get way better resolution than 1080p that scales properly with windows and the 1080 will actually be able to run it at framerates past 60 to boot. Best of all worlds.
4k isn't worth the price: performance ratio yet.
1080p 144hz master race
>>338161651
^ this
>>338161645
Not at 144 fps.
>>338161312
It may not get 60fps on more recent games at max settings but you can always turn down some stuff. Older games will look and run great.
>>338160134
response time is not input lag retard
>>338161645
It's usually about 80-90fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf6lpFmCKGQ
>>338161859
It's 4ms
>>338161770
I'm waiting for the 1080Ti which I'm hoping is enough to manage 60fps at 4K.
>>338157826
I'm assuming the bigger the more latency. Don't huge TVs have like over 30ms of response time?
Get the 27 inch gsync. Gsync is amazing. You get no tearing with fluctuating fps so you never need to use vsync anymore and no latency either. It only works in exclusive fullscreen mode though but it's amazing. Also games running in 1080p will look 100% crisp clear on a 4K screen because each pixel of 1080p fits four pixels of 4K perfectly.
>>338162079
IT'S NOT A TV
YOU FUCKING IDIOT
>>338162114
You're a big meanie
>>338160583
I'll be dead by the time OLED 24 inch screens are released at 300€
i'd get a fast ips if i was you
2560x1440 or 1600 over dvid on an s-ips is one of the best monitors you can get
>>338157826
>nvidiot gtx 1080 degrees
You should buy better home and health insurance for that housefire card.
Anyone here experienced with Ultrawide? What's a good screen size and how much should I be paying for one to be most cost effective?
>>338162369
Now post Fury X
>>338162456
Sure.
>>338162451
x34
4K is fucking shit right now even with the best hardware. You're stupid to fall for that marketing garbage unless you enjoy console tier input lag, motion blur, tearing.and low response time.
1440p with G Sync is where it's at for gaming right now.
>>338161915
There is no display in the world with a 4ms input delay. The large korean displays have an average of 40ms input delay. Most Gsync displays are floating at about 20ms input delay.
If you'd like a huge, low input lag display within reasonable cost with 4k? Vizio P or M series. You will lose out on some colors, but they do 2160p 60fps and 1080p 120fps off HDMI 2.0.
Alternatively if you're gunning for quality over size, there's the 34" ultrawides from Asus and Acer to consider. IPS, 1440p, 21:9 ratio, gsync, 100hz. They're pretty freakin' nice.
I would highly suggest you do more research before making a choice OP, as it seems you've some faulty info.
>>338162616
>4K is fucking shit right now even with the best hardware.
Having a 4K desktop is great. You can still game in 1080p
>>338162616
What's in this pic?
>>338162729
some shitty e-celeb spouting dank memes
>>338162629
I'd also like to point out that ULMB kicks the ever loving SHIT out of Gsync for gaming. I do not experience screen tearing at all with two 980 Ti's @ 1440p.
>all these poor cucks with their 24" $200 screens shittalking 4K
>>338162726
>Buy a bigass detailed screen
>Upsample a fourth of the resolution
4K fags everyone.
>>338162726
That's fucking retarded.
>>338162456
>>338163030
>Fury X is a housefire
>Chart is not even about temps
???
>>338162901
Nah, friendo. 65" 4k vizio P series for my giant display. Asus ROG 1440p 144hz for my desk, on either side I've got some LG 1080p 60hz IPS.
The giant 4k TV is nice for some games but not all of them, and while yes games in 4k are pretty as fuck I think I prefer 1440p @ 120hz with ULMB.
>>338162984
Why?
>>338162923
It looks as crisp as on a native 1080p
>>338162892
I haven't experienced it, but ULMB doesn't seem to be a good thing unless you're playing gmaes like CS or Quake 3.
144Hz is a high enough refresh rate to pretty much remove all strobing and get the same motion blur you'd see in real life, so I don't know if forcing strobing back in is such a good thing.
>>338163116
more power = more heat
As much as i want a 4k monitor, i dont think i can ditch my triple monitor setup.
Occasionally some older games wont scale well to 5760x1080 so i just run a single monitor, and the whole time im thinking how much better it would be across all three.
I enjoy sims and fps games, both are 10x better on a surround setup.
When gpus can run 1440p in surround ill take the leap.
http://4k.com/monitor/a-review-of-the-asus-pb279q-professional-27-4k-uhd-monitor-with-3840-x-2160-resolution/ I've got this and it's gorgeous
>>338163119
I don't think you understand, we're not talking about a fucking 4k TV
It's a 43" IPS monitor with no more input lag than any other normal monitor
>>338163773
Try it for yourself if you have it anon. It was -immediately- noticed for me. As I don't really get screen tearing I find I'd rather use ULMB which makes me feel a little sad I paid extra for gsync and now don't use it lol.
>>338164112
Aren't those types of screens really hard to calibrate the color? The range is so wide some applications/games look wrong. Or am I confusing this with something else?
>>338164164
Look it up, holy shit. Every reviewer has already confirmed as have websites, korean 40"+ Samsung and LG panels are 40+ MS. It's the same as a TV. So no, you're the one not getting it. Just because you call it a 'monitor' does not make it so. Stop falling for marketing shit.
>>338164274
Yeah, I guess the only way for me to know would be to try. I really like adaptative sync though.
>>338164435
it's philips
1440p@144hz > 4k@60z
>>338158681
It was a meme last year.
>>338163773
Not to mention most ULMB has higher input latency than GSYNC so...
>>338157826
>1080 is capable of 4K
>23fps
Lol. 4K is a meme m8
>>338164339
Took about 45 minutes over a few games buy it was fine. You need to make sure you're level/higher than the display though, or the top half will be darker (like a laptop on an angle)
I wanna upgrade my monitor but don't wanna go 4k yet. And 1440p@144hz is too expensive IMO.
So... 1440p@60hz or 1080p@144hz?
>>338165106
Not to mention the games tested came out month ago. Now that devs have seen what the 1080 is capable of, they'll most likely go even harder on it since they know the current standard is 1080p60Hz.
>>338164867
>Citation needed
I've experienced the opposite, do you have a source on this comment anon? Genuinely curious.
>>338165209
personally I'd go with 1080p@144hz but this is something you'll have to decide for yourself which is more important to you. i know a lot of people whod rather have higher resolution than framerate.
Are there any 27"+ monitors that are 16:10? I don't know how you faggots can play in 16:9.
>>338165347
I don't know how *you* can play at a dead, non-standard ratio.
>>338165106
Witcher 3 on ultra gets a constant 45 fps which is good enough for me
Even fucking AC Unity gets above 30 fps on 4k now with the 1080
>>338165209
Personally i dont see what everyone loves so much about 144hz. I got my 144hz Asus a couple years ago.
It just seems that there are too few games that even utuilize that kind of speed.
I just felt like i wasted the extra cash honestly.
>>338165539
It's just so smooth. So comfortable.
1080p/1440p cucks in defense mode
what's the difference between a Monitor and a TV?
>>338165403
>non-standard
>like it should matter
Anon, when you don't know the answer to a question you're not obligated to answer, you know that right?
Why are people even considering 40" monitors in this thread? How far would you have to sit from that?
>>338165539
most games that dont support 144hz natively usually can with a quick .ini file edit.
144hz vs 4k?
Most games are console ports and are locked at 60hz.
Most games are terribly optimized and 4K is not even an option with everything on lowest settings.
Both are very situational.
But 144hz has benefits from scrolling your web browser.
And 4K has benefits like multitasking and videos/movies.
>>338165791
>It doesn't matter that I get black bars on literally any video I watch
Whatever you say.
>>338157826
Not buying a benq 144hrz and playing vidya at maximum fluidity.
>>338165848
Not far, especially at 4k
You're just used to tiny screens
>>338165848
I don't get it either. Any monitor over 24" seems overly huge to me.
i wouldn't mind 1440, but getting a 1080 just for it seems a little cocky.
>>338157826
ms is important if you're playing multiplayer games like CS:GO where that twitch movement is really necessary. Most games aren't a big deal if its 30-40ms response time.
Secondly you can always reduce to 1080p with a 4k tv... and you'll get higher refresh rates and higher response times if its really that big of a problem. Meanwhile you browse and play single player games on 4k.
As for me? I'm enjoying playing modded Morrowind on my 4k 43"TV.
>>338165925
>Most games are console ports and are locked at 60hz.
This is completely untrue. Out of 240 steam titles, not even getting into my GOG, Origin etc libraries... I've seen maybe a handful of 60fps locked games.
The fuck are you on about anon?
Can you reccomend me a monitor 1440p and 144hz?
I have a limited budget.
>>338158681
In fact yes, it really is 2K
>>338166263
How limited?
>>338166336
500 euros
>>338166263
asus pg278q is around $650
i think acer has one for around $500. anyone have the acer? how is the color on it?
>>338163773
>144Hz is a high enough refresh rate to pretty much remove all strobing
difference between 1ms of persistence and 7ms of persistence is massive
>>338166438
Acer is trash.
>>338166639
good to know. ill probably go with the asus then at some point this summer.
>>338166263
Got a S2716DG for $300 from Dell Outlet. It's okay I guess. Out of the box calibration was p. bad.
>>338166438
Looks good, thanks anon
>>338166564
This explains why switching Gsync off for ULMB felt like such a drastic difference for me.
>>338165784
monitor should display whats fed into it without modification, because its a tool to do a job.
a tv is a toy for idiot masses who want things to "look better" rather than right, see >>338165936
>>338157826
>40 inches monitor
There are people stupid enough to do this.
Pick up a fuckhuge piece of cardboard, cut it down to 40in in diameter and put it on your desk for reference. How the hell do you suppose you're going to be able to play games that way?
1440p 144hz master race
ill switch to 4k in a couple years when it actually becomes relevant
>>338160415
because it's pretty much just 4 small 1080 monitors stitched together. low pixel density
>>338166191
>>338165925
PCGamingWiki has a page for 4432 games.
A bit of querying shows that 1289 of those games either have native 120+Hz support or that can be hacked in.
Meanwhile, there are 574 games with either native 4K support or that can be hacked in.
While that isn't 100% representative since the search omits games where it is unknown wether there is support for 4K or 120+Hz, and there are more than ~4500 PC games, it give you a bit of an idea of the proportion of games that support either of these.
how well do 970s handle 1440p? am i better off selling that thing and getting a 1080 this fall?
>>338167460
4K isn't worth the money at the moment.
>inb4 poorfag
>>338163616
>It looks as crisp as on a native 1080p
keep telling yourself that
>>338167624
It should be playable at 1440p, but you may struggle in the future because >3.5GB
>>338167624
970 doesn't handle 1440p well at all. You're going to need a 980TI or the new pascal gen card.
Will there be a price drop of gpu's in the coming months with all the new announcements?
>>338167460
what gpu and monitor?
>>338167532
Actually a 42 inch 4K screen is the same as four 1440p screens together
>>338167789
Yep. It's time for 6gb vram or more these days.
Have you people saying 4K is a gimmick actually used a 4K monitor?
Fuck you and your piece of shit 1080p "monitors"
>>338167819
For sure. I would expect the 980TI to come down to around 400 in the next month. 980TI will handle any game in 1440p.
>>338168025
Guess I'll wait a bit longer then. Was thinking of upgrading current pc with one, but apparently I dun goofed a few years ago and current motherboard doesn't support DDR4. Might as well replace everything.
Listen, if any of you faggots buy a monitor that's bigger than 27" most games aren't designed to support it. So good luck trying to read 8pt font on your 40" monitor because you think it's soo cool.
Large screens cause text to improperly display from the computer. Windows text customization does not help with this.
Why do they call it 4K and not 2160p? Is it just jewish tricks again?
>>338168253
40 inches scales with 4k perfectly for games though
Maybe you should actually use something before you criticise it
>>338163841
Not if its cooled well, you're a retard.
>>338168382
"Twenty-one-sixty" is a mouthful. Everyone's simply used to the marketing term anyway.
>>338168495
Call it 2K then.
>>338168253
No it doesn't you meme spouting faggot. 4k 65" P series looks perfectly fucking fine.
>>338167838
mg279q with a 970
ditching the 970 for a 490 or 1080 though, preferably a 490 if amd manages to get their head out of their ass so i can actually use freesync. if not then oh well, the monitor is still great without using freesync
>>338168652
>2K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution of approximately 2,000 pixels.[1] Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) defines 2K resolution standard as 2048×1080.[2][3]
(from Wikipedia)
The name's already taken senpai.
so whats a good monitor right now, for the money? gotta be above 60 hz
>>338157826
4k is still to much for stable 60 FPS even for a 1080.
Go for a 1440p/144hz Freesync monitor.
Thank me later
Is there any use to having monitor with high hz if you can't match it FPS wise?
>>338168849
>thank me later for giving bad advice
And remember your monitor MUST have Goy-Sync!
>>338168941
It gives you some headroom, I guess.
>>338161645
over 60hz yes, so it's a good card for any monitor over that
Why did 144 Hz win out over 120 Hz monitors?
You'd think the one with a refresh rate exactly twice the standard 60 would be more popular, seeing as it also supports 30 FPS content without juddering, unlike 144 Hz.
>>338168994
>implying 4K @ 40fps is superior to 2k @ 70+FPS
i never understood whats the point of "higher res" monitors
i haven't seen a difference yet other than the unnecessary size
does anyone have some sort of comparison image?
>>338169436
144Hz is a multiple of 24 and 48.
>>338169526
at 4k you basically don't need anti-aliasing because there are far more pixels to naturally alias itself.
>>338169568
120 is a multiple of 24 too, and what 48 Hz content exists?
>>338169658
Whoops, disregard, I misread the post. Deleting.
>>338169731
High framerate movies fun at 48Hz but I'll admit there aren't much of those.
>>338169860
*run at
Not op, but im also looking into 4k, though im too cheap for gsync
Im either going to get the 1080 with:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PC9HFO8/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1
Or crossfire the next gen AMD to get freesync enabled:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-27-ips-led-4k-uhd-freesync-monitor/4922001.p?id=bb4922001&skuId=4922001&productCategoryId=pcmcat374100050017
Is freesync worth it to not get the 1080.
>>338169731
>>338169860
Wait, come to think of it, there was the Hobbit movies. Not that I'd ever want to rewatch those, but they exist.
>>338157826
>capable of 4K
If you enjoy playing at ~40 fps and constantly having to turn settings down.
Yes its "capable" but its not enjoyable.
>Should I get a 40 inch 5000:1 contast 4K monitor
The input lag will be huge.
>27 inch 4K with G-sync
PPI too high for Windows, you will have to use display scaling and that will make everything on windows look like shit.
Get a 27"+ 1440p monitor, thats the sweet spot. All games run maxed out at 60+fps on a 1080, and you dont have to optimize graphics settings constantly.
Were still a while away from single GPU 4K.
so wait
a 1080 will only go at around 60fps at 1440p?
well fuck, my 970 plays literally everything i have at 1080p at 90+ fps. I guess ill hold off this year on getting that new monitor and card.
>>338171973
1080 gets like 90+fps at 1440p
>>338172117
Is it even worth to get 144hz monitor if you can't keep 144fps?
>>338172117
is 1440p that much better? a new monitor + a grx 1080 is a pretty big investment.
>>338172216
i'd rather go to 4K personally
>>338157826
I'll give you my 40 inches.
:)
>>338171619
can you recommend any good 27" 1440p 60+hz monitors?
4k is pretty but id rather have 144hz.
>>338172379
That's a very intentionally misleading image.
>people are falling for the 1080 meme and upgrading before AMD even releases Polaris and the new Intel and AMD chipsets get released this fall
>>338172704
You realize Polaris isn't meant to compete with 1080, right?
It's a low end card that uses less power
>>338172704
What does new chipset bring to the GPU table?
>>338172704
>AMD
>>338172864
CPUs are the bottleneck at 4k gaming for now and the foreseeable future
I would aim for 30-32 inches with GSYNC if possible. I have 24 and it's good but it's hard to use it for desktop real estate because text can get stupidly small.
It's most comfortable around 30+ inches, but 40 may be too much.
>>338165925
4K is plenty viable anon.
I run 980 SLI which is about 5-10% faster than the 1080 and I can play every game quite well. Even the most demanding games tend to sit around 40-50 FPS, which is entirely playable and with some minor settings reductions you can easily boost that to 60.
Anything older than 2014 runs perfect 60 with zero issues. (Assuming it supports 4K in terms of UI scaling, which is the bigger problem)
>>338157826
getting the GTX 970 4 gig today, how do i know if a video card is capable of 4k or not?
>>338174530
Yours isn't
970 is pretty shit sorry
>>338174530
if you must buy a card today buy a 960 if you can't wait.
>>338169436
Honestly it's entirely because 144Hz monitors are marketed to faggy gamers who buy the biggest number.
Is gsync/freesync worth it on a 144hz monitor? I heard it doesn't do much beyond the 50-60fps range.
The 1080 is "capable" but the most demanding games run at sub-60 still which is pitiful for a new generation card. It's still too fucking early to invest in 4k, wait for the next gen and 144hz monitors.
