Is it even worth it to invest in 4K pc gaming right now or is it a smarter investment to aim for stable 60 fps 1080p performance?
4k is just another gimmick man, just like 60Fps.
Yes there's a difference, but it's not worth investing just for that difference.
1080. 4K in like 3-4 years.
Why not both?
Eitherway, not all PC releases even support either of those.
>>321164270
It's definately worth investing in 60fps.
Anyone who says otherwise plays on a console and has never experienced the difference.
>>321164270
Would you say it'd be worth it to at least buy a 4K monitor/ TV so I'm prepared when that time comes?
>>321164460
No. They will be both cheaper and better when they are worth having. Just wait.
>>321164142
1080
4K is not worth it unless you are stinking rich and can afford 5k+ on vidya
>>321164271
>>321164648
>>321164767
These.
But hey, If you can afford a $1000 TV and 980ti sli more power to you.
>>321165024
I was considering buying a nice TV with my tax refund so I can upgrade from my 24in 1080p Vizio.
Over the years I've amassed a good collection of blurays but I don't think I've been taking advantage of them
>>321165265
There's no advantage with 4k for blu ray. BR movies are in 1080p.
>>321164142
Seems pretty stupid to invest in 4k
What you want to invest in is VR. That's actually something new and isn't just a marketing term or gimmick.
With 4k you get slightly nicer graphics on your 20 something" monitor while with VR you get an entirely different experience
Nigga you can be doing 120fps at 1080p.
4k is literally the new meme. Remember how long it took "True HD" to hit the market?
And reminder that there are several classic PC games that don't even go past 768.
And to add to the insult, reminder that most PC games are console ports and do no have assets to take advantage of 4k.
Constant stable performance will always be better than extra pixels.
>>321165391
I understand that. I'd still like to make a big purchase to ensure the investment lasts.
It's the same reason I got my current phone.
>>321164142
1080p 144/120 fps is where it's at
>>321165964
Also with your blueray situation, a film will look way better with a larger screen.
Same with vidya.
24" is way too tiny for 1080p. You need to be be to see the film grain and scratches and shit like that.
Fu c k now I gotta watch the original total recall again.
At the moment the amount of money you have to spend for reliable 4k framerate isnt worth it. Maybe in a few years depending on how hard companies push the technology. Which is pretty hard for TVs. Last year there were a handful of them. Now most models in all major brands are 4k.
I does make a subtle difference though. I can play most games from a couple or years ago or older at 4k. It softens up edges and textures, everything looks smoother. Ori and the blind forest was a marvel to play in 4k.
>>321165391
Any decent brand has upscaling. Not a huge difference but clears up some blurriness and artifacting.
pointless with current gen GPU's even xfired
just wait till we get 8gb,16gb+ cards
>>321166091
That's what I mean. The TV I have my eye on isn't a huge TV but it'd be a considerable upgrade from what I have now.
1080p is just beautiful, if you have the hardware and cash 1440p can be gorgeous (you have to spend way more to get an acceptable display IMO, RoG shit is TN panel and won't cut it)
4k is not good, there are some very early adopters out there with more dollars than brains, but it just isnt worth it
you need to think about performance beyond gaming, at 4k all your videos will look like shit, look at a 480p video at 1080p and you'll have an idea of the difference
plus to get 60 fps you will have to shell out even more money and even then you'll probably not get optimal performance
tl;dr 1080p is fine, if you have gtx 970+ or AMD equivalent you can try for 1440p, but do your homework because its easy to make a fucking mistake getting into higher resolution monitors
Wait for pascal
I used 4k for about half a year, it's fucking great and it's absolutely the way of the future but in my opinion the graphics card tech just isn't there yet.Skip 1440p, it's literally the 720p of UHD
>>321164142
Unless you have a shitton of money, I don't think it's worth it.
The toll on performance is not worth the increase in graphical fidelity, in my opinion at least. I can see it becoming the new standard for enthusiast level PCs in a couple of years, but I don't think it's worth investing to yet.
But if you got the funds and the parts to go with it, feel free man.
I recently bought a P2415Q, really like it, even if I only have a 7950 (I don't play many modern games and the few I do aren't demanding). The PPI is insane, everything is so damn nice and sharp its incredible.
I'd say if you could get a decent 4k monitor, if not get a cheaper IPS unless you really need the higher refresh rate.
>>321166527
>at 4k all your videos will look like shit
I've been wondering about this. A 4K monitor with the same size as an 1080p one has a lot higher pixel density leading to a much sharper image. Doesn't this mean that if you stretch a 1080p source to that 4K screen, it shouldn't look much different from watching the same source native on a 1080p screen?
>>321165391
When will 4K bluray's come out, I'm getting a hard-on thinking about watching Blade Runner in 4K.
>>321168065
if you get a bluray rip or something it wont look terrible, it depends on the upscaling method
also the effects of low bitrate will be more pronounced, but it isn't THAT bad, probably not even noticeable at a reasonable viewing distance
>>321164142
No it is smart to go 1440p 144hz or 1440p freesync.
How much you all think a Vizio 4K TV will be next winter?
They're like $800 now right?
I heard the current models aren't good for pc gaming because they don't support Chroma 2:2:2 right?
>>321168092
>When will 4K bluray's come out
When 100GB Blurays become cheaper to produce.
As it currently stands, to make the resolution increase worthwhile, the bitrate is almost 3 times as high, and 50GB Blurays are already being filled with 1080p bitrates (40-50mbps) and extra features. Meaning every 4K bluray will likely be a 100GB movie disc and a standard 50GB bluray for special features. This is a cost hurdle that needs to be overcome, as movie studios are super jews and want 95% profit ratios.
Also, very few past movies are going to get a proper 4K treatment. It takes good work to make a good 4K version from a 35mm print. Raiders of the Lost Ark already got it, but that's basically it. It all depends on the studios effort and whether or not the filmstock is still good enough (some movies are basically scraping to make a 1080p bluray release because bad storage damaged the film)
Expect to see a plethora of "4K RE-RELEASE!!!!" classic movies that look no better than the 1080p release because they refuse to actually do any additional work.
>>321166091
>a film will look way better with a larger screen.
>Same with vidya.
>24" is way too tiny for 1080p.
Fucking console retards will never understand pixel density, I swear.
>>321164434
>I'm so underage I don't know what I'm saying and pretend 60fps wasn't the console standard
>>321169465
>Vizio
Whatever home fire insurance costs.
>Recently get a 42" 4K TV for $498 AU
Plebs, the lot of you
>>321169779
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-500-tv/
>>321169898
>Calling anyone a pleb
You know why that panel was so cheap? Because the company that was making them deemed it defective for their main series and sold it as a defective panel for dirt cheap to a garbage off-brand company to use.
You bought defective garbage and think you're an awesome shopper for it and are calling others a pleb.
>>321169898
>tfw 50" Smart TV for £399
>if waited a bit longer, could've bought a 4K variant for a about £30 more
I don't think it matters if whatever you're inputting isn't 4K native, right? Say I use my PS3 on that display, it'll look more blurry than a 1080p one at the same size, correct?
>>321170041
It works perfectly though
Oh I get it, you're just shitposting
I'd rather go for 21:9 resolutions with 60fps.
>>321164142
Fucking retatds I swear. There's resolutions between 4k and shitty hd. Namely 1440p, which also allows 144hz if you have the money
>>321170802
>going for the 720p of UHD
>>321170917
it's a nice resolution to have while we wait for decent monitors. your 4k monitor most likely has a slew of problems like shitty colors, horrid input lag, no gsync or freesync and to top it off you don't have the graphical power to run new games at respectable settings.
>b-buh you don't need AA on 4k!
I work with TVs.
If you've got the money 4K is pretty good. There's not really any 4K footage out yet but good TVs have upscaling, so even full HD will look a bit better. But don't sacrifice screen size to get 4K. If you come into the store looking for a 55 inch TV and you find one with 4K and a good refresh rate that meets your budget then you should buy it, but if you're tossing up between a 65" full HD and a 55" 4K then go with the 65".
OLEDs are where the future is, except LG are greedy fucking kikes.
>>321170369
If I had to guess you bought a Soniq or a Hisense.
>>321171287
What if I'm looking to get a mid-size TV for my room? Like say 40 inches or so?
>>321171454
probably bought the shitty Aldi one for that price, it is fucking shit
>>321164271
The transition is already planned, kid, all the screen selling industry will remove the 1080 products from the market at the same time. that's how they did with the first HD wave. And why 4k too so long to arrive. in 2017 you will have no choice.
>>321165526
>What you want to invest in is VR.
wow kid that's some impressive brainless droning. You literally never log out of facebook, do you?
I have a 55" 4K TV that looks pretty great with my xbox one, though i'm not sure if xbox is even 1080p or if it even makes use of the TV since i have to use the gaming mode, otherwise the latency is huge between moving and then seeing it
>>321172132
I have 42" 1080p TV. It's kind of small still, I think 47 or 50 or so would be better.
>>321171454
>>321172136
First of all, we don't have Aldi here and I bought a Kogan
>>321172132
Same thing I said. I always say that you should buy the best thing that you can afford (but make sure you set a reasonable budget and stick to it) because even if you don't think you need it you never know what you might need down the track.
Decide how much you are willing to spend and then find the best thing under that amount.
For a 40" TV for your room (assuming you have a bigger TV somewhere else) then you'd be looking at
>Panasonic
http://www.panasonic.com/au/consumer/televisions-projectors/televisions/th-42as640a.html
This one's the cheaper Panasonic 42". Full HD, 200Hz driver, "Life+" app functionality.
http://www.panasonic.com/au/consumer/televisions-projectors/televisions/th-40cs650a.html
This one's their more expensive model (it actually only has 100Hz refresh rate LEL), but they reckon it's got some picture-quality enhancing features. It's up to you whether you think the picture is $800 better, but I doubt it.
>LG
http://www.lg.com/au/oled-tvs
Don't bother with LG's garbage unless you're getting an OLED (which I recommend, if you've got the dosh). They only come in 55"+
>Samsung
http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/led-tv/UA32J5500AWXXY
50Hz real refresh rate LEL and as expensive as the entry level Panasonic while being smaller. This is a pretty garbage television. Still, it's worth knowing it exists.
My recommendation is the cheap Panasonic, but as always view everything in store before you buy it. Also remember not to be fooled by salespeople who have two TVs side by side going "look how much better the picture is! buy that one!".
Even if the picture is a lot better you're not going to actually "see" that unless you have another TV side by side, and unless you're buying 2 TVs then that's unlikely.
>>321172878
guess you aren't a melbourne fag then.
>kogan
lol.
>>321172271
Yeah, I heard they're gonna confiscate everyone's 1080p screens too.
I build a new PC recently, and went 1080p 144hz.
Investment in 4k is quite large atm. You need a decent monitor and sli 980ti.
So hopefully in a few years, when the prices become more reasonable and the new tech becomes more commonplace.
4k requires overpriced hardware. This may change in the next few years but you are only going to get a playable experience in new games by spending $500+ on the GPU alone.
1080P 60fps only requires a GTX960 or HD7970 for most new games max settings. Witcher 3 is an exception but still very playable max settings 1080p
>>321164142
Depends op
Its expensive and makes 1080p feel like a blurry mess
But games do look great remember to get a gsync screen btw
>>321172939
>Melbourne
The fastest way to improve that shithole is a orbital strike, I'm from Perth.
And what's wrong with Kogan? Don't you want to buy Aussie products..that were made in China?
>>321173245
Opps specy
>>321172894
The one I have my eye on is a Samsung UN40JU7500 or so
I'm willing to go down a model (JU7100) if I find myself short on cash but as long as it has 3D (I'm a 3Dfag, sorry) I'm willing to work with it.
>ITT: meme spouting idiots
4k is an absolute meme
1080p literally only became standard for games this year yet you're pretending you need to upgrade because muh masterrace xDD
>>321173531
t. Jealous console neetpoor
>>321173473
You've got good taste.
The only other thing I'd say then is that curved is a gimmick and unless you already know that you love curved TVs, don't fall for it. It's trash that ruins picture quality and also reduces the actual places where you can sit and be able to see your TV well to basically nothing. On an 88" panel or higher then yes, curved starts to have some use, but on a 40" panel? No way.
Most important things that impact picture quality are good blacks and good contrast, and this TV reckons it has both. You'll be looking at some great picture quality out of the JU7100 for sure, but of course it's worth comparing.
Basically, you're in the right zone and those are good TVs for the money. All that's left is to physically go into a shop and sight them, fiddle with them, and see what the sales rep recommends.
Don't automatically discount everything the sales rep says, but your best defence against misleading and deceptive conduct is knowledge. Know your rights and get the salesperson to promise you everything you think you'll want before you buy the TV so that it forms part of the sales contract.
Do not forget to calibrate your new TV.
http://www.techhive.com/article/2079503/easily-calibrate-your-new-hdtv.html
Calibrated shitty $400 TVs look better than uncalibrated $1,400 ones.
>>321173892
Oh yeah, and get them while they're on sale because otherwise you're spending a shitton for 4K that you don't really need. At the sale price those TVs are great deals. At the RRP then you're better off with a regular HDTV, not 4K.
>>321173784
>87% of people have never heard of 1080p
>6% of people realise the difference between 1080 and 720
>98% of people think 1080 is the same as real life
nice meme
>>321173962
>>321173892
Thanks man
Probably by the time my refund comes in, I can catch one on sale during Presidents Day or something
>>321164142
No.
1080 or maybe 1440. 4k won't be consumer tier for several years.
>>321174097
No worries bro. Just wire my consultation fees to my bank account some time in the next two weeks ;^).
in my honest observation the diminishing returns between 4k and 1080p are negligible compared to 1080 and 720p
If it looks clear and great it's fine. tablets which generally have a 720p screen look great still because it's not 720p stretched for a 1080p screen
>>321164434
You do know that console games in the past were 60FPS right, shitposter fag?
>>321164142
4K is a meme, Japan is moving to 8K and skipping 4k altogether.
>>321173892
>It's trash that ruins picture quality and also reduces the actual places where you can sit and be able to see your TV well
This is just completely wrong. Screen quality is exactly the same. The design of the curve is for immersion. When sitting in the center (where you should be sitting regardless) it adds depth to the picture. Mostly for movie buffs or sportsball fags. You can view them from wide angles because the screen curves into your field of view. Unless you are sitting off in some retarded angle which would be shit for any tv. I agree though about a 40" curved. Smallest you should get in curved is 55".
>>321174619
Not in muh experience desu senpai.
Curved and flat all have their own picture distortions but with the curved TVs I definitely notice a "bow tie" effect, where the image seems stretched at either end. Especially noticeable with black bars or lines that go across the screen (for example in menus).
The increased depth and immersion do exist - on big panels. The only time I've actually noticed the curve as anything other than an annoyance is in the 88" to 100" range. Even the 75" don't look too different.
In a 75" or less the curve is not worth paying for. Over 75" it *might* be worth paying for. Cinema screens and the like can benefit from the curve - except that the people sitting at the edges will have shit visuals and the people sitting in the middle will feel like they're in a funhouse because of the massive bow tie effect on such a big screen.
Of course I'd never say any of this to a customer, but curved is simply not worth the money unless you literally have money to burn in my opinion.
You niggers heard of Dynamic Super Resolution/GeDoSaTo, right?
1080p now.
5 years 4k
>>321174859
>"bow tie" effect, where the image seems stretched at either end. Especially noticeable with black bars or lines that go across the screen (for example in menus).
Never noticed this but then again biggest curve we have in the shop is a 79"
>The increased depth and immersion do exist - on big panels. The only time I've actually noticed the curve as anything other than an annoyance
I notice it on 55" panels and I often show customers comparisons because we have flat and curved above or below the other. As for it being annoying I guess that's just taste, both are fine for me.
>In a 75" or less the curve is not worth paying for
Depends on the room. A 55" curved would be more than enough for my space because i would get the full benefit of the feature.
>unless you literally have money to burn in my opinion.
These are generally the people interested in the curved screen to begin with
>>321164142
Try to aim for 144hz, 1440p
Good investment.
most games should be playable at 4k/60fps once the next gen of GPUs come out next year
if you have the cash to get a decent low-input lag TV or monitor in 4k and one of whatever next year's flagship GPUs are called, then go for it
anyone who says it's a gimmick is a retard
Large format 4k displays are still a novelty aimed at the pro market, but they are absolutely worth the money. A 40" 2160p monitor is just about the best possible desktop experience money can buy.
What games are you people playing in 4k?
Hard mode: It can't be a first person shooter or the Witcher.
>>321175561
That's fair enough.
We've got some 65" TVs on the endcaps where you have the curved one at the top and the flat one underneath, which is what it sounds like you've got, and I completely fail to differentiate them. That's my main reasoning for why I don't really recommend curved TVs, considering the price. You pay a huge amount of money for something that's only slightly better at best.
But yes, if people come in with lots of money I will flog them the most expensive TV I can find on the floor ($21,000 LEL), naturally.
If you (or a customer) like the curve then obviously it's your decision, but when customers ask me "what's the deal with curved TVs" and don't look like like they might actually buy one I tend to tell them that I, and a lot of other people I know who work with TVs for a living (reviewers, manufacturers, etc) all think they're a bit of a gimmick, and as best I can tell it seems to be the prevailing opinion.
>>321176067
Any game they want that's not a first person shooter or the Witcher?
>>321175593
>literally obsolete in 4 month
>good investments
k
e
k
>>321164142
4k looks really nice, and you can can skimp on your processor since you wont have to use anti-aliasing anymore
>>321172338
But he's right. 4K is just a slight improvement, while VR (if done right) is going to be revolution greater than 3d graphics.
>>321177525
>4k
>slight improvement
Trust me on this, going from a 24" 1080p monitor to a 40" 2160p monitor is no 'slight improvement'.
>>321176067
>Deadspace
>DoW2
>Ori and the Blind Forest
>XCOM
>SC2:LotV
>Spec Ops: The Line
This is what ive played in 4k (omitting shooters). The last three in the list over the past month and a half.
>>321171193
>it's a nice resolution to have while we wait for decent monitors. your 4k monitor most likely has a slew of problems like shitty colors, horrid input lag, no gsync or freesync
Holy fuck it's like you just got out of a fucking cryochamber you've been in since 2013.
>>321178380
Do you think you cracked the secret code and found magic cheap displays?
Those shit brands with cheap monitors exist because they buy Samsung and LGs defective panels that those companies deem unworthy of putting on consumer sale. They are fucked up panels, with issues form colours, to refresh, to backlighting, to pixel pitch, tossed into a base with a downright safety hazard of a power supply and sold to rubes.
>>321178380
>30hz
1080p looks terrible. 4k looks only slightly better than 1440p. 4k has a myriad of problems (lack of content, scaling, insane GPU requirements) while 1440p has no problems. 1440p also has 144Hz available.
tl;dr: 4k is a worthless gimmick, 1440p is where it's at
Source: I've actually used all of these
>>321178380
120Hz at 30Hz
U-huh okay.
>>321178380
Its a nice display for desktop use for the money, but it isn't that great for gaming. You need a after market firmware for 1080p@120hz mode because Seiki never officially released that despite advertising the screen as 120hz and in that mode its effectively a 1080p display because you have to disable all the image processing and adjust the overscan which requires accessing the hidden settings menu (0000 on the remote).
The Phillips displays are twice as much, but they're twice as good.
>>321179073
it means it can do 120hz (probably interpolated tbf) at lower resolutions but ony 30hz at 4k
4K is a fucking meme.
120 FPS on the other hand...
>>321164270
>60 FPS
>gimmick
Spot the console peasant poor-mommy-kid. Go fuck yourself and educate yourself fucking piece of shit underrage filth.
>>321174417
>literally living in the past
>>321178525
Look closer at that price, anon.
>>321179159
No it doesn't. TVs have had stupid high fake refresh rates for quite a while, I'm not sure what they mean though. Because they certainly don't mean the physical refresh rates.
>>321179445
it's actually $250 on Newegg, I checked after wondering why his screenshot looked so suspect
>>321179534
what? i said 120hz interpolated which is what "fake" 120hz is you mong
>>321179638
>what? i said 120hz interpolated which is what "fake" 120hz is you mong
But it doesn't increase at lower resolutions. The panel's refresh rate is 30Hz plain and simple. You'd probably have to google around, I don't know shit.
>>321179534
It has a 120hz panel which is what lets it do 24hz, 30hz, and 60hz modes. The catch is to actually get 120hz native mode in 1080p you need a hacked firmware. Plus its a 40" screen so 1080p isn't that great. Input lag in that mode isn't that bad for a TV but it was clearly not intended for use as a computer monitor. Something that Seiki made more clear in their next-generation of products where they crippled their 42" 4k tv with terrible input lag so they could sell a $1000 pro monitor.
>>321179805
Only in 4k mode. Its a limitation of the hardware in the display, and the bandwidth available over HDMI 1.4. The panel itself supports higher refresh rates but only when you feed it a lower resolution input.
>buying off-brand electronics
>ever
>>321169694
Ya dumbo white nigger, 24" is way too small for 1080p. Yeah, I get it if you're just surfing the web and reading docs, but you want a bigger screen ALWAYS for film and vidya. Smaller screens are only for retro gaymen as those resolutions look best that way.
Literally missing fine detail by not getting a larger screen.
And yes, pixel density is cool and all, but you can replicate it by the distance you are from your large TV.
>>321170323
There is zero 4k content unless you buy that Sony or Samsung box to stream shitty films at 4k.
Yalls niggas need to stick with 1080, because until they start production of "ultra" bluray or whatever garbage then and only then will content become available.
>inb4 muh 4k peecee vidya counts as content
It does not. You can play that same fucking game at 640x480 if you wanted. Until there are games and films being made with native 4k in mind you're just wasting your money.
I even want to say that buying a cheap 4k TV is a loss in the long run as the quality of the TV can vary.
>>321173892
>Do not forget to calibrate your new TV.
Fucking plebs never do this.
It's like those people using composite cables on their hdtv when watching blurays.
