Features - QOTW: Will you be upgrading to a 4K monitor?

[HEXUS]

Is now the time to buy, or are you waiting for the tech to mature?

Read more.

[shaithis]

Not for a while.

1. I don't want a TN panel
2. I don't want to upgrade to 2 high-end GFX cards
3. 2560x1600 is better then I require right now for gaming and I have 2 of them for desktop work
4. For the living room I can't see much benefit from 1080p>4k in video quality terms (full bitrate 1080p still looks gorgeous and better than over-compressed 4k), nor do I see much content to do it justice coming any time soon and again I don't want to double my gfx power to game on it

[shaithis]

Not for a while.

1. I don't want a TN panel
2. I don't want to upgrade to 2 high-end GFX cards
3. 2560x1600 is better then I require right now for gaming and I have 2 of them for desktop work
4. For the living room I can't see much benefit from 1080p>4k in video quality terms (full bitrate 1080p still looks gorgeous and better than over-compressed 4k), nor do I see much content to do it justice coming any time soon and again I don't want to double my gfx power to game on it

[Primey0]

Hell no. 4K is long off being a sensible upgrade for me

[Saracen]

Hell no. ....

That.

[Mpicknett]

Not worth the money currently and with the scaling problems it will cause with various applications would be a pain.

[aidanjt]

If a 4k monitor comes out that is i) 27" ii) IPS iii) 120Hz+, iv) <6ms gtg, v) g-sync, and vi) <£400, then yes, in a heartbeat. But that's not looking likely anytime soon.

[nitro912gr]

I could love to, but it is way to early and I have to wait for the prices to come down.
It will be a pleasure to work on one of them as a graphic designer, but if I can't afford it I will settle for an IPS 27" @ 2560 x 1440 in the near future, after all I don't work that close to my monitor to easily notice the difference.

I guess I will keep my full HD monitor around to be able to play my games however... there is no way I will give the insane amount of money it needs to play in that high resolution. But maybe the next generation of GPU will be able to drive the games in 4K even with mid range cards? We will see.

[McEwin]

As with the Megahertz race, I'll be buying the cheap 'old' tech until it becomes standard.

[The Hand]

I will be in either 2015-2016. I would prefer an LED screen at under £500, so probably 2016 at this rate.

[tigertop1]

Far too expensive for what it offers right now . Give it another 6 to 9 months and prices will come down. They need to bearing in mind the GPU upgrades many will probably need

[DevDrake]

Currently no.

First, the 60Hz panel with scaling problems is not good for gaming. Not to mention calculation power needed if you want to play the native resolution.

Second, the price is too high, the current software supports better many monitor setup than single monitor with huge space. So for work it is not good again. It is much better to just buy another Full HD screen to increase your current workspace.

Third, the 4k monitors are hard to find - not many shops has it. Then you have to risk to get the panel from online shop, with can have bad pixels - or get it overpriced.

Forth, the 4k TV seems to be more reasonable choice than 4k monitor as for the working panel. Price is better and more size and shape options. For gaming it will not be that good tho.

Fifth, the 21:9 curved screen with >30" is currently something i want, there is no 4k panel like that, and i want to have great view angels and refresh rate >60Hz. I just think that panel like that is perfect main display. The other displays can be just some random Full HD, to increase workspace for some reference information etc.


Honestly i dont have nothing against the 4k, but it doesn't gives me more if you take requirements, resolution, quality and price into the comparison.

[Bagpuss]

Nope...it's time will come, but for now 1440p is where it's at, in either 16:9 or 21:9

[anselhelm]

Definitely not, for multiple reasons.

(1) Windows and its applications do not scale well with higher resolutions.
(2) In order to power a display that dense in pixels, I'd probably need two high-end graphics cards and I renounced SLI/Crossfire when I had to upgrade my setup a while back.
(3) Too expensive and too low quality at present.
(4) I wouldn't get any tangible benefit from it in terms of what I use my PC for.


Right now, I'm still very happy with my 1920x1200 Dell 2407 WFP monitor. It cost me around about £450 in 2006 (I think) and it's by far the best monitor I've ever owned.

[hotdogee]

I've been using a very cheep($339.99 on amazon) 39" 4K monitor for writing code for almost a year now, and there is really no going back. Being able to view 120+ lines of code at a time across four files is a huge time saver. If you can go without high refresh rates and accurate colors, which is a perfect match for programmers, there's no reason not to get yourself a couple of these cheep 4K monitors.

[zaph0d]

I'm using a 37" 1080p lg tv as a monitor just now. Games look great on it - having 4 times the pixels means at least 4 times the cpu/gpu to drive it and I doubt it'd look 4 times better.
I think I'll just wait for either the immersion of Occulus rift, or a massive price drop on 50" panels