Read more.What's it like gaming on a lush 4K monitor?
Read more.What's it like gaming on a lush 4K monitor?
I would prefer to have a solid 120 FPS on every title rather than stupid-high resolution.
Why is it, that the most popular games, are not those that necessarily look the best, but those that have the best game play. For me, this is a step too far. As for how much I'd pay? Well I won't pay what it costs to get your average 46" HD TV, so I probably wouldn't buy one, unless they were competitively priced with standard screens. I cannot even justify the cost to buy the top end GPU required to use it.
I'm still waiting for a decent 2,560x1,440 screen (pref IPS, a reasonable refresh rate and not too much lag) that doesn't break the bank.
It's going to be a looong time before I can afford a 4K screen, and even longer before I can justify buying one; especially as it would mean a heavy GPU investment.
I'm happy as I am.
Is screen tearing more noticeable on these massive displays? I definitely think ultra resolution is going to be nice for some kinds of slower movement game - Civ 5 at 4k would be lush But others (driving games etc.) probably would do better with better response times - anytime you get blur or pixel ghosting you've just killed any resolution advantage.
Deleted: reason - Prev post now visible
Last edited by Tpyo; 17-07-2013 at 02:08 PM.
My minor investigations into 4K and VRAM FWIW:
http://forums.aria.co.uk/showthread....=1#post2371801
Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.
Higher pixel density is nice, but without 120Hz I'm afraid it's of no interest to me. I'm holding off for as long as I can until SOMEONE gets their act together on a 1440p 120Hz (out of the box) display. :/
I'm using a 37" lg 3dtv as my monitor, it sits 4ft in front of me on the desk, takes up as much desk space as a conventionally sized monitor (in terms of the stand), gives me a large viewing area which allows me to sit back in a nice comfy reclining armchair with keyboard on lap and mouse on the substantial arm of the chair. At that distance the pixel density is perfect for reading etc, large enough screen for peripheral vision to be used without the need for multiple screens and only uses about 30w to boot.
I doubt I'll ever buy a screen with a higher pixel density as this is just fine for distance/size/density at 4ft.
I will however get the Oculus Rift when that comes along in retail as then you'll have something with excelent apparant screen size, truly immersive 3d and good pixel density (they're deciding between 1080p,1440p and 1600p screen)
As soon as 4K panels become a bit more affordable, I'll definitely be buying one. I don't care about 120Hz, or FPS, or whatever - resolution is far and away the most important thing to me right now.
I currently have 3840*1080, and I still feel like I'm peeking through a letterbox at webpages, documents and so on. More pixels just makes everything a heck of a lot easier, and more enjoyable.
4K with two portrait 1080p panels either side would be perfect, I think
Pleiades (18-07-2013)
I'm thinking Red Alert 2 maps without the need to pan, at all
I think I'll stick to my 2560x1440p monitor until the price goes down. GTX 780 SLI is going to be good enough to push most titles without dipping below 60 FPS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)