Are you gaming in 4K?

[TheOne]

Tried switching to a 27UK650-W this year, but it didn't work out, kept running into some bug that LG swears is the monitor.

 

[springs113]

No, not until the price for a 4K panel lowers to a sane level. How can a 4K monitor cost the same than a cellphone with a much smaller 4K screen?

You would think the obvious would be a selection right...come on tpu. This is my reasoning for not upgrading.

 

[Imsochobo]

4K on vega64.
1100 mhz mem, 1580 core (down from 1630), undervolt + 50% power limiter and I just get away with it with 2x msaa.

 

[StrayKAT]

4K on vega64.
1100 mhz mem, 1580 core (down from 1630), undervolt + 50% power limiter and I just get away with it with 2x msaa.

You're just setting 2x globally?

 

[Ruru]

Probably next year. Resolution over refresh rate for me.

 

[Imsochobo]

You're just setting 2x globally?

per game, I usually scrape by using freesync.
2x MSAA on my 28" roughly equate to 8xMSAA 1440P qualitywise but have additional texture quality and does look awesome, some scenarios does have more jaggedness vs 1440p 8xmsaa

 

[TheLostSwede]

I was fortunate to get a really good deal on a 4K G-Sync screen as someone I know was moving country and didn't want to bring it with him. I had a terrible experience with a very cheap AOC 4K screen I bought a few years ago, as it would switch itself off, flicker and make loud noises through the speakers.
This screen hasn't been perfect either, as first the internal power supply died and once that was fixed on warranty, Asus' engineers managed to put a nice layer of dust behind the panel, so I got that swapped out too. Since then it's been pretty solid though and I love it for productivity, since I work with a lot of pictures, drawings, schematics etc.

For gaming, well, it's a bit of a struggle with a 1080 in the latest games. The BFV beta ran like a pig on it, whereas BF1 is perfectly manageable at high settings. Obviously Ultra settings is not an option. Would I got back to lower resolution screens? Not a chance. I'd rather suffer a bit in games or worst case, play at a lower resolution, as I find 4K usable for so much more than gaming.

 

[Tom_]

60 fps is too slow for me.

 

[jaw shwaa]

I should say I voted yes, because I have a PC in my living room with a 980 and play a handful of games in 4k on my TV, but, my monitor for my main PC with a 1070 is a 1900x1200...

I should say I voted yes, because I have a PC in my living room with a 980 and play a handful of games in 4k on my TV, but, my monitor for my main PC with a 1070 is a 1900x1200...

 

[XiGMAKiD]

Currently no, but planning to when the total cost of monitor and GPU to game at 4K60 is at $600 or lower.

 

[jaw shwaa]

Idk how my last post doubled itself , and I can't edit it either XD

 

[StrayKAT]

Currently no, but planning to when the total cost of monitor and GPU to game at 4K60 is at $600 or lower.

It's getting pretty close as it is. Hopefully it stays that way.

 

[geon2k2]

I will also probably never ever play in 4k. I prefer screens in the range of 20 inch for PC, so for this type of screen, 4k doesn't even make sense.
There is no sense to pay so much for something which is barely visible.

 

[John Naylor]

Currently no, but planning to when the total cost of monitor and GPU to game at 4K60 is at $600 or lower.

Pre-Tariffs and pre-1xxx overstocking ... the cost of the top GFX card has averaged $700 in 2017 US dollars. I expect that by the time 4k gaming is at the $600 price point., monitors will be 8k and, I expect, 60 hz will be history.

Right now a decent 144 Hz Gaming monitor and a card capable of driving it is $500 . However, that entry level price point will mean poor quality units. Remeber when reviews pointed out how IPS had a better picture quality and bunch of folks went out and bought them only to be disappointed. You can buy $ $300 IPS monitor, but it will be terrible for gaming. There's none worth having unless ya prepared to spend $500 / $600

 

[xorbe]

"Almost." Have the 4K 144Hz gsync panel and 5GHz 8086K, but stuck waiting for the 2080 Ti, ordered mid-Q3, hopefully shows up before November.

 

[Vayra86]

Nope, and not anytime soon. There are many far more important aspects to gaming than resolution.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Probably next year. Resolution over refresh rate for me.

I'm completely opposite. Framerate over resolution all day long! When it comes to gaming, framerate is life!

 

[metalfiber]

Using my old monitor because Shadow of the Tomb Raider and games of that caliber can't run at 60 fps on ultra settings on 1440p with a GTX 1080. Heck, it does't do 60 fps on a 1920 x 1080 with everything set to max. I'll wait till i get my 2080ti to break out the 1440p monitor. 4k is still a good 3 or 4 graphic card cycles in the future for me.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Heck, it does't do 60 fps on a 1920 x 1080 with everything set to max.

So turn some things down.

 

[RealNeil]

I have one 28" ACER 4K screen, but its refresh rate is only 60Hz. I'm using two GTX-1080FE cards in SLI with it.
It's pretty smooth, but I'm probably missing out on the experience.

All of the other PCs are on 1080p screens. (27" and 32")

 

[metalfiber]

So turn some things down.

I did. I got a phobia about turning settings down to much because i lost touch with the PC building community during the Pentium 4 days in early 2000s. I didn't get back into it until the 2500k came out. That's why 4K is not for me the near future. If a body has to set everything to medium to get 60fps, what's the point?

 

[lexluthermiester]

I did. I got a phobia about turning settings down to much because i lost touch with the PC building community during the Pentium 4 days in early 2000s. I didn't get back into it until the 2500k came out. That's why 4K is not for me the near future. If a body has to set everything to medium to get 60fps, what's the point?

Allow me to rephrase; Selectively turn things down or off. For example, I haven't and don't use anti-aliasing at all and usually limit AF to 4x. These two settings generally allows everything else to stay at maximum settings. The only exception is shadows which are usually in-games setting and are kept on low or off. I am currently using a 1080 and generally get 120fps in most games. Have a 2080 on the way which will allow for even better performance.

 

[Vayra86]

Allow me to rephrase; Selectively turn things down or off. For example, I haven't and don't use anti-aliasing at all and usually limit AF to 4x. These two settings generally allows everything else to stay at maximum settings. The only exception is shadows which are usually in-games setting and are kept on low or off. I am currently using a 1080 and generally get 120fps in most games. Have a 2080 on the way which will allow for even better performance.

Of all things I would never touch AF or shadows to be fair... AF is not at all costly (that was a thing 15 years ago... not now) and shadows can make or break scenes in terms of immersion. But to each his own. I always turn off (regardless of performance) Motion Blur, DoF and I try to mitigate the usually overkill Bloom effects as well. When it comes to performance, backing down quality from Ultra to high is generally a major FPS boost for minimal visual loss.

 

[metalfiber]

Allow me to rephrase; Selectively turn things down or off. For example, I haven't and don't use anti-aliasing at all and usually limit AF to 4x. These two settings generally allows everything else to stay at maximum settings. The only exception is shadows which are usually in-games setting and are kept on low or off. I am currently using a 1080 and generally get 120fps in most games. Have a 2080 on the way which will allow for even better performance.

Yeah, a 2080 ought to hit the sweet spot. If they had a 2080 with 11gigs of memory i'd get one. I'll have to wait on a ti model

 

[rtwjunkie]

usually limit AF to 4x

Pretty much everything @Vayra86 said. Especially though, there is zero reason to turn down AF, as it is nearly no hit on your resources and actually noticeable without it. AA is a hit, and turning it down is good, although some of the newer forms have vastly improved upon it for less performance hit than normal SMAA.