what games? please link a review to a professional site as I would like to know.
As I already said, it's entirely dependent on what games you're asking about, and what settings you're OK with. There are many games since Shadow of Mordor that have had restrictions and/or warnings in the graphics settings that say you cannot use the higher texture quality options if you have less than 4GB VRAM.
It's very hard to find a list of games that require such things though. You're better off just doing a Google search based on the title of the games in question, along with hardware requirements. For instance "Shadow of Mordor hardware requirements". Pretty much all game requirements now state the amount of VRAM needed.
And BTW, I agree with you on both IPS and 1080p preference. I've tried 4k gaming and TV watching on a 4K TV that supposedly has great scaling and up-converting, and I came away feeling TVs, GPUs, W10, and programs in general are not ready for 4K yet. When you watch 1080i or 720p broadcasts on pretty much any 4K TV, the image quality is terrible. They up-convert some things in the image fine, but a lot of other things look very blurry. For instance in an NFL game, close-ups of players look fine, everything else, not so good.
4K gaming is hit and miss. Some games play fine at 4K, while others will have performance, HUD, or HDR problems. Worse yet, some programs, even ones that aren't old, do not look right with a 4K desktop res. This is because Windows 10 scales the fonts larger to be readable, and in the process some program's GUIs get messed up. It gets better if you choose a lesser percentage of font scaling, but then you get to the point where it can get a bit too small to read comfortably.
It will take at least 5 years before there's enough UHD content to make 4K displays viable, but the good thing is the UHD broadcast standards (ATSC 3.0), are nearly finalized, and will probably be done early next year. By early 2019 there will likely be TVs with ATSC 3.0 tuners in them, and addon ATSC 3.0 tuners for existing TVs. Once ATSC 3.0 TV broadcasts get mainstream, UHD content and hardware supporting it will be as well. That's what it's going to take for 4K to really be practical.
It's hard to tell exactly how long it will take. The UHD rollover will not be mandatory with a deadline like analog to digital was, it's going to be voluntary. This means UHD broadcasts for the first 2-3 years will likely be only available in "select markets", such as the TV streaming services that offer local live broadcasts only in certain cities.
There are many reasons to be optimistic though. For one, they can use existing transmitters with only slight modifications, because ATSC 3.0 uses RF, just like ATSC 1.0. The new equipment required in the broadcasting stations themselves is actually cheaper than what they're using now. The FCC is going to fund 80 to 90% of that equipment. ATSC 3.0 is more suited for advertising, uses half the bandwidth, has much better reception, has multi lingual capability, and can transmit one fixed (TV) and 2 mobile device transmissions simultaneously, and offer far better reception while doing so. This means the changeover won't be overly expensive, and broadcasters will reach a much larger audience, so expect to see many broadcast stations and cities adopting it early.
I've read stats that say currently only 17% of US consumers own 4K TVs, with roughly the same percentage of people getting their TV broadcasts over the air (antenna). The percentage of US houses that have 4K TVs is projected to be 48% by 2020. I'm willing to bet with ATSC 3.0 being so much better than ATSC 1.0, and cord cutting growing in popularity, the percentage of people getting TV over the air will also rise significantly. However that's also because ATSC 3.0 will be a hybrid antenna/internet system, which will likely have both free local antenna content, as well as streaming options available at a certain cost.
