4K computer monitors

[clem24]

Now that 4k IPS monitors are reasonably priced, anyone have one? Wondering how livable it is with Windows (no scaling and with dpi scaling), how it is with gaming, and what are some of the drawbacks? I really like the idea of 4k being perfectly divisible by 1080 (for movies and games running in 1080) so that everything can remain sharp (vs. the 27" 1440 monitors for example).

The monitors that pique my interest are the Dell 27" P2715Q ($759) and the BenQ 32" BL3201PH ($999). My only concern is that FPS gaming on a screen larger than 24" makes me sick very quickly LOL.

[BensonTT]

If you don't scale, surfing the net is unbearable! You need a magnifying glass just to read any text.. Lol

[syscal]

Watch for refresh rate as it will be sacrificed for lower prices.

[heavyD]

Why?

[clem24]

Originally posted by syscal
Watch for refresh rate as it will be sacrificed for lower prices.

Well the early batch of TN monitors suffered from this due mainly to connectivity issues but the current stuff (and the ones I am looking at) don't suffer these issues as the signal is sent properly through Displayport..

[jacky4566]

I have the PB278Q (QHD, 2.5K) and I love it. 27in is the perfect working/ gaming size.

I wont go 4K until video cards are up to snuff. You not going to get smooth frame rates at 4K with today s cards unless you have a crazy setup or only play simple games like CS (No offence)

Personally I would go for the Dell. Good customer support and quality displays.

Edit: Just to prove my point about FPS rates read this review of the GTX 980 Guru3D
This card can only crank out 30fps @4K for Thief.

That being said. Get 4K. Future proof and the extra space will be awesome.

[clem24]

Originally posted by jacky4566
I have the PB278Q (QHD, 2.5K) and I love it. 27in is the perfect working/ gaming size.

I wont go 4K until video cards are up to snuff. You not going to get smooth frame rates at 4K with today s cards unless you have a crazy setup or only play simple games like CS (No offence)

Personally I would go for the Dell. Good customer support and quality displays.

Edit: Just to prove my point about FPS rates read this review of the GTX 980 Guru3D
This card can only crank out 30fps @4K for Thief.

That being said. Get 4K. Future proof and the extra space will be awesome.

What I like about 4k is the fact that it is perfectly divisible by 1920x1080. So current movies and games running at 1080 would remain tack sharp when scaled. I'd totally run games at 1080 and let the remaining hardware do the scaling. I wouldn't bother trying to natively render a game at 4k. As I stated this is what's drawing me to it vs. spending money on a 1440p monitor where when scaled to it's native res, the image isn't optimal.

[jacky4566]

clem24. I had not thought about that. Good point about the scaling.

*Shopping for 4K now. Thanks.

[Mibz]

Honestly, I'd rather have a 144Hz monitor than 4K at this point in time. If I could get both for a reasonable price I'd definitely go that route.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Mibz
Honestly, I'd rather have a 144Hz monitor than 4K at this point in time. If I could get both for a reasonable price I'd definitely go that route.

Actually considered also that route but the only high refresh monitor that even piques my interest is the Eizo FG2421, just because it's not TN. But at $700-800 for a fucking 23.5" FHD only screen, that makes it a really tough, if not impossible pill to swallow. Not only that but gaming makes up maybe 5% of my computer time.

It's funny that going the 4K HDTV route is actually cheaper. Memex had a LG 40" 4k for $599 but it just gets to the point where it's way too huge LOL.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by clem24
Not only that but gaming makes up maybe 5% of my computer time.

Ah, I missed that. Yeah, I'm gaming most of the time, otherwise 4K would probably do me more good.

As for size. I remember when I was younger I was like "17 inches is perfect. 19 is just too many. Who can use these?"
Fast forward and it's "21 is great, but 23 is way too big for me"
A few years ago it was "24 is perfect. I don't understand these guys with 27s"

I've learned to stop assuming I'm going to hate bigger monitors because there's a good chance I'm going to end up loving one.

[jacky4566]

Also keep in mind that TV's have a much lower tolerance for colour quality. My PB278Q is 100% sRGB, how many TV's can do that? or 4K monitors for that fact.

Mind you colour representation might not be your focus.

[revelations]

All this UHD stuff just blows me away as its already better than the eye can see.

For eg. watching a video from a UHD source on a 4K device seems unnatural because EVERYTHING is in focus - even the objects far off in the distance that normally shouldnt be to the eye if you were standing there.

Who knew that the pine tree, 1.5 km away, had 3 pine cones instead of 2 on the second branch from the top.

Next we have 8k - which probably allows details visible from a different space time

[Mibz]

Originally posted by revelations
For eg. watching a video from a UHD source on a 4K device seems unnatural because EVERYTHING is in focus - even the objects far off in the distance that normally shouldnt be to the eye if you were standing there.

That's a product of, uh, not cinematography. Is it cinematography? I don't know the word.

Anyway, whether something in the background is in focus or not is controlled by the camera operator. It's a source thing, not a resolution thing.

[jacky4566]

Depth of Focus.

Its the biggest problem of 3D cinematography

[clem24]

Originally posted by Mibz
Ah, I missed that. Yeah, I'm gaming most of the time, otherwise 4K would probably do me more good.

As for size. I remember when I was younger I was like "17 inches is perfect. 19 is just too many. Who can use these?"
Fast forward and it's "21 is great, but 23 is way too big for me"
A few years ago it was "24 is perfect. I don't understand these guys with 27s"

I've learned to stop assuming I'm going to hate bigger monitors because there's a good chance I'm going to end up loving one.

Well.. The reason why this is even coming up is because my Dell Ultrasharp 30" (2560x1600) is on it's last legs (like 2 months out of warranty too). The picture was messing up on occasion but lately it's been doing it so frequently that it was driving me nuts. The monitor was beautiful and watching movies on it is really something but gaming on it would make me sick in like 5 minutes hahaha.

I've had to pull up an old Westinghouse 24" 1920x1200 PVA monitor and I would've been ok with it but it has a broken HDMI implementation (no DVI port) as it has incorrect EDID info. VGA just doesn't look great (or maybe my cable just sucks). But at 24", I can last at least 30 minutes on FPS games before I feel any slight ill effects. Woohoo!

So leaning towards 27 dell at the moment..

[InRich]

^ if your Dell craped out so quickly, why would you support them again by getting something else? I've had my 27 inch samsung SA850 for like 4 years now. no problems.

Also, other samsung monitors in the past have been amazing. still got 2 of em.

I however would also like to go into 4k, but I'm looking at top of the line 31+ inchers to do gaming on, so I'm waiting for 2 things...

1) 2015, as new UHD monitors are gonna blow away the shit thats out right now...
2) hardware... I'd have to spend like 7500 for the setup I want. and thats just outrageous. So I'm gonna wait, and see whats going to happen in 2015.

[clem24]

Originally posted by InRich
^ if your Dell craped out so quickly, why would you support them again by getting something else? I've had my 27 inch samsung SA850 for like 4 years now. no problems.

When it comes to computers, everything is luck of the draw I find. I actually have 2 Dell WFP3007-HC's. One bought a year before the other. My wife's is the one that started showing issues, so I swapped our monitors and I lived with that one for 6 months before the problems started getting really bad. The first one (mine) is still running strong; no issues.

Same can be said for HDD's, mobos, etc.. Every manufacturer will have studs and duds.

So yes my wife has a better monitor than me.

[pheoxs]

The biggest drawback is the refresh rate.

HDMI 1.3/1.4 can only push enough bandwidth to do 4k @ 30hz max. It's not a monitor limitation it's a bandwidth limitation.

So you either need HDMI 2.0 (Can do a max of 4k @ 60hz) capable card / cable / monitor or go with displayport.

As said above I'd rather a lower res 24/27" monitor @ 120hz than a larger 4k monitor that has issues with ghosting.

I have (had I guess is a better word since it sits in a box) a 32" 4k monitor but at 30Hz it's painful to use. You can see the mouse trail if you move the mouse around quickly.

[Thaco]

Originally posted by clem24


When it comes to computers, everything is luck of the draw I find. I actually have 2 Dell WFP3007-HC's. One bought a year before the other. My wife's is the one that started showing issues, so I swapped our monitors and I lived with that one for 6 months before the problems started getting really bad. The first one (mine) is still running strong; no issues.

Same can be said for HDD's, mobos, etc.. Every manufacturer will have studs and duds.

So yes my wife has a better monitor than me.

true, dell does have a few duds, but they are few and far between, my work is a dell house and those thing typically go strong for 5+ years without an issue.



I have been considering getting a 40" 4k ("tv")as a 3rd monitor for my pc, just to put up top for netflix or videos, likely would not be used regularly for normal computing.