Is now a terrible time to buy a 4k Monitor?

Seems like a bad time. Nvidia is my choice of GPU by far, and any monitor that supports GSync is $300 more for the same type of monitor that uses Freesync. So there is no way I will pay $300 for Gsync alone. But I don't want to switch to AMD because I like Nvidia GPU's much more. And Vsync sucks in comparison. So thinking about just holding off for a few years. Which sucks, I really want to upgrade.

Depends on who you ask. I say it is indeed a BAD time to buy 4k unless you have the money/ or its what you really want.

HDMI 2.1 is going to shake things up again. This will bring adaptive refresh rate tech to TVs and Nvidia will most likely adopt this as well. We will be seeing HDMI 2.1 in 2018 most likely. Expect both TVs and PC monitors to adopt the standard. So, the whole G-Sync vs. FreeSync war may be coming to an end soon.

Well it may not be the BEST time but, waiting until mid/late 2018 for 2.1 to be around at even a moderately decent price isnt great either. If you really (and I mean REALLY) do your homework though, you can find some excellent off brand stuff that won't break the bank, that can rival anything Sony/Samsung/LG are doing (mainly because its simply their panels rebranded). Wasabi Mango has been the one I have found the most success with personally.

late 2017 to early 2018 would be a better time dell and asus should have a few hdr 4ks out by then.

You can always get a g sync monitor tht is 1440p. If you dont want 4k that is.

There is always something better in the horizon.

The only thing that bothers me about 4k is that it takes so much gpu power. I would hate spending $700 on a display and $700 on a gpu and still have performance issues.

Right now I'm sticking to a lower res (1440p) gsync monitor since frame tear drives me crazy. I'm stepping-up to a 1080ti since it's only $50 plus shipping. Hopefully the card handles 1440p well for a while.

I'll upgrade my secondary display to a 4k/adaptive sync/165hz monitor when I can find one with minimal compromises (no color compression to hit 165hz at 4k) and it can be driven by a single gpu nicely. 5k/8k stuff should also make 4k cheaper eventually.

Personally, I wouldn't get 4k now. I would get an ultrawide or something that brings a fundamental change to the gaming experience...a pure pixel increase doesn't quite do it.

I went with a low input lag HDR UHDTV and it's much better than a tiny monitor. I bought a Samsung KS8000 65 inch HDR TV and my games look awesome at 2160p with HDR and such. input Lag is really low among all major TV brands and I have no issues for shooters. At 65 inches large, I find my games much more immersive because you can actually see the 2160p/4k detail since anything smaller than 55 inches is not worth it in my opinion to truly appreciate 4k. Depending on your budget, I can recommend a certain TV since I find gaming on them much better than monitors now these days.

I'm waiting for the ROG Swift PG27UQ. 4K, HDR, Gsync.

@Spartan363: I would agree with most of that. The input lag is Always worse on a TV/Projector than on a dedicated Computer Monitor but it is at levels that are acceptable. As for 4k, to really see it, you do need something over the 50" range (or alternatively you need to be nice and close). I use a 40" Wasabi-Mango for up close 4k and a VW665ES to a 120" screen for couch viewing and 4k does make quite the difference. Achillies has a great point though in that it is still cost prohibitive to game at 4k on a PC. Hopefully Volta will change that, we'll see in...2018 perhaps.

It's always a bad time to buy monitor under 50' with 4K resolution.

50' and above for 4K, anything smaller it's 2K or 1080p - unless you have a habit of sitting closer to the screen.

Windows scaling for high pixel density displays is horrendously bad. Also good luck driving 4K in games. Even expensive bleeding edge hardware struggles to achieve playable framerates at 4K.

1440p monitors (at least the ones without gsync) are finally at sane prices ($300-400), so maybe get one of those. Windows scaling and GPU performance will need to improve dramatically for 4K to make sense.

Also, I'd skip gsync. It's expensive and proprietary and will probably be replaced with an open adaptive sync standard that works on everything. I think gsync monitors will prove to be an expensive dead end in the long run.

I run 1080p/144hz on my monitor that can handle it for games that need it.

Everything else is 4k vync'ed on the big screen. Note, input not an issue with "other" games.

Yea I think G-sync costss more than its worth. I have no problem maintaining 60fps in games i do 4k.

IMO 4k is better for big TVs. 1440P + 144Hz + FreeSync/GSync makes a lot more sense for a gaming monitor. It's simply the best balance between pixel density and motion fluidity. The next couple of years are going to be dicey in terms of monitors. Lots of new tech is unrolling, some other tech might get quickly deprecated. The only 4k monitor really worth getting is the new ASUS 27" 4k HDR Quantum Dot display, and it's going to be EXPENSIVE (rumored between 1.5 - 2k).