4k Gaming is about to become cheap, Greatness awaits on PC

To an extend there will be a small upgrade visually, but the best thing about 4k is the ability for it to widen your Field of View. By sticking to a 28" you are washing away one of 4k's strengths.

He strictly said resolution, said nothing about graphics.

PC leading the way as usual.

*you're

1080p is a nice enough resolution for me, I'd rather better detail rather than pushing double the pixels. Maybe in a few years time when it get so cheap it replaces the older tech certainly not going to pay a premium for it.

But if I had money to burn then sure why not.

I don't think monitors will be too small for 4K. I think for 4K 60"+ TVs will be needed and right now they are very very expensive.

Fixed that for you. The rest of the gaming world (that portion actually living in the 21st century and not bending over & spreading cheek for their Xbones) will be gaming in crisp, clear 1080p or above and enjoying and noticing the very discernible difference in resolution that.you erroneous claim does not exist.

oh great, a new fanboy alt

Why are people bringing the price of a PS4 into a monitor discussion? Why not compare GPU prices to TVs?

I don't know anyone who watches TV regularly anymore (well, they do, but OD), so why not just compare monitor & TV prices?

The monitor price might be coming down but the cost of GPU's to run that resolution will be very expensive. I can't max every newer game at 1440p with a $1000 GTX 690.

LOL @ you bringing up your GTX 690 in every thread.

LOL @ you bringing up your GTX 690 in every thread.

lol @ you bringing the price of your setup in every thread

@GioVela2010: Lol it actually has something to do with the thread while you talk about plasma tv's or your sound system in every post.

uninspiredcup might have watched a movie with a bad bluray transfer and thus bases his experience on anecdotal evidence. I know for fact there's a lot of movies with bad bluray transfers that are easy cash-ins which are on par or sometimes even inferior to certain DVD releases but in general it is a no-brainer which the better format is.

4k is a huge leap, but it's a leap similar to that of DVD going to blu-ray, an incremental leap, not a generational leap of cathode tube going to flat screen.

It'll start picking up when you can buy actual-good-legit 4k TVs for $1,000 or under and 4k computer monitors for $150 or under. I don't think we're quite there yet.

I am personally waiting on 4k tv that is 40" and 60hz under $1000. 1080 on anything bigger than 20" looks like crap. 1440 on anything bigger than 30" looks like crap. what's the point of getting a bigger screen if I have to sit so far away from it? 4k on a 40" at 3 feet away = better than iMax on my desk.

You are an idiot

Ill make the jump to 4k when I can get a 100" 4K OLED TV for less than $4,000.

Cheap??????

$800 for a display and at least $1200 for gpus

$150 for a 4k monitor? LOL, we didn't get 1080p monitors for that price until recently, how cheap are you bro, shouldn't be PC gaming if you are that cheap

Yet some people were saying 4k wont become affordable until the next gen of consoles in 6-7 years . I still believe in 2 years will see $400-500 4k monitors with all the problems of 4k ( such hdmi limited to 30p ) solved . Also in terms of Gpu power a single $600 Gpu nowdays can comfortably allow gaming on those displays and i believe even a $400 Gpu will do it in 2-3 years

Lol. Consoles gamers so jelly in this thread. Also, so poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JhmjqGuytk

Pretty much

4K is only worth it when you start going 80" and above. Its certainly not a gimmick; where as "3D" still makes people sick, dizzy, etc.

not true at all. I had the seiki 4k 39" tv and it was the best thing iv'e ever seen for pc games. switching from that back down to 1080 looked worse than going from 1080 to 720. I think we needed 4k a few years ago. we are too far behind in tech right now and it's frustrating when myself as a consumer simply cant obtain a decent 40" 4k tv that refreshes at 60hz just because it's not on the market yet. just ridiculous. Like I said before,1080 on anything bigger than 30" simply looks bad to me unless I sit far enough away to make the tv size pointless. All I want is to get most of my vision devoured by a tv/monitor screen without it looking like SH**. It's a shame tech isnt there yet.

$800 is not cheap. More like really expensive. Roughly four times the price of a standard monitor.
If you buy a 4K monitor this early, you're dumb, rich or both.

I'm not sure about "cheap." I once bought a $1000 monitor, and it was freaking great, but i'd rather put that money to a decent 4K TV... Especially now that I like to tie my electronics into a central location.

well I meant to post this in the 4K vs 3D thread, but anyway....... when it comes to TV's

Most people sit 8' or so away from it. At that distance, yes, you do need a very large display for 4K to be worth it over 1080p. God forbid I'm speaking from experience here because I too sit around 9' away from my TV. Yes I am about 3' from my monitor. No I wont have a TV (as a monitor or w/e) that close anytime soon because no TV has 120hz input / display as my monitor does. If there was a 30" 4K 120hz monitor at a reasonable price, yea I'd buy it, but thats cause im 2-3' away, not 9' like my TV.

That's what most people dont get. In my opinion the best thing about 4K is that it allows you to sit closer to a much larger screen, this increasing your field of view by a huge margin.

Going 4K and sticking to the same size is stupid.

Once I learned more about the internals of the PS4 and Xbox One, my first reaction was that both consoles are going to feel much older much faster than the previous generation. This is a bad time to launch a machine that is destined to be stuck in time.

Really, rich? $800 certainly isn't cheap but it's definitely accessible for people that care about tech and spend most of their disposable income on it. It's definitely a dumb move though because they're just going to get cheaper and cheaper and better and better.

@Motokid6:

Anecdotal

28" 4k monitor is an absolutely waste of money.

I'm way more interested in the 4K projectors.

Very ironic coming from the guy that brings up his plasma tv in nearly every thread.

^^this

also someone brought up 8k?

fucking over kill,

that is imax size,

you would have to have a 70 foot screen for it to even make the slightest difference,

4k is the way, indefinitely

I thought even console gamers would understand resolution by now thanks to high res phones and tablets, but no, they still claim there's no difference.

4k on a 28" is ~160ppi, still fairly low. Using it at computer monitor distance it will be noticeably better than 1080p.

I have a Nexus 10 (I think it's still the highest res tablet out there) at 2560x1600 (300ppi) and a nexus 5 at 1080p (~450ppi) and I can see a difference clearly.

160ppi on a monitor is not overkill.

@Kinthalis: Or maybe, just maybe, rather than being poor, we just realize the value of the dollar? If you'd like, we can compare investment accounts and see which of us are "poor". Some of us have other hobbies (I ski during winter and golf during summer) and financial priorities (mortgage, retirement savings).

Dropping $800 on a monitor and another $800+ on a GPU...just to play games...is just foolish. As the saying goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

Sorry that is not how it works. PPI is a worthless statistic without viewing distance also being taken into account. Truthfully it's PPD (Pixels Per Degree) that makes a screen amazing. And to qualify as an Apple "Retina" display" you need at leas 57 PPI with 20/20 vision, and much higher like 79 ppi with 20/10 vision.

160ppi viewed at 24 inches, times Pi, diivided by 180 viewing degree = PPD

160 x 24 x 3.13 % 180 = 67 PPD

So there you have it, 160PPI viewed at 24" gives you 67 PPD, which is about half way between the PPD of an iPhone 4S (57 PPD) and a 13" Macbook Pro Retina Display (79 PPD)

And the reason the iPhone has a higher PPI (326) yet a lower PPD (67) is because the iPhone is meant to be viewed from around a distance of 10-12 inches, not around 24" like a computer monitor or a laptop display..

@GioVela2010: (I wrote a long and detailed post but gamespot managed to break it so i'll try again).

4k 28" 2 feet = 67PPD

300PPI tablet 1 foot = 63PPD

450PPI phone 1 foot = 94PPD

Seeing as I can tell the difference (just) at 1 foot, we can assume that 67PPD is not overkill.

Even assuming it is, current monitor options e.g. 22" 1080p, 27" 1440p (both have similar PPI - 100 and 108 respectively) have plenty of room for improvement.

tl;dr 28" 4k monitor is probably not overkill, and even if it is, it's still noticeably better than current options.

I guess some people missed the point, the point was that 4k is lowering in price. Might not be the best quality but it's getting there. Who knows, maybe by the time Black Friday comes we might have some at 500.

Not interested in 4k, especially when there is not much content that takes advantage of it.

I'm not saying 28" 4K is overkill, im saying you would be better seved by something like a 32" which would still have amazing PPD, and would also increas the viewing area of your monitor by 31%, thus increasing your Field of View

@GioVela2010: 32" is a bit big for most desks, but I get what you're saying.

8K is designed for outdoor displays really.

Dell are doing a 30in 4K monitor. I think its only in China at the moment.

"it tops out at 30Hz 3840 x 2160"

Pretty much kills it for gaming. Although soon enough monitors that run at 60/120Hz will start hitting the market. A couple of years and I may jump on the UHD bandwagon, 32" UHD monitor would be nice.