By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Future Is 4K and It's the PC Not Next-Gen Leading the Charge

Am I the only one who do not see the difference between 1080 and 4k ? I need a doctor or what ?



Around the Network

An extremely minute improvement that is incredibly taxing on the hardware is the future? Sounds legit.

Can't see console/PC hardware manufacturers being very successful trying to push people to 4k anytime soon. Hell, HD has been a fairly slow transition and that was way more noticeable.



KingofTrolls said:

Am I the only one who do not see the difference between 1080 and 4k ? I need a doctor or what ?

You're not going to see much, if any, differences between the two without a huge display.



Pemalite said:
Lawlight said:
When a $1000 graphics card can't even get 60fps at 1080p on current games, I doubt 4k will be a reality any time soon.


That's what Mantle will be changing, Battlefield 4 on a R9 Radeon graphics card at 5760x1080 with 60fps, consoles can't even achieve a 3rd of that.
Bonus is, it's a single GPU and it doesn't even cost $1,000.


Still 25% less than 4K and it was not confirmed to be running at 60fps. But, as many things, we will have to wait and see. But if that's true, the only company going down is nvidia.



DucksUnlimited said:
KingofTrolls said:

Am I the only one who do not see the difference between 1080 and 4k ? I need a doctor or what ?

You're not going to see much, if any, differences between the two without a huge display.

Just look at this  1080/4KAvatar picture. I look at it, maybe 10 mins and I can say only that  they are the same.

 

A huge display... so nothing for me.



Around the Network
KingofTrolls said:
DucksUnlimited said:
KingofTrolls said:

Am I the only one who do not see the difference between 1080 and 4k ? I need a doctor or what ?

You're not going to see much, if any, differences between the two without a huge display.

Just look at this  1080/4KAvatar picture. I look at it, maybe 10 mins and I can say only that  they are the same.

 

A huge display... so nothing for me.

Right click, view image, look at the strand of hair over his right eye. If you can't immediately tell the difference better go see an optometrist.

Anyway yes you need a huge display for the full benefit, or a 27" and up pc monitor.
It's still very expensive atm and in dire need of HDMI 2.0, split panels with dual HDMI cables is a pain in the ass.

But you can already game at 4K if you have the budget, a single Titan is enough to get 30fps is most new AAA titles and 60fps in Skyrim and Bioshock infinite. (If you can drop $3500 on a monitor then 2 Titans shouldn't be a problem)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620.html


Their advice for now

The smart play is to hold off on Ultra HD for now. But if you have a friend with more money than patience who can’t help himself, definitely spend as much time as possible gaming at his place. Sitting in front of 3840x2160 will absolutely wreck 1920x1080 for you—even if you’re used to playing across three screens.



My local Best Buy has a 4K TV. It looks nice and crisp but no way in hell am I going to pay $5000+ for it. With that much money I would rather buy something else.



_crazy_man_ said:
think-man said:
Isnt 4K kinda pointless unless you've got a big as f**k TV?

Pretty much, hence why I don't see the point of 4K PC monitors.



Not every PC gamer games on a monitor though. I myself will sometimes hook my PC up to my 50 inch TV.



AgentZorn said:
My local Best Buy has a 4K TV. It looks nice and crisp but no way in hell am I going to pay $5000+ for it. With that much money I would rather buy something else.


Yeah, I would rather fill my place with 1080p TV's than buy a single 4K TV



Platinums: Red Dead Redemption, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Terminator Salvation, Uncharted 1, inFamous Second Son, Rocket League

Now all we need are 4k monitors that don't cost an arm and a leg.