Are You Going To Purchase a 4K Monitor?

I agree, all of us hardcore guys will get there

I too think there are too many possible direction changes before mainstream..

For now I am happy with 970s in SLI on a 27' 2560X1440..

But by the time this rig is ready for a total ground up build, I will def look long and hard to see if the hardware/games/support/price make it a viable option.

 

Doubt I'll be going 4K anytime soon, wanting a 144Hz 1440p IPS. Perhaps 4K in a couple years when GPUs can keep up. I want a single GPU system next year, so 4K would def be a no go

 

The day I can run a 4k monitor above 60 fps on a single gpu, is the day I will get one.

 

In 2 or 3 years may be.

 

This.

 

When 2 high end cards can effectively use 4k reso at high settings and high framerates, plus a higher than 60hz refresh rate. I am probably closer to trying out a gsync monitor first before 4k.

 

Yep, a 1440p G-Sync monitor along with a new gpu will be my next upgrade.

 

So any recommendations on a 1440p monitor , preferably a 27 or above size ??

 

GPU's need get much stronger, an windows scaling of text needs improvement. Quite few people I know had 4K screen an returned it because of issues above.

Once we have GPU's that are about 500-600% better than 290x/980GTX, then will be time to buy 4K screen

 

This.

 

For me personally, 4K is not an option yet, both due to display technology, and lacking GPU power. I'd rather go 1440p with 120Hz or more, than 60Hz 4K that I can't run with eye candy on most games. And yeah, I'm talking about my next system already hehe

 

I will get one when there is a monitor that is 16:10, 144hz, 4k, FreeSync, etc.

 

I already have UHD monitor. The image quality is stunning, the games have never looked so good. I am really curious to see Freesync monitors to hit marked soon too.

 

NO! NO! NO!
Current "high end" GPUs cannot even maintain a consistent 60fps @ 1080p resolutions in current games!

Why would I buy a monitor with a resolution that no GPU can handle?

And don't go pointing me to x-fire numbers, those numbers are only good for games used for benchmarks.
Ive been running x-fire for that last six years and i'm TIRED of begging for x-fire support to be added to every game....I don't pay $$$ just to "hope" for support....i'm done with begging for x-fire support...its a waste of time.
X-fire
1: If a game runs well on 1 GPU it will run GREAT on 2 GPU's in x-fire.
2: If a game runs like crap on 1 GPU , it will run like crap on 2 GPUs or not support x-fire at all.
3: Conclusion...x-fire works great when you DON'T need it.
And when you actually do need the extra performance the most, x-fire is usually un-supported or offers negative scaling.



So IMO a better poll would be.
Does AMD plan to release GPUs that can do at least 1080p gaming at a consistent 60fps any time soon?
Does AMD plan to release a GPU that can game at 4k resolutions / consistent 60fps any time soon?
Why would i screw myself by buying a monitor i can never hope to have a smooth gaming experience on due to lack of enough GPU power available to do so?

 

It depends on what graphical settings you have the game or games you are playing set to and what eye candy you have enabled. And how well the game is optimized.

 

Rule of thumb is always all-ultra + 4xMSAA

why would you compromise?

 

Because not everyone runs their games with everything maxed plus MSAA.

 

Of course you are correct.
But titles like Dragon Age Inq , Watch Dogs, Crysis 3 and Far Cry 4 even with AA completely disabled, current GPU's cannot maintain 60fps minimums even at 1080p.
(Im deliberately not mentioning AC Unity since its just plain broken)

Sure, I can live with lowering AA, not using soft shadows and a few other tweaks just like anyone else.

But to maintain a minimum of above 60fps @ 1080p in the above games requires lowering a lot of graphic settings.
I cannot even imagine what you'd have to lower in those games to play at 4k.

I have 28" -1920x1200 TN .... 27" - 2560x1440 IPS .... and a 24" - 1920x1080p monitors.

I actually game on my cheapo 28" 1920x1200 TN monitor because even with two R9 290's I cannot maintain 60fps on my 2560x1440 monitor.

So I chucked my extra R9 290 in my wife's rig, and I'm running 1920x1200 with a single R9 290 in my main rig.

And i wont upgrade until there is a single GPU that can handle 2560x1440 easily without having to turn down half the settings.
For what we pay these "higher end" GPUs, we should be seeing better performance and support!
I give up on x-fire support after having 6970's , 7950's and a pair of R9 290's....unless its BF4, any other game you may wanna play in x-fire is just luck of the draw. (im still waiting to see that 90% x-fire scaling in Watch Dogs AMD promised in one of their driver release notes)
I give up....i REFUSE to keep wasting money.

So IMO ..We don't need to be insulted by being asked if we want to try to game at 4k when what GPUs we have available now cannot even run current games @ 1080p without turning half the settings down.
If you cannot even max a game @ 1080p....how the heck are you gonna play it @ 4k?...turn everything to LOW and hope your new freesync monitor makes your low 35fps "feel" smooth?....NOT ME!

Im not investing over a thousand dollars for freesync/4k and the latest greatest GPU to to play @ 30-40fps with low settings.....To me, that is just deliberately screwing myself...why would I do that to myself on purpose?

 

no, but until a single GPU can do so, there is no reason for me to go above 1080p

 

I honestly would be more interested in a multi monitor 1080p setup at this point in time. I'm pretty happy with downsampling.