Monitors

[Skuzzy]

I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least.  Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it.  Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?

[Pudgie]

I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least.  Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it.  Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?

After using DSR w/ my Nvidia GTX 780Ti vid card & VSR w/ my AMD R9 290X vid card on my DoubleSight DS-279 2560x1440 IPS 60Hz monitor when I was doing comparisons between these 2 cards I had come to a similar conclusion concerning 4K myself as IMHO a 27" screen size just doesn't do 4k res any justice (drives the DPI too compacted within the 27" screen real estate for the human eye to properly focus the images shown & messed w/ my ability to perceive depth\distance while flying in AH).

I never put a thought to what size screen would bring 4k back to a more realistic feel as after those trials I had given up on 4k (and DSR\VSR as well) to concentrate on a 27" 2560x1440 res IPS 144Hz monitor w/ FreeSync to emerge.........which now are out there & I'm looking to get 1 sometime around Christmas.................... .........

Just thought I'd mention this...................

 

[Chalenge]

I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least.  Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it.  Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?

Exactly why I went with a 40" monitor. The advantage of higher resolution is lost on small-ish monitors I think.

[Gman]

I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least.  Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it.  Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?

This IMO is very accurate.  I have the Acer XB280HK 28in 4K, and ended up with it in a trade and got a good deal, and just wanted to try 4k out.  IMO it a: Isn't ready for primetime gaming even with 980ti, 980SLI, or Titan, all of which I have.  Plus, Skuzzy/Chalenge are correct, the dots are so incredibly small even on a mid size 27 or 28 screen that it just doesn't seem to make a huge diff over 1440p to me, other than the massive performance hit in AAA games.  I would put it at 1% myself, or no difference.  IMO spending money on a 4k right now just isn't a good bet for gaming, unless you have $ to burn and just want to see the 4k experience as it is now for yourself.  Good advice IMO would be put that $ into a 144hz/Gsync screen, a larger TV size panel of good gaming potential, or other devices like drives, and whatnot.

[38ruk]

After using DSR w/ my Nvidia GTX 780Ti vid card & VSR w/ my AMD R9 290X vid card on my DoubleSight DS-279 2560x1440 IPS 60Hz monitor when I was doing comparisons between these 2 cards I had come to a similar conclusion concerning 4K myself as IMHO a 27" screen size just doesn't do 4k res any justice (drives the DPI too compacted within the 27" screen real estate for the human eye to properly focus the images shown & messed w/ my ability to perceive depth\distance while flying in AH).

I never put a thought to what size screen would bring 4k back to a more realistic feel as after those trials I had given up on 4k (and DSR\VSR as well) to concentrate on a 27" 2560x1440 res IPS 144Hz monitor w/ FreeSync to emerge.........which now are out there & I'm looking to get 1 sometime around Christmas.................... .........

Just thought I'd mention this...................

 

I did 1440 with VSR and while things looked good , everything seemed way to small . Cons were tiny and it just wasnt a good fit . Frame rates were good but the 27'' just didnt make it worth while .  If you have the box to run 4K then you should invest in a good monitor to take advantage of your hardware , a r9 390 isnt a 4k card by any means, but it really does 1080p well . Maybe the 390 will do well at 1440p but anything beyond that is a pipe dream .

[Bizman]

A tight resolution on a small screen can be a nightmare if the OS and applications can't scale to that resolution. As 38ruk said, everything will seem too small. 15" laptops doing FullHD (1080) back when XP still was mainstream were something you'd need a magnifying glass to read! Pictures looked good, but the OS couldn't nicely scale text to a readable size. Newer OS'es support higher resolutions, so readability shouldn't be any problem with correct settings.

In AH and other games a small-ish screen with a tight resolution will crave a little more tinkering than just scaling from "normal" to "125%" in Windows' settings. Some applications may not even have the option to scale text and other objects. Thus the simplest solution would be to find a monitor whose physical size matches the desired "default" scale. For 1080 22" is still readable, 27" being very nice for aging eyes without the image looking garbled at a normal viewing distance. My 24" 1920x1200 looks roughly the same as my 30" 2560x1600, those sizes work with my eyes on the "default" setting. For both I now need +1 reading glasses to see the grid on the screen, so the DPI is high enough. As Skuzzy said, 36" might be somewhat of a minimum for a 4K monitor for awesomeness and IMO Chalenge isn't exaggerating with his 40".

[Pudgie]

I did 1440 with VSR and while things looked good , everything seemed way to small . Cons were tiny and it just wasnt a good fit . Frame rates were good but the 27'' just didnt make it worth while .  If you have the box to run 4K then you should invest in a good monitor to take advantage of your hardware , a r9 390 isnt a 4k card by any means, but it really does 1080p well . Maybe the 390 will do well at 1440p but anything beyond that is a pipe dream .

To add 1 more item to the discussion, while I was doing those tests I also ran tests on both vid cards (Nvidia GTX 780Ti & AMD R9 290X) running at 2560x1440 res to test the verbage of the necessity of AA w/ an increase in screen resolution (DPI) as AA was invented back in the days of low-res to help smooth the jaggies created mostly due to the current methodologies of drawing a computer image as well as the DPI of the res of the day (600x480). What I found out, & this repeated itself on both the Nvidia & AMD vid cards that I used was that, at 2560x1440 res, I couldn't detect any change in the images around the curved\diagonal edges (where AA would be most effectively applied) until I dropped the amount of AA being used all the way down to 2x AA--1 setting off No AA......any AA setting above 2x at 2560x1440 res didn't create a visable difference in the images displayed at all.........BUT the extra GPU power needed to maintain the proper FPS to maintain the image on screen due to higher AA application was affecting the "visibility" of the images being displayed far more than the amount of AA being applied......

These results cemented in my mind the worth of a monitor's res vs the amount of AA a GPU can apply.................the higher the monitor's DPI, the less AA is actually needed to achieve visual parity. When I backed off the AA on both the Nvidia GTX 780Ti AND the AMD R9 290X, both vid cards ran just fine at 2560x1440 res maintaining the 60 Hz (60 FPS) of my monitor, which now allowed me to make other setting changes to improve other aspects of the image but still not overly increase the GPU load past the point that the GPU starts to have issues rendering the image frames & maintaining the FPS (display flipping frequency) necessary for smooth imagery display on screen..........

So for AH, I found that the 2 GPU settings that will sap a GPU's power far above all else at 2560x1440 res are AA & EM.......
Back off the AA, you can increase the EM & still hold some FPS & image fidelity.....If you try to apply high amounts of AA @ 2560x1440 res, you WILL have to back off the EM somewhat to achieve the same level of FPS & image fidelity as once you cross the threshold of a GPU's capability the performance goes down.............

Since I've realized this I no longer set the AA level greater than the 1st notch off None in AHII Video Settings, regardless of how powerful the GPU is as I know I am only using up GPU cycles & power for absolutely no visual gain at 2560x1440 res........don't have this issue w/ the Alpha as the method & level of AA is set within the game code so you either turn it on or turn it off.

So in my mind a R9 390 can most certainly run well @ 2560x1440 res..........how well will depend on the user's tastes & what is important to the user to use the R9 390 GPU's capabilities on vs what is not.

In short I agree w/ you, 38ruk........................

 

I hope to soon find out just how much 144Hz will impact my Fury X vs what 144 FPS can give me from a visual perspective @ 2560x1440 res....................