Hardware & Technical Is 4k Gaming Worth It?

[Flin]

Not an expert, but based on my research...

Pixel density will be based on your distance to the screen. At 27"+ on a typical desktop distance, you'll see the difference.

But I think a bigger factor is the color gamut and contrast. A HD screen with fabulous color and deep black (like local dimming) will greatly improve the visuals.

Nevertheless the high end monitors and TVs are have high resolution.

I would say to wait and rely on upscaling for the moment.

This is what I am doing.

 

[Saiidin]

My 27" monitors are all 1080. I'd rather have 3 screens of 1080 than 1 screen of 4k.

 

[Privata]

Well yes. 1080p is cheap and indeed looks decent , but its sadly full of aliasing and in elite dangerous the only way to remove the horrible edges is 4K

 

[Karl Marx]

Worth it? Yeah, probably. I run a 4k rig, it wasn't exceedingly expensive. 600 bucks for the 60hz 48" 4k TV @ 12ms, 680 bucks for the GTX 980 TI G1 edition (OC'd to be faster than a Titan X) and then the standard hardware like AMD/Intel CPU (gaming level obviously), motherboard, ram, SSD/HDD, etc.

It's not CHEAP but it's also not OMFGBBQEXPENSIVE. *shrug* I haven't had issues running 4k at high/ultra settings in many games using my single GPU setup. It crushes ED at 4k.

Oh, and if you do go 980 TI, get the G1 edition, I've got mine comfortably overcocked to 1,450mhz on stock cooling and no voltage increase. That's nuts.

Oh, and on ultra w/ sweetFX, I still get between 45 and 60fps, turning SweetFX off and I go between 55 and 80fps at 4k. People that say single-GPU 4k is impossible need a reality check. Chances are, they experienced a bottleneck somewhere other than the GPU.

 

[Keybuk]

I play in 5K

The biggest thing that I notice is how in a RES, I can see every detail of the ships at a distance—identifying my friends by their paint jobs and decals, etc.

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

As a bridge to next ten VR, sure.

But don't cripple the finances such that you cannot afford a VR headset.

 

[xondk]

If your getting low fps on a 4K monitor with a single GTX 970 I would suggest you turn supersampling down to .65, the lowest it will go. It is only really much use on a 1980 by 1020 so it can simulate 4k on a small monitor. It makes little if any difference to my Samsung 27" 4K, except to the frame rate. At .65 I happily get just over 60FPS in stations and well over 100 in space. Setting supersampling to 1.0 chops that FPS down to around 30 in stations but shows no discernible difference on the video quality output. I have tried taking the supersampling up to 2.0 and it starts crawling at 5 to 15 fps but still doesn't improve the video image to any noticeable effect. Also you don't need a great deal of AA with a 4k monitor.
I have been using a 4K monitor for over 6 months now with a Gtx 970, so it has had a good workout.

Er, super samling at that low a value basically means you are running the game at 0.65 times the resolution you have set it to, and as such renders 4k near pointless?
3840 x 2160 becomes 2496 x 1404 stretched to your 4k screen.

 

[Jon flint]

Er, super samling at that low a value basically means you are running the game at 0.65 times the resolution you have set it to, and as such renders 4k near pointless?
3840 x 2160 becomes 2496 x 1404 stretched to your 4k screen.

Yep, anything below 1x and your actually upscaling a lower resolution.

I may give his tip a try though since it may be better to have the game upscale to 4k rather than let the tv do it.