Which monitor do I get? 4k vs 2560x1080 Ultra-Wide.

[mika]

Iam thinking to upgrade my Asus 23.6 1920x1080 monitor? I found a really nice 29 Inch Lg ultra-wide the resolution is 2560x1080 Look so nice-My flight sims would look so nice on there....Price is $499 plus tax, Now at the same time theres a couple 4k Dells I can get for the same price so Iam a little confused.Help me out?

I have a Gtx 660Ti for the time being but I will be getting something stronger real soon.

[JaredX7]

Keep in mind that 4k is no easy task for *some* games, even for a single GTX980.

I currently own a Samsung 4k Monitor and a single GTX980. I can get 60fps in some games, but not everything. I've also got an Acer 4k G-Sync monitor coming as well to help smooth out the lower frame rates...

4k is nice though, and I certainly prefer it over the lower resolutions for just about everything apart from not being able to get 60fps in some games :P

So obviously, my vote goes for 4k.

[FluffyPinkDecoyBunny]

With your GPU - you're better off with the 2560x1080. If you really want 4k, then you need to upgrade your GPU as well because you need something with more power to push things out at that resolution. If you had dual GTX 660Ti in SLI, you'd be roughly looking at the performance level of a single GTX 970. I would say the 970 is the minimum Nvidia card you want if you plan to use a 4k monitor.

I'd vote for the 2560x1080. I personally enjoy running some games across 5760x1080 - it's so cool. My daughter especially likes racing in Track Maina2 on 3 monitors, instead of a single 24" 1080p.

[76561198146916803]

If you are looking for higher res gaming then I wouldn't go higher than 2560x1080. That is a very good res from my testing and won't be such a performance hit. Get an Asus with 1ms response at around 27". imo

[mika]

No I wont be using the 660 Ti for either of those set-ups It was only to be used on my 1920x1080 monitor.I was kinda confused isnt 4k better then 2560x1080? I wouldnt mind getting something like a 120hz-144hz refresh rate but my only option there would be the ROG swift-way to expensive if you want my opinion.

Yeah my Gpu choice will be like i mentioned either a 290x, 780ti, or maybe a 980 still shopping around for better price. It would be cool to set-up 3 monitors 2560x1080 x 3 in Eyefinity or Surround! Something like thats going to take me a while to finish.Thanks guys appricate your input.

[FluffyPinkDecoyBunny]

Originally posted by MiddleFinger77:

No I wont be using the 660 Ti for either of those set-ups It was only to be used on my 1920x1080 monitor.I was kinda confused isnt 4k better then 2560x1080? I wouldnt mind getting something like a 120hz-144hz refresh rate but my only option there would be the ROG swift-way to expensive if you want my opinion.

Yeah my Gpu choice will be like i mentioned either a 290x, 780ti, or maybe a 980 still shopping around for better price. It would be cool to set-up 3 monitors 2560x1080 x 3 in Eyefinity or Surround! Something like thats going to take me a while to finish.Thanks guys appricate your input.

Better is personal preference. While 4k will certainly cram more pixels into the area, someone may perfer the 2560x1080.

Me, I've seen 4k monitors/TVs and while they look nice - it's just not terribly practical to expect to game on one yet with constant, soild performance. I'm content at 1080p and I greatly enjoy my 3 monitors for gaming should I want to use 5760x1080 or simply game on a single monitor.

To each their own.

In your case, a better GPU will certainly allow more flexibility for better performance at 4k. However, a better GPU and a 2560x1080 will allow you to max games out, longer, when compared to a 4k setup. As to what you define as "better", that's entirely up to you.

[Azza ☠]

4K Monitors for PC aren't real 4K (4096 x 2160)...
Rather a consumer format of UltraHD (3840 X 2160).

This is why they are labeled 4K UltraHD on the box. The reason for this, is UltraHD still has the same aspect ratio to scale upon. Even though there's not many real 4K games out, you can still scale them up. Some frames which don't scale will however appear wrong or still small. Games such as Dota 2, with it's interface overlay had this type of problem, etc. They might get fixed up over time. 4K won't become a real standard till around/after 2016, when Nvidia Pascal come out which can easily run them upon a single graphics card.

I personally wouldn't worry over 4K at the moment, it's probably more harm than good. 1440p resolution is still extremely nice or 1080p in Nvidia Surround (tri-monitor setup).

If your looking for pixel perfection - then the Dell UltraSharps can give 99.9% true colour and look very crisp. Just note that you have trade offs, monitors can either look extremely crisp for graphical applications or be extremely fast for gaming purposes. It depends entitely on your purpose. As you said, for a flight simulator game, it would look amazing - 4K Ultra might be very suitable for you in that case. If on the other hand you play FPS shooters, racing car, etc (more faster pase) - then your better off with lower resolutions such as 1080p or 1440p, lower response rate and faster refresh.

[rotNdude]

Go into a store and compare the two resolutions side by side. I would never get a 4K monitor for a desktop situation. The pixel pitch on most desktop monitors are just fine for my eyes at 1920x1080 and to me the 4K revolution is all about viewing large screen TVs at much closer distances.

[mika]

Yes very solid point! I schould have them hooked-up side by side and run the same game to see what looks better. Part of me wants a tri-monitor set-up the other half wants the 4k I cant decide lol. But I remember I had 2 monitors set-up and it was causing me to get MAJOR headaches for some reason! I wasnt able to game longer then 10 minutes without my head wanting to EXPLODE-maybe iam just old who knows?

So many options, so little money haha.

[Andrius227]

Yes 4k is too demanding. And i personally would prefer lower res @144fps than 4k @60fps. I mean even a gtx980 can't run more demanding games like Dragon age inquisition @60fps at 1080p (maxed out). 4k is a bit out of our reach. Unless you get like 4x gtx980's sli, or you sacrifice all graphics details, you can't really play games on it.

[Azza ☠]

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Yes 4k is too demanding. And i personally would prefer lower res @144fps than 4k @60fps. I mean even a gtx980 can't run more demanding games like Dragon age inquisition @60fps at 1080p (maxed out). 4k is a bit out of our reach. Unless you get like 4x gtx980's sli, or you sacrifice all graphics details, you can't really play games on it.

I wouldn't considered 4K UltraHD as even 60Hz... It's two cable streaming each half the display at 30Hz each, then stitched together on the monitor in realtime to create the so-called 60Hz.

[mika]

Ive heard you can only run it using Display-port 2.0 or something? So not every Gpu can even run it? I guess its 2560x1080 for me then or a 144hz high refresh rate?

[Azza ☠]

Originally posted by MiddleFinger77:

Ive heard you can only run it using Display-port 2.0 or something? So not every Gpu can even run it? I guess its 2560x1080 for me then or a 144hz high refresh rate?

Why not both?

ASUS RoG Swift PG278Q = Ownage (G-Sync, 1440p, 144hz) !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdqTIfNv2DE

[mika]

Its a great looking and ( performing ) Monitor no doubt, The ROG swift but its $800 dollars + tax so thats not gonna happen. I wish. Most I can go is $400-$500 tops. On the other hand the Dell 4k monitor not sure which model it is costs $500 bucks.

[freddieone1]

Just got a 65 inch 4k Sony tv. Playing dvds on it is like looking at a new movie. I can believe the picture. Am getting a GTX 970 to test it on the Sony. Will sli it if it works well. GTX 980 and GTX 970 are the only cards that have HDMI 2.0 for 4k at 60. Far as monitors go I compared the 4k side by side and to me the 4k is a lot sharper than the rest.

[El Patron]

Originally posted by freddieone1:

Just got a 65 inch 4k Sony tv. Playing dvds on it is like looking at a new movie. I can believe the picture. Am getting a GTX 970 to test it on the Sony. Will sli it if it works well. GTX 980 and GTX 970 are the only cards that have HDMI 2.0 for 4k at 60. Far as monitors go I compared the 4k side by side and to me the 4k is a lot sharper than the rest.

which sony tv you got? model number=?