High End Graphics Cards Tested At 4K Resolutions

Vigile writes "One of the drawbacks to high end graphics has been the lack of low cost and massively-available displays with a resolution higher than 1920x1080. Yes, 25x16/25x14 panels are coming down in price, but it might be the influx of 4K monitors that makes a splash. PC Perspective purchased a 4K TV for under $1500 recently and set to benchmarking high end graphics cards from AMD and NVIDIA at 3840x2160. For under $500, the Radeon HD 7970 provided the best experience, though the GTX Titan was the most powerful single GPU option. At the $1000 price point the GeForce GTX 690 appears to be the card to beat with AMD's continuing problems on CrossFire scaling. PC Perspective has also included YouTube and downloadable 4K video files (~100 mbps) as well as screenshots, in addition to a full suite of benchmarks."

Comments

Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Kjella]

I've done the distance/size check, I don't need an UHDTV from where I'm sitting. There's not content for it anyway. But I would like a 27-30" 3840x2160 monitor for my computer.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[crdotson]

Thank you. Most people just don't seem to understand that monitors aren't done until you can't tell the difference between a monitor and a window! It's "1920x1080 should be enough for anybody" mentality. You'd think people would learn after a while.

No

[bhcompy]

One of the drawbacks to high end graphics has been the lack of low cost and massively-available displays with a resolution higher than 1920x1080.

Really? You've never heard of the Dell U2410? Fuck 16:9

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

Why? Why does 16:10 make a difference at that resolution? I mentioned the 2560x1600 displays, but you know what, they cost hundreds more and they have lower pixel density. The premium for 160 pixels is 30% or more, hell with Dell on Amazon right now it's 50% more.

What exactly are people doing that requires 16:10? I've used 'em, I like 'em, but I'll take 2560x1440 over 1920x1200 any day of the week. Likewise I'll take 3840x2160 over 2560x1600.

If the premium for 16:10 was in the neighborhood of 10-15% for the same pixel density, then yes, it's worthwhile. Otherwise, what's the big deal?

Re:Meh

[ChrisMaple]

For people who do technical work with a computer, the ability to have several high definition windows open at once is a tremendous benefit. Integrated circuit design, programming, CAD graphics, etc.

Re:4k for games?

[Keith Mickunas]

A 4K 50" display 4' or 5' away would give you a pretty damn immersive experience. Wouldn't that be nice?

I'm sitting with my eyes about 3' from my 27" 2560x1440 display with about 108ppi. I can make out some pixels as it is in the text. I'm not wearing my glasses, so that helps some. If this was a 4K 27" display, that would be 163ppi. That's a 50% increase right there.

Wasn't that long ago that running 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD was pretty damn nice, and that was 94ppi. So for a decade we've barely improved when it comes to density. Hell, a 24" 16:10 display that so many people love so much has the same density as a 17" LCD.

Of course my very first PC games ran in CGA, and I thought VGA was a huge step up. But at no time have I ever thought to myself "Nope, more wouldn't be better". Not when it comes to graphics, RAM, harddrive size, etc. Give me more and I'll use it.

Re:Resolution? WHY?

[White Flame]

Most people read information on computer displays, reading web pages, emails, facebook updates, twitter feeds, wikipedia, and reference materials; and work in word processors, spreadsheets, and programming environments. All of these features are regularly constrained by vertical resolution.

For people watching cat videos and playing simple games (which comprises almost everybody else not doing the above), neither >1080p resolution nor fidelity matters.

For people doing high-end gaming and watching high-end media, your situation applies. However, it's a pretty tiny sliver of overall computer monitor time, all things considered.