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?

[Skapare]

3840 is not 4k. 4096 is 4k.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[PhrostyMcByte]

4K/8K will sell UHDTV. But the best benefit, a gem rarely mentioned: it features a hugely increased gamut and 10 or 12-bit (10-bit mandatory minimum) component depth. The image will look more life-like than any of the common TVs available today, and it won't be relegated to photographers and graph designers: it'll be standard.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[SOOPRcow]

4K Ultra high definition television 3840 × 2160 which is, as I'm sure you can figure out, double the resolution of current HD content. That said, I will agree that calling it "4K Ultra HD" is kind of misleading :) See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Anonymous Coward]

A 9.7" retina display costs 55$ off the shelf for horsiest. That's about 40$ BoM or lower. Quintuple\Sextuple that for a 23" 4K and add a thick margin and you end up in the 300-350$ range without taking into account how this production will scale to make it all cheaper.

As for your 27-30" 3840x2160 desire, it's actually quite easily doable now since it's really not that dense when you consider stuff like 5" devices having 1920x1080.

I would imagine a small OEM could make an order for these right from an existing Chinese line as long as the order are in the thousands. I don't even think over 20,000 will be necessary considering it's really just taking the same piece and *not* cutting it up as much. Maybe an Alienwere \ Nvidia co-venture to produce console killers with their own x86 console targeting these yet to be seen screens... Oh, we can dream...

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.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[dfghjk]

"The image will look more life-like than any of the common TVs available today..."

Not because of the wide gamut it won't. Having the gamut on your output device doesn't mean you have it on your input device. Content won't exist that uses it so it WILL be "relegated to photographers and graph (sic) designers", standard or not. The value is suspect and the cost is mandatory extra bit depth leading to higher data rates.

The side effect of wide gamut displays displaying common content in non-color managed environments is that it looks worse, not better. This is television we are talking about, not Photoshop. Today's HD content won't look the least bit better on a wide gamut display, it could only look worse.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[JanneM]

It's different for different parts of the business of course, but the graphic designers I know personally (through a family member) don't care about monitor gamut or colour fidelity at all. Sounds odd, perhaps, but there's good reason for it.

Most graphic design is not for the web, but for physical objects. Anything you see around you that's printed or patterned - kitchen utensils, tools, and household objets; clothes and textile prints; books, calendars, pamphlets; not to mention the cardboard and plastic boxes it all came in - has been designed by a graphic designer. And it's all printed using different kind of processes, on different materials, with different kinds of inks and dyes.

A monitor, any monitor, simply can't show you what the finished design will look like, since it can't replicate the effect of the particular ink and material combination you're going to use. So they don't even try. Instead they do the design on the computer, but choose the precise colour and material combination by Pantone patches. We've got shelves of sample binders at home, with all kinds of colour and material combinations for reference. As an added bonus you can take samples into different light conditions and see what they look like there.

The finished design is usually sent off as a set of monochrome layers, with an accompanying specification on what Pantone colour each layer should use. They do make a colour version of it too, but that's just to give the client a rough idea of what the design will look like.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[jelizondo]

In a blind test. Most people wont be able to tell the difference.

You insensitive clod! They are blind! Of course they can't tell the difference!

Jees!

(ducks)

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[PhrostyMcByte]

Content won't exist that uses it so it WILL be "relegated to photographers and graph (sic) designers", standard or not.

Except every 4K/8K UHDTV broadcast will be using Rec. 2020, in this wide gamut, and cameras have been able to capture images outside of the sRGB gamut for some time. The content will exist.

The side effect of wide gamut displays displaying common content in non-color managed environments is that it looks worse, not better.

Right. This is because the de-facto standard 8-bit output is sRGB. These monitors are doing something outside of this standard and require proper color management to make things look correct.

The difference here is that we've got a fairly clean slate with 10-/12-bit UHDTV and Rec. 2020. There's no reason for any device to assume sending sRGB in this case will give the correct results. The TVs/monitors will use it. The content will use it. HEVC has a Main 10 profile added specifically for use with UHDTV.

Today's HD content won't look the least bit better on a wide gamut display, it could only look worse.

With 10-bit processing you should be able to do color management without any perceptible loss in quality.

Re:Now where's the cheap monitors?

[flargleblarg]

It's not double, it's quadruple, which is why it's called 4k.

Quadruple is ***NOT*** why it's called 4k.

"4k" is short for 4000, e.g, pixels. The "4" in 4000 has absolutely nothing to do with the quadrupling. It's merely a coincidence.

Re: Now where's the cheap monitors?

[Nadaka]

Thats mostly because we got really good multi-monitor support a few years ago. we can already get 4, 6 or even 9 times the resolution of 1080p. And if you are willing to blow enough money or cut apart an LCD you can do it with almost no bezel.

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:No

[Keith Mickunas]

I heard at one time that 16:10 came out of the video editing industry. Basically they were working on 16:9 video, so they had displays with extra space at the bottom for controls. These displays then were adapted to the higher end computer market. However once 16:9 displays were being manufactured in large quantities for consumer TVs, I imagine that drove the price down for manufacturing 16:9 computer monitors. I'm fairly certain the decision to use 1920x1080 in the TV industry had nothing to do with computer displays.

But what does the ratio really matter? Isn't it about the pixels? I used a Samsung 24" 1920x1200 for a long time, and I loved it. But I'd seen higher pixel counts, and I wanted it. So when I had the spare cash last year the decision for me was 1 30" display or spend a slight bit more and go for 2 27" displays. I don't care about the ratio, I got plenty of height now. That's what matters.

Re:No

[ebh]

I just took a 21" CRT to the recycling place. In 1995, it cost about $2200 new. In 2001, my employer gave it to me as scrap when our building was closed and they decided that a lot of that stuff was cheaper to give away than to move to some warehouse across the country. (Plus it was a tiny bit of good will that the local management could show the laid-off employees when the Big Guys were being callous pricks kicking us to the curb while we were still going to 9/11 funerals.)

ObTopic: $400 is an expensive monitor these days, but it wasn't that long ago that $400 wouldn't buy you a useable SVGA monitor.

Re:No

[Rakarra]

What exactly are people doing that requires 16:10?

There's really only one advantage that 16:9 has over 16:10, and that's smaller black borders (or no borders at all) for widescreen video content. Otherwise, the vertical real estate is very nice to have, and I've found 2560x1600 (which I've used for the last 5 years) somehow really hits the sweet spot between vertical size and widescreen.

Re:No

[Skapare]

16:10 tends to work out better for office work. Sure, the higher res makes it less important. But its the physical size that makes it less important ... depending on how much space you have to push the display back.

But once you get up close to the holy grail of true 4k which is 4096, why even bother with 3840? Cinema digital is shot in 4096 (and up). 3840 should be boycotted or even banned.

Re:No

[Keith Mickunas]

I wish they'd be honest about those resolutions. It is annoying that 3840 is being advertised as 4k. Clearly it's not. Sure it's double 1080p, but 1080p ain't 2k, so 3840 shouldn't be called 4k.

It's also annoying that they put 1080p and 2k in the graph, then just labeled this new display 4k. Dammit, so close, they acknowledged 2k as a valid format, but ignored real 4k.

Re:No

[EvanED]

I got a Dell 19" Trinitron from one employer in 2000. That was sweet, although it had those two strange horizontal lines,

That was true of all Trinitron monitors. Here is what Wikipedia says about them:

Even small changes in the alignment of the grille over the phosphors can cause the coloring to shift. Since the wires are thin, small bumps can cause the wires to shift alignment if they are not held in place. Monitors using this technology have one or more thin tungsten wires running horizontally across the grille to prevent this. Screens 15" and below have one wire located about two thirds of the way down the screen, while monitors greater than 15" have 2 wires at the one-third and two-thirds positions. These wires are less apparent or completely obscured on standard definition sets due to larger scan lines of the video being displayed. On computer monitors, where the lines are much closer together, the wires are often visible. This is a minor drawback of the Trinitron standard which is not shared by shadow mask CRTs.

Re:No

[mjwx]

But would you really reject a 2560x1440 display because it's 16:9?

I'd happily pay a few dollars more for a 2560x1600 display because it is 16:10. 16:10 displays are superior to 16:9 for almost all computing purposes. For games it gives me a taller FOV, for work it's exactly 2 A4 pages side by side and gives me a taller view (yes, an extra 4 CM really does make a difference when working on a large spreadsheet, config file or script), with video editing you can have the tools on screen without overlaying them on a video.

16:9 monitors are cheap. I generally recommend them if you dont do anything on your computer that requires a taller FOV (I.E. most users). If all you do is web browsing and watching cat videos, this difference means nothing, if you do serious work then it does.

People need to get over this 16:9 vs. 16:10 garbage.

My laptop is 16:9, my desktops (home and work) are 16:10.

This is mainly done due to availability. it's easy to get cheap 16:10 monitors, hard to get 16:10 laptops.

Re:No

[White Flame]

And if they called it 4xHD, I'd be fine with it.

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.

When will we get REAL 4k displays ...

[Skapare]

... like 4096x1728 (digital cinema size plus a few more pixels to make it mathematically right)? Feel free to make the actual LCD pixels a bit smaller so it can all fit in a decent size (not over 80cm, please). Hell, I'd be happy even with 2048x1280 for now so I can avoid the border bumping on 1920x1200.

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.

Well there is a niche...

[flayzernax]

As ive seen pictures of peoples massive 6 monitor setups...

Though as someone who's been a gamer since duke nukem... and the ultima games... I don't see what all the hype is about. The colors aught to be much nicer on a 4k display, but I know I won't be spending money on one until their dirt cheap or I get one as a gift (which means they'll be dirt cheap by then).

Then again you can make a pretty game, that gets pretty boring pretty fast =) I've played some hideous monstrosities with the worst interfaces known to man just because the actual game was fun.

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.

We're finally getting higher PPI?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I swear to Christ if the next "leap" is sandwiching two 1920x1080 monitors together and making a fucking TV for my computer desk will flip my shit.

Bring Retina quality displays to the desktop. If I can get 1080p on a fucking mobile phone I expect 4k on my desktop at 20".

Make it so.