Slashdot Mirror
4K Monitors: Not Now, But Soon
An anonymous reader writes 4K monitor prices have fallen into the range where mainstream consumers are starting to consider them for work and for play. There are enough models that we can compare and contrast, and figure out which are the best of the ones available. But this report at The Wirecutter makes the case that absent a pressing need for 8.29 million pixels, you should just wait before buying one. They say, "The current version of the HDMI specification (1.4a) can only output a 4096×2160 resolution at a refresh rate of 24 Hz or 3840×2160 at 30 Hz—the latter, half that of what we're used to on TVs and monitors. Connect up a 4K monitor at 30 Hz via HDMI and you'll see choppier animations and transitions in your OS. You might also encounter some visible motion stuttering during normal use, and you'll be locked to a maximum of 30 frames per second for your games—it's playable, but not that smooth. ... Most people don't own a system that's good enough for gaming on a 4K display—at least, not at highest-quality settings. You'll be better off if you just plan to surf the Web in 4K: Nvidia cards starting in the 600 series and AMD Radeon HD 6000 and 7000-series GPUs can handle 4K, as can systems built with integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics or AMD Trinity APUs. ... There's a light on the horizon. OS support will strengthen, connection types will be able to handle 4K displays sans digital tricks, and prices will drop as more 4K displays hit the market. By then, there will even be more digital content to play on a 4K display (if gaming or multitasking isn't your thing), and 4K monitors will even start to pull in fancier display technology like Nvidia's G-Sync for even smoother digital shootouts."
Displayport doesn't have the same limitations that HDMI has at those resolutions. and is available now.
Nvidia 6xx and ATI 7xxx (not to mention intel hd4000) are not exactly brand new, and available now.
IF anything, this sounds like "HDMI is showing it's age, use displayport"
I'm typing this on a monitor with 3840x2160 resolution, at 60hz right now. I posted about it weeks ago:
Clicky
It's like $600 when on sale, and it works superb for coding and playing games. Skyrim/Saints Row 4 plays fine on a GTX 660 at 4k resolution, you just disable any AA (not needed), but enable vsync (tearing is more visible at 4k, so just use that). Perhaps that's just me - but things seem fine at 4k res on a medium-cost graphics card.
A few generations of video cards, and everything will be > 60-FPS smooth again anyway (partially thanks to consoles again), so I don't really need to wait for a dynamic frame smoothing algorithm implementation to enjoy having a giant screen for coding now.
I don't see any reason why you'd want to wait - it's as cheap as two decent monitors, and if you're slightly near-sighted like me, it's just really great. See my previous post for a review link and an image of all the PC Ultima games on screen at once.
Ryan Fenton
Frame rate is for gamers. Programmers need pixels.
That's why TFA is missing the right angle.
4K is great for programming
1 - You can see more lines of code
2 - it doesn't require silly refresh rates)
4K for gaming is silly. It doesn't meet the basic requirements
1 - your card can't drive it
2 - the framerate is low)
Arguing that 4K is bad because it's no good for gamers is like arguing mobile phones are bad because you can't program on one effectively.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
What do game programmers need?
Sleep, generally.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Frame rate is for gamers. Programmers need pixels.
That's why TFA is missing the right angle.
4K is great for programming
1 - You can see more lines of code
2 - it doesn't require silly refresh rates)
4K for gaming is silly. It doesn't meet the basic requirements
1 - your card can't drive it
2 - the framerate is low)
Arguing that 4K is bad because it's no good for gamers is like arguing mobile phones are bad because you can't program on one effectively.
Are you kidding me? Staring at 30 Hz console output is maddening, and plenty of GPUs can handle 4K @ 60 fps for modern games. I'm sorry if you're trying to run Ubisoft's latest gimped turd, but that's an issue with the game, not a modern flagship GPU. Beyond that plenty of monitors can handle 4K 60 Hz. I have no idea why the fuck this shit got front paged. HDMI 2.0. WELCOME TO THE PRESENT. DisplayPort 1.2. WELCOME TO THE YEAR 2010.
Was that summary written by someone who's never used a 30Hz 4k display?
A 30Hz feed to an LCD panel is not like a 30Hz feed to a CRT. The CRT phosphors need to be refreshed frequently or the image fades. That's why 30Hz was all flickery and crappy back in the 90s. But 30Hz to an LCD isn't like that. The image stays solid until it's changed. A 30Hz display on an LCD is rock solid and works fine for a workstation. I know. I've seen me do it. Right now. There are no "transition" issues, whatever that is supposed to mean. Nothing weird happens when I switch between applications. Multitasking works fine. I'm playing multiple HD videos without a hitch. Same way the 30hz 1080 programming from cable and satellite plays just fine on LCDs. Gaming's not great but turn on vertical sync and it's not terrible. I'd rather be running at 60Hz but I got my 4k panel for $400. It'll hold me over until displays and video cards with HDMI 2 are common.