› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Monitors 4K v 2k/ dual monitor v ultrawide

MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
edited March 2017 in Hardware
I was thinking about getting a new PC and was given some advice here to wait, I think it make sense as AMD seems to be on some sort of correct track.  I have older monitors and think I may upgrade my monitors when I upgrade my PC.  I am probably going use 2x24" or one ultrawide, cost effective does matter. 

Now for my questions.  In those situations is there a noticeable difference between 2k and 4k. I have seen plenty of people say there is no real difference.  From what I can tell there is about a $100-200 price difference between the two. 

Do people who have ultrawide monitors like them and feel the price justifies the benefit? 

How many people are actually using 4k and ultrawide monitors now? I have watched a view videos but am not sure the enthusiasts are a very accurate representation of the population.  I saw one person make a pretty compelling case that there is no reason to even upgrade a PC if you are not going to push 4k gaming because increases you will get from the upgrade will mostly be negligible at sub 2k.  Not sure how true that is and how much of that is just enthusiast rhetoric. 

“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

--John Ruskin







«1

Comments

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    I use both 2k and 4k

    It really depends on your application and on what you want to achieve.

    I run a 27" 144hz 2k with a Titan-X (non pascal)  for general gaming. Looks awesome,  high fps and great response.

    I run a 46" 4k 60hz with a GTX-1080 exclusively for use with flightsims. Looks awesome, shows very tiny details like individual vehicles 1000's of feet below you, not nearly as responsive as the 2k but for a flightsim it doesn't have to be. 

    If you want quick response go 2k. If your keeping with a desktop size monitor I personally don't see much point with a 4k especially for general gaming. 

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
    Isn't titan-x a grand? 

    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    edited March 2017
    MMOman101 said:
    Isn't titan-x a grand? 
    It was more than a grand when I bought it.

    A GTX-1070 is probably pretty close to an equivalent gpu these days, minus the  memory.

    My most powerful rig is always built for flightsims and my gaming rig gets the hand-me-downs.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    I use an LG 27" 4k-60hz panel. There is a noticeable difference at 4k. It probably is not enough of a difference to makeup for the tradeoffs. It requires 4 times the GPU power since you are rendering 4 times the pixels. It requires more vram. You are also limited to 60 Hz. Given these tradeoffs, unless you are doing something that requires a lot of clarity, I would not step into 4K at the moment. 1440p looks like the current sweet spot. Going from a 24" to 27" monitor is a much bigger leap. Personally I can't see myself going back to 24".
  • JayFiveAliveJayFiveAlive Member UncommonPosts: 601
    edited March 2017
    I use a 27" 1440p 144hz gsync monitor (I suppose you could call it 2K). It's great for gaming.. I personally don't see much need for 4K at the moment unless I was running on maybe a 32-34"+ monitor. You can super-sample/increase the resolution in games through software and mimic a 4K monitor. I don't really see much point though. There is a large drop in FPS in 2K vs 4K if you're maxing other settings.

    My GPU is a 1080, which is fine for 2K and can do 4K as well, but I like to stay above 100  FPS and it's not possible with at 4K with my GPU and most current games. The higher the res, the better your GPU will need to be if you want good FPS and graphics. IMO I'd go with 1440p. I use only 1 monitor for gaming personally.
  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
    I don' think I can easily fit two 27" monitors on my desk.  I will never go back to one monitor again, unless it is large enough to have at least two separate applications open and visible at once.

    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    MMOman101 said:
    I don' think I can easily fit two 27" monitors on my desk.  I will never go back to one monitor again, unless it is large enough to have at least two separate applications open and visible at once.
    I'm spoiled I don't go with two monitors, I go with two rigs;)

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
    laserit said:
    MMOman101 said:
    I don' think I can easily fit two 27" monitors on my desk.  I will never go back to one monitor again, unless it is large enough to have at least two separate applications open and visible at once.
    I'm spoiled I don't go with two monitors, I go with two rigs;)
    That is actually terrible.  I have done that before and two or three monitors is much better. 

    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    I have an ultra wide 34" monitor, while I can do 4k on it, I found that even with a 1080, games run much better at 2k.  Personally I wish I had not spent the extra money on the 4k monitor and gone with a 2k one because 98% of the time I am running 2k.  To tell you the truth, most games you cannot tell the difference between the two settings unless you look real close.

    So unless money is no problem, I would definitely go with a 2k solution.  2k even looks great when I run it on my 4k tv.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    MMOman101 said:
    laserit said:
    MMOman101 said:
    I don' think I can easily fit two 27" monitors on my desk.  I will never go back to one monitor again, unless it is large enough to have at least two separate applications open and visible at once.
    I'm spoiled I don't go with two monitors, I go with two rigs;)
    That is actually terrible.  I have done that before and two or three monitors is much better. 
    Well...

    Ones a 4770k@4.6ghz with a Titan X and the other is a 7700k@5.15ghz with a gtx-1080

    It's tough but I make it work ;)

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,004
    It depends on how optimized the game is for what you want to do.  It's usually safer to go with the most conservative approach.  Because a lot won't be able to take advantage of special settings.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    edited March 2017
    Here's what I see:

    If you plan on gaming across all your monitors (nVidia Surround / AMD Eyefiniti), then go ahead and get the ultrawide. There won't be a bezel, you won't have monitor positioning issues, and it won't necessarily require 2 monitor inputs, 2 power supplies, etc. You can still split your monitor, it's just that everything has to be windowed and you need to drag it around.

    If you game on one screen and use another screen for "other stuff" - keep it across separate monitors. You have the option of spanning across the monitors if you want to try it (don't plan on spanning across 2+ 4Ks without some serious compromises though), but you would have all the stuff I listed above to deal with. 

    In full disclosure, I run a pair of 1920x1200 24"'s now. I don't plan on upgrading until I can get OLED.
  • ianicusianicus Member UncommonPosts: 665
    4k for desktop gaming at 27" is pretty much a complete waste of money, period.
    "Well let me just quote the late-great Colonel Sanders, who said…’I’m too drunk to taste this chicken." - Ricky Bobby
  • epoqepoq Member UncommonPosts: 394
    I have a Pascal Titan-X and a 3440x1440 wide Gsync monitor.  I love the set up, as I can still run all games well above 60FPS (monitor refresh is 100hz).  My only issue is sometimes there are a few random games (recently Resident Evil 7 comes to mind) that do not support 21:9 aspect ratio and you have to play with black bars on the side (which is ugly as hell and ruins the immersion).  But even with the best card out there, 4k @ 60FPS can be hard to handle with the settings cranked up.  I will probably go 4K on the next gen of video cards, though.  It all depends on what you play, too.  If you like brand new games that are graphics intensive, and like to max the settings, 4K will be tough.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    Offtopic

    @epoq - love the avatar
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    laserit said:
    I use both 2k and 4k

    It really depends on your application and on what you want to achieve.

    I run a 27" 144hz 2k with a Titan-X (non pascal)  for general gaming. Looks awesome,  high fps and great response.

    I run a 46" 4k 60hz with a GTX-1080 exclusively for use with flightsims. Looks awesome, shows very tiny details like individual vehicles 1000's of feet below you, not nearly as responsive as the 2k but for a flightsim it doesn't have to be. 

    If you want quick response go 2k. If your keeping with a desktop size monitor I personally don't see much point with a 4k especially for general gaming. 
    Unrelated to the topic, what flightsims do you play?
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,521
    "Ultrawide" is a terrible idea for pretty much everything I've ever done on a computer.  Even at a 16:9 ratio, running out of vertical space is a problem far more often than running out of horizontal space.

    I have three 2560x1440, 144 Hz monitors in portrait mode in Eyefinity, for a combined 4320x2560 resolution.  And still at 144 Hz.  I really like that setup, as it means for the first time that stuff can take however much screen space I want it to take and I'm not really limited by how much monitor space I have.  A lot of programs that you'd maximize at a lower resolution, you don't at a higher resolution.  For example, I typically size a browser as about 1450 pixels of width to cover the center monitor and about 1800 pixels tall.
  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
    Quizzical said:
    "Ultrawide" is a terrible idea for pretty much everything I've ever done on a computer.  Even at a 16:9 ratio, running out of vertical space is a problem far more often than running out of horizontal space.

    I have three 2560x1440, 144 Hz monitors in portrait mode in Eyefinity, for a combined 4320x2560 resolution.  And still at 144 Hz.  I really like that setup, as it means for the first time that stuff can take however much screen space I want it to take and I'm not really limited by how much monitor space I have.  A lot of programs that you'd maximize at a lower resolution, you don't at a higher resolution.  For example, I typically size a browser as about 1450 pixels of width to cover the center monitor and about 1800 pixels tall.
    At my last job I used to have one monitor an portrait, used primarily for reading code.  Some things I like portrait for.  I am not sure I would like it for gaming.  I don't like the black bar across games so I would not be interested in that. 

    I do agree that I almost never size to the window. Just not much need to.  What size are your monitors.  I have used 24" in portrait and think 27+ would just be crazy tall, although you may be a taller person. 

    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    edited March 2017
    laserit said:
    I use both 2k and 4k

    It really depends on your application and on what you want to achieve.

    I run a 27" 144hz 2k with a Titan-X (non pascal)  for general gaming. Looks awesome,  high fps and great response.

    I run a 46" 4k 60hz with a GTX-1080 exclusively for use with flightsims. Looks awesome, shows very tiny details like individual vehicles 1000's of feet below you, not nearly as responsive as the 2k but for a flightsim it doesn't have to be. 

    If you want quick response go 2k. If your keeping with a desktop size monitor I personally don't see much point with a 4k especially for general gaming. 
    Unrelated to the topic, what flightsims do you play?
    Today it's Prepar3d, X-plane and Aerofly

    Here's my simpit ;)


    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,521
    MMOman101 said:
    Quizzical said:
    "Ultrawide" is a terrible idea for pretty much everything I've ever done on a computer.  Even at a 16:9 ratio, running out of vertical space is a problem far more often than running out of horizontal space.

    I have three 2560x1440, 144 Hz monitors in portrait mode in Eyefinity, for a combined 4320x2560 resolution.  And still at 144 Hz.  I really like that setup, as it means for the first time that stuff can take however much screen space I want it to take and I'm not really limited by how much monitor space I have.  A lot of programs that you'd maximize at a lower resolution, you don't at a higher resolution.  For example, I typically size a browser as about 1450 pixels of width to cover the center monitor and about 1800 pixels tall.
    At my last job I used to have one monitor an portrait, used primarily for reading code.  Some things I like portrait for.  I am not sure I would like it for gaming.  I don't like the black bar across games so I would not be interested in that. 

    I do agree that I almost never size to the window. Just not much need to.  What size are your monitors.  I have used 24" in portrait and think 27+ would just be crazy tall, although you may be a taller person. 
    They're 27" monitors, and yes, reading off of the full height is crazy tall.  That's why I set the browser to about 1800 pixels in height rather than the full 2560.

  • MMOman101MMOman101 Member UncommonPosts: 1,787
    Quizzical said:
    MMOman101 said:
    Quizzical said:
    "Ultrawide" is a terrible idea for pretty much everything I've ever done on a computer.  Even at a 16:9 ratio, running out of vertical space is a problem far more often than running out of horizontal space.

    I have three 2560x1440, 144 Hz monitors in portrait mode in Eyefinity, for a combined 4320x2560 resolution.  And still at 144 Hz.  I really like that setup, as it means for the first time that stuff can take however much screen space I want it to take and I'm not really limited by how much monitor space I have.  A lot of programs that you'd maximize at a lower resolution, you don't at a higher resolution.  For example, I typically size a browser as about 1450 pixels of width to cover the center monitor and about 1800 pixels tall.
    At my last job I used to have one monitor an portrait, used primarily for reading code.  Some things I like portrait for.  I am not sure I would like it for gaming.  I don't like the black bar across games so I would not be interested in that. 

    I do agree that I almost never size to the window. Just not much need to.  What size are your monitors.  I have used 24" in portrait and think 27+ would just be crazy tall, although you may be a taller person. 
    They're 27" monitors, and yes, reading off of the full height is crazy tall.  That's why I set the browser to about 1800 pixels in height rather than the full 2560.

    Do you game across all monitors?  Is that difficult?  I would imagine playing shooter like that would be very hard.

    “It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

    --John Ruskin







  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,521
    MMOman101 said:
    Quizzical said:
    MMOman101 said:
    Quizzical said:
    "Ultrawide" is a terrible idea for pretty much everything I've ever done on a computer.  Even at a 16:9 ratio, running out of vertical space is a problem far more often than running out of horizontal space.

    I have three 2560x1440, 144 Hz monitors in portrait mode in Eyefinity, for a combined 4320x2560 resolution.  And still at 144 Hz.  I really like that setup, as it means for the first time that stuff can take however much screen space I want it to take and I'm not really limited by how much monitor space I have.  A lot of programs that you'd maximize at a lower resolution, you don't at a higher resolution.  For example, I typically size a browser as about 1450 pixels of width to cover the center monitor and about 1800 pixels tall.
    At my last job I used to have one monitor an portrait, used primarily for reading code.  Some things I like portrait for.  I am not sure I would like it for gaming.  I don't like the black bar across games so I would not be interested in that. 

    I do agree that I almost never size to the window. Just not much need to.  What size are your monitors.  I have used 24" in portrait and think 27+ would just be crazy tall, although you may be a taller person. 
    They're 27" monitors, and yes, reading off of the full height is crazy tall.  That's why I set the browser to about 1800 pixels in height rather than the full 2560.

    Do you game across all monitors?  Is that difficult?  I would imagine playing shooter like that would be very hard.
    If the game handles high resolutions well, then yes, I spread the game window across all three monitors.  Some games pretty much break for various reasons if you try that (e.g., in Trove, nearly all text vanishes), so I have to run such games in a smaller window.
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 3,338
    laserit said:
    laserit said:
    I use both 2k and 4k

    It really depends on your application and on what you want to achieve.

    I run a 27" 144hz 2k with a Titan-X (non pascal)  for general gaming. Looks awesome,  high fps and great response.

    I run a 46" 4k 60hz with a GTX-1080 exclusively for use with flightsims. Looks awesome, shows very tiny details like individual vehicles 1000's of feet below you, not nearly as responsive as the 2k but for a flightsim it doesn't have to be. 

    If you want quick response go 2k. If your keeping with a desktop size monitor I personally don't see much point with a 4k especially for general gaming. 
    Unrelated to the topic, what flightsims do you play?
    Today it's Prepar3d, X-plane and Aerofly

    Here's my simpit ;)


    Haha nice. My father is into flightsims and always nagging me how come there are no good titles. 
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    edited March 2017
    Quizzical said:
    "Ultrawide" is a terrible idea for pretty much everything I've ever done on a computer.  Even at a 16:9 ratio, running out of vertical space is a problem far more often than running out of horizontal space.

    I have three 2560x1440, 144 Hz monitors in portrait mode in Eyefinity, for a combined 4320x2560 resolution.  And still at 144 Hz.  I really like that setup, as it means for the first time that stuff can take however much screen space I want it to take and I'm not really limited by how much monitor space I have.  A lot of programs that you'd maximize at a lower resolution, you don't at a higher resolution.  For example, I typically size a browser as about 1450 pixels of width to cover the center monitor and about 1800 pixels tall.
    Funny I have no problems on my 34" monitor.  I had two 24" monitors prior to this and find the wider monitor to be much better.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    ConstantineMerus said:
    laserit said:
    laserit said:
    I use both 2k and 4k

    It really depends on your application and on what you want to achieve.

    I run a 27" 144hz 2k with a Titan-X (non pascal)  for general gaming. Looks awesome,  high fps and great response.

    I run a 46" 4k 60hz with a GTX-1080 exclusively for use with flightsims. Looks awesome, shows very tiny details like individual vehicles 1000's of feet below you, not nearly as responsive as the 2k but for a flightsim it doesn't have to be. 

    If you want quick response go 2k. If your keeping with a desktop size monitor I personally don't see much point with a 4k especially for general gaming. 
    Unrelated to the topic, what flightsims do you play?
    Today it's Prepar3d, X-plane and Aerofly

    Here's my simpit ;)


    Haha nice. My father is into flightsims and always nagging me how come there are no good titles. 
    If your dad just wants some quick high quality fun, I would suggest Aerofly 2. If he's looking for more of a hobby with study level aircraft and tons of mods I'd suggest X-plane and Prepar3d.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

Sign In or Register to comment.