Questions about 4k and 1440p

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965
Hello,

I am looking to buy a display soon. I am currently looking at a display that supports

1080p @ 120Hz
1440p @ 60Hz
2160p @ 30Hz

At first I thought I should maybe wait and get one that comes out and has HDMI 2.0 so it will support 2160p @ 60Hz, and Displayport 1.3 so it can use Freesync most likely. Then I was thinking, it would take a beast of a card just to run at these higher resolutions.

I currently have an AMD Radeon HD 7850 overclocked, and I know outside of old games I am not going to get performance too far past 60FPS at 1080p with max settings cause thats what I usually get.
I was thinking I plan to upgrade my GPU in probably two years from now, but thinking about it, even then that GPU will probably not manage more than 30FPS at 2160p.

So I am wanting benchmarks from tests done at 1440p or 2160p please for any graphics card. The reason being so I can try to make an educated decision about if the GPU (I will probably stay around the $250 range when I buy) will even be able to make use of 2160p @ 30Hz or 1440p @ 60Hz to know if its worth the investment and time to wait and get these features. If not I will just buy the display I am looking at now which lacks them.

Thanks for the help.
 
Solution
endeavour37a
Sort by date Sort by votes
sirstinky

sirstinky

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2012
644
0
19,360
http://www.eteknix.com/4k-gaming-showdown-amd-r9-290x-r9-280x-vs-nvidia-gtx-titan-gtx-780/

4K requires a stout card and $250 probably won't get you one that will do that. Your 7850 will fall on its face at 1440 or 2160. You'd have to turn the resolution way down to make it worth playing. Right now, gaming at 4K you need at the very least a $300 card, think R9 280X of the super clocked 3GB type, and that runs about $300. That will get you playable frame rates, but only at medium to very high settings. For the best performance, you'd need something like a GTX 780, R9 290/X. Those are $400+ cards. In 2 years, who knows what the tech will be like. The way technology advances these days, in 2 years manufacturers probably will find ways to get more performance out of more affordable GPU's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
L

Laytonoid

Honorable
Dec 22, 2013
214
0
10,710
even playing some of the older games with a 7850 at 1440p+ you will have a bad time. For that card I would highly recommend the 1200p Dell 2412m. You are not going to see much over 60 fps anyways. There isn't much reason to get a 120hz monitor in that case. If you are getting a better monitor then you better get a better graphics card along with it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965
Thanks for the benchmarks all the more helpful.
However I know already that the AMD 7850 isn't going to do 1440p at 60FPS or 2160 at 30FPS. I said I suspected with maxed out settings that the 7850 would get 30FPS at 1440p, because in most games I currently play, I play at 1080p and get 60FPS. Since 1440p is twice the work, it makes since the performance will decrease by half. Decreasing settings I know it will be playable, but I will only do that as needed.

I'm not looking for a new graphics card right now, I won't buy a new graphics card for at least 2 years, if not more. The thread is for benchmarks, to help me make a decision between getting a 4k display now which only has HDMI 1.4, thus limiting it to 4k @ 30Hz, or waiting to get a 4k display with HDMI 2.0 and Displayport 1.3 so that it can run 4k @ 60Hz. Obviously with my current GPU it doesn't make any difference in the performance I will have, but the idea is to think in 2 years about a $250 card if it will be able to make use of 4k @ 60Hz or not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965


I can get 60FPS at 1080p maxed settings on pretty much every game I play. I just tested in Bioshock Infinte by just turning off AA I shot past 75FPS, and setting the detail level to high I shot past 130FPS. Since 1440p would require twice the work and not be able to refresh faster than 60Hz, I could reliably play it and many other games at high settings at 1440p, or at 120Hz with 1080p, whichever one I wanted to do. So in truth I can very easily make good use of both the 120Hz refresh rate and the 1440p mode to its full ability.

I was asking for long term use with steadily improving hardware over many years if it would be worth the wait to get the HDMI 2.0. However, in testing to make sure that I could make good use of 1440p it successfully showed that even my AMD 7850 could make good use of 4k @ 30Hz at the moment, just by dropping games to medium settings, which I don't mind to do. Since i can already hit that, and I expect probably close to double performance when I go to upgrade in 2 or 3 years that means at that time I would also be able to make use of 4k at 60Hz. So I will wait for the HDMI 2.0 display to be released now seeing I can make use of it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965


Thanks but I am not planning to buy a graphics card for at least two years.

Sorry, not trying to be rude to you, just everyone seems to be missing this information, so I am hoping that will help people to see it.
I appreciate the benchmarks too, those high end GPUs are breaking past 30FPS at 4k, so that further helps me to think I am best to wait. Granted I don't expect the performance of a GTX 970 to only cost $250 in two years, but it is several levels above of my card and I would expect something around what GTX 960 will most likely be to cost about $250 in two years. I don't mind to drop to drop settings a little either so I should be able to make use of the higher resolution.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
endeavour37a

endeavour37a

Honorable
Feb 25, 2013
1,839
1
12,460


Glad you found the info somewhat useful and you are not rude at all. At times gleaming info is somewhat abstract considering the unpredictability of the future, you must admit 2 years in the graphics world is difficult at best to plan for by even the most enlightened. I would venture to guess the specifications you are inquiring about will have little realivalence in 2 years due to the seemingly accelerated advancements of video technologies today. So this conversation is purely academic in real time today but never the less interesting to plan for the future by our buys today.

I think 2160k @ 60Hz is right around the bend and we will realize this sooner than we think, both in affordable displays and capable single GPU graphic cards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965
Yea it is a tough thing to predict.
I wouldn't be too surprised to find that they have moved on to 120Hz 4k for the high end in a few years, but I kind of feel at a certain point it is far enough. My eyes aren't the best so I kind of doubt I will manage to use a higher resolution than 4k and I'm a little skeptical if I will be able to make due with it honestly for that reason so after I get to that point I won't care to upgrade for a very long time, as I won't notice the subtle details higher refresh add past that.

Anyways, by chance have you seen any affordable HDMI 2.0 TV or monitors? HDMI 2.0 has been out for about a year and the only ones I find cost multiple thousands of dollars. Which is just kinda crazy I think. I can find a few 4k displays, the best one so far is a 39" 4k display and its only $300, but it is the older HDMI 1.4 which just sucks cause I know now it will hold it back so much and I am dying to try out 1440p at 120Hz.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
endeavour37a

endeavour37a

Honorable
Feb 25, 2013
1,839
1
12,460
I know your talking about down the road a bit. I have a hard time keeping up with the current stuff :). Been poking around for a 4k set-up one could get right now at a decent price, something that could game @60Hz well. I guess an ASUS PB278Q and a pair of GTX 970s would do the trick, the screen around $650 and cards $670, total cost around $1350.

To me this is incredibly cheap compared to what it would have cost to do this just 1 year ago. And 1 year from now perhaps the whole graphics package for ~$900 the way 4k is going. So guessing out 2 years from now for me anyway is pure opinion..... :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IInuyasha74

IInuyasha74

Splendid
May 1, 2013
6,333
18
27,965


Well that is a pretty nice monitor and its resonably priced around $450. So hard to make decisions though. There are well priced monitors that hang around 27" and 28" that can do 2160p @ 60Hz thanks do Displayport 1.2, then at the same time there are displays like these:
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
http://www.hhgregg.com/seiki-50-4k-ultra-hd-120hz-tv/item/SE50UY04?CS_003=10168976&CS_010=220362&cid=PLA-10168976-220362&mr:referralID=4d526a7a-42d2-11e4-86f3-001b2166becc

Which put a 39" for $339, or a 50" for $500. They have 4k resolution, but they are locked at 30Hz for the 4k cause they only have HDMI 1.4. The decision between the screen size vs. refresh rate is a really hard one to decide on. Displays that have both features cost over $1000 too.

I think my decision on what display to buy is going to come down to a last minute thing. I am selling my old LCD TV first and probably won't buy till November so maybe I will get lucky and displays with everything I want will come out in the mean time. if not, I will probably just let the girlfriend pick.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom