4K versus 144Hz

[vbidez]

Hey guys,

So, I can get a setup with a 4K monitor which is at 60Hz or I can get the 144Hz monitors, but they are limited to only 1920 x 1080. Presumably I could get 3 of the 144Hz monitors to get 5760 x 1080 at 144Hz.

So what's the better option for high performance PC gaming, getting the 144Hz refresh rate or going with the 4K resolution? Do we know if there will be any higher resolution monitors coming out with higher refresh rates anytime soon?

Thanks

 

[bystander]

Assuming gaming is your goal:
4K will have much crisper images and better colors, but will require a ton of power to take advantage of it without lowering your settings a lot.

A 144hz monitor will give you very fluid motion, but lower image quality. If you get one that works with Lightboost (will require 100 or 120hz), you will also see each frame sharply, rather than blurry motion. This option will require a fair amount of power from the GPU, but not as much as 4k, it will also require a CPU that allows for more FPS.

Going 3x 144hz monitor will require a ton of GPU power as well, more so than 4K, though it won't require as much VRAM per card. If you plan to take advantage of the 144hz, you'll have to have more power than a 4K monitor would require.

What is your system?

If you only plan is for desktop use, then 4K is likely the better choice.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

2560x1440 is not 4k. 144hz wont matter if your using a triple monitor setup, you wont get good enough frames to make use of the 144hz.

Ask yourself, do you want better image quality? if yes, get the 1440p screen. Do you want better in game response and ability to get higher fps? if so then get a 144hz monitor.

 

[vbidez]

Sorry about the mistake with my original post, I do mean 4k, not 1440.

I'm thinking dual 780TIs, are you saying that even then I would not be able to use 3 monitors with 144hz?

And yes, I am wondering which will be better for a high end gaming system.

Thanks

 

[huilun02]

You buy monitors for your eyes to see, not for your PC to run.

What do you want to see, one big picture or three smaller ones side by side?

With dual 780 Ti you're not going to have a problem running either setup.


Personally I say a single big monitor is a lot more practical. For an ordinary person you're not going to find much use for the extra 2 monitors once you're out of the game. You don't have 3 pairs of eyes to watch 3 monitors at once, and it makes you look like a total nerd who needs to go out more often.

 

[vbidez]

You buy monitors for your eyes to see, not for your PC to run.

What do you want to see, one big picture or three smaller ones side by side?

With dual 780 Ti you're not going to have a problem running either setup.


Personally I say a single big monitor is a lot more practical. For an ordinary person you're not going to find much use for the extra 2 monitors once you're out of the game. You don't have 3 pairs of eyes to watch 3 monitors at once, and it makes you look like a total nerd who needs to go out more often.

I get what you're saying about the usefulness of multiple monitors beyond gaming, but the heart of the question is whether or not the higher refresh rate (120 Hz or 144 Hz) is worth getting and if it is worth getting, unfortunately, they are only offered in 1920x1080, so multiple monitors would be required because 1920x1080 just isn't big enough for what I want.

So do I sacrifice refresh rate for getting higher resolution in a single monitor, or do I accept having to combine multiple monitors so that I can get the higher refresh rate with a resolution larger than 1920x1080?

 

[huilun02]

According to a series of benchmarks run by Guru3D, two 780 Ti don't seem to be doing very well at 4k. Expect slightly better performance since your not gonna use any AA at that resolution.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gtx_780_ti_sli_geforce_review,17.html

Three 1080p monitors make up exactly 3/4 of the pixels in 4k, so expect average frames between 70 and 80.

Considering you can barely hit 60fps at 4k with the games right now, It's only downhill from here onwards as games get more demanding. In that case I'd rather go with three 1080p monitors for a more enjoyable experience.

 

[bystander]

According to a series of benchmarks run by Guru3D, two 780 Ti don't seem to be doing very well at 4k. Expect slightly better performance since your not gonna use any AA at that resolution.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gtx_780_ti_sli_geforce_review,17.html

Three 1080p monitors make up exactly 3/4 of the pixels in 4k, so expect average frames between 70 and 80.

Considering you can barely hit 60fps at 4k with the games right now, It's only downhill from here onwards as games get more demanding. In that case I'd rather go with three 1080p monitors for a more enjoyable experience.

Part of the problem with the 780ti's at 4k is due to Nvidia not supporting 2 monitor surround gaming. They had to add support for 2 monitor surround for the 4k monitors, and it doesn't quite work correctly with SLI. It should eventually be fixed, but I don't know when.

The other problem could also be 3Gb of vram is not enough for 4k resolutions. At least with AA turned on.

 

[huilun02]

Problems...

Hey OP... problems!

Panic?

 

[vbidez]

I'm just spit-balling here, I haven't actually bought anything yet, my questions are in relation to a new high end gaming build that I want to put together in the near future.

I've been playing around on PC Part Picker, but nothing is written in stone. I will be waiting a little while to see some of the new graphics cards coming out, the DDR4 RAM and to see what happens with the monitors.

As far as the monitor situation goes, I think I'm leaning towards doing something like a 3240 x 1920 @ 120Hz setup with 3 debezeled 1920 x 1080s mounted vertically (like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovm7XBtaQAM). I'm not sure though, I'm horrible when it comes to making up my mind about things like this, especially when the decision will lead to spending lots of money.

 

[huilun02]

Maybe get two 280x or wait for the custom 290/290x to Crossfire. AMD really seems to be the better choice at ridiculously high resolutions.

Yeah that setup in the video is really nice. It's more of making one big screen using 3 monitors, compared to them at a lateral position for a 'surround' setup. He did it nice with just two 7970, although BF3 is a less demanding game.

 

[vbidez]

Just buy a single big monitor instead of swinging your head along a triple setup. Just think about it. Not many people find multi-monitor no-nonsense. Still if need arises, you can get the other two monitors later.

That would be easier, but all the bigger monitors don't come with higher refresh rates. The only ones on the market (that I know of) that come with 120 Hz or 144 Hz refresh rates only come in 1920 x 1080.

 

[vbidez]

Maybe get two 280x or wait for the custom 290/290x to Crossfire. AMD really seems to be the better choice at ridiculously high resolutions.

Yeah that setup in the video is really nice. It's more of making one big screen using 3 monitors, compared to them at a lateral position for a 'surround' setup. He did it nice with just two 7970, although BF3 is a less demanding game.

You can't link the 290s yet?

 

[huilun02]

All 290 and 290x at the moment use the stock cooler which is hot and loud. But they are more cost effective for ultra high resolutions.

Here is a Newegg review of the 290x Crossfire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHwcX3VtTJg

Skip to 02:00 for more informative stuff, and to 07:45 to see how it performs at a stupid 7680x1600.


edit: also note a 290 is actually only slightly inferior to the 290x but is a lot cheaper.