4K or G-Sync?

[bradly1101]

I'm thinking of upgrading my monitor (Dell U2711, 1440/60hz IPS) to a 4K or G-Sync monitor to go with a 980TI, and I have a few questions:

1. On 4K reviews I see on Amazon, users report getting playable framerates with a 980 by turning off AA since they say the pixels are so small the jaggies can't be seen, but when I have it off the 'steps' of the jaggies look like they're multiple pixels. Is AA really not needed on a 4K monitor?

2. Unless it's a TV size screen some un-adjustable tools and dialogues will be really tiny. Is this hard to get used to on a 27-32" 4K display?

3. Is G-sync really worth it? I'm at 1440/60 and 3D looks fine to me. I've read reviews, but how much smoother can you make smooth? I've also read user reviews that say gaming is nice on G-Sync but the monitor I was looking at (27" 1440) had quality control issues (I've also had two of their MB's die on me). This will be my only monitor and it's also used for photography, so that wouldn't work. But I can wait for the right one if the effect is worth it.

What would you do given the choice? Thanks in advance.

 

[lehtv]

Wait for Asus PG279Q so you don't downgrade from IPS to TN. And yes I believe GSync will be worth it, it makes 40 fps look like non-G-sync 60 fps, or so I hear.

4K seems like a bad idea with a single 980 Ti. Need SLI for properly playable framerates.

 

[bradly1101]

Gotcha. Thanks. I don't know why I've been unlucky with Asus but maybe they're worth another look.

 

[vipink]

Follow this review http://www.anandtech.com/show/8910/acer-xb280hk-4k-gsync-monitor-review

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm thinking of upgrading my monitor (Dell U2711, 1440/60hz IPS) to a 4K or G-Sync monitor to go with a 980TI, and I have a few questions:

1. On 4K reviews I see on Amazon, users report getting playable framerates with a 980 by turning off AA since they say the pixels are so small the jaggies can't be seen, but when I have it off the 'steps' of the jaggies look like they're multiple pixels. Is AA really not needed on a 4K monitor?

2. Unless it's a TV size screen some un-adjustable tools and dialogues will be really tiny. Is this hard to get used to on a 27-32" 4K display?

3. Is G-sync really worth it? I'm at 1440/60 and 3D looks fine to me. I've read reviews, but how much smoother can you make smooth? I've also read user reviews that say gaming is nice on G-Sync but the monitor I was looking at (27" 1440) had quality control issues (I've also had two of their MB's die on me). This will be my only monitor and it's also used for photography, so that wouldn't work. But I can wait for the right one if the effect is worth it.

What would you do given the choice? Thanks in advance.

1) Aliasing is harder to notice on 4k screens because the pixels per inch (PPI) is higher, but the need for it is not eliminated completely. Dropping AA down is one of the common choices of 4k users to achieve better frame rates when you don't have much GPU power, especially considering that the performance penalty of using of AA scales with your resolution. I get playable frame rates in 99% of my games with a single 980 overclocked, right now there's a lot of misinformation about how 4k isn't usable with a single high end card like the 980 and this simply isn't true, there's a handful of extremely demanding games which wont run absolutely maxed out, but the vast majority of games out today will run just fine, 2-3 of the most powerful games don't represent and entire industry.

2) Most 24-28" users are using scaling because text is too small to use comfortably, one thing to note is that scaling in windows isn't very good right now and it doesn't seem noticeably better in Win10. I use a 32" 4k panel and I use it at 100% scaling, the text is small but this is something I'm comfortable to use and prefer to use because it maintains a high amount of desktop real estate. 32" I would argue is borderline because typically I can put up with smaller PPIs that most people I know yet even for me it's pretty much on the cusp of becoming hard to use.

3) I personally don't care for Gsync, this is personal preference, tearing has never bothered me in fact quite the opposite, if I'm playing fast paced action games I find having frame rates in excess of your refresh rate (so you have multiple tear lines per refresh) actually causes the game to feel more responsive. For me the decision was easy to go 4k, but I have preferences which somewhat fall out of line with the norm, I don't see gsync as a big deal quite frankly, most of the panels fast enough to use gsync are TN anyway and are poor quality, I wanted IPS and IPS@4k@32" was a winning combo for me.

 

[Jumpem]

1) Aliasing is harder to notice on 4k screens because the pixels per inch (PPI) is higher, but the need for it is not eliminated completely. Dropping AA down is one of the common choices of 4k users to achieve better frame rates when you don't have much GPU power, especially considering that the performance penalty of using of AA scales with your resolution. I get playable frame rates in 99% of my games with a single 980 overclocked, right now there's a lot of misinformation about how 4k isn't usable with a single high end card like the 980 and this simply isn't true, there's a handful of extremely demanding games which wont run absolutely maxed out, but the vast majority of games out today will run just fine, 2-3 of the most powerful games don't represent and entire industry.

There certainly are people suggesting that you need multiple video cards at 4k. I was thinking of dual 980Tis. Maybe I would only need one.

2) Most 24-28" users are using scaling because text is too small to use comfortably, one thing to note is that scaling in windows isn't very good right now and it doesn't seem noticeably better in Win10. I use a 32" 4k panel and I use it at 100% scaling, the text is small but this is something I'm comfortable to use and prefer to use because it maintains a high amount of desktop real estate. 32" I would argue is borderline because typically I can put up with smaller PPIs that most people I know yet even for me it's pretty much on the cusp of becoming hard to use.

I am sad to hear that DPI scaling has not been substantially improved in Windows 10. I was planning to run at 200% scaling. I want the desktop to look like 1920x1080, but with better DPI.

3) I personally don't care for Gsync, this is personal preference, tearing has never bothered me in fact quite the opposite, if I'm playing fast paced action games I find having frame rates in excess of your refresh rate (so you have multiple tear lines per refresh) actually causes the game to feel more responsive. For me the decision was easy to go 4k, but I have preferences which somewhat fall out of line with the norm, I don't see gsync as a big deal quite frankly, most of the panels fast enough to use gsync are TN anyway and are poor quality, I wanted IPS and IPS@4k@32" was a winning combo for me.

I don't like tearing at all. I usually use Vsync. I definitely want G-Sync. Especially at 4k, where the frame rates will be lower. I think G-Sync smoothing that out is one of its key benefits.

The down side is that the IPS 4k G-Sync monitors announced are all 27".

 

[moonbogg]

I'll just put this right here: I think Gsync is an overrated piece of bloatware. Its just not a big deal and I never notice it. I forgot to enable it a few times and almost didn't bother. The only reason I enabled it was because my monitor cost $800 (due to Gsync). So I guess its OK to have but it hasn't done much for me to be quite frank. Its a subtle effect that is really hard to notice at any framerate.
In my experience, if I am getting below 80FPS, the game looks like absolute crap no matter what. Gsync will not save you. High FPS/High Hz is absolute king. The only exception in my experience in Crysis 3. That game looks really clean and smooth at and around 60fps, maybe even a little below, which I find very rare.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

There certainly are people suggesting that you need multiple video cards at 4k. I was thinking of dual 980Tis. Maybe I would only need one.

Well they are suggesting that, but to run what exactly? Yes if you want a good frame rate with top 2-3 most power hungry games with all the bells and whistles turned to ultra then you'll need something like 2 high end cards in SLI. But the fact of the matter is that most games simply do not require this and so you're stuck trying to justify doubling your GPU budget for a handful of games, some or even all you might not even play and none of which suffer greatly from having some of the graphics options lowered.

I am sad to hear that DPI scaling has not been substantially improved in Windows 10. I was planning to run at 200% scaling. I want the desktop to look like 1920x1080, but with better DPI.

I've only run basic tests but scaling basically looks like it's not been modified from 8.1

I don't like tearing at all. I usually use Vsync. I definitely want G-Sync. Especially at 4k, where the frame rates will be lower. I think G-Sync smoothing that out is one of its key benefits.

The down side is that the IPS 4k G-Sync monitors announced are all 27".

There's not enough diversity in the 4k market yet to get exactly all the features you want in one panel, you could wait a while until there's something closer to your needs, all these variants will eventually be available.