qornea
Much write, very gaming
Play games at UHD 4K resolution: the hardware you need
Does one need to forfeit their retirement savings to run games at UHD?
Does one need to forfeit their retirement savings to run games at UHD?
Want to play games in UHD? Here's what you need.
- Thread starter qornea
- Start date
DCWarhound
Dakka Dakka
Just need to upgrade CPU and maybe get a bit more RAM.
I don't really see a whole lot of point in trying to play PC games @ 4K, you would need 32" screen sizes to notice a difference and you would have to be sitting at regular PC using distances. Playing something on that size could give you whip lash.
Point taken, but 4K monitors will eventually scale down to smaller resolutions. When Microsoft pulls that thumb out its ass and fixes DPI scaling, then adopting the higher resolutions won't be such a pain as it is currently - Windows 8 on the Macbook's Retina screen looks lovely in Modern UI, the desktop is full of fail.
Also, 4K means I could have four apps open at 1080p for each of them. I drool at the idea of that much screen real estate. We might also see AA being completely deprecated and TXAA/FXAA finally taking off like it should be.
Kwaai
Finally Have An Avatar And Signature!
Tried gaming on a 40" with the required space moved back, still wasn't a comfortable experience. So it'll still be a while before I get a new screen at 4k hopefully 24-32" for less than a kidney.I don't really see a whole lot of point in trying to play PC games @ 4K, you would need 32" screen sizes to notice a difference and you would have to be sitting at regular PC using distances. Playing something on that size could give you whip lash.
jasong
New member
If you're going to spend R15k on a 32" 4k screen you'll certainly not mind spending over 10k on a graphics card to run it. I have to say, I've gotten pretty used to gaming on a retina iPad and the difference in sharpness going over to my tv is substantial.
This is probably the single biggest thing holding back Windows laptops at present. Modern UI is a frivolous distraction compared to this challenge.
This is probably the single biggest thing holding back Windows laptops at present. Modern UI is a frivolous distraction compared to this challenge.
Last edited:
Mister 44
New member
And to think there was a time when I gamed @ 320x200. Sometimes I check the modern games to see what's the smallest resolution they support, just for giggles. A surprising number still have support for the 640x480 crowd, (although I'm drawing a blank for actually examples).
As far as 4k gaming's concerned, I suspect that it (like in the past with HD) it would first gain a widespread foothold in computer monitors before going mainstream for TVs.
As far as 4k gaming's concerned, I suspect that it (like in the past with HD) it would first gain a widespread foothold in computer monitors before going mainstream for TVs.
jasong
New member
That's an interesting perspective but I'm not sure I agree with it. TV's went HD actually faster than PC screens; and you can buy 4k TV's now from Deon's (albeit at exorbitant rates) but you can only buy 1 4K monitor now which is this one. The primary culprit here I have to agree with Wesley is Microsoft; they've been pathetic at pushing higher resolution iconography.
Mister 44
New member
I'm referring to wide availability and, maybe more relevant, affordability (which I didn't mention in my original post). You are now making me doubt my memory, but weren't full HD computer screens in wide use before full HD TVs became popular (because of price)? I'm pretty sure LCD monitors were widely used before LCD TVs gained traction (regardless of resolution) so maybe I just made a subconscious assumption about full HD going the same way.
DCWarhound
Dakka Dakka
I'm most likely going to play it on 1920x1080 Res.
No reason to go higher without a monitor to support it,going from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 made a huge difference.
No reason to go higher without a monitor to support it,going from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 made a huge difference.
jasong
New member
I'm not really 100% sure but I kind of have an impression that it took longer for fHD to break through properly in monitors whereas TVs were very quick to uptake (because there was an enormous difference going from CRT to fHD). Anyway I'm not that clear about it and it doesn't really matter. They're now selling 50" 4K TV's for $1300 and I find that much easier to justify than R15k for a 32" monitor.
Mister 44
New member
After doing a bit of wikipedia research, I concede that you are probably right regarding fullHD. Apparently LCD displays first outsold CRT for computer monitors in 2003 while for TVs it was in around 2006/2007. Now, I do recall sub-fHD resolutions being the rule rather than the exception for a long time in computer monitors while TVs basically came in 720p or fHD from pretty early on. So it is logical to assume that TVs used fHD widely before monitors did. But, like you said, that is of little consequence.
As far as 4K TVs are concerned, I hear your argument clearly. But what will play a huge role, in my opinion at least, is the availability of media. Computers will have games that support the 4K resolution while you probably would need to replace you Blu-ray player and then choose from a small catalog of titles at first to utilize all them pixels. I'm not convinced people would go for it in large enough numbers.
But if I'm wrong, it won't be the first time. I also predicted that HD-DVD would win the high-def wars
Mister 44
New member
jasong
New member
Yes! That's much nicer than a 2xresolution bump. And perversely, it would be much cheaper at the moment to daisychain 3x1920 27" screens than to buy 1x4k screen.