Jump to content

1X 4K Or 3X 1080P?


20 replies to this topic

#1 Iqfish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationGermany, CGN

Posted 04 November 2014 - 10:56 PM

So I've been thinking of going ultra-nerd lately and upgrading my PC Setup.

Since graphics power is not really a problem, I could either go with one 4K monitor or 3 1080p monitors, set up in triple surround.

What would you buy? I already own one of the 1080p monitors so I would only need to buy 2 more and a 3x-stand.

2x 1080p monitors and the stand would cost around 360-370€ while a decent 4K monitor would cost around 450-500€.

Edited by Iqfish, 04 November 2014 - 10:59 PM.


#2 JSmith7784

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 139 posts
  • LocationBuffalo, NY

Posted 05 November 2014 - 03:40 AM

I've never played MWO in 3x1080p but I have seen other games with that set up. I know with other games it was cool, but I couldn't get used to the breaks between the screens. Then again it might work for MWO since it might just feel like the frame between windows in the cockpit. I think I would lean towards the largest single screen I could afford at the highest resolution.

Currently I have a 27" 1080p and when I moved last year I found my computer from the 90's with its 15" CRT. I couldn't believe how small it seemed, but remembered how much fun I had playing games with it. Crazy how much things have changed. Now I my 27" seems ok and i wish that was bigger.

#3 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 06 November 2014 - 08:17 AM

Without taking cost into consideration, I would go 4K, any day. You'll necessarily be relying on having less screen real estate to have that higher pixel density (since the total resolution difference between 3x1080P and 1x4K is not that big), but what that high PPI gives you is an enormous jump in image quality. I've seen many games look better at 4K and lower settings than higher settings at 1080P (though only to a point).

It's subjective though. I recommend you find a place to look at 4K screens and see what you think. I would go hop on a Mac at the Apple store or Bestbuy or something and play some 4K gameplay videos on Youtube to get an idea. If it impresses you, buy, if not, go triple screen.

#4 Raidflex

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 63 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 06 November 2014 - 10:09 AM

Take a look at the LG 34UM95, it is a 34in 3440x1440 IPS panel. I have one myself and its a great monitor. Its also much easier on your GPU's then 4k.

#5 CHH Badkarma

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 831 posts

Posted 07 November 2014 - 10:06 AM

One thing to consider with 4k is the refresh rate. It is still rather low

#6 Dagon Zur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 142 posts

Posted 07 November 2014 - 10:55 AM

Hello everybody,

I'm using 3x24" DELL U2410 with a single ATI R9 290X 4GB. Runs smooth (45-60 FPS, depending on map) on my custom settings ( high-details. low-effects). The resolution is 5760x1200.

Main difference from a single 4K monitor is the field of vision, which is huge and very useful in all 3D games. The periferal view from side display adds to immersion with sense of speed and movement. The tactical gain from a wider horizontal field of view is also great.

In MWO, the F.O.V. also depends on Battlemech's cockpit, so a Griffins's canopy gives you outside view over all 3 monitors while Shadowhawk's outside view fits just in one single display, the side-displays filled mostly with inside-cockpit graphics.

I think that 4K displays give you more eye candy while tri-display gives you more tactical info and immersion.

#7 Peter2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,032 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:18 PM

4k is not more field of view
its just more high res

so a 30" display is still the same 30", just has more pixels

3 Displays can give u a better view depending on the cockpit you're sitting in, shadowhakw is just horrible there :D

so to sum it up

- 4k better eye candy

- 3 Displays better field of view

so I'm thinking 2 or 3 4k displays naturally :D

one thing to turn you off as well :ph34r:

MWO doesn't scale well in super high res
the GUI is so small you'll be sitting with you're grandmas glasses an inch away from the display to see what you're clicking at
the mechs look good though :D

and the special 3x display resolution is nicely supported by CryEngine games automatically (any resolutions really)
soo, aside from the games that CryTek makes itself, the list is a bit short I fear

also for other games that don't support triple monitor resolution
like hmm:
Starcraft 2
Skyrim

some big games that actually don't support multi monitor setups
(well some u can add with fixing the .ini, some third party software that can help, or the screens just go blank)

or to sum it up

hmm
good question still :P

how about a 34" curved Display?

https://pcmonitors.i...rawide-display/

#8 Raidflex

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 63 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:24 PM

View PostPeter2k, on 07 November 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

4k is not more field of view
its just more high res

so a 30" display is still the same 30", just has more pixels

3 Displays can give u a better view depending on the cockpit you're sitting in, shadowhakw is just horrible there :D

so to sum it up

- 4k better eye candy

- 3 Displays better field of view

so I'm thinking 2 or 3 4k displays naturally :D

one thing to turn you off as well :ph34r:

MWO doesn't scale well in super high res
the GUI is so small you'll be sitting with you're grandmas glasses an inch away from the display to see what you're clicking at
the mechs look good though :D

and the special 3x display resolution is nicely supported by CryEngine games automatically (any resolutions really)
soo, aside from the games that CryTek makes itself, the list is a bit short I fear

also for other games that don't support triple monitor resolution
like hmm:
Starcraft 2
Skyrim

some big games that actually don't support multi monitor setups
(well some u can add with fixing the .ini, some third party software that can help, or the screens just go blank)

or to sum it up

hmm
good question still :P

how about a 34" curved Display?

https://pcmonitors.i...rawide-display/


Basically the same monitor I posted above, just curved. It is a very wide screen and uses 21:9.

#9 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 07 November 2014 - 03:18 PM

View PostPeter2k, on 07 November 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

so to sum it up

- 4k better eye candy

- 3 Displays better field of view

so I'm thinking 2 or 3 4k displays naturally :D


Posted Image

#10 Iqfish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationGermany, CGN

Posted 07 November 2014 - 03:25 PM

1ms refresh rate and 60hz...

http://www.amazon.de...ords=4K+monitor

(Asus PB287Q)

I know that a 4K screen does not give you a higher field of view. I just want more resolution but I also tried 3x 1080p and I really liked that.

#11 Lord Letto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • 900 posts
  • LocationSt. Clements, Ontario

Posted 07 November 2014 - 03:49 PM

3x4K? Let's see, that would be 11520x2160

#12 CHH Badkarma

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 831 posts

Posted 07 November 2014 - 03:50 PM

I dont know if I could go back to 60Hz after being spoiled by 120+

#13 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 07 November 2014 - 04:05 PM

View PostPeter2k, on 07 November 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

also for other games that don't support triple monitor resolution
like hmm:
Skyrim

Uh? Since when?
I remember clearly benchmarking this game on a triple screen setup with my old setup of twin HD5850s.

Personally I don't wont to go back to a single screen setup. Even more then for gaming, I would miss it in my everyday usage and work. It's just so easy to arrange and switch between different programs on the various screens.

#14 Vimeous

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 191 posts

Posted 07 November 2014 - 04:06 PM

Dell's U2414H has super thin bezels if you want to go down the 3x1080p route.

#15 Iqfish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationGermany, CGN

Posted 07 November 2014 - 04:56 PM

View PostCHH Badkarma, on 07 November 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

I dont know if I could go back to 60Hz after being spoiled by 120+


THAT could be an option for me too but is the difference between 60 and 120 really so big?

#16 POOTYTANGASAUR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 595 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:50 PM

2560x1440 or 2560x1600 144Hz
A good middleground in overall resolution, PPI, refresh rate, and price. Also ALOT easier to push than 4k atm and doesn't have scaling issues.

#17 Peter2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,032 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 08 November 2014 - 03:44 AM

View PostRaidflex, on 07 November 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:


Basically the same monitor I posted above, just curved. It is a very wide screen and uses 21:9.


actually that's mine in a way, just not curved :D

View PostEgomane, on 07 November 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Uh? Since when?
I remember clearly benchmarking this game on a triple screen setup with my old setup of twin HD5850s.

Personally I don't wont to go back to a single screen setup. Even more then for gaming, I would miss it in my everyday usage and work. It's just so easy to arrange and switch between different programs on the various screens.


hmm
maybe right out of the box, patched several patches later, now it's out of the list (see spoilers)
I remember having problems running in 21:9

Quote

Flawless Widescreen (Fixer)

Flawless Widescreen was created in an effort to make it easier to craft fixes, patches and hacks to get games functioning correctly in UltraWide/Surround/Eyefinity gaming resolutions.

Spoiler



#18 Iqfish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationGermany, CGN

Posted 08 November 2014 - 06:14 AM

So I saw a Linus Tech Tips Video about the Asus P287Q.

I will use that one and my current 1080p monitor as a backup.

I just need to get the required amount of money (Monitor plus GTX 780) and then we're good to go.

#19 CHH Badkarma

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 831 posts

Posted 08 November 2014 - 09:06 AM

View PostIqfish, on 07 November 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:


THAT could be an option for me too but is the difference between 60 and 120 really so big?


I like having my fps over 100, never got that when tired to 60hz. Though even if they had 120hz 4ks, it would prob take a good amount of gpu power to push you over 100fps in mwo vs 1080.

#20 Iqfish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,488 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationGermany, CGN

Posted 08 November 2014 - 05:00 PM

Okay here is another question:

Let's say I buy a second one of the 1080p monitor I have already and a good 144hz monitor, to set up the 144hz one in the middle and the other 2 on the sides.

So the Desktop would look like this :

60hz/144hz/60hz.

Would I be abled to use the 144hz monitor on 144hz in games, while having Nvidia Surround enabled? Or would it be automatically scaled down to 60hz?
The latest info I could find was a thread in a little forum from late 2009, where someone installed modified drivers.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users