Take PC gaming beyond 1080p with a new generation of ultra-res monitors that cost just £275.
I have an asus 2560 1440 display powered by GTX 680 SLI, I play all the games on that resolution and never gone back.
You know what is funny, is that all of a sudden, 1440 is like the new trend in gaming. It's kind of irritating. Don't get me wrong, I happy for you and I'm not knocking you or anything, but you do realize that there were 2560 1600 gaming resolution monitors have been on the market for years! So if you think 1440 is something, step it up a notch, otherwise, IMO, you're wasting your 680s in SLi.
nope, you're not completely right... 1440p is better because of the 16:9 ratio (for movies). Thats why 1080p is more popular than 1200p even if both where relatively the same price before.
@Hassassin point taken, except we're talking about gaming. If you're talking about movies, the movie is not native to 1440p (or 1200p for that matter) because movies are 1080p native, so it stretches it to the resolution. Gaming on the other hand can be native up to 1600p, and up (when 4K comes around), which I can't wait for, probably gonna get a 55-inch.
I have a 1440p IPS Yamakasi, just much better. For work it's VERY usefull to have extra screen realstate.
ps4/X1 can do 4k, 2560x1440 is pretty low for me
At the moment, both can do 4K video, not 4K gaming. You never make any sense.
The difference is, PCs can actually play games at 2560x1440/1600. The PS4 & X1 will only be playing games at 1920x1080. Their 3840x2160 max resolution can only be used for ULHD movies, not games. You would need probably 12GB+ of Vram to play a modern game in 3840x2160 at a playable framerate, and even then, "playable" would most likely be 25-30fps.
You will need a new CPU and GPU combo to reach 4K gaming. Currently consoles are simply not capable of playing games at that resolution without a massive upgrade to all the hardware.
Your statement Dasteru prove that you don't know much about Vram usage and how gpu are today. Fact is, a lot of gpu can play 4k on medium settings(on demanding games/high on less demandings) with 30-60 fps and here's the proof http://www.pcper.com/review... Here a 690 (680 in sli with 2 gb per gpu) can run dirt 3, a single titan can do skyrim at over 60 fps in 4k (780 can do the same) and 7970 crossfire with 3 gb of vram can do sleeping dogs at 50 fps. Some games like crysis 3 and farcry are too demanding for high settings hence why you turn down setting to get playable setting None of this 12 gb nonesens and miss inform bullshit you talk about. Personally I've been gaming at 1440 for about a year and an half on a korean simian monitor. Can't be happy, so much sharper then 1080p + dirt cheap monitor. 2 dead pixel sadly but frankly tehy don't bother me... considering it took 7 months to notice the second one and that I can't really find it as i'm typing this even if I know about where he is.
@kingduqc: I wasn't talking about medium settings. Resolution is always the first thing to sacrafice if your system cannot handle max settings, not textures. Who in their right mind would play a game @3840x2160 with only medium settings? Also, even if i was incorrect, there is no need for you go off the deep end and start fanboy ranting at me. Calm down and take your meds. I have been building gaming PCs for more than 12 years and Vram has always been the primary factor for resolution.
It requires an SLI/Crossfire 2000$+ rig to play at 4K. Here comes the "Wrongz, you can builda rig that runz everythingz 4K/120FPS/Ultra for the same price of consulz" comment...
@Dasteru: Skyrim is played on high/ultra settings with around 50 fps on a single 7970 Bf3 in ultra with a 7990 will get you 45 fpsm same with crysis 3. Keeping in mind those are one of the most demanding hame out there. 12 gb of vram, are you kidding me. 3-4 is plenty stop bullshitting. And btw: there isn't night and day from medium to high: http://images.bit-tech.net/... http://images.bit-tech.net/... Ohh big big difference there right? Hhahaha you are so clueless. Considering consoles player play games on about the lowest settings and they are fine with that in 720p 25-30 fps. @NewsForge: It doesn't require that if you lower a bit the settings, that was my point. And even then, sli 760 build cost more around 1600-1700$ + The cost for a similar pc will be cut in half at least in less then 2 year.
The new consoles can only do movies in 4K not games unlike pc which do both right now
But I can't see the point in 4k unless you have like a 60inch screen or larger... Who the hell plays PC games or console games on a 60inch screen... Next thing you know people will be buying cinema screens... Wtf?
@extermin8or: Did you even took a look at 1080p vs 1440? So much sharper right? Well from 1440 to 4k the difference is even bigger.
I'm actually getting a 1440p monitor as soon as I upgrade. It will be a glorious day :D
It's a beautiful thing. I'm sure you'll love it.
been gaming in 2560x1600 for quite some time 1080p is so 2008 lol....nah...seriously though, next gen consoles won't even be native 1920x1080p most of the time, wait and see! everyone thinks they will, but they won't, everyone is just assuming it, bf4 is gonna be 720p on consoles, probably call of duty ghosts as well, and those are just crappy launch titles as the gen progresses huge strides will be made in graphics, forcing nearly all devs who want all the bells and whistles in their games to sacrifice resolution and anti aliasing that is always the first to go look at last gen, games like alan wake at 540p, resistance 3 at 560p, even bf3 with is ZERO anti aliasing, awful framerate and tiny maps with only 12v12 games had to drop the res to 704p with screen tearing everywhere pc is the place to game if you care about image quality, next gen consoles won't even offer what pc did 3 years ago graphically I buy new consoles for the exclusive games that I MUST have, there is no reason to own them otherwise, they are over priced and deliver a far inferior experience
Do you think my gtx 780 could handle 1440p?.
for sure my gtx 680 does fine at 1600p
hey what about gtx 480? with i7 950 cpu
You will find you hit your from limit on a 480, I did on a 570.
@zep You need more VRAM, I had to upgrade from a 570 to a 670 to be able to play everything silky smooth. But a 570 was good enought for console ports.
They aren't overpriced they are a fair price you could not build a PC that plays games to the same level for their prices. You just couldn't and personally I don't see the point in having resolutions so high your eyes can't tell the difference its all in your head what you think you can see that's different at a certain screen size unless you are playing on some insanely large screen? I'd rather the power going into that resolution went into making the game better AI etc tbh-if I owned a PC capable of 4k gaming I'd rather have it at 1080p and the remaining power go into even higher graphics levels...
Trolling consoles on every comment. Classic.
I'm pretty certain in relation to all things in connection to film/cinema which 4K and Ultra HD is geared towards, we won't see any real change in price difference ( and even the blue color which only has a slight blue gloss and wording of " Mastered in 4K " to mark the change of the box container which I believe was intentionally done so as to not drastically change the mindset of buyers ) as compared to the usual Blu Ray films we are used to buying/renting - and this is a great thing. To all gamers and new owners of 4K and Ultra HD screens whether it be for PC monitor or home screen use do get the new **2.0 version of HDMI cable once it's out - this is the one main thing you want to buy firstly to get the best of 4K/Ultra HD tech.
The problem isn't the hdmi cable(version 1.4 will work for 4k), it's the tv/monitor no tv's as of yet has enough bandwidth for a full 4k picture. They haven't even set a date for hdmi version 2.0, last i knew, something internally in the tv/moniter isn't up to snuff for a true 4k image. The display port needs to be 2.0(i heard), that might be the interface for the hdmi cable, the guys at avforums might have more info. Maybe the second generation of 4k display devices will be ready for true 4k resolution, but last i knew the current choices aren't full 4k resolution.
2.5k is a great resolution, isn't too expensive either. Got my Asus 2560x1440 panel last year, games look AMAZING. It's honestly such a huge step up from 1080p, I can't wait to get a 4k monitor when they get cheaper It's a shame that the new consoles can't output games at this resolution, 1080p is yesterdays news. But I suppose after years of playing games in 720p and 540p, it's a step up
1080P is still the standard in TV. Consoles are meant to be played in your living room TV and not on a 1600p monitor.
1080p won't be the standard for much longer. 4K tv's are getting cheaper every day. Soon enough everyone will have one
You all are sissies! 16:9 is soooo old-skool, so 2006, pah! 2560 by 1080p is the future! No need for a new fancy.dandy TFT 30-inch... just downsample the resolution and "tada" > higher PPI for free and a wider FOV as well! 2560 by 1080p > 2560 by 1440p
We haven't even seen consoles adopt 1080p yet and we're already talking about 2.5k and 4k? Xbox One and PS4 will be 720p or 1080p resolution systems and it will take another 10 years to see a significant change to higher resolutions in living rooms. There's also the law of diminishing returns that we have already seen play out with 720p vs 1080p and I suspect the same will happen as the resolutions get higher. It's simply not worth the raw power needed to push those resolutions.
I don't know why you're talking about consoles. This is about PC. Granted, it is still going to take a few more years before 1440 or higher can be the norm for PC players. I'm fine with 1080 for now.