Check out Battlefield 4 running at 5K resolution

A powerful gaming rig runs Battlefield 4 spread across five 1080p monitors.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
sigfredod1740d ago

I don't like to see 4 divisions while gaming, 3 monitors will do the trick and at least is only 2 division mostly on the peripheral line of vision

GarrusVakarian1740d ago

Agreed, those divides are too much.

Eonjay1740d ago

See this is why people buy consoles. That looks too expensive to not be able to smell the environment.

1740d ago
0ut1awed1740d ago (Edited 1740d ago )

Yea, I've been a PC gamer for a while and multiple screens while cool in theory, has never interested me and seems like a waste of money specifically because of that.

I just wouldn't want to spend $3k on a pc and then another $4k on monitors to have a screen that's chopped up into 5 sections. I would much rather spend the money on a larger 4k monitor then playing like this at 5k.

To each their own though.

ryan4611740d ago

Triple screen gamer here. it does cost you a bit more money to get it going. got 3 IPS 1920x1200 monitors from dell at about $300 each on sale. Added in a 2nd radeon 7970 to make it playable at higher settings. It really helps with the immersion in the games (racing games especially). Something like battlefield youre mostly looking straight ahead, using the peripheral monitors occasionally. my pc is close to 3k in the end, but you can save some money. i5 instead of i7, less ram, smaller ssd, cheaper case, etc.

AndrewLB1740d ago

Ryan- Which Dell Ultrasharp displays did you buy for that price? I'm guessing something along the lines of the U2412? I've got two U2410 ultrasharps and one 2407wfp ultrasharp (which needs replacing). I bought them mainly for doing design work where one display just isn't an option, but gaming is also fantastic.

I would have killed for a price like $300 for my U2410's. I think i dropped $550/ea.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1740d ago
Coach_McGuirk1740d ago (Edited 1740d ago )

I'd take that setup in a heartbeat (the one in the video).

Edit: I said take it, not purchase it with my own hard-earned money, lol.

ezop1740d ago

he should of just bought a 50 inch TV

ezop1740d ago

well considering 5k doesn't exist it's 4k and BF4 currently will only run @ 30 hz via HDMI 1.4 .. so yea he might as well have bought a 50 inch TV

elhebbo161740d ago

@ezop the screens ADD UP to 5k. where the hell you see a 4k monitor at.

Kleptic1740d ago (Edited 1740d ago )

^ezop...what are you talking about?

5k doesn't exist?...that obviously isn't a '5k monitor'...its a series of monitors daisy chained together...its just the game is being rendered at 5k...

and the gpu(s) are not sending 5k video over a single HDMI port (so 1.4x limits are completely irrelevant...Eyefinity is stitching everything together, over a bunch of different cables...

you very much can get native 5k at 60fps with enough gpu power...displaying it on one monitor over one cable is not how you'd do it though...

some people forget how few standards there actually are in terms of resolutions...5k monitors don't exist, sure...but rendering at 5k very much does exist...

ezop1740d ago

@elhebbo16 just because he's got 5 monitors running doesn't make it 5k, in order to make it 5k he would have to have EACH monitor running at 5,000 pixels .. not the over all combined.

and lets be honest a ASUS PQ321Q 31.5-Inch 4K Monitor will set you back $3,322.90 via amazon

so as I stated originally he'd of been better off getting a 50 inch'r

ezop1740d ago (Edited 1740d ago )

@Kleptic you may well be able to render @ 5k but you can not see it as no display is currently available only 4k is currently available

Kleptic1740d ago (Edited 1740d ago )

^again, what are you talking about?

that stitched display setup IS showing it at 5k...each display shows part of the total do you think 4k started? the '4k' part came from stitching 4 Full HD displays together to show a single frame (the result being just under 4,000 horizontal lines of resolution) don't have to have 'each monitor at 5k'...that would make the resolution 5k times whatever amount of monitors you have? where did you come up with this?

the only bad thing you see is bezels between each display...but its still all 5k horizontal lines, at who knows what vertical line count...

if it was just a single 5k monitor...the only difference would be the lack of bezels...but the image would be identical in pixel count...its not just repeating the same image over multiple monitors...its splitting the image up onto multiple monitors, maxing out each monitor's pixel count...

call us when the shuttle lands, bud...

AndrewLB1740d ago

Ezop- He's playing at 5400x1920 which is 10368000 pixels. 4k is 4096x2160 which has 8847360 pixels. I think it's safe to say that resolution has enough pixels to call it 5k.

And FYI, he's running displayport which can easily do [email protected] if it's the recent 1.2 version.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1740d ago
Ps4Console1740d ago

He still can't run BF4 on Ultra glad I'am in to console gaming .

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1740d ago
WorldGamer1740d ago

So, this looks great an all, but lets talk practical numbers. How much would a setup like this cost? And obviously, space is an issue with something like this.

This seems nice for bragging purposes in the PC elite circles, but how common is something like this for the average PC player?

Just wondering, because I hear a lot of PC guys on here and it comes across like this is the normal setup for PC gaming.

TwistingWords1740d ago

More than you think, but less than people make out.

spektical1740d ago

less than 1%, and thats already a lot.

Coach_McGuirk1740d ago

let's not talk practically and just appreciate this monstrosity for what it is, or that you CAN do it, if you want to.

wannabe gamer1740d ago

ive been a pc gamer for nearly 20 years and no this type of setup is not very common. its like comparing a guy that takes his mildly tuned daily driver car to the track on weekends to a guy that buys the same car and mods it out so hard it cant be used as a daily driver.

KimoNoir1740d ago (Edited 1740d ago )

This has nothing to do with consumers being able to do this kind of set up shit right now.

PC gaming is like cars - you have regular everyday cars that are cheap and affordable to the majority to the ferrari's and lamborghinis that are affordable to very few. THEN you have the RACE cars that are completely road illegal and are distinctly designed for its purpose with amazing prototype technology that is meant to trickle down in the future to regular cheap cars.

Just like all technology. The current unaffordable and prototype technology are just showcases of an idea of the future.

Of course you wouldnt want to only see PS4's and XB ONES. We want to see whats in plan for the future. Some people can afford those crazy expensive setups like how some people can afford to buy a Formula 1 car and one day.. You will be the one to be sitting between 5 monitors and a monstrous machine to play games in resolutions above 4k for the price of $500

webeblazing1740d ago

I like how everyone is trying to downplay it when they just trying to show something cool off. you don't have to buy it. never have you herd pc guys say they always own the lasts and best parts out their its 9 out of 10 console owners saying it.

kingduqc1740d ago

There is many of people running 3 screen on It's not that expensive for a hobby all things considered and clearly is not and will never be possible on consoles. That's the beauty of pc gaming: Choices. you don't understand that well that's too bad for you

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1740d ago
StitchJones1740d ago

Seems silly to do it that way, but I tip my hat to him for doing it.

KiLLeRCLaM1740d ago

I play on a 60" and it's better then this.. hate those lines

SlapHappyJesus1740d ago

There's still the difference in resolution.
That said, I will never go for a setup like this.

Until you can get a single monitor that can do this and at around the price he paid (which would be around $1,500 or so), I am fine with the 2560x1440 ultra-wides that are available for around $700.

Kleptic1740d ago

Well, there are a lot of prototype "near-bezel'less" ; displays popping up all over the place...Asus has a rumored upcoming IPS display that theoretically can put pixels up to within 1/32" of its edge...LG has also a series of cell phone displays capable of similar things (their newest LG G2 phone having some of that tech)...

if they can get it to the point where a monitor has virtually no bezel, i think multi-monitor stuff could sky rocket in popularity...just have to wait and see...but i kind of love the idea of forgetting about resolution standards...and adding to your existing monitors as technology becomes available...start with a single 1080 monitor at 23" or something...when games can run 4k at 60fps on inexpensive gpus; just add a few more monitors and go nuts...rather than having to replace what you have every other year...

Campy da Camper1740d ago

Wouldnt one of those curved OLED TVs achieve the same result as this?

SlapHappyJesus1740d ago (Edited 1740d ago )


They are definitely an interesting technology.
And yeah, I would think so. Definitely would be preferable for me.
That said, much like any new tech, they are damn expensive.
Thinking why more people would opt for this sort of setup at around a third, or cheaper, of the price of one of those screens.


You have a point there. It's basically the PC gaming way of looking at things. You buy a certain level of rig at one point and then treat it as a base for upgrades in the future. Just now you treat the screen in the same way. If they can get technology to the point where the bezel was, essentially, non-existent, it would definitely be a tempting way to do things.

elhebbo161740d ago

yea with a 1080p resolution...

kingduqc1740d ago

I'm peaty sure you haven't even seen one setup like this and certainly not played on it because you would not have this opinion.