Anyone have a 4k or 8k Ultra Monitor for their PC?

I had a 5k iMac. I now have a 27" 4K Dell and a 24" 4K Dell.
For day to day stuff, in Mac OS X, 5K was amazing. On the 27", with no scaling, Windows 10 is pretty good, but small. With scaling, it's not bad, but not as polished as Mac OS X.

The 24" is good with text crispness.

For gaming with a gtx 970, 4K works alright depending on the game. Playing at a lower resolution looks pretty fuzzy and bad. Gaming on the 5K iMac was not great because of the mediocre gpu.

The Dell IPS 4K displays are cheap and pretty good. I'd get one again.

 

I'm actually just using a Sony Trinitron Multiscan 520GS. 21" CRT with a max resolution of 1200x1600 and a refresh rate of 60hz. Insanely good color accuracy. Compares favorably vs some of the newer Samsung LED's and others I see people buying... It weighs like 80lb's though. My poor desk is arched from trying to support it.

 

Resurrecting to see how opinions and experiences have changed. I currently run dual Dell 24" 1920x1200 which are amazing for work (spreadsheets, multiple documents viewable at the same time, etc.), but leave me wanting just a little bit more when gaming. I was thinking of bumping up to a 27" QHD gaming monitor, but don't know if that really gives me enough. I have been intrigued by getting a 40" 4K TV and using it as a monitor, but it seems like there are compromises involved.

Anyone updated their rigs since this thread died?

 

Running a 24" 4k monitor at work, was suspicious of the efficacy at 150% scaling, but works fine for 3 windows (1 half and 2 quarter screens).

If only some of them work programs actually scaled properly...

 

I picked up a 43" Sony XBR43X800D: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-XBR43X800D-43-Inch-Ultra-Model/dp/B01FWIEO2E

It's a fine PC monitor and I've been happy.

 

Cool, that was one of the TV's I was looking at. Have you gamed at all or done anything else where input lag and refresh rate might be an issue?

 

@fraggler what's your rig? I have a 27" Dell QHD monitor, and back when I had a gaming rig dual 290x's struggled to push it at 60fps consistently while maxing settings. 27" QHD is my personal sweetspot in terms of resolution and usable screen space as far as monitors go. The difference between QHD and UHD at 27" is probably not meaningful for the price and performance drops you'd see on anything but the beefiest gaming rigs. If you were going 30"+, then UHD might be worth it at that point.

You'll see a more noticable difference in general from 144hz monitors than 1440p for gaming in general though. 1440p looks pretty, but only when you're sitting there and actually leaning back and appreciating the graphics. Not many very videogames let you do that on the regular, but it's pretty easy to appreciate the difference between 60fps and being able to get 100+ even in the heat of battle.

 

Just a humble GTX 960. Was going to get a GTX 1070 for the next wave of games and figured it would be a good time to get a new monitor as well. I am not really trying to play at 4K or with crazy fps, I am more looking for better immersion.

 

I think with a 1070, you'd be able to manage 1440p OR 144hz, but not both simultaneously. What kind of games do you usually play?

 

Currently, just Overwatch since I can pop on and off to blow off steam without too much time commitment. I am looking at Mass Effect Andromeda as the big one. I'd like to re-play the recent Tomb Raider games with all the eye candy turned on. So action-adventure with a little FPS thrown in.

Or I might scrap these plans, and spend the money on a Switch so I can play the new Zelda.

 

I've gamed a fair bit - it's not bad in game mode, though you give up 4:4:4 color depth. I'm very happy with it overall.

 

I've got a 1060 in a notebook that regularly pushes a G-Sync 3440x1440 curved X34 from Acer to it's 100hz oc limit. It's not perfect, but I'd imagine that the 1070 in a decent desktop can do the same. I haven't however found a 1440p montor that hit's all the way up to 144hz (though it's been ~6 months since I really looked at any). That being said, you definitely pay a premium for a curved 1440p ultrawide that can go over 60hz - definitely not the thing for everyone.

@fraggler if immersion is a primary goal, I can't give a high enough recommendation to the curved ultrawide 1440p format. If breaking over 60hz is a priority, then there are some pricier G-Sync options like the one I run, but the LGs that regularly show up on Massdrop are good displays.

 

This, I'd be inglined to agree with @Daveheart on this. A 1070 will be able to run things pretty smoothly.
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX61439
1440p & 144hz, $600 CAD (so about $450 freedom units)

It's a pretty penny, but not bank breaking if you're already considering buying a 1070, but ultimately if you're going for total immersion then curved monitors in general are really swaggy. They work better than curved TV's because you don't usually have to worry about sharing monitor space, and they're designed so the sweet spot is pretty easy to sit in.

 

I've got a Dell S2716DG (GSYNC, 1440p, 144hz) and it's amazing. Immersive AND responsive. They're about $50 more than that Acer linked above. GSYNC and Dell's support system more than make up the difference IMHO.

Unless you're serious into CS:GO specifically I have a hard time believing you need to make sure to have the full 144hz on tap though, and in that case you'll be looking at getting 200-300fps anyway for the best mouse response. Overwatch is significantly slower-paced overall and doesn't allow for nearly the same level of surgical precision as CS. But, it's not like 144hz will hurt in any way, that's how I ran OW. 60hz can be pretty bad sometimes but I don't think there would be anything wrong with ~100 for 99.9% of gaming.

For immersion, get something with GSYNC and a nice pixel density to mate with that 1070. I can't remember what the optimal range is exactly but my 27" 1440p @ 109 is super nice. You can calculate it here: http://dpi.lv/

I played Witcher 3 for immersion on Ultra and got anywhere from 40-80fps, which I only know from running an overlay because thanks to GSYNC I never once noticed my framerate.

 

Glad you chimed in. The Dell was the main 27" I was looking at to pair with a 1070. It was only me asking myself if 27" was big enough that I started down the larger, higher res path. Do you notice much chroma shift when moving around up close to the monitor?

 

I don't notice it no, the only thing I notice is some minor backlight bleed around the very edges and some bleed from the power LED. But it has to be a black screen, dark in my room, AND I have to be looking for it. This is really good for a TN panel I think, I don't notice viewing angle color shifts anytime in day to day use. You could certainly go with an IPS panel for better colors - I think I'd rather have IPS at this stage than the full 144hz.

Like I said I like this size monitor, but I would probably like a nice ultrawide with comparable pixel density better. I've never tried one. Bigger is better, up to a point?

This is the review that made me buy it. They also have some settings for color calibration and brightness that I've been using for as long as I've had it. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_s2716dg.htm

 

I would strongly suggest you base your monitor decision on how much GPU you can afford if you game. For example, I game at 4K, but run SLI 1080's, because that's necessary to maintain a decent frame rate in most games with few exceptions.

If you can only afford a 1060 or 1070, then 1440p will be your maximum resolution, and you should accordingly aim for the largest monitor you can afford that meets your needs. I typically steer folks towards VA panels for gaming (better blacks than IPS), and IPS panels for web browsing/daily use, as they have better off axis viewing and are typically slightly more accurate from a color perspective. Feel free to PM me if you want specific suggestions. I review displays and can give you some do's/dont's if you care about color accuracy/gamma tracking.

 

For gaming a CRT will beat any LCD by miles. Even "gaming" LCDs with high refresh rates will feel laggy compared to a CRT. The CRT also has a far better motion clarity. In fact it's so good that flicker is noticeable at 90Hz+. I can see individual frames at 160Hz, which just wouldn't be possible on most LCDs without using weird backlight strobing techniques that are more straining to the eyes than even a flickering CRT.
I actually run my CRT at 2304x1440i at 155Hz. The slight loss of sharpness from going to interlaced is easily worth it for the motion clarity and smoothness you get from the 155Hz. And it doesn't give you a headache nearly as much as traditional 60Hz 1080p interlaced would.

Comparing black levels of LCDs is like comparing resolution for planars. They're all just varying degrees of shit. Similar story with off-axis performance.*

You won't get a much larger CRT than 22" viewing area. Best to compensate by putting it closer to your eyes.

*(When my GDM-FW900 is fully warmed up (couple hours) and displaying a fully black screen I actually can't tell that it's on when my eyes aren't dark-adapted for a few minutes. Viewing angles are similar to my windows.)

 

There's no arguing CRT back levels or motion handling/response time, but the size limitations, weight etc are deal breakers. I used to have two FW900's and loved them, but there are good alternatives now. Particularly if you are willing to go to a 4K OLED and can tolerate a slight increase in input lag.