Asus ROG Swift PG278Q now available to preorder

[NKrader]

Actual use. I tried using downscaling several strategy games, both AAA and Indie and they become completely unplayable / unreadable due to UI shrinking. Same would happen on a 4K monitor.

Also any old game isnt going to adapt its UI to 4K, and I still play RPGs from Baldurs Gate up to today, none of those are going to work on a 4k.

Two of the first games I want to replay on my new monitor are NWN2 and Gothic 3, good luck getting those scaling well with 4k displays, even if they are 32".

I suppose if all you play are the latest FPS games, then 4k works great. But for just about anything in the strategy and RPG genre which tend to be heavily UI and text driven, too many games are going to lack 4k scaling, and thats a fact. I wouldnt be able to read any text or see any of the menus.



I really doubt that. Again in games that completely lack UI and text scaling for 4k, 32" 4k would not be readable, you would also literally need an equally scaled monitor.

Far far many more games run perfectly fine without letterboxing on a 16:10 screen, as opposed to how few old games, and even current RPGs / Strategies support correct scaling on 4k.

Other than for FPSs, 4k monitors are not ideal for gaming in text / UI driven genres.

Also replaying all those old games is going to be a far better experience at 144 hz G sync or ULMB mode than it would be on a 60 hz 4k panel.

I doubt and disagree with so much of this that I don't know where to start

[zalbard]

I really doubt that.

Simple math for you.

24" 1200p display has 94.34 PPI.
31.5" 4k display has 139.87 PPI.

Hence, using no scaling, objects become 30% smaller in each dimension. Given that 24" @ 1200p is far from being tiny, this is still fine.

Although, being "fine" obviously depends on your eyesight...

And do you really need a 4K screen for gaming? A 1080p picture with a lot of AA and ultra settings can look really nice (a somewhat related example would be 1080p movies, they still look really good regardless of limited resolution, right?).

More responsive displays (e.g. using GSync) with high contrast (MVA with 3000:1 or ideally OLED) should be a more natural choice for gaming than colour-accurate, but slow (both when it comes to response time and FPS) and low-contrast (800:1) 4K IPS displays.

Actual use. I tried using downscaling several strategy games, both AAA and Indie and they become completely unplayable / unreadable due to UI shrinking. Same would happen on a 4K monitor.

No, your experience is completely irrelevant here.

You are trying to use a lot fewer pixels to represent UI (e.g. text), so obviously it becomes an unreadable mess. You wouldn't suffer any loss of sharpness on a display where both physical and rendering resolutions coincide.

Also, don't use downsampling. You achieve what naive SSAA does (and there are higher quality SSAA options) while wrecking your UI. Force SSAA instead (e.g. SGSSAA).

[NKrader]

Simple math for you.

24" 1200p display has 94.34 PPI.
31.5" 4k display has 139.87 PPI.

Hence, using no scaling, objects become 30% smaller in each dimension. Given that 24" @ 1200p is far from being tiny, this is still fine.

Although, being "fine" obviously depends on your eyesight...

And do you really need a 4K screen for gaming? A 1080p picture with a lot of AA and ultra settings can look really nice (a somewhat related example would be 1080p movies, they still look really good regardless of limited resolution, right?).

More responsive displays (e.g. using GSync) with high contrast (MVA with 3000:1 or ideally OLED) should be a more natural choice for gaming than colour-accurate, but slow (both when it comes to response time and FPS) and low-contrast (800:1) IPS displays.


No, your experience is completely irrelevant here.

You are trying to use a lot fewer pixels to represent UI (e.g. text), so obviously it becomes an unreadable mess. You wouldn't suffer any loss of sharpness on a display where both physical and rendering resolutions coincide.

Also, don't use downsampling. You achieve what naive SSAA does (and there are higher quality SSAA options) while wrecking your UI. Force SSAA instead (e.g. SGSSAA).

thank you, this is pretty much what I wanted to say

[cx-ray]

Simple math for you.

24" 1200p display has 94.34 PPI.
31.5" 4k display has 139.87 PPI.

Hence, using no scaling, objects become 30% smaller in each dimension. Given that 24" @ 1200p is far from being tiny, this is still fine.

Although, being "fine" obviously depends on your eyesight...

In absolute numbers it might not look all that smaller. In real life however the difference is considerable. In my opinion a dot pitch of less than 0.22-0.23mm becomes too small when UI features can't be increased in size to scale. A good example is BF3 on a 31.5" 4K display. The mini map is far too small, features are packed too close together, and it's hard to make a distinction which direction the small triangles are pointing at. You can zoom in but the mini map window won't increase in size. You'll lose too much range. A 4K display in 40-42" would make much more sense.

[zalbard]

A 4K display in 40-42" would make much more sense.

Bigger is no doubt better but it doesn't look like we will see monitors larger than 32" in size soon...

Eizo has a 36" 4K screen (for $36000), but everyone else seems to be stuck at 31.5".

Yes, you can buy a TV, but this choice involves too many problems in practice.

A good example is BF3 on a 31.5" 4K display. The mini map is far too small, features are packed too close together, and it's hard to make a distinction which direction the small triangles are pointing at. You can zoom in but the mini map window won't increase in size. You'll lose too much range.

Actually, that's a more general problem, not just with certain screen size. Even if you have a huge screen, but your UI items are tiny compared to your character / weapon / etc., it's really hard to keep track of UI during fast-paced action. Your eyes "wander" across the screen and you eventually lose focus. Which really sucks. Might be one of the reasons pro gamers prefer smaller screens...

[Mungri]

I actually find the scaling on this monitor to be a bit too much and find things difficult to read, and my UIs and ingame text too a bit small at 1440p 27", and I have perfect vision. Its just barely tolerable.

So no, I dont agree that 4k at anything below 40" would be usable, at least not for me.

[Lanek]

Might be one of the reasons pro gamers prefer smaller screens...

Actually their main reason is that you will get less travel to do with the mice etc for aim, select zone etc depending the game ( FPS; Starcraft etc ). bigger is the resolution / screen, higher will be the mice DPI setting and some like better low DPI mice...

But well i cant tell that it is true for all "pro gamers", as i see many that are absolutely not disturbed on a 27"-30" ... ( I see a lot of peoples who speak for the "pro gamers", but they report things who have been said offtly many years ago ).

[Xel_NaGa]

Maybe this new Acer would be a better choice?
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/03/a...-sync-monitor/
28 inch, 4k with gsync 60hz
also supposedly is 1ms g2g

[Xel_NaGa]

Maybe this new Acer would be a better choice?
http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/03/a...-sync-monitor/
28 inch, 4k with gsync 60hz
also supposedly is 1ms g2g

if only there was a gsync version of this bad boy

[STEvil]

I'm looking into replacing my W3000H with that LG 21:9.

I wonder if anyone's tried "overclocking" it yet..

[Lanek]

I'm looking into replacing my W3000H with that LG 21:9.

I wonder if anyone's tried "overclocking" it yet..

I doubt you can, it is an LG IPS and the only one who are overclockable seems to be the PLS Samsung right now ( not all, depend the electronic ).. Maybe you can to a certain extent but with skipping frames as a result.

Will be happy to try this monitor anyway...

[STEvil]

My W3000H overclocked to 90hz, though brightness control broke at ~77hz

[Lanek]

My W3000H overclocked to 90hz, though brightness control broke at ~77hz

When i say dont overclock, i should have precise over 100hz, many monitor could easely do 85hz before starting skipping frames... ( Mine do 100hz, but it start then to revert after some while in BF4 ( something maybe with CFX as it is occuring when loading the next game ). I see a flash > back to 60hz.. lol.

@1440p, anyway as i like still use MSAA i set 60hz ( try keep 60fps minimum ) and run it like that..

[orangekiwii]

Simple math for you.

24" 1200p display has 94.34 PPI.
31.5" 4k display has 139.87 PPI.

Hence, using no scaling, objects become 30% smaller in each dimension. Given that 24" @ 1200p is far from being tiny, this is still fine.

This is wrong. 4k is nearly four times the resolution which with no scaling would make everything about a quarter of the size in raw comparisons assuming pixels stay the same size. If you expand that quarter size box by 33% roughly the size increase from 24 to 32inches you're still looking at about 33.25% of their original size on the 1200p monitor. That is not minor or insignificant. I don't know if you've ever used high resolution displays but text is absotutely tiny without scaling. Even 3200 x 1800 screens the text is basically unreadable without scaling or without eagle eyes.

That guy talking about how unuseable high res screens are for older or text based applications that don't scale the UI is 100% true. Simply using an extremely high res display shows that.

[zalbard]

This is wrong.
...
If you expand that quarter size box by 33% roughly the size increase from 24 to 32inches you're still looking at about 33.25% of their original size on the 1200p monitor.

My math is correct as you've just shown.

Even 3200 x 1800 screens the text is basically unreadable without scaling or without eagle eyes.
...
Simply using an extremely high res display shows that.

All 3200x1800 screens are 15.4" or smaller. How is your experience relevant again?

Either way, the discussion of res/size has been exhausted 3 days ago.

[orangekiwii]

My math is correct as you've just shown.

Actually it's wrong. You may conceptually get it but your result in your post is incorrect. Saying it's 30% smaller leaves you with 70% of the original scale versus 30% like my post. 30% less versus 30% of.

All 3200x1800 screens are 15.4" or smaller. How is your experience relevant again?

Either way, the discussion of res/size has been exhausted 3 days ago.

It's not strictly relevant to 4k screens but it's relevant as an example of things not scaling with resolution.

True.