Originally Posted by Robilar
I'm a little confused by all this 4k talk. I've been a bit out of the loop on hardware for awhile. So the R290x is better at 4k gaming and that is great but how much are 4k monitors? Also do they have inherently high refresh rates? I play FPS games and after trying a nice, high res IPS monitor I went back to a 144hz TN panel 1080P due to the input lag and ghosting. I get that 4k monitors are higher resolution, I'm currently looking at an LG 4k tv for my living room but if the monitors do not have high refresh rates to go with the high resolution then I can't figure out why we would use them for fast moving games?
Also the price I assume is astronomical? Yes the price will go down as all new tech does but personally, I change video cards yearly. I don't know what I will have this time next year but "future proof" always strikes me as ironic and a bit funny...
You are not wrong.
I suppose the real reason both Nvidia and AMD were hammering on 4k so much is because 4k will be the "future" standard resolution. Of course, most users haven't migrated to 1440p/1600p, so it can be a head scratcher.
People bring up that 290x really flies when it is on 4k. Results show that it really pulls ahead of the 780/Titan when the settings are turned down. While this is impressive, no one who pays $+500 for a gpu wants to push down the settings.
Honestly, when I saw Nvidia and AMD advertise their cards playing 4k, I stopped listening. I won't consider 4k until monitors are realistically viable and 60hz and 120hz can be supported. And by that time, we will be on 20nm process anyway, so there will be better cards to handle 4k efficiently.