It depends on the game, that's why I said not to use a synthetic benchmarks to test. Play games you're going to be playing.
And like I said earlier, even if a few games don't run well at UHD, they could always lower the resolution for that specific game in-game.
Having the higher resolution all the time on the desktop might be useful for them as well.

It has HDMI 2.0 and DP.

Bought. I was really after a 4k 27 incher, but I don't think there will be a better deal than this in a good long time. I'm a developer and graphic designer so extra screen real estate is always good. Will drop a short review here once I receive it on Wednesday. Does anyone know much about Scan's return policy?

Unfortunately, scaling 1080p to 4K using 2x2 pixel squares isn't quite identical to the original.

In terms of solid colour pixels, sure. However, if you take a screen shot of "black text on white background" and zoom right in on it, you'll see that it has colour bands around the edges of letters, from "cleartext subpixel smoothing".

This smoothing relies on the physical layout of the pixels (usually RGB), so when you scale up 2x2 you get two discrete stripes of colour around the edge of text instead of the intended smoothing effect, and that's probably why it looks more blurry.

The flip-side is that subpixel smoothing at real 4K resolution works even better, so as long as your Windows desktop is running at 4K it will look great. It's only when you turn the resolution down to 1080P on a 4K screen that the cleartext effect becomes wrong.

Ironically then, quite small text on a 1080P resolution display rendered on a 4K display will mostly look worse than on a real 1080P display.

I have a 4k monitor and 1080 looks rubbish on it, its blurry and undefined. you get used to it but I think it's different from noticing a lower resolution. if you read around on it you'll find a lot of people agree, its the way the scaling works, it should be perfect given the 1 to 4 ratio, but it isn't. I'd recommend always aiming to play at the native resolution, change the other settings to get the fps

Qnix q2710 ips 1440p

Looking for a monitor with around £200 budget but as much as i would love this, my GPU wont be able to handle gaming at 4k so i dont really see much of a point, just trying to find a 27" 1440p/144hz 1080p/29" 21:9 monitor for that price instead :/

ACER gear is much MORE reliable and better made than a lot of the other famous names.

Why defiantly? Nobody wants them to see it but in the end they just about manage to see it and win the day?

yes I have, it's just perception. perhaps you were looking at a good quality fhd monitor and a poor quality uhd monitor, but on comparable monitors it's pretty much identical.

Have u seen 1080p in real life on a 4K monitor ?
I know it does not make sense but then theory and practise are two separate things all together

1080p on a 4K monitor looks worse m8 as I have seen it but to be fair it's a little hard to tell with my aging eyes lol. Full ur boots and good luck and enjoy :smiley:

That’s one way of getting it cheaper.

Good luck m8 and hope it was a good purchase :smiley:

Desktop at 4K in Windows 10 is and looks fantastic but sadly turning down the resolution in games looks a little worse than running a 1080p monitor. In theory it should work as they are equal but in real life like a lot of things it just does now work out that way. I'm really hoping that future 4K monitors can sort that out as then u won't have to keep a 1080p monitor if u wished to use that resolution in the future

It depends on the game, that's why I said not to use a synthetic benchmarks to test. Play games you're going to be playing.
And like I said earlier, even if a few games don't run well at UHD, they could always lower the resolution for that specific game in-game.
Having the higher resolution all the time on the desktop might be useful for them as well.

I've never really subscribed to the "ultra or bust" mantra, it just seems naive. Further I know that for the majority of games that I am going to be playing my GPU will be more than capable of maintaining 60fps at Ultra. If I choose to buy a AAA game I understand that I have the choice of lowered settings at native 4K (WHICH I AM OKAY WITH), or running higher settings at 1080p (which maybe you would choose to do?). As there are are exactly 2x2 pixels on a 4K screen for each one at 1080p interpolating is no real problem.

I understand u can turn settings down but these are 960 and 280x gpus so u would have to have everything on the lowest setting to which point it would look worse than 1080p. Turning down a few settings is no big deal but they will not be a few settings will they? 280x will fair much better as amd age so much better. My friend has a 4K monitor and we have put it on my system and its just not worth yet. I was just letting them both know from some one who has real life experience with 4K monitor and a PC that completely smokes there's.

Games render at a higher quality with higher resolutions. You can see this even when downsampling with VSR or DSR.

Things like AA don't need to be as high or enabled at all. Motion blur and DoF might be a personal thing, but they can effect performance too. Shadow settings can help get some more FPS.

That's why PC games have settings, so you adjust it to suit your hardware and tastes.

If you think turning down some settings to play at UHD defeats purpose of playing at UHD at all, that's fine.

Why up the resolution to then drop graphic quality off as that does not make sense. My friend has the 980 and it does not do much better on 3D mark. Just warning them before the plonk wonga down on a monitor that can't run the game as I don't want them wasting money if possible. Just forget 4K on 28nm gpu as it ain't going to happen unless like u say turn down graphic but that completely defeats the objective

Exactly. You don't build a gaming PC to run benchmarks. They're only useful for comparing one setup to another, better off actually running a game.

4k is the best way to play GTA5. You can really see every little bump in a prostitutes nipple.

The best way to see how a GPU copes with UHD is to play games. As you can adjust settings and tweak it until it plays well, if it does at all. The 280x is on the low side for UHD but as you always change the in-game resolution and have UHD for the desktop. Sounds good to me.

Firestrike is not a game it's a benchmark. 3D mark on steam sale at £3.79 I think. It's a very good and unbiased test for your PC and brings your super rig crashing back down to earth lol
I get about 20fps on non action parts but when the fighting starts I get a complete slide show and want to pull my eyes out with a rusty ice cream scoop as the lowest 4fps is completely unbearable to watch. Just bought a cheap 2nd hand gpu to tie me over untill both teams bring there next gpus out. I too wanted to go 4K but now I'm starting to think that the flag ship next year might possibly not do it. I know that it's a 2013 gpu but if I do 1080p I score over top 80% in the world. Good luck with 4K on a 280x as you are going to need it and some !

4-10FPS playing what? What settings?

Hmmm not sure 4K on a 280x is a good idea but if that's what u like who am I to disagree but I have a skylake i5 6600k at stable 4.8ghz overclock and 32gb ddr4 at 2800mhz with Windows 10 64bit and a r9 290x tri X overclocked and I'm getting 4-10 fps so I'm just warning you.
But to be fair running firestrike at 4K is a little over demanding compared to real life. Personally I would save ur cash like I did and wait for better next gen gpu and also 4K monitor will drop next year in price with a higher freesync and HDR and 120hz + . Will be interesting to see if the flag ship next year can do 60fps on a single gpu.

It has HDMI 2.0 and DP.

only has dvi and hdmi though

not 60hz (hdmi2.0?) I take it then no mention

I find people talk ess aitch eye tee :/
Easy way is to borrow one, or go see one in a shop. Your own experience should guide you.

Just for info:
27 inch @ HD, about 82 ppi
24 inch @ HD, about 92 ppi
24 inch @ 4k, about 185 ppi
28 inch @ 4k, about 157 ppi
Retina iPad, 264 ppi
iPad Mini, 326 ppi
iPhone 6s, 401 ppi
Lumia 950, 518 ppi

It depends on the game as Saxonstar says. Witcher 3 is gonna struggle :smiley:
Conventional wisdom is, you need a latter gen Intel with twin 980ti to pretty much guarantee 60 fps at 4k
But.. I have a lowly Nvidia GTX770 and it runs LoL and Dota and GW2 just fine @ 4k. GW2 is down at the 40 mark, but very playable. But 4k on Windows 10 is a-m-a-z-i-n-g, I just cannot go back to non 4k now. You get used to "Retina" levels of text sharpness, and going back to HD looks crummy. Was hoping Skylake was 60% improvement, and Titans came down to 200 quid a pop, then I was gonna get myself a decent rig. The 4k sweetspot is coming, but right now you have to spend a fat wad to get it.

Lol a 280x running 4K. Hope u are prepared for a slide show as I did a 4K benchmark on 3D mark last night and was getting between 4-10fps on a 290x tri X

I bought it. People used to say 23 inch was too small to appreciate a 1080p resolution I guess. Time of the year to treat myself.

I'm keeping my fingers (and wallet) crossed for Arctic Islands :wink: Wasn't planning on upgrading GPU for another 2 years but I can always be convinced by POWER

It's really dependent on what type of games you play, Witcher 3, GTA and other AAA titles etc. may struggle to achieve a playable resolution, or may require involve some very low settings to get even close to 60fps, however things like tf2, Dota, LoL, WoW, CS:GO and indie/older titles etc will be more than totally fine. A 960 is pretty similar in power to my 280x, I'll hopefully find out how it copes tomorrow :innocent:

My 280X could not cope with 4K at decent settings on modern games (so it had to go!)

If this is your budget, get it. You will be amazed how much better games look if they properly support 4k. Otherwise I would get a 28" model.

Make sure you have Beefy graphics card. I'd recommend a 970 or 290 as a minimum