Xtreme Gaming Network

4K vs Triple Screen

Author Topic: 4K vs Triple Screen  (Read 22719 times)

Offline Freezer

  • RestrictedRacing
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1296
  • Karma: 33
    • View Profile
4K vs Triple Screen
« on: December 28, 2014, 06:07:05 PM »
I have been toying with the idea of three screens for some time but desk top real estate is a bit restricted.  Then there is is the cost of two extra screens and ensuring the GPU will run them.  I have ordered a GTX 970 4G gaming as an upgrade.

But, I am now looking at Samsung LU28D590DS/XY 28" Ultra HD LED Monitor 3840*2160 for $550 (well reviewed).  This will be bigger than my current 23inch and far greater image quality, but will also require a decent GPU.

Anyone already using a big 4K screen?
Pro's & Con's against triple setup?

Offline Bird

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Karma: -666
  • Ysu
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2014, 06:24:09 PM »
Well, the actual pixel count is a bit off from each other (1920x1024x3 vs 3840x2160)  with the UHD losing.  ~6mp vs ~8mp.  A good 30% extra grunt is needed to drive the UHD monitor.

For racing, the triple screen is better IMO (you get peripheral vision).   The height on the 28" monitor is all wasted.    Eg I'd swap my triple setup to a single one, but it has to be over 30" and the aspect ratio needs to be much wider.  Altho I'm running 16:10 aspect ratio monitors, that's 1920x1200, and I prefer it to the 1080.  You need *some* height :)

You also need a special cable for the UHD resolution IIRC.  Not sure how to connect 3 up - or indeed if one 970 is sufficient to drive it.  (I run my setup off 2x970s)

I really don't think the image quality will be much better on it, unless you consider the pixel size being smaller equalling better quality.

All in all I think it's more marketing hype than real value.  But it's your choice :)
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 06:26:40 PM by Bird »

Offline Wally

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11033
  • Karma: 152
  • AC Admin
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2014, 08:06:28 PM »
I think too that the extra peripheral vision you get from triples would be more worthwhile, if you had the space. In motion, you can't really see the pixels, right? Triples gives you visibility through the windscreen and half the side windows, which gives much more immersion and realism.

Marty has 4K screens - it would be interesting to hear his point of view.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

Offline Dave O

  • RestrictedRacing
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: 16
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2014, 10:41:04 PM »
I also like the peripheral vision of triple screens, and the emersion factor.  I'm running 3x23" Asus monitors @ 5760x1080 through
a single MSI GTX970 4G  i53570k cpu  600w power supply, and have no problems running AC & PCars.   Cheers Dave O.
NEVER TOO OLD TO RACE ... being competitive can be a PROBLEM though.

Offline marty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Karma: -63
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2014, 10:55:47 PM »
I have a single 4k screen and 2 2560x1440 all 28 inches. 4K is great but I race in triples for the extra vision, 4K triples not possible on my system due to needing display port for 4k60 and my cards only have 1 each so Id need a 3rd Titan.  :o That would also mean a new power supply, motherboard etc so I didnt bother. I tried running 3x 4k res and its fine with my cards but that was the main stumbling block.

If I could get a 4k screen equal to the width of my triple setup, with a curve and low input lag with 4k60 or better input I would have got that. Not around and so I am quite happy to play as at 8000x1440 res wide enough I need to turn my head a long way to see beyond the screens. I was looking for 4k gysnc triple setup but when I got my 4k there was no good large 4k g-sync screens, also at that time g-sync wasnt working in surround or SLI. It does now so if going triples and you have nvidia get the highest res you think you can play on your gfx setup with s-sync or get a very large low lag 4k60 screen.

For racing a wide view is better then higher res, though 4k looks so much better I havent raced in single 4k since getting my 3rd screen. I think VR may be the other option and for current high end cards even a 4k rift or non FB alternative for me should be doable and next gen gfx cards are looking pretty promising. These may not be out til 2016 and so the 780 to 980 cards are still a great option and not likely to be beat next year by enough to warrant an upgrade from such cards.

Offline Bird

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Karma: -666
  • Ysu
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2014, 08:24:43 AM »
oh, on the VR front: I've raced with 3D glasses & trackIR in the past. (which is pretty much a full VR setup)

The immersion is awesome - due to the 3D.    The lack of fov (it was on one 20" crt monitor) combined with head tracking just makes hitting the apexes so much harder.    I'm no fan of head tracking since.  But I'd love a working 3D setup on super-widescreen. :)

Offline Wally

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11033
  • Karma: 152
  • AC Admin
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2014, 08:48:57 AM »
The 3D glasses I had (Nvidia) were fantastic. The only let down was the ghosting between the two stereo images, which was pretty offputting.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

Offline Bird

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Karma: -666
  • Ysu
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2014, 08:51:10 AM »
The 3D glasses I had (Nvidia) were fantastic. The only let down was the ghosting between the two stereo images, which was pretty offputting.
Yeah.  I think we might have had the same sort of glasses.  In fact I still have them somewhere - but they only work with a CRT monitor (if at all, after all these years)

Offline Freezer

  • RestrictedRacing
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1296
  • Karma: 33
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2014, 09:59:31 AM »
Well thanks for the feedback.
I'm kind of leaning toward the single large 4K as it would be cheaper than purchasing 3 standard screens and no risk of set up issues.
I also do graphic/web site work in in general use the big 4k would be pretty nice.   I would like the peripheral vision 3 screens give but it would probably only apply to racing.  There is also the option of adding a Occulus Rift down the track once they get up to speed to get that peripheral view in racing.
Still weighing it up before commiting . . .  :-\

Offline Bird

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
  • Karma: -666
  • Ysu
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2014, 10:03:31 AM »
True, for other games the 4k screen is probably better.  For work, though, I find the 3 screens really good.  You wouldn't believe how much can fit on 3 24" screens...I've one browser window full-screen, one code in the middle, and on the left a document + skype + file manager semi-overlapping.
I could not go back to one screen for work :)

Edit: but if you do need a larger res screen to do high-res gfx work, then you might lean strongly towards the 4k solution :)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 10:59:51 AM by Bird »

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • Karma: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2014, 10:29:53 AM »
I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift and will upgrade my PC once it comes out.  But who knows when that will be.

For what it's worth I'd go with the triple screens.

Offline Gratulin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Karma: 44
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2014, 11:53:51 AM »
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.

Offline Freezer

  • RestrictedRacing
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1296
  • Karma: 33
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2014, 12:15:17 PM »

Not sure it will be to high.  Current Dev Kit 2 is as follows:

Minimum Requirements
A computer running a Windows 7 or Windows 8, Mac OS 10.8 or higher, or Ubuntu 12.04 LTS operating system, 2 USB ports (at least one powered), and a DVI-D or HDMI graphics output.

Recommended Specifications
A desktop computer running a dedicated graphics card with DVI-D or HDMI graphics output, with capability of running current generation 3D games at 1080p resolution at 75fps or higher.

Offline Guybrush Threepwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • Karma: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2014, 12:19:50 PM »
and remember that you will need at least as good a graphics card to run the Rift as you do to run triples. Perhaps the next version of the Rift if it is 4k will require an even better graphics card.

I don't reckon they'll go any higher than 1440p for the first generation or most people won't be able to run one.

Offline Gratulin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Karma: 44
    • View Profile
Re: 4K vs Triple Screen
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2014, 01:27:50 PM »
You see too much of the pixels on the dk2 and that's 1080. It's like looking through a screen door. I reckon 1440 won't be much better.

My dk2 needs all the graphics card I use for my triple setup. So unless they optimise the Rift drivers you will definitely need a better graphics card for the next version. They might shift some of the processing onboard. That would be more efficient?

 

SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal