The Two-Piece 4K Desktop Upgrade (Windows Division)

[PGHammer]

I have been trying to point out - incessantly - that while 4K is available (and requires actually very few parts for Windows), it's not of much use outside of niche use  Do you REALLY think you would want to run a 4K desktop every day?  Here's exactly how *little* it would take to do so.

 

Desktop PC to be upgraded - any mini-tower or larger with a PCI Express 1.1 or newer x16 slot available with a 400W or larger power supply

Operating system - Windows 7 or later

 

Yes - that is exactly all the desktop PC in question requires.

 

Display in Question - LG 31MU97 - http://www.microcenter.com/product/440637/31_4K_Digital_Cinema_HD_Monitor_-_31MU97

 

Display Resolution - 4096x2160 (this is also the maximum resolution)

 

Inputs - HDMI (2), DisplayPort (1), mini-DisplayPort (1)

 

GPU Requirements - NVidia Kepler or later OR AMD Southern Islands (R9) or later, with 4096K of GDDR5 or more

 

I'm not referring to gaming - I'm referring to day-in and day-out desktop software (maybe some browser-based, such as Facebook, gaming).

 

Note the display cost - despite it actually being on sale, you're STILL talking about nearly $2000USD worth of display.

 

However, you don't need an NVidia Titan to drive it - an NVidia GTX970 (or even as little as a GTX760 in 4 GB trim, which is sub-$300USD) will do; if you prefer AMD, you can go even lower in terms of GPU price.

 

However, not many folks would want to go there, would they?

 

They would be saying "I can't game on it - therefore, what use IS it?"

 

That, in a nutshell, is the 4k trap.  It's a niche use - and especially for Windows users.

 

If you game at 4K today - what do you run Windows (or whatever OS you run your non-gaming software on) in terms of everyday use?  I doubt VERY seriously that you run your desktop software at anything like 4096x2160, even if you could.

 

OS X is just as "niche" as Windows is there (same even applies to Linux).  Photoshop or TheGIMP may go there - would you dare run Word at that resolution? (Or LibreOffice?)

 

Outside of the niches, 4K is STILL too big, even though it is not as impractical merely from a COST standpoint as it was just five years ago.

 

 

[+LogicalApex MVC]

It is possible that it is too big for you? Just because you have no use for something doesn't immediately make it useless or even niche.

 

4K has a lot of uses and with Windows having built in DPI scaling it is likely something that could benefit almost any type of user. Of course, at current prices it isn't an option for most users. This will change in time.

[Dashel]

Seems more that because of mobile, people think that 96ish ppi is no longer 'enough' on the desktop.  Same bunch of rabble rousers that 'demand' 1080 laptops for negligible gains.

 

If you aren't gaining additional real estate, it is of questionable use.  So it really just comes down to how large a screen you want (30-46" range).  Just don't tell the zealots with 20/10 vision that. 

 

I max out at about 27" personally.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

PGHammer - do you remember the days when 640x480 or 800x600 were commonplace? isnt this just the same argument? 1920x1080 is way too high of a resolution!!

 

Also, UHD displays dont cost $2k. I got my vanilla Seiki for $400 back in January...

 

Every new generation of whatever technology has people saying the same stuff. Why do we even need it!? I remember when HD was going mainstream and people were complaining that their SD tube tv's were "just fine". I remember when HD-DVDs and Blu-rays were new. People said "but dvd is just fine!" :rolleyes:

[vhane]

More screen real estate is always better as far as I'm concerned. I don't really game on my computers anymore. It's all about work.

[xendrome]

3x Dell 27" IPS displays and a GTX 970 less then that.

 

Total Resolution 7680x4320 and added benefit of multi monitor with Dell Display Manager to split up the screens to dock apps into easier.

[zhangm Supervisor]

I'd be interested in trying out such a setup.

I don't play games frequently. Most of my needs for screen area comes from handling data in the form of images and spreadsheets, and I find that even with two 1680 x 1050 displays, I still feel inconvenienced by having to scroll back and forth between columns, or shrinking images down so that I can compare enough of them side-by-side. I use 30" 2560 x 1440 displays at work (not on my personal machine), and find that they improve the situation. I don't think it would be useful to just be editing a Word document on such a setup, but I hardly ever find myself with just one window open when doing typical work.

[compl3x]

The only thing about 4k gaming that stops me from wanting it at the moment is the price of admission is prohibitively high. I would never spend the amount on a monitor that I would building a whole friggin' PC. 

 

When prices come down, I would love to check it out, but since I just built a new system, the only time I am going to be gaming in 4k goodness is in maybe 4 or 5 years time when I upgrade.

[PGHammer]

PGHammer - do you remember the days when 640x480 or 800x600 were commonplace? isnt this just the same argument? 1920x1080 is way too high of a resolution!!

 

Also, UHD displays dont cost $2k. I got my vanilla Seiki for $400 back in January...

 

Every new generation of whatever technology has people saying the same stuff. Why do we even need it!? I remember when HD was going mainstream and people were complaining that their SD tube tv's were "just fine". I remember when HD-DVDs and Blu-rays were new. People said "but dvd is just fine!" :rolleyes:

I do certainly remember those days - they overlapped with Windows 9x and the (eventual) encroachment of NT into the general-business desktop market.

IN 1998 (Windows 98 original), I had a 1280x1024 display - however, most Web sites were designed for (at largest) 1024x768 - which was also the top resolution of most games. In fact, very few GAMES could do 1024x768 at all.

 

That is precisely my point - things have flipped since 1998.

As opposed to gaming resolution being smaller than the typical desktop resolution, the reverse is now true.

 

However, how much adjustment did you wind up making to your desktop settings when you doubled your desktop resolution?

If you simply leave settings the same, font viewing will be noticeably smaller, even if the screen-size itself grew; therefore, how readable will the text be?

The jump is FAR bigger than 14" to 15, or even 15" to 17" (the jump I myself made in 1998, and that Mom made the following year).

 

compl3x - that is why I brought up desktop 4K - far less expensive than 4K gaming, especially since it only requires a single GPU.  Also, I deliberately went worst-case on the display, to show that even there, it's not prohibitive.  (Lastly, if you are going to do 4K gaming, 4K desktop operations is definitely a possibility.)

 

Still, growing your desktop DOES have an impact - especially when most desktop software is NOT designed to scale that tall.

[neufuse Veteran]

I got a 4K LG IPS panel at 49" 16:9 aspect for a whole $1,400... use it as a TV right now but it works as a PC monitor just as good.

[spaceelf]

I wouldn't mind trying 1440p but I have no use at all for 4K.

[PGHammer]

PGHammer - do you remember the days when 640x480 or 800x600 were commonplace? isnt this just the same argument? 1920x1080 is way too high of a resolution!!

 

Also, UHD displays dont cost $2k. I got my vanilla Seiki for $400 back in January...

 

Every new generation of whatever technology has people saying the same stuff. Why do we even need it!? I remember when HD was going mainstream and people were complaining that their SD tube tv's were "just fine". I remember when HD-DVDs and Blu-rays were new. People said "but dvd is just fine!" :rolleyes:

Thanks for pointing out the Seiki - their SMALLEST 4K display is 50", but is priced like non-UHD displays of the same size.

 

However, even Gizmodo (which raves about the Seiki) points to the content problem (specifically a LACK of 4K content) - I brought up the desktop-software problem (as opposed to games) using a 4K display as a general (as opposed to gaming or other niche) display is going to rub your nose in it - just as running a Web browser in 1280x1024 or larger will drive home that the site you are browsing is designed for a much SMALLER resolution - ugh.

 

That is all I am saying.