Who here on this board actually owns a 4K television? Do you

Bump ,I also want to know

I own a 4ktv. Haven't seen too much in 4k yet (still need a 4k player) But it was well worth the money.

If you don't get a top of the line name brand curving 4ktv the prices are not as expensive as /v/ makes it sound. I only spent about 800 on mine. That was 2 years ago.

I have a 4K monitor and it looks pretty fucking incredible running something like Witcher 3 on it.

I have a 4K TV as I work for a tech reseller, so got it cheap. I want to watch 4K content, as of yet I'm just too cheap to pay out for Sky Q. For games it's worthless. Although admittedly the few games making use of PS Pro look significantly better.

>>383619895

>Haven't seen too much in 4k yet (still need a 4k player) But it was well worth the money.
>still need a 4k player
>but it was well worth the money
you are fucking retarded my friend

8K is where it's at nowadays.

File: Blaym.gif (2MB, 246x246px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 246x246px

>>383620239

Can any of you play games at maximum settings with current cards?
And of course by maximum settings I mean with 4x+ anti aliasing .

4k is nothing more than a scam. The human eye can only see in 1080p to begin with.

>>383620935
No your just a poorfag with shit eyesite

>>383620563
You don't need anti-aliasing at 4K if you're using a 4K monitor. Assuming of course that the monitor is around 32in.

Got 4K TV last year, really enjoy it for consuming video content but don't use it for gaming since I'm a high-test PC/3DS only user.

>>383617665
anyone got a chart with distance and when you can see difference in the resolution?

>>383617665
I have a 4k 55" monitor, mostly because it was the only monitor available in this size.

I don't really use the 4k much though as it makes every day tasks and reading text kinda hard at reasonable distances. The benefit of 4k is kinda minimal at normal view distances too, especially when compared performance cost for running games in 4k. If there was a 1080/144hz monitor in 55" I would have gone for that instead but there were none at the time and as far as I know there still aren't any.

4k is a nice bonus, like when I played DMC4 again I cranked that shit to 4k since I'm getting 400fps anyway, but don't go out of your way for it the diminishing returns are real.

>>383622076
Someday our eyes will get adjusted to 256k we will nee AA on 4k

I got a 55" 4k for $300. Its a Vizio and was a floor model but I needed a upgrade badly.

>>383617665
Does 4K make a difference over 1080p for a 24" monitor?

>>383617665
4K 55" TV with HDR here. Bought it when my TV died. My PC and TV died in the span of two days. Much happier now that I got a PS4 Pro. I don't give a fuck what anyone says, Steam is garbage. There's almost no AAA PC exclusives. Half the multiplatform ports are garbage. Click on any Steam user and you'll see how many indie games they play. It's a fucking joke. That being said, there are some good low budget games.

I would kill for 1080p 43" OLED.

1440p144hz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1080p144hz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4k60hz

File: 1458766614707.png (239KB, 708x537px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 708x537px

>tfw no cheap 16:10 monitors and I need an upgrade

>>383622648
Also, Horizon in """4K""" is great. There's a big difference. One other thing I gotta say is that thirty frames looks way better on console. I got no clue why. On PC, shit's choppy as fuck. I barely notice on my Pro.

I fell for the 3d meme a few years ago and have a 3D plasma screen TV for gaming. As my TV works (better than LED tvs) I have no reason to upgrade.

>>383622648
>>383622848
here's the (you) you want so badly

>>383622648
Consolewar shitpost somewhere else, senpai

>>383620142
It's done well enough for a tv, smart so I have apps on it and all. For 800 it was worth it, and will be even more when I do get a 4k player since movies have just started being released in 4k.

>>383617665
I bought mine for TV and movies and it's amazing for that

>>383622572

Are you retarded?

File: 1448235287784.jpg (11KB, 250x236px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x236px

I've seen some 4K OLEDS and they're insane

>>383619895
Why would you waste money on a non her tv

>>383622953
>>383622954
Triggered. I'm posting unbiased opinions. I gamed on a good PC for two or three years.

>>383620563
Lol what games?

I can play Dishonored at 4k with everything maxxed on my 1050ti with no drops below 60fps, but I doubt that's what you meant. I will say the whole hurr nothign can play it is a meme. If you're playing even slightly older games that are well written, you can max them on 4k with any modern card. Fuck, I get cinematic frames in Doom at maxed out 4k. Useless for DOOM, but far from hurr nothing can be played.

Another thing people don't talk a lot about is emulators. Usually rendering at a higher resolution has zero impact on emulator performance because they're CPU bound. I run Dolphin and PCSX2 at 4k settings with no performance hits, and it looks really fucking nice.

>>383623403
Just because you've had both platforms doesn't mean your opinion is unbiased you fucking retard. Leave the thread

1080p with x4MSAA looks undistingushable from 4K 90% of the time.

>>383617665
Played The Witcher 3 on 4k 60 fps and I can't go back anymore.

Once you turn to 4k you can never go back

Changed for a mid range one 4 months ago. I barely use the 4k function despite owning a PC capable of displaying some games I play in that resolution reasonably.

I find the HDR function much more impressive, it absolutely blew my mind. I think this is the kind of tech that future displays should focus on. Resolution is already good enough.

I got a cheap one for around 600 americano bucks with a student discount, it's missing HDR though which I regret

File: arx 2017-07-06 20-10-34.jpg (4MB, 5754x3215px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5754x3215px

>>383623589
>even slightly older games
2002 game here.

I own a 4k monitor and run a 1070, everything looks so much better than HD. Once you go rk you never go back, that shits the future

>>383617665
I own a 4k monitor
I regret it because it's only 60hz and my 1080p monitor was 144hz
and I can't tell a difference between 4k and 1080p while I'm playing, honestly.

>>383617665
I own a 4K TV. Zero regrets because it was only $20 more than the 1080p model, although it isn't HDR. However, it is a 10-bit panel, it just lacks the contrast HDR requires, and the color accuracy probably isn't as good.

I don't know what shit games you're playing that don't support higher resolutions. I don't own any consoles. I can't play newer games at 4K because of my graphics card, but there absolutely is a visual difference. It is very slight, but definitely there. Is it worth it? I'd say so. Like I said mine was barely more expensive than a 1080p option. 4K content will definitely make it worth it, I just haven't decided on how to play it yet. Streaming is garbage, even though I have a fast enough internet connection. UHD blu-ray players are expensive, and UHD BR DRM is horseshit I won't support. That leaves pirating, but the files are so massive. My TV has a Chromecast built in, but it only supports 1080p streaming. I'm planning on getting a Steam Link, which is also only 1080p.

It's definitely not a meme, that's just /v/ being poor.

>>383623141
The LG ones? Every time I walk into best buy I have to make a stop to check those out, the colors on those are unreal, and once you understand the technology behind it it's all the more impressive. Too bad the price tag matches the resolution though.

>>383624329
The ones I saw were Samsung

File: 1485460130456.gif (721KB, 446x251px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 446x251px

>>383617665
>TV
>Not monitor

>>383617665
1440p or bust you fucking Jew.

Anyone here using a 4k tv of 36-40, or 50 inches?

I would use it as a monitor and sit really close to it, so I'm wondering... will it be more immersive?

I don't care about 60hz, 144hz, etc.

I just want to know if a screen this big will help me get more immersion at a close distance.

>>383626048
I own a Korean 4K monitor that is 40 Inches, It's the AMH A409U. I thought it was going to be way to big to sit up close to at first, but it's actually nearly the perfect size. It takes up nearly your entire vision yet you don't have to move your head around to see everything. 4K is also the perfect resolution for a 40" display, because it has the same DPI as a 20" 1080p monitor and thus requires no scaling for windows or anything else. It was well worth the money.

I recommend getting one of the various 4K 40" Korean monitors available, as TVs may not have that good of response time and may not have full 4:4:4 chroma that is needed for good clear text on a PC screen.

>>383626520
Whoa, thanks for the answer. That's exactly what I was looking for.

I'll have to check for that Korean one, I didn't know they made 4k ones. I remember seeing online that they had Qnix 27" 120hz ones for a good price, but that they often came with dead pixels.

By the way, what's your refresh rate? 60hz?

And gaming is good on it?

>>383627158
As far as I know all the different 4K 40" Korean monitors are 60hz. Gaming is really good on it, never had any problems with response time and the colors are bright and the blacks are dark. No dead pixels on mine, but I've heard it can kind of be a crap shoot.

It seems like the AMH A409U may have been discontinued, at least there are none on ebay. I would probably go for the 4K 40" Wasabi Mango or the Crossover, I think they are both Korean as well. They should be pretty similar.

>>383627542
Ok, thanks again!

>>383617665
>planning on buying a 4K HDR tv for the Scorpio when it comes out. End up winning one at a company party.

Speaking completely objectively, 4K content does look stunning. I watched Planet Earth 2 and my jaw dropped. But I still have to say that it's worth waiting til we get more content made for 4K HDR before you get one yourself. But I don't really care if you do or don't. Not my business

>>383617665
If you're in the market for a TV today, there is no reason not to get 4K unless you're a poorfag. 4K price is way down now, unless you're buying bottom of the barrel garbage, it's going to be 4K.

I own one, as well as a PC capable of 4K and a PS4 Pro.

As far as regretting to buy one, no. My other TV was a earlier 1080p Toshiba TV and honestly looked like ass a lot of the time on newer stuff. I was in need of a upgrade and felt that getting a 4K TV was a good choice now that the price has gone down.

The Android TV stuff is kind of hit or miss, and can be glitchy at times, but it is nice having apps and emulators without having to use a external device (I have a 16GB USB Drive with all the NES/SNES/Genesis/GB/GBA games on it that I play every now and then. Many of them work better then PC Emulators).

As far as 4K content, I am honestly one of the few that can use it decently. I have a PC that can do 4K gaming, and for the most part it works well. There was a bug that made it where 1440p resolution limited the framerate to 30 FPS, but that was fixed in a recent firmware update, so its nice to have a in-between 1080 and 4K when games are badly optimized.

As far as the Pro goes...eh. The support has been lackluster, and what games do support it still have framerate issues many times. I will say it does look quite good on the games that take advantage of it, but they are few and far between.

I personally like my 4K TV, but there is not enough content for the average person to recommend it unless you are upgrading and have the money for it.

>>383617665
I have a 4k computer monitor I bought from a guy I work with for like 100 bucks and I really like it. For PC gaming it's great though most modern games run shit at it with my 1070 but I still play a lot of older games with it. I still prefer 1440 though because it's a great resolution that isn't nearly as demanding.

>>383629353
>I have a PC that can do 4K gaming, and for the most part it works well

What's your setup? Just curious because I want to set my pc up to be more 4k ready. When you say well do you mean at somewhat stable 60 fps? My only concern is getting a good frame rate in newer games.

I work with TVs and I have several 4k in the office.
They are great. 4k video is the real shit.

4k games are a meme, there are still no hardware or software to run 4k without problems.

Have a 4k HDR TV and some UHD blu-rays, no I don't regret it.

File: 1482116615991.jpg (3MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 7680x4320px

>>383623141
>OLED

File: speccy 7-11.png (36KB, 808x556px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 808x556px

>>383629736
This is my current setup, built it back in 2015 and upgraded the GPU and RAM back last year. Biggest change outside using newer CPU/RAM is getting a GTX 1080 Ti and not using SLI.

For the most part, 4K works well. I can get a stable 60+ FPS in most titles mostly maxed out. Only things I have ran into issues with is badly optimized games (Mankind Divided was a prime example of something that still has issues. ME: Andromeda also was fucked in cutscenes with 4K on, mostly due to glitches), some of the more intensive NVIDIA gameworks stuff (Godrays is the big one I have to turn off, otherwise everything else runs fine), and iD Tech games.

Non-SLI stuff still works fine for the most part, although depending on the game I sometimes have to turn off some of the more intensive options from Ultra to High, but usually I can get away with a stable 60 FPS with all the major stuff cranked up to Ultra.

>>383630916
Thanks a lot man. That sounds like way better performance than I had thought. I was thinking about going with the 1080 SLI on mine and have the same CPU as you. Once again man thanks for the info.