If you're going to buy a 4K PC monitor for gaming then don't. I bought one back in August when I was a console peasant and it's so counter-productive. With a GTX 980, I'm only getting 60 fps on most games, if even. Which is stupid because I'd be getting 400fps or so on full HD.

My 4K monitor is 60hz and 32 inches. Unless you have like 30x Titan Xs then don't get one and get a 144hz 22 inch monitor for 1/4 of the price.

4k monitors only have 60Hz variants at this current time.

DisplayPort 1.4 may change that when it becomes available.

@Respirator: If you're using the same settings you would on 1080p, then that's your problem. I played 4k games on a 770 and a single 970 for a while, sure i was playing at medium settings on 90% of games, but it was more then playable at 60FPS. I now play most games maxed out or on very high settings on SLI 970's. Recommending getting a 144Hz monitor over a 4k one is stupid IMO, sure it's cheaper, but they are cheaper for a reason, because they are worse.

Also, OP didn't state what he uses his PC for, so the workspace of 4k would help anyone over a 1080p one.

Craig wrote 4k monitors only have 60Hz variants at this current time.

DisplayPort 1.4 may change that when it becomes available.

@Respirator: If you're using the same settings you would on 1080p, then that's your problem. I played 4k games on a 770 and a single 970 for a while, sure i was playing at medium settings on 90% of games, but it was more then playable at 60FPS. I now play most games maxed out or on very high settings on SLI 970's. Recommending getting a 144Hz monitor over a 4k one is stupid IMO, sure it's cheaper, but they are cheaper for a reason, because they are worse.

Also, OP didn't state what he uses his PC for, so the workspace of 4k would help anyone over a 1080p one.

Wait, you're saying that a 144hz monitor is worse than a 60hz monitor? It literally displays images over twice as fast.

If you play competitive games, LoL, CSGO etc. Then you need 144hz and 4K is useless and for casual games 1080p is definitely enough. Not to mention that a Titan X can barely hit 50 FPS never mind 60 in the new Tomb Raider game. A 4k monitor is completely pointless and if you think otherwise, you haven't tried one or you've never tried a 144hz monitor.

I play at 4k, single 980ti. It's very nice but, and here is that crucial but, my God is it hard to run. Look, if your running 4k, it's because you want stuff to look the best it can possibly be. Running 144hz at 4k is stupidly demanding for a system. I mean, it doesn't exist yet but it's would be the same as running 2 60hz monitors side by side both gaming.

Meanwhile, the op needs to reply before any of us can comment back for what's best for him

When it comes down to buying a monitor, it really depends on what the user wants and needs it for. As Craig said, 4k can be much better if you need a large workspace or just like a higher resolution, but a higher refresh rate can also be preferable even when not gaming, a 15Hz overclock on a 60Hz monitor is very noticeable and many people have said that they can't go back from a high refresh rate monitor.

OP, could you elaborate on what you need the monitor for, if you are thinking about buying one then could you also list your [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] and a budget + currency.

Respirator wrote

Craig wrote 4k monitors only have 60Hz variants at this current time.

DisplayPort 1.4 may change that when it becomes available.

@Respirator: If you're using the same settings you would on 1080p, then that's your problem. I played 4k games on a 770 and a single 970 for a while, sure i was playing at medium settings on 90% of games, but it was more then playable at 60FPS. I now play most games maxed out or on very high settings on SLI 970's. Recommending getting a 144Hz monitor over a 4k one is stupid IMO, sure it's cheaper, but they are cheaper for a reason, because they are worse.

Also, OP didn't state what he uses his PC for, so the workspace of 4k would help anyone over a 1080p one.

Wait, you're saying that a 144hz monitor is worse than a 60hz monitor? It literally displays images over twice as fast.

If you play competitive games, LoL, CSGO etc. Then you need 144hz and 4K is useless and for casual games 1080p is definitely enough. Not to mention that a Titan X can barely hit 50 FPS never mind 60 in the new Tomb Raider game. A 4k monitor is completely pointless and if you think otherwise, you haven't tried one or you've never tried a 144hz monitor.

144Hz monitors are way over rated IMO, i've used them in the past in games like CS-Go, it makes a difference, but if you're bad at the game, it won't help one bit. 60Hz is fine for playing competitive games, I've done it for years and so have a handful of friends i talk to. Am I saying it's worse? No. But I wouldn't recommend one over a higher-tier higher res monitor.

I average about 55-60FPS at 4k on ROTTR but that's with AA on, if i turn that off i hit a solid 60, settings are everything at 4k, unless you know what you're doing, getting the right settings is hard.

Also you say

A 4k monitor is completely pointless and if you think otherwise, you haven't tried one or you've never tried a 144hz monitor.

I have owned a Samsung U28D 4k monitor for about a year now, and have used it everyday since the purchase, and your statement is completely incorrect. 4k has many many uses aside from better game textures. It provides better workspaces for word docs, spreadsheets. 4k is used for graphics designers and video editors due to that extra workspace, so saying it's useless is completely inaccurate. I've used 144Hz in the past, would i spend the extra money on one? No i would not. It's a complete waste if you ask me.