So I just ordered my new 4K TV and I need some help picking a graphics card to run video to it. The TV uses HDMI so the card needs to be able to display the proper resolution over the HDMI output, not just over DisplayPort. So far from my quick search it looks like the R7 260X is the cheapest card able to do this ($140). Does anyone know of any other cheap cards that are able to push that res over HDMI? EDIT: Sorry, I should probably have also typed one very important part that explains why I am looking for a cheap card to power such an expensive TV. This TV will not be used for gaming of any kind even though it is being hooked to a computer. I bought it so that I could see more lines of code at once so I only need a cheap little card since all it will ever do is 2D content, which any card is more than powerful enough to do. I know, such a nice TV and no gaming, its heresy
Looks like even though it isnt advertised much, all R7 cards support 4K over HDMI. I went ahead and got an R7 250 since it was only a few bucks more than the 240.
Yeah if u start to ask questions then we are doomed. U can only answer them. Radeon seemed the only choice tho.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=3332167&SID=u00000687 Supposedly can over hdmi. A little late though :/
wait a minute, didn't you post about 4k being overrated awhile back, or did I read such a post elsewhere?
Yep i did. Requiring two Titan's or two R9 290's just to get playable framerates, along with HDMI only supporting a maximum of 30Hz at 4K resolution, along with huge prices of the TVs for good ones means it is a terrible choice to try and get for gaming. You are likely to spend a minimum of $4000 for the cheapest playable 4K setup. Going with a good setup you are looking closer to $10,000. Its just dumb. But like Ryld mentioned, I am only doing coding and spreadsheets on it. I am sick of this 1680x1050 monitor I have at work from years and years ago when that resolution was pretty great stuff. So now I finally upgraded after something like 5 years on this monitor I got a 4 year warranty on the TV for fairly cheap and I am hoping this one lasts me the next 5 years until I move to 16K or whatever the heck there is.
To give you an idea of where I used to be on screen real estate to where I am now, here are two pictures of some of the software I use. Best work monitor ever Old resolution: new resolution:
It'd have to be both very close and very big for 4k to make a difference over, say 1440p with smaller fonts, considering those 27" 1440 monitors are already at/past your eye's resolving power at desktop distances. Certainly a possible thing...but also certainly not very cost effective (of course the limited scaling of the UI you get in Windows does make higher-resolution = smaller features but that's really a different issue). That's why I find 4k so silly. You need a huge screen and a short eye-screen distance. Especially in TVs where 1080 is often well beyond that limit at couch distance.
The eye is supposed to see somewhere till about 250-300ppi isnt it? This monitor even with 4K resolution is still only 112.5 ppi And it is 3' away from me.
PPI has to be taken in relation to how far away from the screen you are (which is why so-called "retinal display" marketing is large levels of bullshit in general). "HD" jumbotrons look as good as your home TV, but have very low PPI (less than one I'd expect). A small screen that's close to you (smartphone) needs to have a high PPI. Here's how we find out. Take the Rayleigh criterion: angle = 1.220*wavelength/aperture diameter. (wavelength of visible light averages ~550nm and you eye's aperture is ~4mm) And have the angle (via small angle approximation) = L/distance to the object L is then the approximate minimum distance between two points at which they look like one point. 112.5 ppi is ~ .0089 inches of separation (your screen is ~40inches then?) So that means you need to be 4 feet away or closer to be able to "see" two individual pixels. So you can likely resolve a pixel....mostly because you're close and it's much larger than a normal monitor (you clearly fall into the "very large" category of my previous post_. For comparison, what about a 27inch 1440p? That's PPI is about 105. (And about equivalent to a 21" 1080p monitor) so the resolving threshold is at roughly the same distance! So you get a lot more screen area, which is pretty huge. But the image quality(from a "jaggies") perspective is about the same. And if you, say, had a 27" 4k monitor your image quality wouldn't really improve by much because you're close to the limit. Does that make sense? If you do a sophisticated treatment with Gaussian optics you might find that's not quite right but I dono how to do that and I bet it's close enough.