- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 10
a) Most graphics cards available today output 4k resultion easy. It's whether or not they can handle gaming at such a high res. Lucky, the AMD Radeon HD R9 290x is built for 4k gaming. It can handle most intense games running low-medium settings just fine. Two cards would be needed for a maxed out experience when playing games like Battlefield or Crysis.
b) My monitor only runs at 60 Hz, and 120 Hz is definitely a noticeable improvement. Now, Samsung has a technology in their 4k televisions called "Clear Motion" which utilizes a basic 120 Hz panel, but emulates a 240 Hz refresh rate. Their standard 1080p televisions do this as well: 60Hz panel emulates 120Hz rate, and so on.
We have three 4k TVs set up at Best Buy; two 55 inch and one 85 inch. The 55 inch models are insanely beautiful, and the computer that's hooked up to it to play our demos can easily display video at a 4k resolution. They're only packing Core ix processors with onboard graphics.
I guess if there's a proof of concept then it works. I'm doubtful still though. I own a Radeon 7990 and even after number crunching I'd still have to buy a monitor that output in 240Hz to get above 1920x1080. The thing to remember is that you can probably get the effect you're looking for by switching from that giant TV to a monitor which attains higher resolutions by it's very nature in refresh rate.
I'm not going to comment on trying to "emulate" refresh rates, but a refresh rate is a calculation. You can't just "emulate" a calculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate
Either way, the chances of you noticing that kind of detail without an insanely high resolution are slim, so whatever you do make sure you invest in something that will display properly.
That was my two cents.

















