Need advise about new monitor (Difference between 1080p and 4K on same size display) (GA ended)

1. No.
2. -
3. -

No

Well, I will buy in the close future a new monitor myself and I want to warn you. Warning, I didn't compare FHD and 4K monitors, so my opinion is not so important.
There will be always a difference, the more pixels the better. On a 27" monitor I would get a 1440p resolution.
But if you want a 4K monitor and you want to play new games on high or better settings, you wont handle 60 fps. Even a single Nvidia 1080 GTX won't handle new games at these settings (Witcher 3 - about 33 - 40 fps, depends on the map on ultra, same goes for Crysis 3, most demanding games get up to 40 fps).

Going down with the resolution is always a bad idea, so that's a stupid idea, don't buy a 4K monitor if you will play in less than 4K, it's still a new technology, so it's overpriced and it's really hard to use it (as in really expensive).
The difference on the same 27" will be noticeable for sure, again I would recommend a 1440p monitor for that 27". And of course, you will have to get a better GPU first (at least something like a 1060 GTX 6GB, but even that won't get full 60 fps at 1440p with ultra settings).

1. No, especially if you're going to keep playing games at 1080p.
2. Non-native resolutions always look worse.
3. Very noticeable.

Keep in mind, no single-GPU solution is going to run newer games at 4K. And buying a 4K monitor to play games at 1080p is like buying a Ferrari to drive in the city. Your friends will all "ohhh-ahhhh", but that's about it.

EDIT: IMHO, if you're looking at 27" monitors and want a nice improvement that isn't going to cost you another $1000 in graphics cards, go 1440p.

4K is overrated. People like to go after resolution but for some reason they're fine watching slideshows in 30 FPS. I'm one of those who prefer to play in 120 FPS on 144 HZ monitor, all low, rather than all ultra in 60. The higher the resolution, the more power you need, and not utilizing the resolution to the maximum is simply put - waste of money. Resolution indeed matters for giant screens, and when you're very close to the actual screen, but no so much if you have a small screen, or you're sitting rather far away. In terms of monitors, there is a difference, but it's not worth the money - when comparing TVs to monitors, 4K monitors make much more sense than any 4K TV, but even in this case 99.9% of population won't be able to make use of it.

Let's make it clear, if you really want to enjoy gaming in 4K, with fairly good (medium/high) graphics and FPS (60), you need at least 2 high-end cards like GTX 1080 in SLI. If somebody has infinite money, and wants to build a monster PC, sure, go ahead, your money, but anybody with some common sense will instantly say big "what the f*ck, are you insane?" - and I agree with that.

There is no point in even considering 4K monitor for gaming, until GPUs will be stronger, or much cheaper. Even for most expensive PCs, it's still not so obvious choice.

TBH, if you really want to enjoy gaming on PC, I'd instead get a nice 120/144 HZ monitor, where you can enjoy games in more FPSes than 60, preferably 90 or more (90 is the amount I need to feel nice, it varies depending on person, from 75 to 105, with average of 90). Personally I have BenQ XL2411Z, 24'', 1080p 144 HZ, and I can't say anything bad about it - it's the best monitor I got in the last few years, and playing on steady 90+ FPSes is much more important for me than actual quality or resolution, although playing on any resolution smaller than your native one is a big waste as well, so avoid it at all cost.

In short, avoid 4K, you won't make any use of it, and even with GPU upgrade I'd opt for more FPSes rather than bigger resolutions, but that's me. I already converted quite a few friends (ambidot, I know you're reading this), and there is something true in the fact that once you go 144 HZ, you never go back to 60. Achieving steady 90+ FPSes on high/ultra is very hard even for 2x 1080 GTX, and we're not even talking about 4K in this setup, but rather 1080p max.

I think you will get more enjoyment out of your games with a better GPU than a higher resolution monitor of the same size that you cannot run at it's native resolution.

I prefer framerate and the highest quality settings over resolution and I would not consider gaming at 4k right now even with a GTX 1080. Right now I think the sweet spot for a high end GPU is 1440p.

I would suggest holding onto your money for another year or 2 and then upgrading both your GPU and monitor at the same time. If you can afford a high end GPU at that time, then you may want to go with 4k because the new GPU technology will most likely be able to run it at the highest settings and maintain an fps above your monitors refresh rate (if you get a 60hz monitor).

If I had the money and it existed, this would be my setup, GTX 1280 and a 32" 120hz 1440p OLED :)

4k is just another hype train unless you're a rich gamer or really need the space for work.

Unless you need the extra space for something like CAD or Content creation of some sort, I'd focus on upgrading your rig for now.

4k is great, but means nothing if all you're doing is gaming on it and your hardware cannot run it at 4k. I'd personally rather have hardware that can run things higher than my monitor's resolution and then downscale things so it looks better, than have a monitor that can make things look better much later when you actually get the money to upgrade again.

If you have a budget, I (and many others) can definitely suggest a wonderful rig for you ^_^

upgrade your computer then maybe get a 2k screen. 4k is great for movies but for gaming unless you have a few grand to drop on new hardware dont bother, pc's and 4k screens will just get better and cheaper in time wait awhile:)

1080p is already awesome, but 4k looks stunning, but still, you should get a better rig that could affort 4k without problems, than, a new monitor.
Still, 4k for now could be considered a gimmick, you should wait few years, until it becames popular. Or not.

1. For gaming, not worth it. Only for work, especially photo editing (but for that you don't want LG crap)
2. Depends on monitor firmware. I wouldn't expect sophisitcated solutions from LG tho
3. Very noticeable.

No, same quality, kind of.

So, I agree to most people here saying that 4k is overrated, if you want to spend money get a 120Hz or a 144Hz monitor otherwise stick with your monitor which is great. You can notice a difference between a a 1080p, a 2k and a 4k monitor, sure, but keep in mind that you should keep a fair distance distance view, which means that the actual difference between them will be barely noticeable. The best you are going to get is a crisper image without using any anti-aliasing. Upgrade your GPU if you really wish to play with super ultra mega settings, Something like a 480 or a 1060 should probably fit your needs, but buying a 4k monitor right now is just a waste of money.

4K is fantastic, I could not go back. However, I still have a 1080p monitor for games because you need too beastly a machine to play at that resolution.

Does Windows 10 have proper HiDPI support yet (and do applications use it)? If so consider a 4K monitor for non-gaming usage. If not the only advantage is more screen real estate which is meh unless you need that. Higher quality at same size is so good.

I think it isn't worth it for you. Until your rig is set for 4k then I wouldn't bother. And by waiting and giving it time, eventually these 4k monitor will get cheaper. I am still waiting. Haven't upgraded my rig since I built it and it been 3 years now. I'll wait, I don't have games that require super big demand and my rig is still solid. But when I do upgrade, I'll possibly go for 4k.

Adding another vote for leaving it until you can afford to upgrade your GPU.

no, buy 1920x1080/1920x1200 monitor

Not necessary imo.

1.- Is it worth it to buy 4K monitor now since i'll probably be forced to play new titles in 1080p anyway?
A: No. 1080p on 4K downscaled looks like crap. You better stay on 1080p if you want 1080p.

2.- How is image quality if i'll set 1080p resolution on 4K monitor, is upscaling better or worse than native 1080p?
A: It looks like crap. Way worse than native 1080p. I'll say that by experience. You will regret your purchase if you don't play at 4K, unless you play the game on windowed mode at lower resolutions than 4K.

3.- Since both monitors have same size 27" display, will be difference between 1080p and 4k unnoticeable?
A: Definitely yes, and I personally don't recommend anything less than 39inch for 4K. It is not worth it at all. Everything looks super tiny. Now, regarding flexibility and variability on the market. It may depend. But personally, I think 27 inches for 4K is too small, way too small. Probably something 30 inch+ would be more reasonable.

Extra notes.
1.- Your rig is not enough. GTX770 4gb, i5-3570k and 8gb RAM. Even a Fury X (4GB HBM) with an i5-4590 + 16GB Ram struggles to run 4K at max sometimes on many games. This would be my minimum as my experience. = Fury X, i5-4590 and 16GB Ram. I would extra recommend to go with a GTX 1080 if you want to run some games at ultra at 4K and have around 60fps. Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2 run superb with that at max. You may also consider an i7 as your processor for a better experience.

2.- If you go 4K, I personally will recommend you to go with something big. I had experienced smaller monitors for 4K, and it is a weird experience if you are too used to 1080p. Everything looks tiny. I personally would recommend to check out the Wasabi Mango models from Korea. Those are huge, have freesync (Only works with AMD video cards), and you can get up to 55 inches. The catch is that they guarantee policies sucks. But you get the idea. Something big is good for 4K.

If for some reason in the future you go for a 4K TV. But after updating your rig first. I will recommend to check this.

1.- Input Lag. Beware of 20+, it will kill your experience for almost anything.
2.- It DOES need to have HDMI 2.0 or no deal. Anything less than that will not give you 4K at 60fps.
3.- If it does support 60hz at least.

4.- 4K can be quite complex, because you really want to have a balance between your GPU and your CPU to avoid issues like throttling. Also, it can get extremely expensive in the long road if you are not satisfied with medium/high settings and want to go berserk on graphics quality. I personally only recommend 4K to folks that have a lot of extra cash to spend on their computers, and that also have a clear purpose of what they want it for. Else, It is not worth it right now at all. Like I said, it can get pretty expensive to get running it well at normal/high settings. There is almost no point on gaming on 1080p or something lower on a 4K screen, unless you run the game in windowed mode.

5.- Some will tell you otherwise, but from personal experience let me tell you something. 4K with medium or low graphics is definitely not worth it. Some people like the resolution, but if you are not running it at high or ultra, it is not worth it. Trust me. You better stay at 1080p or 1440p and run everything at ultra than 4K at medium-low. You don't have to take my advice, but from personal experience. I can tell you that it is not worth it, and I would tell that to anybody twice. It is not worth it.

6.- PS: 4K at 30FPS sucks.

I hope this helps you, and anybody out there! 4K can be quite tricky for newcomers. I had talked to many about this topic, and I know it can be complex, but better to make the jump when you are secure enough than without planning ahead. Doing a jump to 4K with a non high-end rig can be a pain. Both, to your mind and your wallet.

Best Regards,
Jam

Thanks to everyone for answers, i guess i'm not buying this monitor now. But since giveaway still running, i also want to ask about GPU upgrade - as some people here noticed, even GTX 1080 can't handle stable 60 fps on 4K. And i also heard about performance issues in recent AAA-games on Pascal GPU's. So, maybe it's not even worth to upgrade GPU now too?

Second question is about 1440p monitors. What bothers me that options i have in my region mostly costs as much as 4K screens, difference is only around 100$. This is strange since pixel count is x2 times more but prices is not x2 higher. What i mean is there any point to upgrading to 1440p from 1080p then?

And hey, what a coincidence, somebody created thread on NeoGAF about upscaling from 1080p to 4K - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1320023 Some people in this thread said that upscaling from 1080p to 4K is indeed shitty, but i also saw opinions that upscaling from 1440p to 4K is much better and looks great - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=225518185#post225518185 What do you think about that?