What is the connectivity? I remember you said to wait for Display Port 1.3 or so. Did that ever make it with these monitors? 

Jafo still gets by with a MW221u [ASUS] ....all 21 inches of it.

[the computer is considerably bigger]....

WOM uses his Philips 52 inch with this old computer.

Nice, but I will stick with my dual 2560 x 1440 27" IPS BenQ's. I can only imagine the price of that Dell.  

Yup, I just looked it up and it's about $2,200.00. 

Unfortunately I am still 'limping along' with three 30" monitors at 2560x1600 each and a nVidia GTX 690:

The new 4K+ monitors now available seem great, but generally they have too much screen resolution for the actual monitor size, which makes everything look 'tiny'. As a result, most people enable high DPI settings on their systems, which basically works by magnifying everything. All that extra resolution wasted! lol

For now I'm happy with my monitors, but if I ever decide to upgrade I will have to buy a new graphics card too: the GTX 690 'only' supports a max resolution of 2560x1600 per monitor.

30-35 would be a great size for 4k monitors, a 5k 27 inch is perfect, I could quadruple my current resolution at the same size, which would be an outstanding clarity level.  Pixels would be almost indistinguishable at that scale, giving me the same real estate I have now in return for amazing clarity.  I'm not blowing 2 grand for a monitor though, highest I'll go is $800 for a display, I've spent that twice in the past.

eh? on a 40" (16:9) 4k screen at native resolution, half the programs out there don't follow dpi scaling and you can't see jack because everything is tiny.

granted, i'm a bit weird in that i am about a metre from the monitor so i use double dpi on desktop.

i'm not really sure 4k works that well in games yet without taxing the cards? though that might change with pascal and polaris. i'm playing most things at 1080 or maybe 1440. even if an older/less taxing game runs smoothly in 4k, the ui don't scale and so i end up not seeing squat. meh.

I'm sure 5K Ashes is gorgeous in the flesh but that picture doesn't translate well, the game looks better than that with just as much detail on my 1920x1200 (Extreme settings).

Funny thing is, here we are talking about these mega-pixel monitors when the most common screen resolution (at +- 31%) is... 1366x768.

Immediately followed by 1920x1080 for 21.5% of users out there.

Only 0.11% are blessed with 4K monitors (3840x2160).

Yeah, for the average user monitor lives tend to be at least 5 years, and often longer, so the change will be gradual.  1366x768 will be mostly laptops I think but 1080p is starting to come the norm with them so that is some progress.

I have a 27 inch 2560x1440's at about two feet, individual pixels are easy to see.  A 3840x2160 at 35 inches is only .20mm dpi instead of the .23 for what I've got now.

3 X 24 inch (center is touchscreen) and 3 X 19 inch monitors hooked to 2 NVidia GTX650 cards in one PC.  Serves me well, but I want Jorge's setup!!!

I like my little 1366x768 lappy.

The "most common" anything often isn't relevant to understanding. If you looked at most sold phone models then you wouldn't even get a smartphone in the top 10. But somehow the mobile game market targeting smartphones has grown into a 25 billion dollar industry.

And anyway let's not forget that there are plenty of gamers that are opting for lower resolution but higher refresh rates. And then there's another (much smaller segment) opting for G-sync or Freesync screens. Etc.

I was going to question how Frogboy manages to run Ashes at 5k when I can't even run it at 60fps in 4k with the same GPU... but it seems there's been a ton of optimizations since I last played it! I was averaging ~30 fps at 2560x1600 last time, now I'm getting almost 55 fps at 4k. I'm guessing my 8gb memory and 4690k cpu is dragging me down a bit. 

My PC can't handle Ashes, so no sense in getting a fancy monitor.