Best GPU'S for 4k gaming

[ablangc]

I say go for:

980's in SLI if you have the money to spend

R9 295x2

2x R9 290(x)

 

In that order.   People are going to call you stupid for buying the 980's because you wasted your money when you could have gone cheaper.  It's up to you if you want to spend that cash on an X99 platform and 980's.  There are some people on here who are so against the 980's because of the cost and act like they are paying for it.  It's your money and if you have the cash for an uber system and have your priorities straight in life, GO GET IT!  I wish I would have waited for the X99 platform to come out and buy the 5960X CPU, but alas I am stuck with my 4790k.  I am not complaining because the system is fast so now I am just playing the waiting game to see what AMD will come out with and how Nvidia will retaliate.  

[ERECTOR2015]

I say go for:

980's in SLI if you have the money to spend

R9 295x2

2x R9 290(x)

 

In that order.   People are going to call you stupid for buying the 980's because you wasted your money when you could have gone cheaper.  It's up to you if you want to spend that cash on an X99 platform and 980's.  There are some people on here who are so against the 980's because of the cost and act like they are paying for it.  It's your money and if you have the cash for an uber system and have your priorities straight in life, GO GET IT!  I wish I would have waited for the X99 platform to come out and buy the 5960X CPU, but alas I am stuck with my 4790k.  I am not complaining because the system is fast so now I am just playing the waiting game to see what AMD will come out with and how Nvidia will retaliate.  

 

For gaming, is the x99 platform the best? sorry novice here. 

[79wjd]

For gaming, is the x99 platform the best? sorry novice here. 

No. Z97 is best. Only a handful of games can use more than 4 cores. So in most games a 4690k will have the same performance as a 4790k, both of which will perform the same as any X99 chip at the same clockspeeds (assuming you can reach those clock speeds on an X99 chip, which all start out clocked quite a bit slower). 

[Monkey Dust]

I'd go with 2 290x's or a 295x2, depending on what will fit in your case most easily. As noted there isn't a pair of cards that can comfortably run AAA games at 4K yet, so what ever you choose probably won't be in your system for long (12 months?), so I'd go with the value option. Ebaying a pair of 980s after 12 months will be painful.

 

The X99 platform is the 'best', but doesn't offer any real benefits for gaming over Z97, and Z97 will draw less power and produce less heat.

[Sauron]

Now why don't you go ahead and post the minimums and/or a graph of fps/time. Average FPS doesn't mean all that much as frequent and low minimums are worse than a consistently smooth lower average. 

 

I get consistent framerates on bioshock infinite with a single R9 290... not at ultra, of course, but at pretty high settings regardless. And if the average fps is 80, I don't expect minimums to be anywhere below 50...

[kpreg]

Well, can't reccomend 970s anymore.

Get two 980s for ultra settings and CF 290x for low-med.

[Aphala]

Wait for R9 300 series and hope the 380/90x in XFIRE can run 4k well. But for now, two 980s would be your best bet (although do keep in mind, two 980s already struggle at 4k in modern titles). 

Wouldn't say 50fps average in SLI is a struggle lol

 

that or get a R9 295X2.

[sgloux3470]

'Single' GPU:

-R9 290X

-GTX 980

-R9 295x2

-Titan Z

 

Multi GPU:

-GTX 970 SLI

-R9 290 CF

-R9 280X CF

-GTX 780 SLI

 

[Briggsy]

290x crosfire is the best option.

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/11/19/nvidia_geforce_gtx_970_sli_4k_nv_surround_review

 

I agree, the 290x is the best option. I'll meet your hardocp and raise you an Anandtech.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1351?vs=1059 For the 4K tests the reference leaf blower at stock speeds is keeping up with the 980 except for bioshock and metro (surprise, surprise), but at 1080p and 1440p the 980 is the better card. 

 

can't deny though that at 4K the 980 is doing what the 290x is doing for 100watts less, but considering you can buy two 290x for the price of one 980, I think the power bill issue is a non issue.

[zappian]

I agree, the 290x is the best option. I'll meet your hardocp and raise you an Anandtech.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1351?vs=1059 For the 4K tests the reference leaf blower at stock speeds is keeping up with the 980 except for bioshock (surprise, surprise), but at 1080p and 1440p the 980 is the better card. 

 

can't deny though that at 4K the 980 is doing what the 290x is doing for 100watts less, but considering you can buy two 290x for the price of one 980, I think the power bill issue is a non issue.

 

980 SLI is for rich people

[79wjd]

Wouldn't say 50fps average in SLI is a struggle lol

 

that or get a R9 295X2.

You also fail to realize that XFIRE 290x's will produce anywhere from 40-60fps averages in modern games (depending on the games), BUT there are frequent frame drops to 30-40 fps range, which introduce noticeable stutter.

[Badger906]

i love how people say 2x980 or 2x290x cant play 4k very well... 

 

umm.. i have a gtx 770 and i get playable frame rates on all the games I've tried at 4k with medium to high settings... including bf4 and cod:aw.. so 2 top tier cards will be much better than my shoddy 2gb card!

 

As linus said in a recent build guide, most people aren't playing AAA titles all the time, twitch tvs most popular games are older one.. 

 

who cares if you can't turn on 16xAA or MSA in games at 4k but can still play them at ultra without.. 4k is 100x better looking than 1080p even with games on minimum.. 

 

OP id get either an r9 295x2 or 2 r9 290x's save the added money that you'd pay on nvidia cards at the moment and use it to fund new gpus in a year or so if you want/need them.

[Briggsy]

You also fail to realize that XFIRE 290x's will produce anywhere from 40-60fps averages in modern games (depending on the games), BUT there are frequent frame drops to 30-40 fps range, which introduce noticeable stutter.

 

thats what freesync is for. 

[LabRat]

wait until June. By then the new AMD cards will be out. The current 980's aren't even good for 4k.

[79wjd]

i love how people say 2x980 or 2x290x cant play 4k very well... 

I'm sorry I don't consider 4k @ very low settings and poor (and possibly unstable) FPS to be good. 

[Cheddle]

http://event.gigabyte.com/waterforce/

[Cheddle]

The 1 less GB of VRAM will hurt it, and someone here managed to easily reach around 3GB's on a 970 at 4K,

 

I hit 3,964mb~ in most new games at 4k. I am sure its swapping and stuttering as a result of using almost all of the vram

[Badger906]

I'm sorry I don't consider 4k @ very low settings and poor (and possibly unstable) FPS to be good.

like I said I play all my games at medium on 4k with a single 770 so 2 of anything is going to be better!

I never get below 35 fps on bf4 at 4k on all medium and some high settings

[I/O]

Hi,

 

I'm currently building an x99 platform gaming rig. However. I'm not sure on what GPU's would best be suited for the job. I play crisis. battlefield etc.

 

advice needed and appreciated. Thanks,

Really no GPU can drive 4K properly. I think framerate is more important than pixels IMHO.

[Aphala]

You also fail to realize that XFIRE 290x's will produce anywhere from 40-60fps averages in modern games (depending on the games), BUT there are frequent frame drops to 30-40 fps range, which introduce noticeable stutter.

 

I could say the same for you, over shadowing the fact it could be a 5ms monitor or a 1ms monitor.  But in saying that I was correct was I not? Sure there will be frame dips there are always frame dips it's just most people go 70+ fps so they would more than likely not notice a dip on that range. For example my 6970 is struggling to play a lot of games now on High not even extreme settings. 2011 it was the shit 2gb vram did what I was supposed to do. SLI is the only chance anyone would have a  getting flat 60+ on 4k don't get me started on piss poor dev work for MANY games that struggle to use SLI/Crossfire effectively or even use it at all, but that's another subject for another time.

 

Maybe by 2016/2017 we will be able to run a constant 60fps+ and by then most likely someone will do 100/120/144hz 4Ks either ASUS or ROG branded monitors, HELL even Samsung are trying to push 8K already which is silly for gaming (obviously).

[RoC_HopE]

idk probably 3 980's depending on titles of games u play

[79wjd]

I could say the same for you, over shadowing the fact it could be a 5ms monitor or a 1ms monitor.  But in saying that I was correct was I not? Sure there will be frame dips there are always frame dips it's just most people go 70+ fps so they would more than likely not notice a dip on that range. For example my 6970 is struggling to play a lot of games now on High not even extreme settings. 2011 it was the shit 2gb vram did what I was supposed to do. SLI is the only chance anyone would have a  getting flat 60+ on 4k don't get me started on piss poor dev work for MANY games that struggle to use SLI/Crossfire effectively or even use it at all, but that's another subject for another time.

 

Maybe by 2016/2017 we will be able to run a constant 60fps+ and by then most likely someone will do 100/120/144hz 4Ks either ASUS or ROG branded monitors, HELL even Samsung are trying to push 8K already which is silly for gaming (obviously).

The response time is irrelevant as there is no standardized way of measuring it. 

 

And while frame dips always happen any dips above 60 dont really matter and any dips into the 50s isn't to bad either. 30-45 is just a terrible range.

[Aphala]

The response time is irrelevant as there is no standardized way of measuring it. 

 

And while frame dips always happen any dips above 60 dont really matter and any dips into the 50s isn't to bad either. 30-45 is just a terrible range.

I don't know about response time being irrelevant, have you used a 10ms monitor then used a <4ms monitor there is a fairly large delay when comparing them. But 40 isn't bad for me when running high end 2014 AAA games but any less then it's just an eye sore.  

[m_tieu]

I have 2 780ti's in sli for single panel 4k gaming and sometimes it struggles to maintain 60fps in ultra with minimal AA. Frames go from 45-85 for avg of 60 in games like tomb raider, metro redux, cod ghost, and battlefield 3. I usually play on medium or high to maintain 60fps minimum. I would recommend going with something like 3x980 or 3x290x or 2x295x2 if you want 60fps minimum on high or ultra on newer games. Or go with 2x980 and spend the extra money on a 4k gsync panel to enjoy smoothness at slightly lower or variable frame rates.