How much GPU power do you need for a 4K 144Hz monitor?

[south221]

The title is probably a bit confusing (I mean, if you want to play AA-AAA games on high-ultra settings with good performance on such a display, what kind of/how much graphics cards would you need?)

And no, I'm not going to buy or try one, it's just plain curiosity (after seeing Predator X27 and PG27UQ)...

I was thinking about Quadro P6000, but what about GeForce or Vega cards?

[Bananasplit_00]

quad 1080TIs or Titan Xp setups are my first thought

[Armakar]

There isn't really enough GPU power on the market to do this. We still don't have a card that can reliably max games on 4K - the 1080Ti and TitanXp still have issues with many games at 4K. 

My 1080Ti even doesn't fare so well at 1440p. There's many games I can't even hit 100FPS on.

[TidaLWaveZ]

Too much.

 

[dizmo]

One of my friends is buying one as soon as it's released. He currently has a 1080, might upgrade to a 1080Ti, but he's getting it more for the (dare I say it) "future proof" aspect of it. You won't need a monitor for a really, really long time.

 

As for you question, loads. I'd want at least 1080Ti SLI, but really if you're paying the rumored $2,200 for the monitor, it's not unreasonable to think you'd also have a system like that.

[Jurrunio]

A LOT of graphics card. I dont think even a 1080ti SLI setup can keep up at all times.

 

It also seems that Volta wont come in gaming flavour as Ampere got revealed before Volta gaming cards (probably those tensor cores dont do well in games so performance gain is rather small). This means more time to wait till there's a card that can handle 4K 144Hz in AAA games with high graphics settings. At this point of time a 4K 144Hz display is only good for esports games, though they are good ones in that aspect.

[Cookybiscuit]

If you mean to hit 144FPS at 4K in the newest games at ultra, no setup currently exists to be able to do this and probably wont for some time. Thing is though you don't need to match the refresh rate of your monitor for it to be worth it, 60FPS/144Hz is a lot better than 60FPS/60Hz simply due to less tearing and input lag.

[Zyndo]

44 minutes ago, south221 said:

The title is probably a bit confusing (I mean, if you want to play AA-AAA games on high-ultra settings with good performance on such a display, what kind of/how much graphics cards would you need?)

And no, I'm not going to buy or try one, it's just plain curiosity (after seeing Predator X27 and PG27UQ)...

I was thinking about Quadro P6000, but what about GeForce or Vega cards?

There are no GPU's on the market right now to get this kind of performance reliably across the board. 1440p 144hz in all games isn't really doable either. gonna have to wait a generation or two at least before you can see that kind of performance... or gonna have to tweak a lot of graphical settings.

[Zyndo]

35 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Thing is though you don't need to match the refresh rate of your monitor for it to be worth it, 60FPS/144Hz is a lot better than 60FPS/60Hz simply due to less tearing and input lag.

lol. just stop m8. Nothing about what you just said here makes any sense. 60fps 144hz creates tearing, not reduces it. and there is no input lag difference between a 144hz monitor and a 60hz monitor if they're both running at 60 fps. You're still getting 60 fps and the frames still appear 16.7ms apart.

[Cookybiscuit]

35 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

lol. just stop m8. Nothing about what you just said here makes any sense. 60fps 144hz creates tearing, not reduces it. and there is no input lag difference between a 144hz monitor and a 60hz monitor if they're both running at 60 fps. You're still getting 60 fps and the frames still appear 16.7ms apart.

The higher the refresh rate of the monitor, the faster the most recent frame takes up the majority of the screen, making the tear less visible. For a vertical tear to be removed you need the monitor to refresh again before a new frame is received by the monitor, can you explain how a higher refresh rate makes this process slower, and thus makes tearing worse?

 

Further, can you explain how a monitor refreshing faster, and thus showing you the most recent frame drawn by the GPU faster, makes no difference for input lag?

 

You are wrong on both fronts, it's as simple as that.

[Zyndo]

47 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

can you explain how a higher refresh rate makes this process slower, and thus makes tearing worse

60fps at 60hz results in no tearing. the monitor displays 1 frame per time it refreshes its image. Everything is synchronized. 60fps at 144hz does not do this. There will be times when the monitor refreshes its image, and there will be two separate frames on screen, resulting in a tear. If you had a higher framerate to accompany the higher refresh rate, the distance between tears would be less, making them less noticeable to the naked eye (even though they would be more frequent) so that is good to note, but none of this is better than non-existent tearing which is what you get with 60fps/60hz.

 

54 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Further, can you explain how a monitor refreshing faster, and thus showing you the most recent frame drawn by the GPU faster, makes no difference for input lag

because 60 fps is 60 fps. in a 60 fps situation, your GPU will update the image and send it to your monitor every 16.67ms. if your monitor is a 60hz monitor, it will update every 16.67 ms as well, resulting in no lost time. if you have a 144hz monitor, a new image will begin being drawn every 16.67ms, regardless of whether or not the monitor is mid refresh (resulting in a tear, but it still updates 16.67 ms after the GPU sent the last frame), resulting in no lost time. No lost time in either situation means the difference between 60hz and 144hz does not change input lag.

 

So yes, I CAN explain it.

[Cookybiscuit]

15 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

60fps at 60hz results in no tearing.

Can you just take five seconds to go and try this yourself so you can prove yourself wrong?

 

15 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

 because 60 fps is 60 fps. in a 60 fps situation, your GPU will update the image and send it to your monitor every 16.67ms. if your monitor is a 60hz monitor, it will update every 16.67 ms as well, resulting in no lost time. if you have a 144hz monitor, a new image will begin being drawn every 16.67ms, regardless of whether or not the monitor is mid refresh (resulting in a tear, but it still updates 16.67 ms after the GPU sent the last frame), resulting in no lost time. No lost time in either situation means the difference between 60hz and 144hz does not change input lag.

 

So yes, I CAN explain it.

This doesn't happen though because the GPU and monitor aren't synchronized, monitors update at a fixed rate while GPU's draw frames at a variable rate, why do you think VSYNC exists?

 

Lets use an exaggerated example to prove you even further wrong. Say you are rendering at 1FPS on a 1Hz monitor, that means the monitor is only refreshing one time every second. Lets say the monitor refreshes, but 3ms after that the GPU draws another frame, meaning you now have to wait another 997ms for the monitor to refresh. Now lets say you are rendering at 1FPS on a 240Hz monitor, the monitor refreshes, but 3ms later the GPU draws another frame and you have to wait another 1.16ms for the monitor to refresh.

 

Milliseconds are a measure of time, 997 is a bigger number than 1.16, is this starting to make sense to you why a higher refresh rate means less input lag? I don't know why this is even an argument, assuming you have a high refresh rate display, just cap a game at 60FPS with no VSYNC and try it yourself at 60Hz compared to 120/144Hz.

[Princess Luna]

You need an i7 8700k at 5.3ghz with Quadro P6000 OC'ed in 2way SLI, RAM should be at 3200mhzCL14 (32gb).

[Zyndo]

9 hours ago, Cookybiscuit said:

Snip

well alright then. It doesn't matter if you understand why you're wrong or not. at the end of the day this is not what this thread is about. I will not entertain your ignorance any further and this thread can return to its original topic.

[Zyndo]

8 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

You need an i7 8700k at 5.3ghz with Quadro P6000 OC'ed in 2way SLI, RAM should be at 3200mhzCL14 (32gb).

This setup will not yield the desired level of performance. Sure its probably the best thing you could possibly hope for on the market today, but its still not enough horsepower (especially on the GPU side of things) to fuel a variety of games at his requested settings and resolution/refresh rate.

[PETRGangKing]

We don't have anything yet (consumer level at least) that will. Good thing those 144hz panels have g sync I can't wait to get the pg27uq

[jeremymwilson]

A 1080Ti is there or thereabouts for 4K/60 at ultra (minor settings changes perhaps). To go from 60 to 144 or even 100 is a huge leap. Let’s face it,  a single card won’t be able to do that for at least 3 years. Which means once 4K/144 monitors are more commonplace and kind of affordable, SLI will then be more fashionable (right now everyone and their dog are complaining that SLI is crap). Which should mean that SLI support from nvidia and amd, and the developers, will improve. 

 

Thats my hope anyway. 

[Cookybiscuit]

5 hours ago, Zyndo said:

well alright then. It doesn't matter if you understand why you're wrong or not. at the end of the day this is not what this thread is about. I will not entertain your ignorance any further and this thread can return to its original topic.

Damn you got me, you proved all of my points to be incorrect, what a fool I look,

 

Congratulations, you win this argument.

[Zyndo]

On 11/15/2017 at 12:45 AM, jeremymwilson said:

once 4K/144 monitors are more commonplace and kind of affordable, SLI will then be more fashionable (right now everyone and their dog are complaining that SLI is crap). Which should mean that SLI support from nvidia and amd, and the developers, will improve

Multi-GPU support COULD improve going forward, but not in the traditional "SLI" (or Crossfire) sense. From my understanding, SLI is on its way out. LDA/MDA is what most people have been talking about since the Pascal SLI adjustments, but rumor has it that Nvidia is working on another technology to directly replace the aging SLI standard. In any case, you can bet that these new technologies (whether it be the generic LDA/MDA or whatever Nvidia/AMD has up their sleeves) will require it to be up to individual developers to properly code and implement into their games/engines and whatnot in order for these features to work at all... which is unfortunate, because few developers are going to go out of their way and spend extra money on something which otherwise won't really help their game sell all that much better. If there is no ROI for a company to spend the time and money on doing something, there is a very good chance they just won't do it.

 

So I too hope for a multi-GPU future, but I just don't see it happening. But then again I didn't see the 1070ti happening, so who knows what kind of crazy stuff they'll think of next

[jasonvp]

On 11/14/2017 at 12:26 PM, south221 said:

The title is probably a bit confusing (I mean, if you want to play AA-AAA games on high-ultra settings with good performance on such a display, what kind of/how much graphics cards would you need?)

I don't have a 4K/144Hz panel (yet).  However, I've been doing some experimentation with BF1 recently.  My settings are custom: 1440p, maxed out everything except AA and ambient occlusion (both disabled).  My rig is able to hold 142FPS, where I have it locked in the NVidia driver, pretty easily on most maps.

 

For giggles, I set the scaling to 150%, which is equivalent to 4K.  I saw the load on my GPUs almost double (not quite), but I maintained my basic 142FPS on most maps.

 

I'm using 2 Titan X Pascals (the gimped ones, not the Xp), which have been OC'd +200 core/+500 memory.  This works exceptionally well in titles like BF1 because Frostbite does SLI so fricken well.  Other titles might not.

[irrelevancyhack]

more than what will be available during the next few years. I mean you can play them at 4K/100~ish Hz  smooth but with lowering all the rest of the quality of the game, making the title not really AA/AAA anymore.