Has AMD solved our 4K monitor gaming issues?

[Galion]

Every video on YouTube I've seen about 90% of them says that no gpu can push the graphics stable on a 4K monitor, is it possible that the Radeon iiv has solved it? 

16gb of vram should be able, right? 

[Fasauceome]

It's not the Vram that hurts 4k, memory bandwidth and the GPU itself struggle. 16GB isn't what's gonna help but the 1TB/sec sure is.

[Galion]

11 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

It's not the Vram that hurts 4k, memory bandwidth and the GPU itself struggle. 16GB isn't what's gonna help but the 1TB/sec sure is.

Because I'm intrested in getting a proper 4k monitor for the work I'm doing for my studies and hope the Radeon iiv can handle the gaming as well on that monitor. 

[Spotty]

 

Considering the Radeon VII that AMD showed off at CES in 3 games cherrypicked by AMD was only able to match the RTX 2080 performance in DX11 and DX12 games at 4k, I don't think they're doing anything special that "solves the 4k problem". The 16GB of HBM2 memory has nothing to do with them making a card for 4k gaming, and everything to do with them just recycling the Instinct MI50 because they had nothing else to release that could compete with Nvidia until Navi is ready.

If you want better performance playing at 4K, lower the graphics settings. No need to be playing at 4K Ultra.

[Galion]

13 minutes ago, Spotty said:

 

Considering the Radeon VII that AMD showed off at CES in 3 games cherrypicked by AMD was only able to match the RTX 2080 performance in DX11 and DX12 games at 4k, I don't think they're doing anything special that "solves the 4k problem". The 16GB of HBM2 memory has nothing to do with them making a card for 4k gaming, and everything to do with them just recycling the Instinct MI50 because they had nothing else to release that could compete with Nvidia until Navi is ready.

If you want better performance playing at 4K, lower the graphics settings. No need to be playing at 4K Ultra.

But it's ultra daddy I want ultra lol, the Radeon iiv is good for my work but I was hoping it'd be a good fit for gaming too. 

[boey]

2 minutes ago, Galion said:

But it's ultra daddy I want ultra lol, the Radeon iiv is good for my work but I was hoping it'd be a good fit for gaming too. 

If you want to do 4K Ultra with a card that barely keeps up with the 2080 at all, then you'd probably see something like 30-40 FPS. If you want a good 4k ultra gaming experience, only card right now that isn't a titan is the 2080 Ti.

[Galion]

1 hour ago, _d0nut said:

If you want to do 4K Ultra with a card that barely keeps up with the 2080 at all, then you'd probably see something like 30-40 FPS. If you want a good 4k ultra gaming experience, only card right now that isn't a titan is the 2080 Ti.

Damn

[boey]

1 hour ago, Galion said:

Damn

Honestly, 1440p 144Hz is a much more pleasant experience than 4K 60Hz, unless you wanna spend like $1000+ on a 4K 144Hz panel. Much easier to run 1440p 144Hz, and a radeon vii/2080 should push 100+ fps at 1440p ultra without any issue.

[Sprayingmango]

I've been gaming at 1440p 144Hz G-Sync for the past few years (SLI 1080Ti) and its been fantastic. This year I upgraded to an Asus PG27UQ along with NVLINK (SLI) 2080Ti's at 120Hz and I can't tell the difference from an FPS perspective. Visually games look amazing, especially games that support HDR. Otherwise, I can say that from an image quality point of view it's hard to tell 1440 vs 4k purely based on sharpness in games. When you step back and look at the overall quality of the panel based on colors, etc. well the 4k will look better every time. In games though...1440p is definitely the sweet spot. 

[boey]

17 minutes ago, Sprayingmango said:

I've been gaming at 1440p 144Hz G-Sync for the past few years (SLI 1080Ti) and its been fantastic. This year I upgraded to an Asus PG27UQ along with NVLINK (SLI) 2080Ti's at 120Hz and I can't tell the difference from an FPS perspective. Visually games look amazing, especially games that support HDR. Otherwise, I can say that from an image quality point of view it's hard to tell 1440 vs 4k purely based on sharpness in games. When you step back and look at the overall quality of the panel based on colors, etc. well the 4k will look better every time. In games though...1440p is definitely the sweet spot. 

1440p vs 4k will show a huge difference usually only when your monitor is large, like a 32" monitor or something. Right now with the quality of hardware and such it's much more viable to get 1440p 144hz. 

[xg32]

3 hours ago, Galion said:

.

There are budget options now announced for at CES for 699 usd thats 1440p/144hz with hdr400, it'll probably be better than no HDR but won't be as good as hdr1000, but for the price it's pretty sweet.

 

The trick is to play in 1440p or 4k fullscreen windowed with hdr forced on desktop, that way it'll work for every game. (the game doesn't need to be hdr compatible), it's just an adjustment to the gamut, just don't enable hdr twice (desktop and in-game).

 

Even the 2080 ti barely runs 4k/98 hdr 444 on old games like witcher 3, it does run 4k/144 hdr 422 on stuff like the older metros, warframe, and path of exile (the cpu and gpu usage on 4k/144 on poe is unreal)

 

Theres also a bandwidth issue on the 4k monitors that realistically is capped at 98hz, at 144hz the colors looks weird, worse on desktop than in-game, wait for a bandwidth/dp1.4a update on the 4k monitors at least. They are currently DP1.4 and the 2080 ti is 1.4a.

 

If your target fps is 98, then the 2080 ti does about 80fps in AAA titles, 98 on medium. 120 or 144? it falls way short. So I'd wait for a 1.4a update on the monitors, and by then next gen gpus might already be out that pushes closer to 120 on medium. Or just get a 1440p/144 hdr400 monitor and enjoy everything at almost perfect settings with a single 2080 ti, since I have to turn the desktop brightness from 50 to 25 anyway for forced hdr. and u save 1k on the monitor. Only down side is quite a bit of sacrifice on the colors on the 1440p monitors.

 

49 minutes ago, PacketMan said:

WTF have you spent over $10,000 on a PC setup?

it doesn't quite cost 10k, closer to 5 or 6 depending if sli. The x27 looks even better than the PG27UQ for the same price (color distortions on the corners and louder fan on the asus model)

[Sprayingmango]

2 hours ago, PacketMan said:

I meant looking at his system specs

 

Why are people on these forums obsessed with what people spend on their hobby? We are all tech enthusiasts and I've been building custom systems for myself for gaming for over 20 years. You know, adults can have successful careers and disposable income to spend on their hobbies.... 

 

The X27 and PG27UQ have the same panel btw....they are identical and the only difference is the bezel (and maybe a quieter fan on the ASUS display). 

[Anomnomnomaly]

4 hours ago, Sprayingmango said:

 

Why are people on these forums obsessed with what people spend on their hobby? We are all tech enthusiasts and I've been building custom systems for myself for gaming for over 20 years. You know, adults can have successful careers and disposable income to spend on their hobbies.... 

 

The X27 and PG27UQ have the same panel btw....they are identical and the only difference is the bezel (and maybe a quieter fan on the ASUS display). 

If money wasn't the issue, I think I'd still be a little obsessed about getting the best performance vs VFM as possible... It's just who I am.

[TahoeDust]

Take this for what it is worth.  I play at 3440x1440 100Fps.  3440x1440 @ 100fps and 4k @ 60fps are VERY similarly demanding.  3440x1440 100fps needs ~495m pixels a second and 4k 60fps needs ~497m pixels a second.  That being said, my 1080ti left me wanting more.  The 2080ti is the first card that can really do it well in my opinion and Radion vii is not going to be close.