Is 4k surround with 30+ fps possible with 4 titan blacks?

[Tola]

Is 4k surround with 30+ fps possible with 4 titan blacks on ultra with and without AA?

[acidydragon]

That's 24 million pixels... Might be pushing it... (Also, 4 way SLI sucks... so... Yeah...)

[Ryan Leech]

Yes, but not ARMA 3 on ultra

[acidydragon]

It can probably push lower end games, probably not brand new games.

[LancerBG]

Yes, but not ARMA 3 on ultra

 

ok, that shit was just funny....because its sooo true. 

[Ryan Leech]

ok, that shit was just funny....because its sooo true. 

My 770 can only manage 27 on 1600x900 ultra. I'd like to see it on 12k lol

[DoubleY]

You make SOOO many threads about 4K and how far are you into your 4K purchasing endeavors? 

 

Anyway, here is a bechmarks

 

Sooo if you had three of those monitor you'd get like 10 fps. 

[Tola]

You make SOOO many threads about 4K and how far are you into your 4K purchasing endeavors? 

 

Anyway, here is a bechmarks

No I was having a conversation with my friend not buying one I got a pb278q and will be waiting till 4k ips 60Hz is more affordable.

[Thecrazyswede]

I would honestly look into a 3x1920 monitor setup instead, as 4k is ridiculously expensive and demanding, or maybe dual 2560x1440p if you really HAVE to spend the money.

[RDilux]

4k is indeed demanding not only for recording but also playing in newer games

 

 

Fallout 3 with mods 4k recording around 30-57fps
Fallour 3 wirh mods 4k without recording 70-120fps

 

So only the recording already take 20-40fps in shadowplay what is insane much for an older game.

Ok i running mods still the fact stays 4k in demanding for just gaming and recording

[Zjurc]

Seeing as an average user is typically 1 meter away from their monitor, 1080p is just fine. I have yet to understand why people want 4k displays. Okay, only if you need a monitor larger than 22 or so inches. The ~90dpi is just fine for everyday use. The only devices which need more than that are phones, tablets and similar. 

Games don't have any business with 4K. 

[Paralectic]

Seeing as an average user is typically 1 meter away from their monitor, 1080p is just fine. I have yet to understand why people want 4k displays. Okay, only if you need a monitor larger than 22 or so inches. The ~90dpi is just fine for everyday use. The only devices which need more than that are phones, tablets and similar. 

Games don't have any business with 4K. 

Games don't have any business with 4K? Are you retarded. textures need as many pixels as possible.

[Zjurc]

Games don't have any business with 4K? Are you retarded. textures need as many pixels as possible.

 

No? Textures of a leaf can be 8K but what's the point if the leaf will take up 1-2 square inches of space on your monitor(less)? This is also the reason leaves in games don't really have a high-res texture; or any other object for that matter. Besides, if you care about textures in games you don't really care about the game itself. 

The only real need for 4K is movie production and image editing; the rest coexists just because.

[Buddhaz Priest]

No? Textures of a leaf can be 8K but what's the point if the leaf will take up 1-2 square inches of space on your monitor(less)? This is also the reason leaves in games don't really have a high-res texture; or any other object for that matter. Besides, if you care about textures in games you don't really care about the game itself. 

The only real need for 4K is movie production and image editing; the rest coexists just because.

 

Thank GOD someone said it. I'm waiting for this whole 4k craze to die. If you plan on getting like a 50 inch monitor, I get it, but truth be told most people can't see a huge difference in pixel density once you go past 1440p unless they jump to those larger monitors. If you're like me on a 32 inch monitor, 1440p is about as high as you really need to go. Seriously, google it. 4k is the monitor manufacturers looking for a new buzzword to sell you another upgrad now that HD TVs and Displays have saturated the market and their sales have slowed.

 

The human eye can't percieve a difference in pixel density at 4k resolutions on displays of a reasonable size. The huge performance hit is NOT worth it. There is one thing I'll say about 4k, if you're doing productivity work and desktop workspace is at a PREMIUM, 4k is amazing. Being able to fit the amount of data onscreen on a single panel that you would normally have to use a dual-monitor setup for is great. As for gaming, I honestly don't see the point yet. It's not worth the cost of entry at all. Like Zjurc said, it makes sense for movie production (where you're going to blow that image up huge on a movie theatre screen and don't want image quality loss with the scaling) or image editing. Everyone else is pretty much buying hype.

[hal9001]

If you really want to do this, try 3 1440p monitors. They should be much easier to power than surround 4k.

[onionring]

Seeing as an average user is typically 1 meter away from their monitor, 1080p is just fine. I have yet to understand why people want 4k displays. Okay, only if you need a monitor larger than 22 or so inches. The ~90dpi is just fine for everyday use. The only devices which need more than that are phones, tablets and similar. 

Games don't have any business with 4K. 

 

This is so true, but even 24'' 1080p is fine 27'' 1080p is starting to push it, but still ok.

 

If you really want to do this, try 3 1440p monitors. They should be much easier to power than surround 4k.

 

And no one will see a diference between 27'' 1440p and 28'' 4K because the pixel are already too small to see (unless you try to then it s your problem) at 1440p.

[Tola]

So i've been talking to someone on facebook and he bought 3 4k monitors and 3 290s and he thinks he can run 4k 60+fps. He also thinks he has 12gb of usable VRAM.

[Shakaza]

So i've been talking to someone on facebook and he bought 3 4k monitors and 3 290s and he thinks he can run 4k 60+fps. He also thinks he has 12gb of usable VRAM.

Well, somebody's going to be disappointed. Very much so. Again, because 4k is only just emerging, it's expensive as heck and not much can play games at such a high resolution, and it is difficult to tell the difference between such high pixel densities now. In the future, when it becomes mainstream, it'll be acceptable and somewhat cheap to buy that kind of stuff, but just not now.

[Dubesta11]

I don't know why people are waiting for 4k, cinematic monitors are much better

[i_build_nanosuits]

simple answer to the question : No

That's way too much pixels pushing even for 4 titan blacks...especially considering that SLI give you about a 60% boost, 3 way SLI give you 20% more and the 4th card will sleep 99% of the time and when

it will actualy do something it will give you like a 10% extra boost AT MOST...so all in you are looking at something that is about 85% faster than a titan black on it's own...really not enough to push 24 883 200 pixels at

30FPS...not even close...maybe you can play Mario 64 at 30FPS...but BF4...15FPS on Low settings.

[Joshua Ondangan]

I'd still say blow it on x3 2560x1440 and sit back and enjoy.