Does GPU performance stop you from going 4K?

[XDXD_RPQ0FCT]

IMO, the monitor industry had shifted focus from improving image quality in favor of resolution race for far too long, on both stationary and mobile devices. As a result of this imbalance we already have "cheap" 4K's on the market and 8K lining up in a few months http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/lg-has-8k-monitor-on-deck-before-4k-can-become-standard/

 

You may ask if it hasn't always been like this and the answer is no, GPU performance demand has skyrocketed over the past 5 years. At the moment, for 4K, 3 high end GPU's are pretty much a necessity which brings up cost, power and heat issues. To make matters worse, you still may need GSync  even with 3 GPU's

GPU progress has been incremental while displays keep pushing the pixel count leading to an interesting situation, there have been great deals on 4K monitors lately. That is, until you try to game natively on them. If it were up to me, display makers should now take a look at beyond LCD's, focus on better displays and take a little break at the 8k mark.

 

[Guest]

My wallet stops me

 

I cant afford neither monitor or gpus for 4k

[Lotus]

No, it's not GPU performance. You can run my favorite games at 4k with the GPUs available. It's the total cost of the platform. 2x GTX 970s and a 4k monitor is hugely expensive.

[ERSCreeper]

I have a GTX 980 and I couldn't care to upgrade pass 1080P using 1440P/4K via DSR

[cesrai]

Nope I haz no money.

[Fate]

I saw a 4k display for $350 on black friday so I bought it, I'll probably buy a 390(x) or 380(x) when they come out or possibly two 290's depending on the prices. Currently I only have a R9 270 but for the games I play right now it's fine (racing/mmo's). Whenever I want to fire up a more demanding game I just put it in 1080p/1440p and it still looks great.

[Paul_VB]

I'm going to 4960x1600 this christmas, nearly the same pixel count as 4k. The reasons i didnt go with a single 4k display are price, windows UI scaling, and lack of 4k content.

[Arty]

Just cause the monitor is 4k, doesn't mean you have to play every game at 4k.

Movies, youtube + games that run 60fps 4k in 4k

everything else at 1440p 60fps

[Th3 Mans1ay3r]

Too much money for too little gain.

[Blecter]

I bought into 4k thinking my 2 mid range GTX 760's in SLI would prevent me from enjoying 4k gaming - that is not the case. Single player/relaxed games like Shadow of Mordor and SpinTires I play at 4k just fine (not a consistent 60fps, but more than playable, 30-45fps), and games like BF4 I drop to 1440p when playing multiplayer to remain competitive.

I think that cost is the major factor holding people back. Not everyone can afford high end videos cards, or justify spending more that $150/200 on a monitor.

If you remove the cost, I think that the argument that current GPU's cannot push 4k is dead. Grab a couple higher end video cards from either side and you can play games maxed at 45-60fps.

Game support may, however, lack in some areas, especially for older games.

[PerfectTemplar]

I bought into 4k thinking my 2 mid range GTX 760's in SLI would prevent me from enjoying 4k gaming - that is not the case. Single player/relaxed games like Shadow of Mordor and SpinTires I play at 4k just fine (not a consistent 60fps, but more than playable, 30-45fps), and games like BF4 I drop to 1440p when playing multiplayer to remain competitive.

I think that cost is the major factor holding people back. Not everyone can afford high end videos cards, or justify spending more that $150/200 on a monitor.

If you remove the cost, I think that the argument that current GPU's cannot push 4k is dead. Grab a couple higher end video cards from either side and you can play games maxed at 45-60fps.

Game support may, however, lack in some areas, especially for older games.

Some people including myself do not think anything below 60fps is playable. It's personal preference. I have the option to game @ 4k 30fps but I refuse to.

[Brandonsr]

I'm still running 1080p, and I don't have a problem with it. However, If I did upgrade I would most likely switch to 2.5k rather than 4k. 

 

Even if I bought a 4k monitor I wouldn't be able to afford the gpu power to run it effectively. I would want a minimum of 45+fps and the gpu power is not quite yet, but maybe a couple more years down the road we will see more affordable solutions.

[XDXD_RPQ0FCT]

I bought into 4k thinking my 2 mid range GTX 760's in SLI would prevent me from enjoying 4k gaming - that is not the case. Single player/relaxed games like Shadow of Mordor and SpinTires I play at 4k just fine (not a consistent 60fps, but more than playable, 30-45fps), and games like BF4 I drop to 1440p when playing multiplayer to remain competitive.

I think that cost is the major factor holding people back. Not everyone can afford high end videos cards, or justify spending more that $150/200 on a monitor.

If you remove the cost, I think that the argument that current GPU's cannot push 4k is dead. Grab a couple higher end video cards from either side and you can play games maxed at 45-60fps.

Game support may, however, lack in some areas, especially for older games.

There are many games that force you to lower settings and still drop down to 30fps, if not even lower. At that point, you want to consider GSync which limits options and increases the cost. And it's not just a matter of grabbing a couple of higher end cards, SLI needs a proper motherboard, maybe a new PSU too, heat dissipation and noise become an issue...

You still need timely SLI support and cross fingers for good scaling with each game. I get that some play games that aren't demanding but that can't be the right mindset to go forward with, "I'll just go with 4k now and hope I don't like any of the GPU intensive games that will come down the road". Another thing doesn't make sense to me in regards to 4K gaming, why aim for the bleeding edge and get a 4K monitor if you end up downscaling to more modest resolutions anyway? Downsampling is not an argument vs 4k because downsampling matters when sampled down to display native res. Taking a 4K image then downsampling it to a lower res and then setting that lower res in settings to get playable fps to finally display it on a 4K native display is a futile effort. To downsample as Gaben intended, you would have to downsample from 8K and then output it 4K natively but good luck putting that rendering farm together. 

 

There is a lot happening in the PC market in the near future. 2 New Intel architectures, a new AMD CPU, die shrink GPU's will hit the markets, DX12,  DDR 4 speeds are supposed to set it apart from DDR3, game studios having more experience with multi threading...

 I've been preparing for a 4K rig for quite some time now, bought a HAF X, fans and power supply over the past 18 months. I'm hoping that all these PC specific events I mentioned help 4K to go mainstream. I think we are one GPU generation away from getting "good enough" results from a dual high end card + GSync/Freesync monitor setup. Lets assume that both Nvidia and AMD get it right, you still have to carefully match your GPU and monitor selections and pay a premium along the way. And while I think that Gsync is useful, I was impressed with it, both GSync and Freesync are Nvidia's and AMD's way of caving in and admiting "look, we can't give you solid 60fps with 4K at acceptable frame rates but if you buy 2 of our high end cards and a compatible monitor to hide the lack of performance, you get close".

[ACatWithThumbs]

Till 4k is actually ready it will take at least another years probably 2 and by then monitors will be much cheaper.
First no GPU is strong enough to max games out with 4k even GTX980 SLI struggle in many games 4K/60fps won't be a thing until we get stacked dram.
Second Windows 7/8.1 doesn't scale at all with 4k so getting Windows 10 will be pretty much a must if you want a good 4k experience outside of gaming which is also a year away.
Third most older games  get a tiny Hud at 4k and even Steam/Origin overlay gets tiny.
 

[T6kke]

Cost is one thing for me but the bigger problem would be that it's not that practical. Windows doesn't scale with 4K and 4 1080p screens in a square patter doesn't seem that practical. I would much rather have a surround setup with 3 screens.

[Klerk]

I'm pretty happy playing in 1080p. I might go for 1440p or higher refresh rate but not 4k. Plus for me framerate>resolution.

[EChondo]

No.

 

What is stopping me is the pricing of 4k monitors. When it gets to around $300 I'll contemplate it, but until then I'd rather pick up 3-4 1920x1080 monitors and do surround gaming. 

[IrshaadH]

Honestly, if I had the money, I'd buy a 21:9 1440p monitor instead.

[XDXD_RPQ0FCT]

Small sample size but almost 2/3 don't want to step up to a resolution that pretty much demands 2 GPU's.

 There are games that run 4K just fine on  single GPU's and those games may happen to play the most. Or you just happened to find an amazing deal and you had to grab that 4K monitor, that's fine but to build a new PC  around the GPU performance problem like Linus did in yesterday's video... Doesn't make sense to me.

[HippY]

personally I am waiting for a 3rd FHD monitor, waiting my HD 7770 to die ( honestly, watching  HD youtube and another window make the temps and fans higher), an r9 290 or 380X/whatever we will see and an UHD monitor. I reckon a UHD monitor (28/32") will be great for work ( PCB design), watching movies, games (I tend to play older games) and use it as a TV at uni

[grayperview]

4k doesn't interest me at all for gaming, The only reason i would want 4k is for the extra desktop room...and it would have to be on at least a 32inch screen(eyesight), which for my setup is way to big.

 

As for gaming 1080p is good enough, don't even see the point in going to 1440p myself sometimes games can just look too sharp...

[Misanthrope]

I can't even buy a 4k monitor: I literally have not seen a single 4k monitor for sale here in Mexico. I've seen 4k TVs but they're like 60 inch stupid monstrosities that cost 3000 usd.