Driving 4K

[TheCaptain53]

I have always believed that 4K is both hard AND expensive (kind of like a male hooker) to drive the latest AAA titles, with high-Ultra settings at 60 fps. With multiple people saying you need 2-way GTX 980 Ti SLI to drive games well at 4K (me being among that crowd, whislt admittedly having never owned a 4K panel), so to people who game at 4K, just how hard is it to drive?

[Mug]

statistically, 4 times harder than 1080p

 

A GTX 770 can game at 4k on medium settings on GTA V says Awesomesauce so you don't need two GTX 980ti cards but the more the merrier, right?

[TheCaptain53]

statistically, 4 times harder than 1080p

 

A GTX 770 can game at 4k on medium settings on GTA V says Awesomesauce so you don't need two GTX 980ti cards but the more the merrier, right?

The way I personally see it, why upgrade to 4K from 1440p if you're turning the textures down to medium? It almost defeats the point.

Also, what framerate did it run at?

I would say a 60 fps standard, but that's still pretty hard, so I'd estimate 45-50 fps (not for the GTX 770).

[Mug]

The way I personally see it, why upgrade to 4K from 1440p if you're turning the textures down to medium? It almost defeats the point.

Also, what framerate did it run at?

I would say a 60 fps standard, but that's still pretty hard, so I'd estimate 45-50 fps (not for the GTX 770).

From what I remember, it was mostly 60+ but sometimes dropping to as low as 35, especially at night.

[Atmos]

Building a rig for a client, and close friend, after it was done we sat down and ran a couple games @ 4k to put the hardware through it's paces. The biggest advantage of 4k over 1440p is just plain vision distance and clarity. We tried arma 3, which at 1080p on a decently large screen means you can't accurately see people who are more than 200 meters w/o zooming in when in a city. in 4k? Screw that, you could see the camo type and identify the glasses he was wearing from 200 meters w/o zooming in. (assuming you pressed your face hard up enough to the monitor) It's something that really must be experienced first hand. We get used to not being able to read that deep into the stuff you see on a panel, but at 4k, there's so much more depth, and accuracy that it really does make if worth it as an upgrade over 1440p. Well, at least for the kind of gaming I do it makes it worth it over a 1440p. Which is why im personally upgrading my system to 4k here quite soon.

[Master Disaster]

The way I personally see it, why upgrade to 4K from 1440p if you're turning the textures down to medium? It almost defeats the point.

Also, what framerate did it run at?

I would say a 60 fps standard, but that's still pretty hard, so I'd estimate 45-50 fps (not for the GTX 770).

 

I'd of thought the same too if I hadn't seen 4K for myself.

 

This is not an exaggeration here, GTA V at 4K on Lowest settings looks better than 1440P @ Highest settings.

 

That said i do realise R* put extra work into GTA V 4K textures in order to achieve that level of detail and I'm aware that other games won't look anywhere near as good as V does hen running @ 4K but its truly staggering what R* achieved with GTA V on PC.

[othertomperson]

Not that difficult. You can max most games with a 980 Ti (I use two 970s). There's like four particularly demanding games (GTA V, Shadow of Mordor, Dying Light and probably something else) that would want a second 980 Ti, but I've found that turning off AA is enough to get you 4K Ultra in most things with 970 SLI. AA makes hardly any impact with pixels this small anyway.

 

Even the games I can't max (such as Shadow of Mordor) it was just a case of going through the options menu and making literally two options "very high" instead of "ultra". I have never had to turn texture quality down to high, let alone medium or low.

 

Edit: Having just re-played SoM that game doesn't actually have a "very high" lol. It's Ultra (which requires the high res texture pack) and high.

[ANewFace]

A single 980 ti will play some stuff at 4K at ultra at 60 fps once overclocked. BF4 for example. But I would expect to play most stuff at High. Also remember at 4K you don't need AA

[IateMApoo]

If youre willing to turn down the settings you can easily game in 4K on single card like 980 Ti or Fury X, or even new air cooled Fury.

[TheConverter]

I have always believed that 4K is both hard AND expensive (kind of like a male hooker) to drive the latest AAA titles, with high-Ultra settings at 60 fps. With multiple people saying you need 2-way GTX 980 Ti SLI to drive games well at 4K (me being among that crowd, whislt admittedly having never owned a 4K panel), so to people who game at 4K, just how hard is it to drive?

 

My MSI 980Ti overclocked @ 1490Mhz core + 8000Mhz memory

 

Witcher 3 everything Ultra (hairworks off): 42FPS

 

 

Witcher 3 everything Ultra except HBAO off, shadows (high) and foliage distance (medium): 60FPS

 

 

 

This is worst case scenario as I have a 4 year old motherboard+cpu. You might get 5FPS more on a 4790K/5820K system. 

 

If you want to game on 4K definitely get a G-Sync monitor. If you play on a 144hz now you will hate everything else 

 

That's why I recommend getting the Acer XB270HU or the new IPS Swift and then using DSR to downscale games from 5K to 1440P, if you have the horsepower for it.

 

5K Ultra Settings (playable with some settings turned down at 40FPS, looks like E3 CGI footage)

 

[TheCaptain53]

I am surprised, I shall relay this information in future posts I make.

[TheConverter]

I am surprised, I shall relay this information in future posts I make.

 

Well duhhh, it's the world best gaming card, what do you expect.

 

Even on my R9 290 Tri-X that's 250$ in the US now (you luck bastards) you can run a lot of games at 4K.

[sgloux3470]

It depends on how willing you are to tweak settings.  A single 980 was able to do it mostly really well for me, but certain titles pushed me to upgrade to SLI and even that struggles. (For example Witcher 3 I get around 35-40 FPS with two cards.)  There was some games like Battlefield 4 where tweaking one or two settings pushed me into 60 FPS territory, and others where it wasn't great even on lowest. (Lichdom Battlemage)

 

GTA V ran at 60 FPS on High at 4K, and now runs at 50-60 FPS on higher quality settings with two, but honestly I barely notice the difference in visual quality.

 

 

Quite honestly if you just want to play games with fairly good looking graphics at 4K, a 390 or 970 are pretty decent.  If you want to play most  games extremely well, the Fury X or 980Ti are a decent option.  If you want to play EVERYTHING at 60 FPS 4K Ultra you're going to need three TitanX's and hope SLI works properly.

 

And anything older than 1-2 years will run extremely well on 4K on much less than you think.  Max Payne 3 was a constant 60 at 4K on one 980.  Company of Heroes 2 also runs really well maxed out at 4K, it's not a constant 60 but it's really good considering you could drop quality slightly and not notice.

[Badger906]

every game I own bar rust I can max out at 4k ultra with a single 980ti.

Anti aliasing is the biggest killer to performance at 4k, turning it off will give a huge gpu boost.

I gamed for 6 months with a 2gb gtx 770 and the experience was very good on medium high settings.

[Jumper118]

I have always believed that 4K is both hard AND expensive (kind of like a male hooker) to drive the latest AAA titles, with high-Ultra settings at 60 fps. With multiple people saying you need 2-way GTX 980 Ti SLI to drive games well at 4K (me being among that crowd, whislt admittedly having never owned a 4K panel), so to people who game at 4K, just how hard is it to drive?

i would do dual 980ti's for ultra-high settings at 60fps. one 980ti or 2 970 can do medium high with no aa, but i have 2 970's and i normally drop to 1440P to play aaa games with ultra and aa. 

[TheConverter]

i would do dual 980ti's for ultra-high settings at 60fps. one 980ti or 2 970 can do medium high with no aa, but i have 2 970's and i normally drop to 1440P to play aaa games with ultra and aa. 

 

I think people are just to spoiled. You can game at 4K with one 980Ti on everything that matters (textures,particles,effects etc) at ULTRA and just adjusting one or two settings lower, like HBAO, amount of grass/trees (Witcher 3/GTA V) and shadows (most of the times, you can't even see the difference).

 

And unless you are used to 144hz like me, you can't really see the difference between 50 and 60FPS. 40-45 is playable too depending on the game.

 

In a game like Witcher 3, I play it at 5K DSR to my 1440p 144hz monitor (Acer XB270HU) at 40-45FPS instead of 1440P +75FPS.

[Jumper118]

I think people are just to spoiled. You can game at 4K with one 980Ti on everything that matters (textures,particles,effects etc) at ULTRA and just adjusting one or two settings lower, like HBAO, amount of grass/trees (Witcher 3/GTA V) and shadows (most of the times, you can't even see the difference).

 

And unless you are used to 144hz like me, you can't really see the difference between 50 and 60FPS. 40-45 is playable too depending on the game.

 

In a game like Witcher 3, I play it at 5K DSR to my 1440p 144hz monitor (Acer XB270HU) at 40-45FPS instead of 1440P +75FPS.

i can very tell the difference between 45fps that i get at 4k and the 80fps that i get at 1440P even though my monitor is 60hz, because the minimum fps doesn't dip below 60 much whereas when you average is 45fps if it dips much lower its horrible. also i like to play games with all the fancy hair/grass/tree effects on. 

[m_tieu]

It's not very hard. I play games in 4k with 2 780ti's in sli. I use low or no AA in very high to ultra. I get 45-85 fps in most modern games. I bought the Asus PB287Q when it first came out and used vsync to play games smoothly at 60 fps and sometimes had to reduce settings to medium to maintain good frame rates and reduce vram usage. A few months ago, I picked up the Acer XB280HK gsync monitor and I just leave games at very high or ultra and just play games anywhere from 45fps to 60fps and it looks and feels fine. No stutters or tearing.