Will a single geforce gtx 980ti be sufficient for 4K gaming? Or is sli needed?

[MrMarcus]

I have been researching a new build from scratch and just recently went ahead and ordered my new geforce gtx 980 ti. I am also ordering a new asus 28" 4K display. I am hoping that some of you are running a single gtx 980 ti and have some benchmarks to share. I am wonderig how well this single card will handle new games at high to ultra settings in 4K. At $650 each I would rather not have to sli a second card, but I am willing to do what is necessary to run new titles at high to ultra settings and have a good experiene in 4K. Obviously I will do my own tests once I have the rig built, but as I am excitedly anticipating the arrival of my awesome new card I just want to hear from some of your experiences. Thanks guys. 

[IceCold007]

Check on google 980ti benchmarks 4k and 980ti SLI benchmarks 4k. Ive checked out all benchmarks for 980ti both single and SLI at all resolutions. 4k being the most demanding. SLI at that rez will most of the time be better, also depends on the games you play.

[stconquest]

GTX 980Ti is a better value than SLI 970s even at 1080p:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/

[o0Martin]

Here this should help you a decent bit: 

 

 

The video has the FPS of the 980Ti and Fury X running at 4k for a variety of demanding games, and it even shows what kind of FPS you can get when you overclock them.

 

Look in the description for what overclocks they achieved.

[Sauron]

It's more than sufficient if you're willing to lower down settings a little. Personally I think the extra resolution is well worth the compromise.

[ThE_MarD]

Heyyo,

Eh, I wouldn't call a single GTX 980 ti at 4K with an average framerate below 60fps as "sufficient". The GTX 980ti is sufficient with maximum graphics settings at 1080, but 1440 it'll start to struggle and have to lower your settings from max... 4K with max graphics it won't be able to maintain 30fps average... then again, the chart that stconquest posted shows 4K with x4 MSAA... and I highly doubt at 4K that you'll need x4 MSAA... so you'd probably gain a higher average framerate than that chart shows.

I'm sure a single GTX 980ti could maintain an average of 60fps at 4K... but with graphics only on high or potentially medium which partially defeats the purpose of 4K which is for beautiful graphics... but I'm sure that 4K with even high settings on GTA V would still look nice.

[Badger906]

I have a 4k monitor and a 980ti. nothing I can't max out at 4k and get 60fps.

gta v I get 65fps with no AA and no advanced but all ultra.

battlefield hardline all ultra no AA I get 75fps.

[othertomperson]

 

GTX 980Ti is a better value than SLI 970s even at 1080p:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/

 

 

4xMSAA what is this bs?

 

Yes it will do just fine, just turn AA off.

 

 

Heyyo,

Eh, I wouldn't call a single GTX 980 ti at 4K with an average framerate below 60fps as "sufficient". The GTX 980ti is sufficient with maximum graphics settings at 1080, but 1440 it'll start to struggle and have to lower your settings from max... 4K with max graphics it won't be able to maintain 30fps average... then again, the chart that stconquest posted shows 4K with x4 MSAA... and I highly doubt at 4K that you'll need x4 MSAA... so you'd probably gain a higher average framerate than that chart shows.

I'm sure a single GTX 980ti could maintain an average of 60fps at 4K... but with graphics only on high or potentially medium which partially defeats the purpose of 4K which is for beautiful graphics... but I'm sure that 4K with even high settings on GTA V would still look nice.

 

 

lol you need a 980 Ti just for 1080p? Do you work for Ubisoft? lmao. A 980 Ti will get you 60fps in most games at 4K without AA that you don't need anyway. For more demanding games like Watch_Dogs and Shadow of Mordor you can usually turn down one or two settings to the next highest setting (whether it be Very High or High) to maintain 60fps.

 

For example in Watch_Dogs HBAO+ High vs HBAO+ Low is the difference between 33 fps and 60fps. One setting, everything else is Ultra.

[stconquest]

4xMSAA what is this bs?

 

Yes it will do just fine, just turn AA off.

 

 

 

--

 

lol

[MrMarcus]

I have a 4k monitor and a 980ti. nothing I can't max out at 4k and get 60fps.

gta v I get 65fps with no AA and no advanced but all ultra.

battlefield hardline all ultra no AA I get 75fps.

 

So, AA really doesn't make much of a difference? You don't get any noticeable 'staircase effect'?

[stconquest]

So, AA really doesn't make much of a difference? You don't get any noticeable 'staircase effect'?

 

That is the whole reason 4K is desirable.

[othertomperson]

So, AA really doesn't make much of a difference? You don't get any noticeable 'staircase effect'?

 

The pixel density of this resolution at most sensible screen sizes is such that the staircase effect is very small. You have to be literally pixel-watching to notice it. From my experience of 1080p 27", no amount of AA removed the staircase effect entirely and all of the AA (and I mean all of it, I played around with 64x CSAA using SLI in the driver out of curiosity) was as effective as just upping the pixel density this much.

[MrMarcus]

Thanks for the responses guys, they are helpful

[MrMarcus]

The pixel density of this resolution at most sensible screen sizes is such that the staircase effect is very small. You have to be literally pixel-watching to notice it. From my experience of 1080p 27", no amount of AA removed the staircase effect entirely and all of the AA (and I mean all of it, I played around with 64x CSAA using SLI in the driver out of curiosity) was as effective as just upping the pixel density this much.

 

What do you consider a sensible screen size? I was considering the Phillips 4065UC which is 40 inches, but wondering if that is too big. My other choice would be the Asus PBQ287Q that is 28 inches. Now I know the picture quality will obviously will be better on the smaller asus, but will the difference be major or negligible? If it's not a huge difference I would prefer to go with the larger screen. 

[infamous_last]

What do you consider a sensible screen size? I was considering the Phillips 4065UC which is 40 inches, but wondering if that is too big. My other choice would be the Asus PBQ287Q that is 28 inches. Now I know the picture quality will obviously will be better on the smaller asus, but will the difference be major or negligible? If it's not a huge difference I would prefer to go with the larger screen. 

I have this screen and when I brought it home I thought I'd made a mistake due to the large size.

Fast forward a week later and realized it was a good decision, you just find yourself using screen real estate very differently to say twin 24" (my old and current work setup).

Even at 40" I find AA mostly unnecessary.

On games like GTA & NFS I've found I have preferred to run a cropped resolution to bring it to a 21:9 aspect, so keep it in mind as an option.

 

Just upgraded from a single 780 (6GB) to SLI 980ti G1 Gaming, but one 980ti is still a good experience @ 4K.

[Badger906]

What do you consider a sensible screen size? I was considering the Phillips 4065UC which is 40 inches, but wondering if that is too big. My other choice would be the Asus PBQ287Q that is 28 inches. Now I know the picture quality will obviously will be better on the smaller asus, but will the difference be major or negligible? If it's not a huge difference I would prefer to go with the larger screen.

a too large of monitor may cause motion sickness, I've made this mistake in the past.

for me 28" is the sweet spot. you go too large and you loose the pixel density you've gained.

AA makes no difference at 4k,you basically just waste gpu power. especially as AA is super taxing at 4k, both on gpu power and vram.

if i turn AA on on battlefield hardline it goes from a steady 75fps to mid 50s and below.

[o0Martin]

What do you consider a sensible screen size? I was considering the Phillips 4065UC which is 40 inches, but wondering if that is too big. My other choice would be the Asus PBQ287Q that is 28 inches. Now I know the picture quality will obviously will be better on the smaller asus, but will the difference be major or negligible? If it's not a huge difference I would prefer to go with the larger screen. 

 

Personally I would say 27"/28" is perfect for a desktop monitor use, and then if you're going ultrawide 34" (Which is the same hight as a 27")

 

That just seems like the sweet spot for me, anything smaller is too small, and anything bigger (for me) is too much

[MageTank]

I have been researching a new build from scratch and just recently went ahead and ordered my new geforce gtx 980 ti. I am also ordering a new asus 28" 4K display. I am hoping that some of you are running a single gtx 980 ti and have some benchmarks to share. I am wonderig how well this single card will handle new games at high to ultra settings in 4K. At $650 each I would rather not have to sli a second card, but I am willing to do what is necessary to run new titles at high to ultra settings and have a good experiene in 4K. Obviously I will do my own tests once I have the rig built, but as I am excitedly anticipating the arrival of my awesome new card I just want to hear from some of your experiences. Thanks guys. 

 

 

We are still quite a bit away from a single GPU being able to max most titles in 4k. You might be able to lower settings and get a playable experience at 4k on a single GPU, but you still won't get 60fps across the board every time. I would rather get a 980 Ti and run 1440p @ 144hz instead of 4k @ 60hz. Get a 980 Ti and that 1440p 144hz G-Sync IPS monitor from Acer, and you will be set for an awfully long time. 

[othertomperson]

 

What do you consider a sensible screen size? I was considering the Phillips 4065UC which is 40 inches, but wondering if that is too big. My other choice would be the Asus PBQ287Q that is 28 inches. Now I know the picture quality will obviously will be better on the smaller asus, but will the difference be major or negligible? If it's not a huge difference I would prefer to go with the larger screen. 

 

Depends on how close you are to your monitor. For sitting at a desk I would say 27" to 34". Above that the pixel density stops being particularly special and is only marginally better than most 1440p monitors. 40" is a weird one. For me it's way too big for a PC monitor, but unless your living room is particularly small it's too small for it to be noticeably better than 1080p.

 

We are still quite a bit away from a single GPU being able to max most titles in 4k. You might be able to lower settings and get a playable experience at 4k on a single GPU, but you still won't get 60fps across the board every time. I would rather get a 980 Ti and run 1440p @ 144hz instead of 4k @ 60hz. Get a 980 Ti and that 1440p 144hz G-Sync IPS monitor from Acer, and you will be set for an awfully long time. 

 

980 Ti. There's about four games that you will have to turn one or two settings down from "Ultra" to "Very High", everything else will just be ultra. Don't believe the hype, 290X CF has been able to Ultra every game at the time of, and almost every game since, its release at 4K.

[MageTank]

 

 

 

Depends on how close you are to your monitor. For sitting at a desk I would say 27" to 34". Above that the pixel density stops being particularly special and is only marginally better than most 1440p monitors. 40" is a weird one. For me it's way too big for a PC monitor, but unless your living room is particularly small it's too small for it to be noticeably better than 1080p.

 

 

980 Ti. There's about four games that you will have to turn one or two settings down from "Ultra" to "Very High", everything else will just be ultra. Don't believe the hype, 290X CF has been able to Ultra every game at the time of, and almost every game since, its release at 4K.

 

It is not hype that i am believing, it is my own eyes. I don't run any AA at 4k (because AA on 4k is pointless) and still, a single 980 Ti is not enough to max the game out. This is true on more than just 4 games. 

 

Notable games are: GTA 5, Witcher 3, Shadows of Mordor (though it was not 60fps, i found 40fps to be playable, but that would be a matter of opinion), far cry 4, that new tomb raider game, Thief, Metro Redux (both games), Crysis 3 (As if i even needed to say it), and i am sure there are others from games i do not own. 

 

That being said, it can deliver above 30fps in each of these titles, and i myself am perfectly fine with 40-45fps, and i consider that playable. If others are fine with 30-40fps at 4k, then the 980 Ti and Fury X should be great cards for those people. However, no single GPU will average 60fps in these AAA titles at 4k, i just do not see that happening on max settings (again, no AA, because AA and 4k are not friends and should not hang out with each other).