42" 4k display with freesync ~ 800 dollars - the korean off brands are coming and gsync won't be able to play

[othertomperson]

If you have to lose visual quality whats the point?

 

You're talking about not using Antialiasing. Firstly Antialiasing is a compromise anyway -- you lose visual fidelity and particularly particle effects by blurring pixels even if it's to remove jaggies, but more than anything you're also talking about a pixel density such that there isn't much of a point. Even 1080p on a 40" TV from  a reasonable distance doesn't benefit that much from AA.

[Derangel]

You're talking about not using Antialiasing. Firstly Antialiasing is a compromise anyway -- you lose visual fidelity and particularly particle effects by blurring pixels even if it's to remove jaggies, but more than anything you're also talking about a pixel density such that there isn't much of a point. Even 1080p on a 40" TV from  a reasonable distance doesn't benefit that much from AA.

 

I wasn't talking about AA. If I was talking about AA I would have mentioned AA.

[Misanthrope]

Weird product: People using it as TV wouldn't care about display port or freesync and it's too unwieldy for most desktop set ups. Like I could fit it in my desk but I wouldn't be able to fit a secondary monitor so that's a big no no

[Derangel]

You couldn't discern the two (full and reduced graphics) in a double blind test. By visual quality, I mostly mean eye candy.

 

Personally I'd rather run at a lower resolution with all the eye candy on. I paired a 144hz 1080p monitor with a 980 instead of a 4k panel for that reason. If I could afford it I'd replace the 980 with a ti or TX at this resolution.

[othertomperson]

I wasn't talking about AA. If I was talking about AA I would have mentioned AA.

 

You are because a 980 Ti is capable of maxing all but a couple of games without AA.

 

 

Weird product: People using it as TV wouldn't care about display port or freesync and it's too unwieldy for most desktop set ups. Like I could fit it in my desk but I wouldn't be able to fit a secondary monitor so that's a big no no

 

Put a Fury X in a HTPC and plug it into this and you could have a sick 4K couch gaming experience.

[.spider.]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Wow, this post. Fanboys...

That's all you have to say?

Don't you know that fixed refresh rate panels are quite common?

[mr moose]

I don't know about you guys but there is a huge difference in quality between a $4000 panel and $800 panel.  Forget all the other features they might throw at it, they won't improve a dull patchy image.

[Derangel]

 

You are because a 980 Ti is capable of maxing all but a couple of games without AA.

 

 

Uh-huh. Including all the Gameworks effects in games like Far Cry 4 and Witcher 3? At at least 60FPS?

[ShadowCaptain]

Uh-huh. Including all the Gameworks effects in games like Far Cry 4 and Witcher 3? At at least 60FPS?

 

It says all but a couple of games, 99% of everything else will run in 4k 60 Ultra,  there are maybe a handful of AAA games you might have to run on High ...which is perfectly reasonable 

[MegaDave91]

Personally I'd rather run at a lower resolution with all the eye candy on. I paired a 144hz 1080p monitor with a 980 instead of a 4k panel for that reason. If I could afford it I'd replace the 980 with a ti or TX at this resolution.

Keep in mind I never said eye candy has to be turned off entirely; there are settings like ambient occlusion and post-processing that can be turned down a notch and make very little difference in fidelity. Anti-aliasing is basically redundant at 4K as well.

 

I question whether you have first-hand experience with 4K gaming. I would say the sheer pixel density of 4K makes it a unanimous preference over lower res (e.g. 1080p) with maxed settings. 

[othertomperson]

It says all but a couple of games, 99% of everything else will run in 4k 60 Ultra, there are maybe a handful of AAA games you might have to run on High ...which is perfectly reasonable

Exactly. And that's only a couple of effects at High and the rest Ultra, too, not even everything down to the High preset. Eg in Watch Dogs The difference between the highest and second highest Ambient Occlusion setting is the difference between 60 and 40 fps.

[ShadowCaptain]

Exactly. And that's only a couple of effects at High and the rest Ultra, too, not even everything down to the High preset. Eg in Watch Dogs The difference between the highest and second highest Ambient Occlusion setting is the difference between 60 and 40 fps.

 

Yep and at 4k some effects are just not particularly noticeable 

[Sammael]

Weird product: People using it as TV wouldn't care about display port or freesync and it's too unwieldy for most desktop set ups. Like I could fit it in my desk but I wouldn't be able to fit a secondary monitor so that's a big no no

 

I think the majority of people using a 42" 4k screen as a monitor would use just the one and not try multi monitor setups.  That's kind of the point having so much real estate coupled with the size.

[Sammael]

Exactly. And that's only a couple of effects at High and the rest Ultra, too, not even everything down to the High preset. Eg in Watch Dogs The difference between the highest and second highest Ambient Occlusion setting is the difference between 60 and 40 fps.

 

 

It can max older games that are less graphically intensive.  You want to rely on that going forward?

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/15/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/9#.VbCnvbNVhBc

 

 

None of those are shining performance examples at 4k with the 980ti.  Sure you can drop the settings down, but you can do that with anything, the point is that for 4k, at BEST it barely passes muster.  2015 is a terrible year to spend money on a single gpu for 4k gaming.  2016 is the year for that.  Anyone buying a 980ti thinking it will be some great 4k gaming experience chose wrong and wasted their money.

[MegaDave91]

Exactly. And that's only a couple of effects at High and the rest Ultra, too, not even everything down to the High preset. Eg in Watch Dogs The difference between the highest and second highest Ambient Occlusion setting is the difference between 60 and 40 fps.

Crysis 3 is another good example of this. Here two screenshots I took of Crysis 3 @ 4K with my Titan X. First picture is maxed (no AA) and the second is maxed with reduced shading. 43 vs 66 fps...

 

 

[othertomperson]

Crysis 3 is another good example of this. Here two screenshots I took of Crysis 3 @ 4K with my Titan X. First picture is maxed (no AA) and the second is maxed with reduced shading. 43 vs 66 fps...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It can max older games that are less graphically intensive.  You want to rely on that going forward?

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/06/15/nvidia_geforce_gtx_980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/9#.VbCnvbNVhBc

 

 

None of those are shining performance examples at 4k with the 980ti.  Sure you can drop the settings down, but you can do that with anything, the point is that for 4k, at BEST it barely passes muster.  2015 is a terrible year to spend money on a single gpu for 4k gaming.  2016 is the year for that.  Anyone buying a 980ti thinking it will be some great 4k gaming experience chose wrong and wasted their money.

 

Crysis 3. Less Graphically intensive. OK THEN.  WHATEVER YOU SAY.

 

The point is that dropping one setting down from ultra to very high makes basically no difference and that's all it takes in the most obscenely intensive games -- everything else is fine. I don't know how many people with personal experience of running 4K you are going to ignore, but so far it's at least three.

[Sammael]

 

 

 

Crysis 3. Less Graphically intensive. OK THEN.  WHATEVER YOU SAY.

 

The point is that dropping one setting down from ultra to very high makes basically no difference and that's all it takes in the most obscenely intensive games -- everything else is fine. I don't know how many people with personal experience of running 4K you are going to ignore, but so far it's at least three.

 

 

 

even at the lower settings it just barely crosses the 60fps mark, maybe I expect more headroom for spending something like 650-700 dollars on a gpu than just barely hitting 60fps in most games if you turn settings down (sometimes with not much of a visual hit).  And that's the average, it's the dips that are the most jarring and that has got to be ugly.  You want MORE headroom than the 60fps target on average not just barely  hitting it IF you dial things back and don't bother trying to play certain titles that are badly optimized.  Two cards gives you that headroom.  Next year a single car will give you that headroom.  People who have already dropped the money on the cards are content it's the best they can get at the time, but don't mistake that as anything other than settling for the current tech.   This is not an ideal performance level for 4k.  It's just not.  And showing that some people are content with the state of the state does not negate that.  a 980ti is NOT enough to comfortably drive 4k games alone.  It's the best single gpu you can get for the money, and that is still not good enough to hit the target.  EVERYONE without money to burn with a 780/290 gpu equivalent or above ought to wait until next years offerings in 2016 if they intend to get into 4k gaming.  Obviously, if you do have money to burn, then you'd still be better off going 980ti sli or dual furys.

[Guest Strangerbob]

Crysis 3 is another good example of this. Here two screenshots I took of Crysis 3 @ 4K with my Titan X. First picture is maxed (no AA) and the second is maxed with reduced shading. 43 vs 66 fps...

 

 

 

 

 

Considering how identical they look, id say the choice is clear.

 

That seems to be the case with many games nowadays. They look very good on medium already and then are hard to distinguish between medium and high settings, unless you LOOK for specific things... which is - just lol.

 

Basically to have the best looking game you want to play on as high a resolution you can with fps close to 100 (or60 if the game is coded poorly). Ingame effects are secondary.

[Techhog]

That's all you have to say?

Don't you know that fixed refresh rate panels are quite common?

Now I'm confused. I thought that you were defending G-Sync.

[PudgyAstronaut]

42"? No thanks lol

 

Windows 10 with quad snap will actual increase usability of 4K on large displays in my opinion. It will essentially let you have 4 fullscreen 1080p programs open at once, which is kinda neat.

[Valentyn]

Windows 10 with quad snap will actual increase usability of 4K on large displays in my opinion. It will essentially let you have 4 fullscreen 1080p programs open at once, which is kinda neat.

 

OMFG! I can finally play 4 player co-op in the room without issue. Completely forgot about that.

[PudgyAstronaut]

OMFG! I can finally play 4 player co-op in the room without issue. Completely forgot about that.

 

My personal favorite usecase is 4 virtual machines running FTL, no pausing allowed, good luck. (FTL is a roguelike strategy game sorta thing in a spaceship for those who don't know)

[Doobeedoo]

Well this is something
I just can't wait until we get higher refresh rate on 4K 

[Misanthrope]

I think the majority of people using a 42" 4k screen as a monitor would use just the one and not try multi monitor setups.  That's kind of the point having so much real estate coupled with the size

 

real state isn't everything: sometimes you need some content full screen and some content windowed to the side which is just not possible on a single monitor

[othertomperson]

even at the lower settings it just barely crosses the 60fps mark, maybe I expect more headroom for spending something like 650-700 dollars on a gpu than just barely hitting 60fps in most games if you turn settings down (sometimes with not much of a visual hit).  And that's the average, it's the dips that are the most jarring and that has got to be ugly.  You want MORE headroom than the 60fps target on average not just barely  hitting it IF you dial things back and don't bother trying to play certain titles that are badly optimized.  Two cards gives you that headroom.  Next year a single car will give you that headroom.  People who have already dropped the money on the cards are content it's the best they can get at the time, but don't mistake that as anything other than settling for the current tech.   This is not an ideal performance level for 4k.  It's just not.  And showing that some people are content with the state of the state does not negate that.  a 980ti is NOT enough to comfortably drive 4k games alone.  It's the best single gpu you can get for the money, and that is still not good enough to hit the target.  EVERYONE without money to burn with a 780/290 gpu equivalent or above ought to wait until next years offerings in 2016 if they intend to get into 4k gaming.  Obviously, if you do have money to burn, then you'd still be better off going 980ti sli or dual furys.

 

Literally everything you are saying has already been contradicted by people who actually know what they are talking about. I don't know what to say to you. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay more attention.