Large 4k, 75hz+, IPS w/ Freesync in 2016?

CostcoSamples · April 25, 2016

Anyone heard of any new 4k Freesync monitors coming out this year? 32" or larger.

I know about the current Korean monitors, and they seem OK. I'm hoping somebody comes out with 75hz + over DP 1.3!

OddsCrazyStuff · April 25, 2016

It wont happen this year, since not many people have the GPU power to play at 4k 60fps+.

Maybe that will change once the new cards comes later this year, but till then so is AMD infinity and Nvidia surround the closest you get (I game at 4560x2560 with upto 120fps).

awesomeness10120 · April 25, 2016

Displayport 1.3 is coming out this year, but it is unknown that Pascal or Vega will be powerful enough.

othertomperson · April 25, 2016

1 hour ago, OddsCrazyStuff said:

It wont happen this year, since not many people have the GPU power to play at 4k 60fps+.

Maybe that will change once the new cards comes later this year, but till then so is AMD infinity and Nvidia surround the closest you get (I game at 4560x2560 with upto 120fps).

54 minutes ago, awesomeness10120 said:

Displayport 1.3 is coming out this year, but it is unknown that Pascal or Vega will be powerful enough.

People keep saying stupid things like this and it's baffling for so many reasons.

First of all it makes the assumption that people only ever play games that are around 3-4 months old. Someone wanting to play CSGO, Mass Effect, Tomb Raider 2013 or most games more than a year old really will pretty easily be getting 120 fps at 4K and so will benefit from this.

Secondly it assumes that all modern games are equally demanding. No. There are plenty of undemanding games being released.

Thirdly it doesn't take into account how well current GPUs can even handle modern demanding games. Two 970s in SLI, for example, get around 80 fps in GTA V at 4K at a mix of Very High and Ultra settings if you bother to tweak. (Or actually just choose the default settings GeForce Experience offers. You don't even have to know what you're doing to have a good PC Gaming experience these days. Which is fortunate, if this forum is anything to go by.) That game would benefit tremendously from g-sync/freesync because while the minimum framerates are around 60, the maximum framerates are well over 100.

Fourthly it ignores the value of variable refresh rate at lower framerates like 40-45 -- which is what I get when I completely max out The Witcher 3, btw. If someone were to choose an incredibly stunning video experience over framerate, they could at least get regular frame intervals with it, which is half the issue with framerates between 30 and 60.

@OddsCrazyStuff Like 4560x2560 is MUCH more demanding resolution than a puny 3840x2160, but I don't doubt for a minute that you can get 120 fps at that res due to a mixture of the actual games you are playing, and this amazing (apparently new) invention of PC gaming -- the options menu.

Personally I'm expecting the first 120hz 4K monitors around Chistmas, but I'm not expecting them to be cheap.

OddsCrazyStuff · April 25, 2016

27 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

People keep saying stupid things like this and it's baffling for so many reasons.

First of all it makes the assumption that people only ever play games that are around 3-4 months old. Someone wanting to play CSGO, Mass Effect, Tomb Raider 2013 or most games more than a year old really will pretty easily be getting 120 fps at 4K and so will benefit from this.

Secondly it assumes that all modern games are equally demanding. No. There are plenty of undemanding games being released.

Thirdly it doesn't take into account how well current GPUs can even handle modern demanding games. Two 970s in SLI, for example, get around 80 fps in GTA V at 4K at a mix of Very High and Ultra settings if you bother to tweak. (Or actually just choose the default settings GeForce Experience offers. You don't even have to know what you're doing to have a good PC Gaming experience these days. Which is fortunate, if this forum is anything to go by.) That game would benefit tremendously from g-sync/freesync because while the minimum framerates are around 60, the maximum framerates are well over 100.

Fourthly it ignores the value of variable refresh rate at lower framerates like 40-45 -- which is what I get when I completely max out The Witcher 3, btw. If someone were to choose an incredibly stunning video experience over framerate, they could at least get regular frame intervals with it, which is half the issue with framerates between 30 and 60.

@OddsCrazyStuff Like 4560x2560 is MUCH more demanding resolution than a puny 3840x2160, but I don't doubt for a minute that you can get 120 fps at that res due to a mixture of the actual games you are playing, and this amazing (apparently new) invention of PC gaming -- the options menu.

Personally I'm expecting the first 120hz 4K monitors around Chistmas, but I'm not expecting them to be cheap.

After playing with 4k+ for a month, so can I tell that even simple games like Dota 2 dont manage to keep 120fps and that is with 2x 980Ti overclocked. At lowest settings, so I'm sure I could do it, but do to the size of the screen (about 45") so do I need a certain amount of details for it not to look bad. Plus there is the whole "optimize for SLI" issue that a lot of games has a problem with, some dont even work with SLI (missing textures or crashes).

But yeah, I can get an average fps above 60fps, as long as the game supports SLI and I spend 5-10 minutes (sometimes more) tweaking options.

CostcoSamples · April 26, 2016

Every time the topic of 4k comes up, people can't resist talking about how GPUs are under powered for it. Yeah, we get it. No Witcher 3 at 4k max details 120fps. Fine.

Lack of support for 4k over 60hz is not because of GPU performance. It's because of DP 1.2 limitations. DP1.3 is coming this year and I plan to jump on it ASAP. Just wondering if anyone had heard of any new displays coming out that fit the bill.

othertomperson · April 26, 2016

22 hours ago, OddsCrazyStuff said:

After playing with 4k+ for a month, so can I tell that even simple games like Dota 2 dont manage to keep 120fps and that is with 2x 980Ti overclocked. At lowest settings, so I'm sure I could do it, but do to the size of the screen (about 45") so do I need a certain amount of details for it not to look bad. Plus there is the whole "optimize for SLI" issue that a lot of games has a problem with, some dont even work with SLI (missing textures or crashes).

But yeah, I can get an average fps above 60fps, as long as the game supports SLI and I spend 5-10 minutes (sometimes more) tweaking options.

Does Dota 2 even support SLI? I didn't think it did, but I could be wrong.

What I do know is that Linus tested a series of undemanding games like Dota 2, LoL, CS:GO on an R9 285 at 4K and got around 60 fps.

Tbh I don't really bother tweaking that much any more. I try ultra, if that isn't acceptable I turn some post-processing off, and if that still fails I just use GeForce Experience. It may still be slow and prone to crashing, but functionally it's come a long way.

Schony125 · April 26, 2016

btw, im rocking 4k most games high to med high settings at 60 fps from gta v, ets 2, battlefield 3 on ultra, shadow of mordor and even assetto corsa with single gpu becuase it doesnt support crossfirex getting almost steady 60 fps with some dips at 40 with 2 390's. If you count only the 2 cards they are cheaper than a titan or 980ti in my country, without considering watercooling.