GPU 4k @60Hz

[TechguyES]

Simple question what GPU's are the bare minimum to play for example GTA V and Witcher 3 at 4k @60Hz?

[jjohnthedon1]

1070 sli bare minimum

xp's for future proofing 

[MalcolmHusky]

One GTX 1080 should be fine

[DXMember]

I can do it with VSR

[Xreldo]

1070 SLI if you play FPS games that support SLI really well like Battlefield 1

1080 will for other games

Titan X Pascal gives around 100 fps at 4k

[MalcolmHusky]

Just now, Xreldo said:

1070 SLI if you play FPS games that support SLI really well like Battlefield 1

1080 will for other games

Titan X Pascal gives around 100 fps at 4k

The AMD Fury cards should be fine too for 4k and I've seen the non X for 250 these days

[Gonio]

If you talk max ultra settings for GTA V there is no single card I that can handle it at 4k, so that would be definitly be multi GPU setup. In august saw a test for that where only the new Titan Xp in SLI could achieve near 60 fps.

 

Thats GTA V however, Witcher 3 is much better to do. And for GTA, if you tweak settings to normal orso you can play 4k with things like an 780. So there is some headroom between settings on 4k to say the least

[TechguyES]

31 minutes ago, Xreldo said:

1070 SLI if you play FPS games that support SLI really well like Battlefield 1

1080 will for other games

Titan X Pascal gives around 100 fps at 4k

 

29 minutes ago, MalcolmHusky said:

The AMD Fury cards should be fine too for 4k and I've seen the non X for 250 these days

 

4 minutes ago, Gonio said:

If you talk max ultra settings for GTA V there is no single card I that can handle it at 4k, so that would be definitly be multi GPU setup. In august saw a test for that where only the new Titan Xp in SLI could achieve near 60 fps.

 

Thats GTA V however, Witcher 3 is much better to do. And for GTA, if you tweak settings to normal orso you can play 4k with things like an 780. So there is some headroom between settings on 4k to say the least

I really want to be able to play witcher 3 at 4k because it just looks that good compared to Full HD(even with settings to low-medium), but the problems is the fps are really crappy at 4k

[jeremymwilson]

47 minutes ago, TechguyES said:

Simple question what GPU's are the bare minimum to play for example GTA V and Witcher 3 at 4k @60Hz?

For info I have the msi 1080 gaming x and gta v and Witcher 3 look stunning at 4K. I just put the settings at high and remove AA. I don't check fps, I think you can get too caught up in numbers. It's more about how it feels and for me it feels damn good. 

[dizmo]

I don't understand cutting down the quality to low or medium just to have 4k. Don't you lose out on all of the additional affects (weather, etc) when you do that? Thus taking away from the "stunning look" you're going for anyway.

I think 4k is still a couple years away from being truly viable.

[jeremymwilson]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I don't understand cutting down the quality to low or medium just to have 4k. Don't you lose out on all of the additional affects (weather, etc) when you do that? Thus taking away from the "stunning look" you're going for anyway.

I think 4k is still a couple years away from being truly viable.

I would completely agree that cutting down settings to low or medium is pointless but ultra to high is often not really noticeable but really helps the smoothness of the game. 

[Miguel Batista]

18 minutes ago, jeremymwilson said:

I would completely agree that cutting down settings to low or medium is pointless but ultra to high is often not really noticeable but really helps the smoothness of the game. 

Ultra settings are over rated. And it becomes a situation where the image looks a lot crispier at 4K. For me, it is a tradeoff that I am willing to do. I own a 1440p screen but I am playing most games at 4K with DSR and will probably get a nice 4K IPS display for Christmas. 27 inch one since the pixel density of 4K at 27 inch is so good. You hardly need AA.

[jeremymwilson]

3 minutes ago, Miguel Batista said:

Ultra settings are over rated. And it becomes a situation where the image looks a lot crispier at 4K. For me, it is a tradeoff that I am willing to do. I own a 1440p screen but I am playing most games at 4K with DSR and will probably get a nice 4K IPS display for Christmas. 27 inch one since the pixel density of 4K at 27 inch is so good. You hardly need AA.

One of the problems is that all the benchmark videos I've ever seen use ultra settings in order to standardize the results. Then all gamers think that's what they should do to get the experience they need.  And all the guys doing the benchmarks at 4K always say you don't need AA or maybe some other settings but they still always turn everything up to max. No wonder so many people think it's ultra or nothing. 

 

Silly imo

[dizmo]

 

21 minutes ago, jeremymwilson said:

One of the problems is that all the benchmark videos I've ever seen use ultra settings in order to standardize the results. Then all gamers think that's what they should do to get the experience they need.  And all the guys doing the benchmarks at 4K always say you don't need AA or maybe some other settings but they still always turn everything up to max. No wonder so many people think it's ultra or nothing. 

 

Silly imo

They use Ultra to show how the cards perform against the harshest situations.

Makes the most sense. If it can run the top tier decently, then it can run anything below better.

Pretty much every 4k review I've seen has had AA off.

[jeremymwilson]

10 minutes ago, dizmo said:

 

They use Ultra to show how the cards perform against the harshest situations.

Makes the most sense. If it can run the top tier decently, then it can run anything below better.

Pretty much every 4k review I've seen has had AA off.

Fair enough, but as a consumer I'd like to see benchmark videos show more realistic settings

[Gonio]

4k medium to high is overall very nice to see anyway (depends on game still). Many of the special effects you can adjust manually. Anwyay for OP would recommend a 1080. Most games can then be played fine with high settings without to much troubles. Going from high to ultra is a big step sometimes in effects (like GTA V), but high looks in most scenarios great anyway. For Witcher 3 I think you can max out if I remember someone mentioning it in a older post.

 

4k is doable these days, but maxed out settings is still not there yet.

[AdamH96]

GTX 1080 would be your best bet, or wait for the 1080Ti. I got both games and I run them maxed out (with lowered AA settings)

[Praesi]

There must be 2 different 4K Resolutions out there. The one i know needs a ridiculous amount of performance.

[Gonio]

There are actually 2 4k reso's the 1 used overall in PC and TV world is 3840x 2160 and is actually Ultra HD. 4k in cinema has a bit different number starting with 4096 instead of the 3840. But 3.9 K sucks to advertise.... Hehe

[TechguyES]

On 11/6/2016 at 9:10 PM, dizmo said:

I don't understand cutting down the quality to low or medium just to have 4k. Don't you lose out on all of the additional affects (weather, etc) when you do that? Thus taking away from the "stunning look" you're going for anyway.

I think 4k is still a couple years away from being truly viable.

 

23 hours ago, jeremymwilson said:

I would completely agree that cutting down settings to low or medium is pointless but ultra to high is often not really noticeable but really helps the smoothness of the game. 

 

23 hours ago, Miguel Batista said:

Ultra settings are over rated. And it becomes a situation where the image looks a lot crispier at 4K. For me, it is a tradeoff that I am willing to do. I own a 1440p screen but I am playing most games at 4K with DSR and will probably get a nice 4K IPS display for Christmas. 27 inch one since the pixel density of 4K at 27 inch is so good. You hardly need AA.

 

22 hours ago, dizmo said:

 

They use Ultra to show how the cards perform against the harshest situations.

Makes the most sense. If it can run the top tier decently, then it can run anything below better.

Pretty much every 4k review I've seen has had AA off.

 

21 hours ago, Gonio said:

4k medium to high is overall very nice to see anyway (depends on game still). Many of the special effects you can adjust manually. Anwyay for OP would recommend a 1080. Most games can then be played fine with high settings without to much troubles. Going from high to ultra is a big step sometimes in effects (like GTA V), but high looks in most scenarios great anyway. For Witcher 3 I think you can max out if I remember someone mentioning it in a older post.

 

4k is doable these days, but maxed out settings is still not there yet.

It's true you guys, it really looks a lot crispier and nice at 4K like @Miguel Batista said, and medium settings (for me anyway) looks great, but the problem is since my 750 Ti doesn't have that HDMI 2.0 it laggs a lot at 4k, but thats why i also said i am aiming at only a HDMI 2.0 port and see the difference for my self and yes I use 3860 by 2160, because my Ti handles it very well at 1080p and high-ultra settings (with the Ci 6500). Sadly though i don't have the money to just go buy a 1070, that's why i wanted to try with a 1060.

 

But again thanks for all the input and maybe I will wait for the Ti versions of the cards.

[Gonio]

Did put a 1070 last week in the system of my nephew that bought a 4k tv  because his old one broke down... His 7950 didn't really cut it somehow

Can say that it looks great. Make sure that the HDMI cable you have is a highspeed cable. Other then that if all is HDMI 2.0 your good to go.