1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Gaming at 4K

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by 15th Warlock, Jul 1, 2013.

  1. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,703 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    Hey guys, just wanted to bring your attention to this article I found at AnandTech:

    Some Quick Gaming Numbers at 4K, Max Settings

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Games like Metro 2033 and Sleeping Dogs need as many as 4 Titans (yes you read that right) just to get close to 60FPS! :ohwell: Only at such high resolutions can 4 Titans begin to stretch their legs :p

    Asus just started taking preorders for their 31" 4K monitor at $3, 800, so adding up $4,000 in video cards and whatever the rest of your setup will cost you will push the price of a 4K ready rig well over $10,000 :(

    It seems like gaming at this resolution will remain a pipe dream for at least a couple more years, what do you guys think?
    Pjokerxp_ and Outback Bronze say thanks.
  2. McSteel

    McSteel

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    572 (0.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    275
    OC'd IVB-E (assuming it will bring as much improvement as we all hope for) seems like a must for 4k gaming. Something needs to keep 4 Titans busy, and that ain't quite a walk in the park.

    One thing that such large resolutions (and thus small dot pitch) may allow for is more relaxed AA + AF settings, somewhat reducing GPU and VRAM strain.
  3. D007

    D007

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,092 (1.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    386
    Location:
    Pompano beach, Florida
    Yea, I barely even use AA at 1920x1080. @4k I can't see anyone using it..
    I'm not even considering a 4k build until they come into a reasonable price range.
    I'll wait, just like I waited for SSD's..
    15th Warlock says thanks.
  4. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,703 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    Yes I couldn't agree more with you on waiting for this tech, the price of admission is too high, maybe around 2015 it'll become more affordable.

    As for not using FSAA, you'll want to use it if you want the absolute best image quality, you can still see aliasing on objects like ladders, cables, fences, character's hair and such, even at high resolution.

    Take the Witcher 2 for example, Ubersampling always gives you a better result than using high resolutions like 5760x1080, even if it's on a bigger area you can tell the difference when using what basically is antialiasing taking to the extreme.
    D007 says thanks.
  5. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,514 (3.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,160
    I've been saying that about 2560 x 1440 for years, and it's only in recent months some monitors have dipped to €400ish. :(
    15th Warlock says thanks.
  6. natr0n

    natr0n

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,868 (1.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    955
    You probably don't need much if any form of AA at 4k resolution, but then again some say you will still see some aliasing somewhere.

    This is like a cat and mouse game if you think about it.
  7. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,703 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    I know huh?

    Monitor manufacturers have been forcing 1080p surplus panels down our throats for years now, I just hope with all the "retina display" products available now LCD panel manufacturers finally give us a break, I mean, even my cell phone packs a 1080p screen in just 5" of screen real estate for God's sake :(
  8. Rowsol

    Rowsol

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    566 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    I really don't see the appeal of that high of a resolution. If I watch a 1080p movie on this 23'' 1080p monitor the quality is exceptional and you'd be hard pressed to find a flaw in the picture.

    Bumping the screen to 31'' isn't nearly big enough to need that many pixels. I'd keep 4k on the 60'' tvs.
  9. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,609 (13.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,996
    Being an early adopter of monitor/TV technologies is never the way to go. It ends up costing more and after a few months you have an obsolete product.
    purecain, RCoon and cadaveca say thanks.
  10. Outback Bronze

    Outback Bronze

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    493 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    104
    Interesting how 1xHD7950 keeps up with 2xGTX680s. Is this correct??

    Nice 4k benchmarks btw. Ty.
    15th Warlock says thanks.
  11. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,703 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    I know, amazing isn't it?

    Surprising how 1GB more VRAM can push that little card over a 690 at such high resolutions ;)
  12. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,514 (3.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,160
    Scaling and scaling. Look at the iPad for instance. 2048x1536 on ten inches, and it's bloody gorgeous. No you do not use a desktop monitor the same way as a tablet (obviously), but still. A higher pixel density is never wrong. It remains to be seen how Windows will scale in the future (because that is the elephant in the room).
  13. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,177 (1.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    don't forget the bus width differences too. At 4k, 256bit is likely part of the bottleneck too. I mean it is already at 57xx x 1080/1200 so it certainly should still be at 4k considering it has almost a third more pixels.

    Scaling could also be a part of that as well.
    15th Warlock says thanks.
  14. nt300

    nt300

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    868 (0.52/day)
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Location:
    Toronto, ON. Canada
    I am quite happy gaming at 1920 x 1080p thank you. :D Maybe in the future when the cost is cheaper higher res displays will be popular.
  15. Bundy

    Bundy

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,121 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    157
    Unless you bought a catleap. I did and am still smiling $320AUD delivered.
  16. ne6togadno

    ne6togadno

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,230 (2.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    526
    Location:
    GMT +2
    +1

    only 10k?! no way
    in order to see icons on desktop you will need to buy telescope as well.
  17. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,514 (3.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,160
    Unless it would have been DOA, defective or something happens within the warranty. More expensive things I generally try to buy from within the country, and especially monitors.
  18. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,668 (6.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,981
    Location:
    some AF base
    I'm more impressed by three being able to throw a stick in with the titans. Price/performance at that resolution seems pretty obvious.
  19. Ephremius New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    60 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    4k is overrated, pixel density is all that matters, and nothing beats the pixel density of 27" paired with 2560 x 1440. even a 37" 4k is going to have worse pixel density. not to mention u cant sit at computer desk at that size.
  20. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,514 (3.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,160
    How about 4k on 27" then?
  21. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (3.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    Bloody hell, those benchmarks are brutal.

    I reckon my GTX 590 would get 10-15fps and perhaps likely a lot lower, as the effective frame buffer is now "only" 1.5GB.
  22. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,981 (2.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Location:
    Italy
    See this taken from the article.

    FPS charts don't tell the whole story ;)
    15th Warlock says thanks.
  23. Sempron Guy

    Sempron Guy

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    238 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Look at how 3 HD7950's go :toast: and that for less than the price of a single titan. Hopefully the microstutter issue will be fixed on AMD's next driver update aka "prototype driver".
    15th Warlock says thanks.
  24. Zubasa

    Zubasa

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    3,980 (1.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    457
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Well by the time the price on 4k monitor comes down, cards in that generation will be in the dumpster anyways.
  25. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,703 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    973
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    What's impressive though, is seeing a single 7950 outperform a 680 and sometimes even a 690, I know those framerates are unplayable anyways, but seems like AMD made the right call when they went for more VRAM, once they fix the microstuttering issue, these boards will be an excellent choice for gaming at high resolutions in Xfire systems :)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page