4k gaming minimum requirements

[bpgt64]

Does a GPU like the Geforce Titan still have value because of the large frame buffer size vs the 780 ti/r9 290x based GPUs at 4k gaming. The one benchmark that kind of stuck out to me was the Battlefield 4 benchmarks where the 780 ti falls behind significantly at 4k resolution. Is this because of the 3GB memory capacity? Will we ever see 6GB versions of the 780 lineup, or will that be reserved for the next generation of cards aimed at when 4k resolution monitors drop below 1k dollars in the US, and likely sub 500 dollars when imported from South Korea?

 

[the54thvoid]

The 6GB buffer is not useful at all in gaming. Also, you still require 2 gpu's from todays top tier to power 4K adequately. 3GB may be a limiter but not all reviews show that. The thing is that at 4K, anti-aliasing is less important as the pixel density is far higher therefore there is less 'jaggies' natively. We won't know for sure until people start benching routinely on 4K, until then, it's a bit of a guess.

Suffice to say 3GB is near or at the limit, 4GB (from Hawaii) is probably safer. 6GB is overkill. But you still need to two GK110's or 2 290X's.

 

[bpgt64]

Why do we see Battlefield 4 using 5.1gb's of vram in some benchmarks? The one case where I have seen the R9 290x's just leave the 780 ti in the dust was in this game too.

 

[sulfur]

I suggest non-X Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 } x2 in CF
Why?
1) R9 290X is not worth extra $ (30% more for 8% more performance? it's max 0,5-2fps)
2) R9 290 is cheaper than GTX 780 and it loves 4k more than his "green buddy"
3) R9 290 series doesn't need ugly Crossfire Bridge

But:
1) nVidia provides you with better drivers and SLI options (less microstuttering?)

If you don't like sapphire you can always wait for Asus DirectCuII R9 290 or get Gigabyte Windforce 450w R9 290's.

Two R9 290's would be enough to make you happy And you would have more $ to spend for a good monitor.

 

[the54thvoid]

Why do we see Battlefield 4 using 5.1gb's of vram in some benchmarks? The one case where I have seen the R9 290x's just leave the 780 ti in the dust was in this game too.

Can you link that? 5.1Gb sounds excessive, even for 4K. Unless it was crazy 4K surround in which case you'd need proper scaling quad SLI with Titans.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

From what I'm hearing 4k will not reduce the need for AA. We'll be lucky if 8k does. Everyone always hopes a higher res will help but I've yet to see a jump where that was true. Def. didn't help in the slightest at 1440p.

 

[Flibolito]

But 4k will look great with 2xMSAA and such, if the monitor is less than 30inches at normal viewing distance. A 24inch 4k monitor (one which dell is releasing in 2014) most likely looks sweet with no AA. 4K will make 8/16xMSAA or 32xCSAA useless and even more so make AAA/FXAA/TXAA much worse than no AA. I am guessing 4K with no AA will look better than 1080p using 8xMSAA for example.

Until we get these screens in our gaming rooms it's hard to say. 6GB framebuffer is still solid for 4K or triple monitor setups especially for games like Skyrim/BF4. In my opinion if someone is running 2 Titans with a bit of overclocking to get them over 1GHz boosting will be pretty set for the beginning of 4K. The real problem is that 4K is waiting on the new displayport and HDMI 2.0 to be worth a damn. I am and early adopter but this is just not a ready gaming resolution yet.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Everyone always hopes a higher res will help but I've yet to see a jump where that was true. Def. didn't help in the slightest at 1440p.

Higher res DOES help. Even when I was gaming on a measly P4 if I was careful with my settings and tweaks, Med Shaders, Shadows, Object Quality file edits, etc, I could run 1200x900 vs 1024x768 in Crysis 1 and there were less jaggies. End users didn't really start taking these kind of advantages of higher res seriously until 2560x1600 displays came out, but with 4 k we're talking literally 4 times the pixel density of 1080p. That's a huge difference. It's all relative to screen size of course though. That's why I go by this pixel pitch chart. http://thirdculture.com/joel/shumi/computer/hardware/ppicalc.html

I also always use a pitch of .25 mm as a reference point at where jaggies start becoming very noticeably minimized, and that's a reference to 2560x1600 @ 30" size. Just to put it in perspective, an even bigger 4k screen of 32" (31.5 actual) is only .18 mm pixel pitch.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I have yet to hear anyone who uses 4k say they can get away with dropping AA levels, and while there's obviously an improvement coming from 1024 and other ancient resolutions I know 1050p and 1080p to 1440p makes no difference whatsoever. Maybe if AA was more finely grained you could drop from 8x to 6x but you don't have that option.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I have yet to hear anyone who uses 4k say they can get away with dropping AA levels, and while there's obviously an improvement coming from 1024 and other ancient resolutions I know 1050p and 1080p to 1440p makes no difference whatsoever. Maybe if AA was more finely grained you could drop from 8x to 6x but you don't have that option.

Proof is relative to who's doing the asking and telling. Your approach seems hardly scientific if you're merely going by what chat you've read. You also have to throw out the extremes because some are going to exaggerate the benefits just like some are going to buy overkill hardware that allows them to run lots of AA even when they don't need to.

 

[bpgt64]

He mentions it in the comments. BF4 took 5.1 gbs of vram at it's peak. I will confirm next week when my 2nd Titan and 4k display arrive.

 

[Flibolito]

It's also how far away you are from the display, a 1024x768 with AA off at 60inches will look fine from 30 yards away as far as jaggies go (a bit exaggerated). I use a 27inch 2560x1440p display at about 2.5 feet away with no AA in BF4 and it runs and looks great and keeps within the 2GB buffer. Most games I turn on a bit of AA like 2 or 4x. Even in BF4 with no AA whatsoever it looks pretty good. not perfect but if it was 4K I would say I could live without AA all day. Again distance to display also matters, that's why the bigger the TV the further you want to sit away at the same res to keep it from looking like poo.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It's also how far away you are from the display, a 1024x768 with AA off at 60inches will look fine from 30 yards away as far as jaggies go (a bit exaggerated). I use a 27inch 2560x1440p display at about 2.5 feet away with no AA in BF4 and it runs and looks great and keeps within the 2GB buffer. Most games I turn on a bit of AA like 2 or 4x. Even in BF4 with no AA whatsoever it looks pretty good. not perfect but if it was 4K I would say I could live without AA all day. Again distance to display also matters, that's why the bigger the TV the further you want to sit away at the same res to keep it from looking like poo.

Well one of the biggest factors is what game you're playing. Obviously some games with mostly outdoor environments that have very few straight lines, you simply aren't going notice any jaggies because there's not much need for AA.

Conversely, you take a game that takes place in an environment with lots of office buildings and straight lines, and you're going to see it.

 

[alwayssts]

I think it's reasonable to say 6-8GB are going to be required for 4k gaming when 4k gaming actually becomes a thing normal people do. The scaling just makes sense in terms of 2-4x aa.

While I suppose titan multi-gpu is the best option when you think in terms of longevity with a current 4k solution, the most sense resides in simply waiting for a new generation of videocards that use either 4Gb ram on a 384/512-bit bus (or some other memory tech), likely on 20nm if not a current product refresh before-hand. That said, currently the power consumption of that much ram is prohibitive to the actual performance characteristics the gpu is aimed. This is clearly shown in the straight re-purposing of a similar tdp for titan and 780ti, or the compromise of Hawaii and arguably Tahiti (which could have simply been like gk104 and been more power efficient, but not had the bandwidth to scale much above 1100mhz).

While it would be super interesting if AMD could and will shoot for an 8GB 1.35v 5000-5500 (and 1000-1100mhz core) sku, as well as nvidia with simply doubled density, the fact remains they will not clock as well within 300w;the chips were designed towards the ~1.175v-1.263/1150-1300mhz of 28nm meshed with the power consumption of 3-4GB of ram at the speeds corresponding to their memory controllers. Such options will give less performance for the majority of people not only because most do not game at 4k, but also because current 4k takes less advantage of that ram than they do the performance characteristics of the actual gpu.

OT: OP display pic gave me flashbacks to Alex on Diggnation saying 'I fucking love cocaine'.