Badlucktroll
Member
How much, and what is the cheapest graphics card than can run games in 4k?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
4K Gaming?
- Thread starter bro1
- Start date
Same here. But I think it'll be a little while before that's going to happen.
jim2point0
Banned
Define "run games in 4K."
If you want a single card that can hold 60 FPS at 4K in every game, I don't think that exists.
Depends what games and settings your playing, I practically only play CS GO + Dota 2 and my gtx 680 does fine on the pb287q. On dota I turn off AA + AO and the min fps never goes below 60 (prob is around 70-80). CS I forget my settings but it still looks better then maxxed out 1080p. I feel with a Gtx 980 and turning off a few settings you will still be getting a better experience then maxxed out 1080p60. I also still have my 120hz xl2420t. In dota some of the cosmetic sets / hero models look pretty crazy @ 4k.
Bl@de
Member
I'm waiting for good and affordable 4K Monitors with 120hz, G-Sync, maybe 3D and all that fun. Guess I'll be waiting a while.
For now I'm content with downsampling. As I just learned that Dark Souls 2 is kinda bugged at 60fps I went max IQ and play at 4K + 4xSGSSAA ... oh boy what a treat when you only need to target 30fps. Most of the times tha GPU is only on 60-80% load. There are no visible jaggies in sight. It's going to be a good future for PC Gamers
For now I'm content with downsampling. As I just learned that Dark Souls 2 is kinda bugged at 60fps I went max IQ and play at 4K + 4xSGSSAA ... oh boy what a treat when you only need to target 30fps. Most of the times tha GPU is only on 60-80% load. There are no visible jaggies in sight. It's going to be a good future for PC Gamers
I've played quiet a few games so far and I am very very impressed with 4K gaming. As long as I lower Shadows and Textures down from Ultra to High on most games and turn off AA the games all play great. I've tried BF4, Sleepy Dogs, Need for Speed series, Grid series, Dirt series, Divinity, and a few others.
I'm not even going to try playing any Ubi games at 4K as I'm just asking for a bad experience. Those are going on my 1080P screen and I'll cope with the lower resolution instead of having a hitch fest with them.
I'm not even going to try playing any Ubi games at 4K as I'm just asking for a bad experience. Those are going on my 1080P screen and I'll cope with the lower resolution instead of having a hitch fest with them.
Chiggs
Member
I actually returned that monitor for the same reason you described. It can't hold a candle to the Asus Pro Art series, IMO.
My personal opinion is 2560x1440 is where it's at right now. 4K is just too much of a monstrous jump in rendering demands while 2560x1440 is the uncrowned sweet-spot resolution, in my opinion. Also, 4K TN is worthless (unless you're trying to push 120-144 Hz with Gsync), again in my opinion. That's why it's so underwhelming at the moment coupled with the lack of performance.
I would have rather seen 2880x1620 standardized first, 4K is just too much from 1920x1080, for example, in comparison to historical transitions as far as TVs go.
I would have rather seen 2880x1620 standardized first, 4K is just too much from 1920x1080, for example, in comparison to historical transitions as far as TVs go.
The monitor grows on you. I have a 3 monitor setup and I am really starting to like it. It's not as colorful or shiny as my Qnix or as responsive as my 144hz monitor but when you are playing a game that extra resolution really adds a feeling of a third dimension that the other monitors lack.
DarthWalden
Banned
I played some 4k gaming at a buddies house on his 27" Korean monitor and my opinion is that well it looked nice it's not even remotely worth the massive cost to have this setup and it will take a very long time to hit mainstream as a result.
Since "next gen" consoles are having a tough time with 1080p, TV broadcasts still spitting out 720p signals and with 4k TV's still being absurdly expensive I think it will be even longer (if ever) till we see widespread adoption in the home theatre market the as gains are marginal for most people.
Since "next gen" consoles are having a tough time with 1080p, TV broadcasts still spitting out 720p signals and with 4k TV's still being absurdly expensive I think it will be even longer (if ever) till we see widespread adoption in the home theatre market the as gains are marginal for most people.
You can get the Vizio 50" for $999 that is 4K and this is more about PC gaming then consoles. I was able to get the Asus monitor for $600 which isn't too expensive considering how much the video cards cost to power it.
Chance Hale
Member
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
Smart man, its probably way off!! Sli can run 1440 games fine but even with sli games will have low fps at 4k. So seriously probably still 1-2 years away before 60 fps 4k is even possible...
Chance Hale
Member
You can play Crysis 3 at 4K, 60 FPS with three 980s
Gsync seems perfect for 4K though, given very few people are going to be able to reach a steady 60 FPS780ti still gets better performance in some games than the 980
I got my Samsung 28 " 4k monitor in the summer for a great price and enjoying it so far. I play the majority of my games at 1440p and 4K at 60FPS. Granted, many newer "AAA" games are not going to run 100 % maxed out, but part of that is optimization. Playing Dark Souls 2 at 4k/60FPS was probably enough to win me over
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
You can play Crysis 3 at 4K, 60 FPS with three 980s
I bet frame times are horrible, I doubt its 60 fps locked. I have dual 290x's, 32 gigs of ram and 6 core proc and crysis is not even steady locked at 60 in 1600p. I doubt 3 980 can do for 4k at 60 without huge dips from time to time.
Check this, even 4 sli is not 60 fps locked, too many dips.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GTX-980-3-Way-and-4-Way-SLI-Performance/Crysis-3
Chance Hale
Member
Do they have MSAA on? Thought I saw a performance graph elsewhere that showed 3 way systems could finally hit 60, but perhaps not. Or I could have been thinking 4, either way it was more of a joke because very few people are going to go that route. Gsync would definitely be nice for the 51 average listed there though, imagine you could grab that monitor if you have 4 980s
you're right! I mean what games can 2 GTX 780 TI handle? I should just get an Xbox One
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
Do they have MSAA on? Thought I saw a performance graph elsewhere that showed 3 way systems could finally hit 60, but perhaps not. Or I could have been thinking 4, either way it was more of a joke because very few people are going to go that route. Gsync would definitely be nice for the 51 average listed there though, imagine you could grab that monitor if you have 4 980s
Not sure, could be some anti aliasing on with those scores. Its just still a dream to expect 60 fps locked. You are gonna get some very high fps and then dips, frame variance is the real trouble still with multi cards at 4k.
But even if it was pretty close, still 1500$ and scaling is like tossing dice, you just never know if its going to work with that new game that just came out
.Add to that console ports and sli or crossfire starts acting up badly. Looking at you shadow of mordor and Dead rising 3...
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Seeing the difference between a 1080p source on a monitor vs a large 1080p screen is almost as stunning as seeing HD vs SD I can not imagine how useless it is having a 28" 4k monitor.
I know the picture is still better but it's nowhere near what it should be at that resolution, this is just my opinion though
I think if you're running a PC with high end graphics and high resolutions, especially anything over 720p it should be on a large 1080p/4k TV.
Atleast until you can get a Monitor that equal in size.
I know some will disagree but the difference is is there.
I know the picture is still better but it's nowhere near what it should be at that resolution, this is just my opinion though
I think if you're running a PC with high end graphics and high resolutions, especially anything over 720p it should be on a large 1080p/4k TV.
Atleast until you can get a Monitor that equal in size.
I know some will disagree but the difference is is there.
abracadaver
Member
How can you be dissapointed by 4K? The difference is huge:
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
How can you be dissapointed by 4K? The difference is huge:
With games I do believe your right... movies on the other hand you got to have a 60 inch tv and still be pretty close to the tv to actually notice the difference.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
G-Sync is compatible with IPS - Tom Petersen from NVIDIA recently said he can't think of a reason why any of the major LCD technologies can't be used with G-Sync, specifically named IPS, too.
A brief walk through a store and stopping at the 4K display showing actual 4K content says bullshit to this.
If you do not notice a difference when you see it in person, you are probably blind or 20 feet away.
For a PC monitor the extra clarity on text would be amazing if you are reading on a screen on day.
Chance Hale
Member
How do they even make those kinds of graphs? I very rarely trust the things that try to tell you how much something doesn't make a difference.
opticalmace
Member
Not sure why you quoted me? Though I should update my post, as 144HZ IPS-type displays are going into production soon (or already are in production).
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
My tv is 47 inches and i'm at 10 feet and I would say that chart is pretty accurate, 720p to 1080p is almost unnoticeable in movies to me.
For gaming on pc its definitely a huge step up just because of the added real state you get and the fact you are but a few feet from your screen... only problem is no graphic card can really handle 4k unless you play games from 2006
.Roughly approxomating where meaningful "cutoffs" ought to be given typical human visual acuity. It's not a crazy idea, although some of those graphs make utterly terrible assumptions (like 20:20 vision = "typical"), and there's always the argument to make that you should aim high due to various edge behaviors.
...The really horrible thing is when people try to apply those types graphs to RENDERING resolutions. A lot of people haven't got the foggiest idea of digital signal proccessing and sampling.
Just adding to the conversation, of which you were part of.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Interesting, I have a 42" and I see the difference even in digital files, it's mainly a softer image with 720p with a slight downgrade in details, but only slight vs a 1080p file.My tv is 47 inches and i'm at 10 feet and I would say that chart is pretty accurate, 720p to 1080p is almost unnoticeable in movies to me.
For gaming on pc its definitely a huge step up just because of the added real state you get and the fact you are but a few feet from your screen... only problem is no graphic card can really handle 4k unless you play games from 2006
A 1080p blu-ray thou is a big difference over them both.
I mean even a 4k photo/image is noticeable on a 1080p display so I imagine the difference would be even more so native.
I'd imagine it being TN really lowers the image quality in terms of colours. I don't think I'd ever go back to a TN panel after seeing how much better my IPS monitor is even if it was 4k versus my 1440p monitor.
More over, I don't think it's worth going for 4k yet considering how you can't really run new games at 4k easily with current graphics cards, unless you've got SLI.
More over, I don't think it's worth going for 4k yet considering how you can't really run new games at 4k easily with current graphics cards, unless you've got SLI.
My tv is 47 inches and i'm at 10 feet and I would say that chart is pretty accurate, 720p to 1080p is almost unnoticeable in movies to me.
For gaming on pc its definitely a huge step up just because of the added real state you get and the fact you are but a few feet from your screen... only problem is no graphic card can really handle 4k unless you play games from 2006
The 780ti 970 and 980 handle 4K on many current games at console settings.
I was all hyped for 4k on my next PC build until I saw these new 21:9 monitors. Totally changed my tune. It just seems to have more impact on the experience for me.
I mean, look at that. Glorious.
I mean, look at that. Glorious.
Chance Hale
Member
Forget about the monitor, what about that Gigabyte P25X? But really,ultrawide monitors seem incredible but I can't get myself to get one without gsync. Hopefully it's an option one day, if not I still want to get one eventually as a secondary monitor.
I put my orders in. Let's see how much better it will be compare to my Dell 2713HM IPS.
Chance Hale
Member
My finger keeps hovering over add to cart but I still think I want to try to wait for the Swift for 144hz and 3D support. If it doesn't come in within the next few days I'll probably end up getting this.
Ayato Kanzaki
Member
It better be, considering this monitor is currently in the 1800-2000$ range.
I'm about to change my monitor, too. But I'll probably take a 1440p, 28 or 30 inchs. 4k isn't really usable right now, with the current games, video cards and internet bandwiths limitations.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
Not really, being able to play them is 60 fps solid. Sure they can get 30 on some but who really plays like that.
1080p upscales perfectly, becuase 3840x2160 is exactly 4x the pixels.
It should look identical to a 1080p set, though perhaps better if the contrast, colour reproduction, etc. is better on the 4K screen.
Also if you move faster than 30 mph, your lungs will explode.
How can you be dissapointed by 4K? The difference is huge:
Guess my monitor is 4K compatible in 1080p
How can you be dissapointed by 4K? The difference is huge:
That...is not an accurate representation. 4k 'only' has double the number of horizontal and vertical lines. That second image shows much more than double the resolution.