• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Why do people say 290x isn't good enough for 4k but benchmarks say different?

Brumboy

Brumboy

Brumboy

Associate
Joined
11 Jan 2011
Posts
2,426
I'm so confused about people's opinions on 4k gaming. I was looking at benchmarks and saw this one for the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC 8192MB.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index9.html

As you can see it seems to run 4k pretty well for example:

  • BF4 @ medium settings 4k = average 79fps
  • BF4 @ ultra settings 4k = average 55fps
  • Metro @ medium settings 4k = average 45fps
  • Shadow of Mordor @ medium settings 4k = average 54fps
  • Sniper Elite 3 @ medium settings 4k = average 68fps
  • Tomb Raider 3 @ high settings 4k = average 60fps
  • Bioshock Infinite @ medium settings 4k = average 70fps

For the casual/average gamer who wants to try 4k, this card is a good choice isn't it?

For me personally gaming at 60fps isn't the ultimate goal, I just want games to be playable so a card like this would suit me fine? I could get 30-40fps on most games at ultra settings by the looks of it

Or am I missing something here lol :confused:
 
So for someone who is happy to game at 4k with high/ultra settings at 30-40fps would be happy with a card like this?

According to these benchmarks anyway
 
Average frame rates are a fraction of the story , minimums and frame times matter most , and a single 290x just isn't going to cut it ( for me personally ) and as above virtually any single gpu won't be , do find myself thinking a Titan x is borderline atm .. I don't see the point in having 4k res on textures and assets that are plainly going to look abit crappy at that res ( medium setting for example )
 
Last edited:
Just a quick note, averages are just that, an average of the highs and lows, it doesn't matter if something averages 200 FPS, if its consistently dropping to 10 FPS and spiking to 390 then it's unplayable.

If you look at the minimums you will see that BF4 was unplayable on that card at ultra setting, so was Metro, Mordor is debatable (most would say no), Thief no, Sniper Elite no, Bioshock no, etc...
 
It's because people are obsessed with being able to run the highest possible settings no matter how little visual improvement there is and/or how big the performance impact is, rather than just doing the sensible thing and finding a happy medium.
 
Last edited:
Rossuk89 said:
I'm so confused about people's opinions on 4k gaming. I was looking at benchmarks and saw this one for the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC 8192MB.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index9.html

As you can see it seems to run 4k pretty well for example:

  • BF4 @ medium settings 4k = average 79fps
  • BF4 @ ultra settings 4k = average 55fps
  • Metro @ medium settings 4k = average 45fps
  • Shadow of Mordor @ medium settings 4k = average 54fps
  • Sniper Elite 3 @ medium settings 4k = average 68fps
  • Tomb Raider 3 @ high settings 4k = average 60fps
  • Bioshock Infinite @ medium settings 4k = average 70fps

For the casual/average gamer who wants to try 4k, this card is a good choice isn't it?

For me personally gaming at 60fps isn't the ultimate goal, I just want games to be playable so a card like this would suit me fine? I could get 30-40fps on most games at ultra settings by the looks of it

Or am I missing something here lol :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes
 
I'd listen to first hand experience over benchmarks any day.

Benchmarks tell a fraction of the story, like drag racing* over a short portion of a race track.

For example, you can have a lower (max) score in a benchmark but still have a better overall experience due to better minimums and frame times.

*apologies for car analogy.
 
Lets be honest as single Gpu's go the 290x is is only beaten by Titan X at 4k from what i have seen. The gtx980 can match it for more money but i would take a 290x 8gb every day of the week over a gtx980 for 4k. Titan x looks like it could give you a decent experience at 4k if you want to crank the settings up a bit. Multi Gpu is what's needed to get the settings up to max with some aa added.
 
Last edited:
Is a 290x enough to run games at 4k with max settings = no

Is a 290x enough to run games at 4k at an acceptable balance of settings and framerate = yes

Simples..

For the past few years I have been running a single card in Eyefinity / Surround. I have not come across a game I couldn't find a good balance on since the 6970 generation (even that was ok in BF3 with medium settings). Currently running a single Titan (non X) and have no issues in BF4 at high settings (no motion blur).

Are there games which would be unplayable on a single card regardless of settings - possibly, do I want to experience them - probably not (probably some ubisoft buggy piece of ****).
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
I would take a used HD7870 over either, much much cheaper and just as incapable of decent 4K FPS :P
Click to expand...

Nah as you can always reduce settings to get the desired fps. If you are a max setting or nothing guy then sure your statement is true but with a few compromises most decent cards can get you decent fps at 4k.

oweneades said:
Is a 290x enough to run games at 4k with max settings = no

Is a 290x enough to run games at 4k at an acceptable balance of settings and framerate = yes

Simples..

For the past few years I have been running a single card in Eyefinity / Surround. I have not come across a game I couldn't find a good balance on since the 6970 generation (even that was ok in BF3 with medium settings).

Are there games which would be unplayable on a single card regardless of settings - possibly, do I want to experience them - probably not (probably some ubisoft buggy piece of ****).
Click to expand...

+1
 
Last edited:
Rossuk89 said:
I'm so confused about people's opinions on 4k gaming. I was looking at benchmarks and saw this one for the Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC 8192MB.

As you can see it seems to run 4k pretty well for example:


For the casual/average gamer who wants to try 4k, this card is a good choice isn't it?

For me personally gaming at 60fps isn't the ultimate goal, I just want games to be playable so a card like this would suit me fine? I could get 30-40fps on most games at ultra settings by the looks of it

Or am I missing something here lol :confused:
Click to expand...

To be honest if for the average casual/gamer the 290X 8GB is enough, then so is the 970 which I might add is cheaper than an 8GB 290X :). Even a 780 doesn't do too bad in most of those charts, the minimums are the thing that would make a lot of these games completely unplayable though.
 
What is often overlooked is personal taste and you own standards, you have options at running 4k but its up to you if it's enough or not. Benchmarks can give an indication on what to expect but as its been said, only paints half the picture.

For me, 1440p is great and untill cards move forward quite significantly I wont make the switch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom