1080 And 4K Performance ?

[AlamoX]

Thanks for the replies all, Looks like I'll be going the 1080 Zotac Amp Extreme route then when they are in stock



I'm looking forward to seeing how this Fast-Sync works

that works only when you have fps about 3 times faster than the refresh rate of the monitor, so i wouldnt hold my breath for 180fps at 4k

 

[TheRealDeal]

Thanks for the replies all, Looks like I'll be going the 1080 Zotac Amp Extreme route then when they are in stock



I'm looking forward to seeing how this Fast-Sync works

I am sorry for your wallet lol but it's the best choice at this moment.

 

[smogsy]

that works only when you have fps about 3 times faster than the refresh rate of the monitor, so i wouldnt hold my breath for 180fps at 4k

this guy is correct

 

[dafadau]

I've been gaming 4k for some time, first with a single Fury X and then with Crossfire. Overall an excellent experience, if you don't mind knocking some of the detail options down.

As stated above, CF is only worth it if you play specific games that support it, as most of the time it isn't used. Then you get the one game that uses it (in my case Star Wars Battlefront) and it's just awesome.

Overall, I'd say don't bother with CF or SLI, get the best single card you can.

 

[Lareon]

So I got myself a 43" Phillips IPS monitor and it's gorgeous, Bigger really is better when it comes to 4K.

Anyway, I'm currently running it off a Gigabyte GTX 770 OC 4GB, Not exactly powerful I know.

I'm looking at either getting an aftermarket 1080 such as Zotacs top end card, The Zotac Amp Extreme OR waiting for AMD's 480X to drop and get 2 x of those for a lot cheaper and get roughly the same performance as a 1080 based on the VERY early numbers.

Question is, How well does crossfire work nowadays ? Last I tried Crossfire was with 2 x 6970's and it was horrible, Performance gain was tiny and the extra heat just made it perform badly due to throttling.

Any input is appreciated

I have the 40" philips 4k

love the monitor but regret it because playing sub 4k doesn't look amazing.

had crossfire r9 290's and it was the worst gpu experience i've ever had.
hated it; half the time it isn't supported, the other half of the time the temps throttled the cards because they were so close

sold them and am using a gtx 970 for the time being before getting the 1080.

if you get the 1080 let me know the 4k experience? as i'm going to wait a little bit

 

[Dicehunter]

Bear in mind a single 1080 will see you getting between 30-60 fps in top games with max settings excluding max aa.

So you would also need a gsync monitor to stop the frame rate flipping between 30 and 60 fps with vsync enabled

Last time I used V-Sync was around 10 years ago so it's not an issue for me plus I never use AA so that should net me a little more performance

4K without G-Sync/Freesync is a big no-no in my opinion. Once you experience silky smooth 1440p/21:9 with it, you just can't stomach 4K, even with the improved image quality. That Phillips is a great monitor, but be prepared to notch quite a few settings down if you want a smooth playable experience on all games, even on a 1080.

I've had 1440P 144Hz G-Sync and currently gaming at 1080P/1440P non G-Sync on the 43" Phillips is a non issue for me, Doesn't bother me to be honest, I'd rather have the massive 4K IPS monitor

I have the 40" philips 4k

love the monitor but regret it because playing sub 4k doesn't look amazing.

had crossfire r9 290's and it was the worst gpu experience i've ever had.
hated it; half the time it isn't supported, the other half of the time the temps throttled the cards because they were so close

sold them and am using a gtx 970 for the time being before getting the 1080.

if you get the 1080 let me know the 4k experience? as i'm going to wait a little bit

Will do, Won't be for around a month or 2 though

 

[passey89]

1080 over crossfire anyday.

I had 290x crossfire and was a nightmare.
If u want to play a game within 6 months of release dont go crossfire. All im going to say is elite dangerous profiles?

Also less power Nd heat from single cards.

1080 is good at 4k most of the stuff i play it maxes everybsetting and doesnt go below 60fps

 

[Zerreth]

I have the 40" philips 4k
love the monitor but regret it because playing sub 4k doesn't look amazing.

I've found with the Philips BDM4065UC that setting sharpening to 100 looks a lot better on 1080p & 1440p, not so much on 3840p.

 

[r7slayer]

Xfire, great and amazing when it works....

When it works.
Might seem a great investment 2x 480 but if its not working for you 70%of the time for example due to many different reasons then your not taking advantage of that other card which means not so great investment. Like other ppl have said probably better with that single card. Then all u have to just worry about is drivers then

 

[blasterbolt]

As most have said above sli/cossfire is not in a great place atm. Some games takes weeks/months to get sli/cf added and some just dont get it ever!. Single fastest is so much easier unless your are a wizard with nvidia inspector like a certain german person that got sli working in TW warhammer .Who ever they are I love them for it!

 

[Lareon]

I've found with the Philips BDM4065UC that setting sharpening to 100 looks a lot better on 1080p & 1440p, not so much on 3840p.

will give it a shot, cheers!

 

[xchaotic]

I very nearly ordered the 43" Phillips IPS screen too, but even with 1080 you can't guarantee 60+ FPS in AAA games.
I will wait for a a unicorn G-Sync panel

 

[MumboJumbo]

4K without G-Sync/Freesync is a big no-no in my opinion. Once you experience silky smooth 1440p/21:9 with it, you just can't stomach 4K, even with the improved image quality. That Phillips is a great monitor, but be prepared to notch quite a few settings down if you want a smooth playable experience on all games, even on a 1080.

I want 21:9, but it doesn't seem like a viable option until it's a gaming standard to support it.

 

[AlamoX]

I want 21:9, but it doesn't seem like a viable option until it's a gaming standard to support it.

i thought games didnt have issues with superwide screens, video maybe, but games ?

 

[Legend]

I want 21:9, but it doesn't seem like a viable option until it's a gaming standard to support it.

You won't find many games that don't support it, old and new titles alike, and there are easy fixes for 99% of the ones that don't. All the data for extra width is 'there' after all, so it often just requires an FOV patch or some such thing, but more and more games are recognising it now anyway. Saying it's not supported is really a terrible reason for not getting it. Price and concerns over QC of some of the monitors available (bleed, glow issues etc) is far more valid, but then I think you could level this at ANY monitor these days! Also, with faster 21:9 panels just around the corner there is an argument to wait and see what they bring to the table, but that's certainly the case with 4K also. It really can't be beat for immersion though, I'm 100% sold on it now with my X34 and I wouldn't go 4K even if there was a single GPU that could drive it well enough.

 

[DG-87]

I've had 680SLI, 980SLI, 980Ti SLI and when it works it's great BUT depending on what games you play this can be very rare. Ether the developer doesn't support SLI at all and you try to find a work around until they hopefully add support (Fallout 4) or you get flickering/stuttering (Crysis 2 Far Cry 3 and 4).

I don't know, AMD showed off 2 x RX480 vs a single GTX1080 in AOTS which is obviously where AMD sees insane gains oven nVidia. Yes it's <$500 vs $600-$700 but won't expect to see the same gains with other games especially DX11 which there are a tone of. There are only a handful of DX12 games and some have been a disaster so far. Oh yeah and multi GPU support.

So far the GTX 1080 destroyed everything in latest benchmarks even in DX12 it's at the top (except AOTS Fury X is the same). You have to admit the GTX1080 is a pretty impressive GPU vs the TITAN X and around 20%+ faster. Yes AMD sees more gains in DX12 but until the Vega or 1080Ti the GTX1080 will get the best performance in 4k for a single card. And it looks like 60Hz is very achievable with this card give or take a few settings and every game will be different some will get 60+fps some will get 40ish still but the setting may have to be tweaked. But 4K looks beautiful even on High settings and G-Sync will help a lot as well. Aftermarket GTX1080's will defiantly be more superior to the FE when it comes to cooling, allowing to maintain a steady clock if you OC.

This has been said for years but if you want the best performance with out running into SLI/CF diminishing returns get one single fast GPU and enjoy gaming at the highest setting.

I love SLI personally (I like having a 2nd GPU just in case and for looks) and will be getting GTX1080SLI w/HB SLI bridge and my case looks so lonely with one 980Ti! lol

 

[a66as]

I got an Asus FE 1080 the other day to pair with my XB321HK and am finding it fantastic overall!! Only really hammered the Division but I was able to raise the settings over my Ti and it's giving me improved framerates

I do have Gsync however, which I'm sure is helping me when it's dipping during intense firefights

It'll last me until the 1080Ti is out

Whats your average framerates?

with a single 980ti i get around 30-45 and im sure it dips under 30 at times. this is at medium settings. sucks that sli is broken on this game

 

[MumboJumbo]

i thought games didnt have issues with superwide screens, video maybe, but games ?

You won't find many games that don't support it, old and new titles alike, and there are easy fixes for 99% of the ones that don't. All the data for extra width is 'there' after all, so it often just requires an FOV patch or some such thing, but more and more games are recognising it now anyway. Saying it's not supported is really a terrible reason for not getting it. Price and concerns over QC of some of the monitors available (bleed, glow issues etc) is far more valid, but then I think you could level this at ANY monitor these days! Also, with faster 21:9 panels just around the corner there is an argument to wait and see what they bring to the table, but that's certainly the case with 4K also. It really can't be beat for immersion though, I'm 100% sold on it now with my X34 and I wouldn't go 4K even if there was a single GPU that could drive it well enough.

Dark souls 3 springs to mind as the most recent AAA title that I know doesn't support 21:9. There is probably a fix now, but they also ban people for modding their game so it's a bit risky. I also know that if there is a fix, it took some time to come about. So that's several weeks not using your screen properly. That's enough time to complete the game by then.

I really do want 21:9, but I just can't invest in it until it's a gaming standard and it's clearly not if DS3 isn't releasing with support. Not interested in having to find patches and fixes for games just to support my monitor. I'm already at 1440p, so I don't desperately need an upgrade any time soon. I'm not even sure DOTA 2 properly supports it. Honestly, 21:9 has issues with support and it's just a choice on if you want to deal with them or not. Pretending they don't exist is just lying to yourself though.

Yeah I think 4k is just too expensive to keep up with for me.

 

[JediFragger]

Overwatch