4K gaming possible at full settings on todays hardware?

LtMatt · 1 Apr 2014 at 10:40

triss said:
Got a source other than assuming its kaaps revo drive?
Most benchmarks put gtx 690s fine at 1440p in bf4

No just playing on one myself.

EDIT

Actually i posted plenty of links which showed similar things, but only user feedback is to be trusted. (when it suits

)

EDIT 2 Just for you Triss.

When the resolution is screwed up also increases the demand on the graphics memory drastically. Once again, you can make do with 2GB of video memory in the three lower levels, but at the "Ultra" it simply becomes too much and use tops out at about 2.5GB. This is also evident in our performance charts, where cards with only 2 GB of graphics memory at times go on serious performance losses with resolution and detail on top.

Source
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/17810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/3#pagehead

Drifting way off topic now so ill leave it here. If anyone wishes to further debate, trust me.

John Paddy · 1 Apr 2014 at 11:39

LtMatt said:
Lies. They were referring to 1440P and they were correct. Playing BF4 at full whack at 1440P on a 690 was not a nice experience, unless you like hitching that is. I experience a similar thing when i run short of vram on BF4 if i use excessive resolution scaling. Before anyone peddles the argument that it doesn't happen to Kaap so it can't be true, not everyone has a high speed pci-e revo drive to supplement their 690's like Kaap does.

I agree with this 100%, BF4 on my 690 maxxes out at 2.3GB, its still playable but it stutters a lot when the Vram limit is reached. Dropping MSAA down to x2 instead of x4 takes it too around 1.8GB.

At the end of the day any gpus that are made with 2GB or even 3GB are a waste of time if your using Nvidia because some people like to use MSAA and SGSSAA through Nvidia inspector.

I will not buy another gpu unless its 4GB or more.

LtMatt · 1 Apr 2014 at 11:44

LtMatt said:
Lies. They were referring to 1440P and they were correct. Playing BF4 at full whack at 1440P on a 690 was not a nice experience, unless you like hitching that is. I experience a similar thing when i run short of vram on BF4 if i use excessive resolution scaling. Before anyone peddles the argument that it doesn't happen to Kaap so it can't be true, not everyone has a high speed pci-e revo drive to supplement their 690's like Kaap does.

John Paddy said:
I agree with this 100%, BF4 on my 690 maxxes out at 2.3GB, its still playable but it stutters a lot when the Vram limit is reached. Dropping MSAA down to x2 instead of x4 takes it too around 1.8GB.

At the end of the day any gpus that are made with 2GB or even 3GB are a waste of time if your using Nvidia because some people like to use MSAA and SGSSAA through Nvidia inspector.

I will not buy another gpu unless its 4GB or more.

Thanks always nice to get confirmation from other 690 users. You would not believe the amount of stick i got in the other thread over this subject.

Yaayuh! · 1 Apr 2014 at 11:48

I can't input on the GTX 690 really, i game at 1920x1080 and at that res the VRAM is usually 19**MB-20**MB absolute max in BF4 multiplayer, pretty much uses it all at points. Haven't ever felt any stutter or FPS drop.

At 1920x1080 2GB is fine for any unmodified game at the moment, easily. If i were to move to 2560x1440 or higher, i would consider 3GB or more just because although it may be alright at the moment, it will only get worse.

If i can borrow a 2560x1440 res monitor from a friend then i'll try it.

RavenXXX2 · 1 Apr 2014 at 12:16

Rossi~ said:
I can't input on the GTX 690 really, i game at 1920x1080 and at that res the VRAM is usually 19**MB-20**MB absolute max in BF4 multiplayer, pretty much uses it all at points. Haven't ever felt any stutter or FPS drop.

At 1920x1080 2GB is fine for any unmodified game at the moment, easily. If i were to move to 2560x1440 or higher, i would consider 3GB or more just because although it may be alright at the moment, it will only get worse.

If i can borrow a 2560x1440 res monitor from a friend then i'll try it.

Try it yourself, image will look crap but you will still take the performance hit of a higher resolution.

http://screenarchery.wikia.com/wiki...to_achieve_3840x2160_resolution_–_NVIDIA_only

Isn't having a lovely 4k resolution kind of ruined by the fact you're sitting in front of a TN panel? washed out colours and dodgy viewing angles and all.

gpuerrilla · 1 Apr 2014 at 12:25

Quick one. Does it have G-SYNC?

Stanners · 1 Apr 2014 at 12:29

Woodsta888 · 1 Apr 2014 at 12:32

For me a modern tn will be as good as an older IPS. As the OP states that teh Sammy looks pretty good compared to his IPS.

As a gamer viewing alngles mean not a jot as you'll always be directly in front of the screen. And colour depth and being washed out. Well aside from not studying the coloured when ina fast paced FPS I'm sure an IPS should look washed out once some BF4 levolution kicks ina sandstorm on caspian border. The lower response times will be better

Fairplay if you watch movies or are a designer/photographer requiring better angles and colours through it but then you'd need to spend 2k.

As for purely a gamers point of view aside higher refresh rates and by what Gregster experienced I think for ~£500 that sammy is a steal. I'm very tempted.

Thanks for review Gregster!

RavenXXX2 · 1 Apr 2014 at 12:40

Greg should post some off screen pics of image quality, to give us an idea of the colour shift and viewing angles.

Martini1991 · 1 Apr 2014 at 12:53

If it's anything like my SA23700D, then I'd have no problem it being TN, viewing angels aren't a problem, because I don't game from a side

R3X · 1 Apr 2014 at 13:34

I must be really blind I have not gamed proper for a good year or so but when I looked at those BF4 and tomb raider ultra settings and large pics it looked terrible ?

Have they still not made things round and curved and smooth ie bridges made of straight sticks or car wheels actually round and not made from a hexagon shape ?

kedge · 1 Apr 2014 at 14:27

Kaapstad said:
advertising rubbish about needing a 3gb card for 1080p.

You can max out the vram on gtx 780's on my pc at 1920x1080 120Hz, although i didn't have svere hitching or stuttering but the low frame rate makes it tough going in firefights, and that's just the single player

Gregster · 1 Apr 2014 at 14:30

Terrible pictures but you can see that you don't have to be square on at all. Viewing angle is very good and TN has moved on since the days of the early TN's.

Yaayuh! · 1 Apr 2014 at 14:33

R3X said:
I must be really blind I have not gamed proper for a good year or so but when I looked at those BF4 and tomb raider ultra settings and large pics it looked terrible ?

Have they still not made things round and curved and smooth ie bridges made of straight sticks or car wheels actually round and not made from a hexagon shape ?

The problem with those screenshots is that you're technically zoomed in on it, so it isn't going to look great, especially on a 1920x1080 screen.

Five.Stars · 1 Apr 2014 at 14:34

Gregster said:
Terrible pictures but you can see that you don't have to be square on at all. Viewing angle is very good and TN has moved on since the days of the early TN's.

Correct. Samsung have some good technologies. I currently have a SA950D and the IQ, colour reproduction and even the viewing angles are all very good. Obviously the viewing angles on an IPS panel will be better, but that in no way makes the viewing angles on my monitor poor.

Ian Evey · 1 Apr 2014 at 14:51

LtMatt said:
Thanks always nice to get confirmation from other 690 users. You would not believe the amount of stick i got in the other thread over this subject.

Did you ever acknowledge that bf4 at 1080p maxed out did not run out of vram on a 2gb card?

I know this was when the beta was out, but i remember you saying "2gb owners cant play it maxed out @ 1080p"

If you did admit you were wrong then i am sorry for bringing this up again!

you were wrong

Marine-RX179 · 1 Apr 2014 at 14:58

Gregster said:
Terrible pictures but you can see that you don't have to be square on at all. Viewing angle is very good and TN has moved on since the days of the early TN's.

But the question is...it is just Sammy's TN panels, or TN panels in general?

Gregster · 1 Apr 2014 at 15:03

Marine-RX179 said:
But the question is...it is just Sammy's TN panels, or TN panels in general?

Well I can only compare what I have used and that is a TN Acer 1050P res (not a very good viewing angle), 3 Asus VG278H TN panels (all very good viewing angles and this Sammy 4K (again, a very good viewing angle). I also have a Dell U27 monitor that is IPS and comparing the TN that I have now on both the Asus and Sammy, the TN is very good.

Marine-RX179 · 1 Apr 2014 at 15:11

Gregster said:
Well I can only compare what I have used and that is a TN Acer 1050P res (not a very good viewing angle), 3 Asus VG278H TN panels (all very good viewing angles and this Sammy 4K (again, a very good viewing angle). I also have a Dell U27 monitor that is IPS and comparing the TN that I have now on both the Asus and Sammy, the TN is very good.

Next we just need Nvidia or AMD to work out an external or graphic card built-in solution for G-sync/Freesync instead of requiring a piece of hardware inside specific monitors...

I think that 4K 60Hz monitors becoming affordable so quickly is really at odd with the high price G-sync monitors...

llamadal · 1 Apr 2014 at 15:12

nvidia have already said thats impossible