4K gaming possible at full settings on todays hardware?

[Gregster]

Gregster how do you rate this monitor for gaming over your 120Hz ASUS?

There is something awesome about gaming on a 120hz (or more) monitor. I would, without question, bin the Dell IPS over the Asus. I found the caveats on the IPS irritating and kinda spoilt what is a fantastic screen. As for the Asus 120hz over the Samsung 4K, I wouldn't swap the 4K. The IQ is so much better and everything just looks so much clearer. I feel at times that people make too much of TN Vs IPS and have maybe had a bad TN panel but the viewing angle is superb and the gaming experience is top notch. I have not noticed any tearing or input lag like I did with the IPS and everything just feels so much smoother.

Out the box it is very bright but after some tweaking, I have it just how I like it. Of course that is personal preference as well and we all like different things.

In short. I am loving this 4K Sammy and will be sticking with it. I cheat though, as I also have the Asus right next to it for 3D gaming

 

[Gregster]

I have the old BenQ XLl2420t and I really like the 120Hz, mainly because of the reduced input lag with V-Sync. Not sure I could deal with either the input lag or tearing on the Samsung :/
It does look very, very good though and I'm sure it has much better IQ than my BenQ.

I'd probably have to upgrade though too

There isn't any input lag or tearing (that I have seen or felt) on the Samsung. I am very picky on these sort of things and found the Dell 1440P to be very bad on both counts (V-Sync to stop tearing resulted in input lag). I found I put up with tearing in fast paced games like BF3/4 but gave up and went back to the Asus.

Nice! I do have an i5 3570k right now so I am considering the bump to an i7 for a little more juice. Does the cpu matter that much more at the higher res?

The demands on the CPU become less as you go for a bigger resolution. The 3570K might well cope just fine with 4K

 

[Gregster]

"The demands on the CPU become less as you go for a bigger resolution. The 3570K might well cope just fine with 4K "


Damn, do you have a link to back this statement up? Not that I don't believe you, but I thought (assumed) higher res meant more demand on cpu, if not... well then... and with dx 12 and mantle coming around I could save on upgrading to an i7.

I will run a game at low res, all the way to high res and record CPU usage as best as I can.

 

[Gregster]

you are a great man.

Does anyone else on this forum happen to know of a site that may have done something similar to this? CPU usage at highers resolutions... And if crossfired 290s or cards in that range become less bottlenecked at higher resolutions

The core utilization and thread count should be identical, and the CPU bottleneck less apparent. If, for example, at 1080p your GPU is capable of 100 FPS and your CPU can only feed the GPU 50 FPS, the application will run at 50 FPS. However, your GPU may only be capable of 50 FPS at 4K, in which case you'll still get 50 FPS, but your CPU now isn't bottlenecking your GPU.

This is assuming the game is well-made, unlike some older titles or even newer [usually Japanese] ones which use the CPU for a large amount of operations which could be carried out on the GPU (Halo 1, FFXI, FFXIV, Dark Souls...)

I will be testing it but I have noticed that GPU usage is good across both, where at 1080P, I was seeing less usage on both. I put this down to a CPU bottleneck at times but will fire up a CPU intensive game and see how the cores are pushed at various settings.

I could well be wrong and it is something else but only one way to find out

 

[Gregster]

Did some testing in BF4 and deffo GPU usage is constantly around the 99% at 4K resolution but hard to tell what CPU usage is, as it is constantly fluctuating. At 1080P, I see one of the cores going to 90% but at 4K, I didn't see anywhere near that and 72% was the highest.

@ Elite, I didn't but that isn't to say you wouldn't need to. I got lucky

 

[Gregster]

couple questions, im not a gamer but would my gtx 660ti cope with this monitor at 4k?

also im not sure whether to hold off for the asus 28" coming out also with 60hz (very unsure on a release date)

is this samsung able to tilt forwards and backwards or is it in a completely fixed position?

Thanks

The monitor is in a fixed position, with no tilt or swivel. Very poor but thankfully, it is at the angle I need. A 660Ti will power it

 

[Gregster]

Nothing wrong with the contrast ratio and you get a good view from almost side on to the monitor.

 

[Gregster]

so basically this shows that 2 titans arnt enough .


another 3d monitor tech all over again ready for the dustbin

Not at all. You don't need all the AA on and could get playable frames on a single high end card with decent settings.

 

[Gregster]

Back on topic. I have been doing some single card testing.

Done 2 games and aiming for that 60 fps magical number and on a single card, it is surprisingly easy. AA sure is a crippler on performance and in honesty, the 2 games I have tested, it isn't that noticeable from on to off. If you are in a static image, you can see edges when it is off but they are very very faint and not at all off putting. I don't tend to stand about in games as well, and moving about is fluid and smooth.

Anyway, so far on a single Titan (at stock clocks) and a 3930K at 4.625Ghz:

Bioshock infinite

Ultra - 21 minimum - 50 average - 77 maximum
Very high - 30 minimum - 50 average - 74 maximum (no idea why that is)
High - 31 minimum - 63 average - 95 maximum

It is worth noting that on high settings, it looked just as good as ultra but came with screen tear and would need V-Sync to be applied to stop it. The game was smooth on ultra but those minimums could be an issue. I would run the game on high with V-Sync enabled and it will be a great looking game which is very smooth and very playable.

Batman Arkham Origins

Ultra with 8XMSAA - 19 minimum - 23 average - 52 maximum
Ultra with 2XMSAA - 31 minimum - 40 average - 49 maximum
Ultra with 0XMSAA - 44 minimum - 57 average - 73 maximum

On the slow moving scenes of Batmans in-game bench, slight edging could be seen with AA off but this needed to be looked for and on the faster moving scenes, it looked just as good as when 8XMSAA was used. The game was very fluid with 0XMSAA and for a single card, this is ideal. No tearing and nice and smooth.

More to follow.

 

[Gregster]

I have done some SP in BF4 (can't get online and getting server and game mismatch), so that will have to do for now. SP on the mission where you need to get to the Valkyrie and you jump in the boat and get to where the valkyrie is on fire (Very demanding).

With everything maxed
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2204, 71761, 16, 42, 30.713

With everything maxed and 2XMSAA
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2890, 66394, 26, 66, 43.528

With high settings and no AA
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
3807, 68765, 47, 68, 55.362

With medium settings and no AA
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
5683, 73196, 51, 105, 77.641

Can't comment on the game though, as it was a stutter fest but you get an idea of what is what in frames.

Sorry Lamchop but I don't have WoW

 

[Gregster]

Hmm not too shabby, this was with only one Titan right?

Yep, one Titan and at stock clocks.

 

[Gregster]

So a 780 or 780Ti wouldn't be far behind? So 2 780's or 2 780ti would be just fine? What was the vram usage like?

Yep, 2 780's or 2 780Ti's will be fine.

I am going to do a piece on VRAM usage before I go to work at 10pm or tomorrow if I don't get it finished.

 

[Gregster]

Liking your monitor Gregster

Me 2

It is hard to explain but games seriously look better. trying to decide if it is IQ or just placebo but deffo IQ.

 

[Gregster]

Completed testing for a single Titan at 4K.

To those that say "4K gaming is years away", I say "Maybe not" I have seen no evidence of light bleed, the games play fluid and smooth, the viewing angle is superb and all in all, 4K is very playable now. Sure, we would like max settings with max AA and max frames but there is no need for that. AA can be turned off and it still looks amazing. You have to remember the amount of pixels all squashed into a 28" panel (4 x 1080P monitors) and you can start to see why you don't need AA. You can get very playable frames with decent settings on a single high end GPU. Only the GFX ***** need to have all settings maxed but honestly, there is no need.

 

[Gregster]

The Sammy Davanius. No question about it at all. I will still use the Asus for 3D gaming but for the rest of the time, it will be the Sammy

I am proper loving it.

 

[Gregster]

Noob question:

I notice points being made about how dropping the resolution to say, 1080p on a 4k monitor (or indeed running anything other than native resolution) isnt the best idea unless its hardware supported (correct me if I am wrong). So to that end, would it be better to run BF4 at native resolution but dropping the multi sampling rather than dropping the resolution in order to maintain higher frame rates? Or is it really just the same thing (with regards to avoiding the issues of blurring etc)?

I am tempted by the pricing on these but it's the graphics performance I would need to run it at a ''satisfactory'' frame rate that concerns me (for the record I have 2x7950s and when I tried BF4 1920x1200 200% multisampling my PC lol'd at me )

I have done both (dropped the res to 1080P and dropped AA) and it is better to drop AA than resolution. Nothing wrong with 1080P on a 4K monitor but it just looks better at 3840x2160 with no AA than it does at 1920x1080 with max AA (If that makes sense?)

I have just gone all cold and you have confirmed my fear. Getting a 4k monitor soon may be the better option as I could end up wanting one not long after getting a 1440p monitor.

The vg278 is the best monitor I have owned after my old benq 241w but something about the timing of these 4k screens has seriously messed up my plans. The rog swift was my next monitor but even with the amount of features it has, it might not stop me from wanting a 4k monitor.

Thanks Gregster.

No probs and you will not regret it. I would use OcUK for warranty purposes though, as I would have a hard time with warranty if I ever run into issues

I realise it's only 1 (£800) card in those tests, but not too many of those framerates hit the magic 60fps average and a few of the minimums are a bit nasty (I'm guessing you'd notice the drops).
Hopefully my 290s would have the grunt to do bit better than that in most cases, as long as VRAM wasn't an issue. I keep getting fooled by the price because of the previous prices, but when I really start to consider it the price tag still seems a bit steep.

Yer, £500 is still a chunk of money but then again, this is 4K and I paid £500 for 1080P 120Hz a couple of years ago and others have paid a lot more for 1440P/1600P, so perspective wise, I feel this is cheap.

2x290's will own at 4K

 

[Gregster]

I paid about £425 for 3 x 1080p 120Hz Samsung monitors.

Fair enough I have paid under £500 for 4x1080P monitors...Just so happens they squeezed them into 1 monitor

 

[Gregster]

Greg is 8x missing from chart for BF4 as FPS are lowest so assume you missed typing it?

Ultra is 4XMSAA. Just double checked and there is no higher option for it.

So many different amounts and versions of AA, my head is spinning...

 

[Gregster]

Just the higher FPS Ultra 2x result is above it I knew something was missing from text.

Yer, I missed putting 4XMSAA. Good spot thanks

 

[Gregster]

Just fired up Crysis 3 at 4K and thought I would check VRAM usage in it