4K Gaming

Kaapstad · 25 Jan 2015 at 17:02

up2nogooduk said:
Does the 5960X help in anyway @4k?

Cheers

Not really

What does help is having 40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes available if you want to use a lot of GPUs. PCI-E Slot bandwidth is really important @2160p and even more so as newer faster cards come along.

Having said that there are only a few CPUs that give you this, the 5960X being one.

If you are building a system for long term use the 5960X is a good choice as it won't become obsolete for a very long time.

up2nogooduk · 25 Jan 2015 at 17:09

Kaapstad said:
Not really

What does help is having 40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes available if you want to use a lot of GPUs. PCI-E Slot bandwidth is really important @2160p and even more so as newer faster cards come along.

Having said that there are only a few CPUs that give you this, the 5960X being one.

If you are building a system for long term use the 5960X is a good choice as it won't become obsolete for a very long time.

Sounds Good

Thanks for that Kaapstad

JustCallMeVlad · 25 Jan 2015 at 17:26

up2nogooduk said:
Sorry to jump on here.
I justed started playing bc2 again last night also.
I have 2x 290's, but so stuttery, not sure why. Bf4 runs fine.
Such a fun game. What spec you got.
Just wondering if it's Windows 8, as I used to play in Windows7.

5820
980's in SLI

toodoo9011 · 25 Jan 2015 at 17:29

passey89 said:
right decided i'm gonna get a 980 might as well get the best single gpu i can instead of messing with sli / crossfire atm.

I have a corsair 300R case so airsoft isnt really a problem atm cpu never goes above about 45C.

As for settings yes i don't mind playing on high instead of ultra with things like bloom, motion blur and AA cranked right down.

A single gtx 980 is useless for 4k u better get two.

bloodkil · 25 Jan 2015 at 17:39

I have a pair of 290X's and I could run any game at 60fps at max settings apart from from Crysis 3 and Watch_Dogs

passey89 · 25 Jan 2015 at 18:01

toodoo9011 said:
A single gtx 980 is useless for 4k u better get two.

i'm running a single R9 290 and it does ok at 4k at the moment.

680 uses less power, less heat & is faster anyway so how is 1 useless?

theMilitant · 25 Jan 2015 at 20:47

I'd say you wait for the next gen AMD cards

I know I'd personally be disappointed to shell out hundreds of £££s now only for a card that's 25-35% more powerful to come out in 2-3 months time.

varkanoid · 25 Jan 2015 at 20:55

passey89 said:
i'm running a single R9 290 and it does ok at 4k at the moment.

680 uses less power, less heat & is faster anyway so how is 1 useless?

You mean 980. Its not useless I had a 980 with 4k and it was fine if you lower the details. With 970 SLI I dont need to lower the details.

Ignore comments like that one anyway with 4k you are better to just take note of people who have the experience to answer your question correctly.

passey89 · 25 Jan 2015 at 21:09

varkanoid said:
You mean 980. Its not useless I had a 980 with 4k and it was fine if you lower the details. With 970 SLI I dont need to lower the details.

Ignore comments like that one anyway with 4k you are better to just take note of people who have the experience to answer your question correctly.

Yeh lol.

my current plan is 980 now, then in a month or 2 gonna get a new mobo and psu and get it all ready for sli 980's

LtMatt · 25 Jan 2015 at 21:13

up2nogooduk said:
I'm thinking of going to 5960X, X99 Asus Rampage Extreme V, and hope it lasts a good 2 years + at least.
At least i can use 16x and 4th slot @8x.. not much in it 16x v8x, so not much of a loss!
Does the 5960X help in anyway @4k?

Cheers

Kaapstad said:
Not really

What does help is having 40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes available if you want to use a lot of GPUs. PCI-E Slot bandwidth is really important @2160p and even more so as newer faster cards come along.

Having said that there are only a few CPUs that give you this, the 5960X being one.

If you are building a system for long term use the 5960X is a good choice as it won't become obsolete for a very long time.

up2nogooduk said:
Sounds Good

Thanks for that Kaapstad

Sorry mate missed this, but Kaap's advice is good and i agree.

new boy · 25 Jan 2015 at 21:24

varkanoid said:
You mean 980. Its not useless I had a 980 with 4k and it was fine if you lower the details. With 970 SLI I dont need to lower the details.

Ignore comments like that one anyway with 4k you are better to just take note of people who have the experience to answer your question correctly.

Would you say your experience running a 980 @ 4k with some settings turned down was a better experience than running @ 1080p “maxed“?

I'm really wanting to do the 4k thing soon, but can't afford the sli solutions that people claum is mandatory for 4k...

I'm hoping to hold out until the next die shrink, but who knows...

passey89 · 25 Jan 2015 at 21:35

I'm running elite dangerous at 4k on high with aa and bloom off and getting 70 fps in space, 40 in station and it looks bloody amazing.

Just gets very hot in station.

apostolis_kt · 26 Jan 2015 at 08:54

new boy said:
Would you say your experience running a 980 @ 4k with some settings turned down was a better experience than running @ 1080p “maxed“?

I'm really wanting to do the 4k thing soon, but can't afford the sli solutions that people claum is mandatory for 4k...

I'm hoping to hold out until the next die shrink, but who knows...

I am interested to know this as well. 1080p ultra settings vs 4k medium settings or whatever setting you guys do at 4k

VincentHanna · 26 Jan 2015 at 09:03

To be honest, I don't like to compromise.

What's the point of spending £400 on a GPU if you can't also get the best quality graphics?

The whole "4k medium settings looks better/as good as 1080p Ultra" just doesn't wash with me i'm afraid. I think it's just an excuse people use to justify attempting to run 4k on one GPU, which I really don't recommend.

If you have one powerful GPU, I would personally stick with 1440p.

If you can afford more than one, 4k is worth looking at.

apostolis_kt · 26 Jan 2015 at 11:26

plus i wonder with the current games made with consoles in mind are the textures really optimised for 4k? I wonder when developers start working with 4k in mind what will happen in the GPUs. Will a 980 sli struggle badly then? Or maybe then will be years from now

VincentHanna · 26 Jan 2015 at 11:30

Anything with 4GB or less will struggle once that happens.

Shadows of Mordor is the only game I've seen that supports proper 'Ultra' textures, and even then it's a separate download on Steam before it works.

After that it munches up nearly 6GB V-ram even at 1080p...

Actually I think Watch Dogs at 4k with Ultra everything uses more than 4GB as well, but the difference between textures at Ultra and High is pretty much unnoticeable and it's an unoptimised POS.

toodoo9011 · 26 Jan 2015 at 12:23

varkanoid said:
You mean 980. Its not useless I had a 980 with 4k and it was fine if you lower the details. With 970 SLI I dont need to lower the details.

Ignore comments like that one anyway with 4k you are better to just take note of people who have the experience to answer your question correctly.

It was fine (50fps) while gaming in LOW quality gaming.Looks like

varkanoid · 26 Jan 2015 at 13:54

new boy said:
Would you say your experience running a 980 @ 4k with some settings turned down was a better experience than running @ 1080p “maxed“?

I'm really wanting to do the 4k thing soon, but can't afford the sli solutions that people claum is mandatory for 4k...

I'm hoping to hold out until the next die shrink, but who knows...

I would have to say yes but. (just wanted to add with the 980 the only settings I turned down was AA off and sometimes shadows down a bit if there was a setting.) Reason being is I got the Wow factor. All of a sudden the image quality was amazing at first I spent most of my time just looking round and running upto a wall to see how detailed it was. Silly things like that. From 1080p to UHD for me was a massive step.

The reason I got rid of the 980 was to see if I could get max settings plus the one I had ran really hot.

So when I got 970 SLI and it was even better I am very happy with 4k gaming. The only problem I have with it is the Acer I bought has amazing image quality much better than the Rog Swift its just the build quality is pants. Its currently with Acer for the second time being repaired.

VincentHanna said:
Anything with 4GB or less will struggle once that happens.

Shadows of Mordor is the only game I've seen that supports proper 'Ultra' textures, and even then it's a separate download on Steam before it works.

After that it munches up nearly 6GB V-ram even at 1080p...

Actually I think Watch Dogs at 4k with Ultra everything uses more than 4GB as well, but the difference between textures at Ultra and High is pretty much unnoticeable and it's an unoptimised POS.

I have Shadow of Mordor with Ultra pack all settings on max and with gsync on the benchmark runs as smooth as butter with gsycn off it stutters.

One thing people tend to forget with the "4k gaming isnt there yet" is how many times in the last 2 years have you changed your GPU ? I have changed mine 6 times I think. 7850 / 780 / 780ti / 970 / 980 / 970 SLI.

You dont change your CPU and rest of your kit that much do you ? Same with your monitor I had my old Acer LCD for at least 5 years.

So I buy a 4k monitor now. Okay I admit its not 100% there but its enough for me to enjoy gaming how I like and its amazing. I will probably keep this monitor for at least another 5 years or more. How often will I change my GPU ? Probably at least twice maybe more in those 5 years. Some people seem to change it everytime a new AMD or nvidia series is released.

So my opinion is I have 4k gaming now and its fine. When better GPU's come out I can buy one, I still will have 4k gaming but it will be better. So instead of forking out £200-£300 on a 4k monitor and say £400 on a GPU much later I have the best of both worlds now and can always buy a new GPU later which will improve my 4k gaming more. Does that make sense ?

VincentHanna · 26 Jan 2015 at 14:12

The thing with Shadows of Mordor, is that

A) You have to install the Ultra pack separately - They don't come with the standard download
B) If you had it set to Ultra prior to downloading the textures, you then have to change textures from Ultra -> High -> Ultra to get them to actually kick in.

I completed the game before I got my 4k screen, but I know at 1080p with the Ultra textures it was hitting the VRAM wall. I ended up playing through the game with high textures.

So I would be very surprised to find that your game is running fine (particularly noting that the 970 now seems to bottleneck using more than 3.5GB)

To be honest I couldn't see much difference between high and Ultra anyway, however that's exactly the sort of thing that will be more noticeable at 4k resolutions.

And I did actually build my latest PC around 4k. Hence a X99, 40 PCI-E lane system with 3 GPU's in Crossfire.

I don't actually change my GPU that much, but I'll see what the next flagship AMD card is like. Even if it was fast I probably wouldn't upgrade unless it has 8GB VRAM.

varkanoid · 26 Jan 2015 at 15:29

VincentHanna said:
The thing with Shadows of Mordor, is that

A) You have to install the Ultra pack separately - They don't come with the standard download
B) If you had it set to Ultra prior to downloading the textures, you then have to change textures from Ultra -> High -> Ultra to get them to actually kick in.

I completed the game before I got my 4k screen, but I know at 1080p with the Ultra textures it was hitting the VRAM wall. I ended up playing through the game with high textures.

So I would be very surprised to find that your game is running fine (particularly noting that the 970 now seems to bottleneck using more than 3.5GB)

To be honest I couldn't see much difference between high and Ultra anyway, however that's exactly the sort of thing that will be more noticeable at 4k resolutions.

And I did actually build my latest PC around 4k. Hence a X99, 40 PCI-E lane system with 3 GPU's in Crossfire.

I don't actually change my GPU that much, but I'll see what the next flagship AMD card is like. Even if it was fast I probably wouldn't upgrade unless it has 8GB VRAM.

A) I did that
B) I did that too I had read you needed to do this

I just tried the benchmark not the actual game so might be a difference but when I get my monitor back I intend to try the game. I couldnt see much difference between high and ultra but I did notice a little more detail. You need to compare the main guy's arms and outfit at the end of the benchmark to notice the most detail.

I also read quite a few people with 4gb ran the game with the Ultra textures without a problem. I also dont believe in the VRAM issue as I have never seen a problem that relates to the lack of VRAM on my system.