Absolutely... well said. Im running trifire and i have not experienced any issues with 4k. I previously had the asus 1440 and i loved it. But after gaming on a 4K (even with the niggly scaling issues) I would find it extremely hard to revert to 1440, and it would just be a total waste of all this raw power.
Choosing monitor...4K or 1440p
- Thread starter Drojman
- Start date
Absolutely... well said. Im running trifire and i have not experienced any issues with 4k. I previously had the asus 1440 and i loved it. But after gaming on a 4K (even with the niggly scaling issues) I would find it extremely hard to revert to 1440, and it would just be a total waste of all this raw power.
Soldato
Can't believe YOU actually typed that.......
But you fail to read all the sections on the internet where people are running 4k fine? In your case you'd never get to buy a GPU as I can find a problem on the internet for any AMD card. Depends who's using it and when they are a can or can't when it comes to trouble shooting. There were a lot of issues in the beginning as there is on any new tech. But you'll have to keep reading on the internet and keep up with where 4k has gotten to to remain an armchair expert. Prolly best you go back to to your mate who built your PC and ask him. Finish your homework and get back in teh 'I know all about 7970' thread ............... the one we finished with a couple of years ago.
Enough of this loon.
Drojman - I did skim read the thread but didn't pick up on which monitor you have.
Soldato
It does seem that way
. But, but 4x the resolution requires 4x the horsepower???
I don't think he's heard of custom cooled graphics cards (290s) either which is odd considering how much he's read on the internet from ExPeRtZ...
Last edited:
Soldato
Both GPU's running ok? Turned the MSAA down?
Soldato
He couldnt even reply to my arguement
It does seem that way
But, but 4x the resolution requires 4x the horsepower???
It was all down hill for him at this point, proves he's talking nonesense.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,887
I 'only' have a 295x2 but my experience with crysis 3 was that at 'very high' (Max) settings, 2x AA at 1440p I was only averaging 60 fps and sometimes the minimum framerate dipped in to the high 40's.
Perfectly playable of course, but I'm not surprised it doesn't run super smooth in 4k, even with an extra 290x.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
What Cpu and clocks?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,887
i7 4770k @ 4.5Ghz
295x2 was at stock clocks as mine gets close to the throttle limit anyway.
295x2 was at stock clocks as mine gets close to the throttle limit anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
Sounds like it, you might even be better off just running the 295
I have three nvidia cards on a 4930k at 4.5ghz and got smooth rates at 4k and 120+fps at 1440p (using smaa)
It does seem that way
But, but 4x the resolution requires 4x the horsepower???
I don't think he's heard of custom cooled graphics cards (290s) either which is odd considering how much he's read on the internet from ExPeRtZ...
no aggressive or rude posts!
Here is a BF4 Bench taken from a GTX 980 review (and I know these cards perform relatively better at higher resolutions that their earlier counterparts):
** No hotlinking images **
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/images/bf4_1920_1080.gif
And here is a bench taken from the same review, but for the 4K resolution:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/images/bf4_3840_2160.gif
Seems like I was WRONG. Seems like having 4* the pixels to fill with each frame results only in 1/3 of the frames, and not 1/4 of the frames as I anecdotally suggested. But waiit a mintue! The 4K bench was condcuted with No AA whereas the 1080p bench had 4*MSAA applied! So on all likelihood, my anecdotal estimation of 4*horsepower required to power 4K worth of pixels (4*1080p) probably wasn't far off.
I notice also that the only card that gives remotely playable frames in the 4K benchmark is the R295X x2 8Gb dual GPU. What I would suggest however is that take BF4 onto multiplayer and that semi-playable framerate will soon plummet into a slideshow.
But that is a mute point, because I happen to know that BF4 (one of my main games), despite posting high frames, happens to HATE dual GPU configurations. microstutter city indeed!
At this point I will rest my case. 4K gaming at this point in time is for fools. You will spend an absolute fortune on gfx cards and the monitor itself, and end up with an inferior experience to someone gaming at 1080p. The evidence is all over the internet for anyone to see. Naturally, if someone wants to browse through the underbelly of a forum inhabited by gaming tech extremist junkies, then the reality may seem as though it has been turned on it's head......at least until you get your £3K worth of monitor and GPU and realise that you have just bought into a white elehpant.
Seems like I was WRONG. Seems like having 4* the pixels to fill with each frame results only in 1/3 of the frames, and not 1/4 of the frames as I anecdotally suggested. But waiit a mintue! The 4K bench was condcuted with No AA whereas the 1080p bench had 4*MSAA applied! So on all likelihood, my anecdotal estimation of 4*horsepower required to power 4K worth of pixels (4*1080p) probably wasn't far off.
I notice also that the only card that gives remotely playable frames in the 4K benchmark is the R295X x2 8Gb dual GPU. What I would suggest however is that take BF4 onto multiplayer and that semi-playable framerate will soon plummet into a slideshow.
But that is a mute point, because I happen to know that BF4 (one of my main games), despite posting high frames, happens to HATE dual GPU configurations. microstutter city indeed!
At this point I will rest my case. 4K gaming at this point in time is for fools. You will spend an absolute fortune on gfx cards and the monitor itself, and end up with an inferior experience to someone gaming at 1080p. The evidence is all over the internet for anyone to see. Naturally, if someone wants to browse through the underbelly of a forum inhabited by gaming tech extremist junkies, then the reality may seem as though it has been turned on it's head......at least until you get your £3K worth of monitor and GPU and realise that you have just bought into a white elehpant.[/QUOTE]
you are genius
just turn settings down little example high and will hit 60fps, and plus this benchmark with reference card, with oc edition different story.
I notice also that the only card that gives remotely playable frames in the 4K benchmark is the R295X x2 8Gb dual GPU. What I would suggest however is that take BF4 onto multiplayer and that semi-playable framerate will soon plummet into a slideshow.
But that is a mute point, because I happen to know that BF4 (one of my main games), despite posting high frames, happens to HATE dual GPU configurations. microstutter city indeed!
At this point I will rest my case. 4K gaming at this point in time is for fools. You will spend an absolute fortune on gfx cards and the monitor itself, and end up with an inferior experience to someone gaming at 1080p. The evidence is all over the internet for anyone to see. Naturally, if someone wants to browse through the underbelly of a forum inhabited by gaming tech extremist junkies, then the reality may seem as though it has been turned on it's head......at least until you get your £3K worth of monitor and GPU and realise that you have just bought into a white elehpant.[/QUOTE]
you are genius
just turn settings down little example high and will hit 60fps, and plus this benchmark with reference card, with oc edition different story.
Soldato
You can hammer out whatever you like as much as you like but the simple fact remains that you're wrong and everybody in this thread is stating that you're wrong. Now, if it was me and 5 or 6 people were telling me independently that I was talking nonsense I'd probably start to pay attention. But do carry on - the ridicule at your expense makes it amusing enough.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,887
Don't we buy the best graphics cards to push the best graphics?
Why would you invest all that money in a high end GPU and a £500ish monitor and then start reducing the visual quality?
Why would you invest all that money in a high end GPU and a £500ish monitor and then start reducing the visual quality?
Soldato
The idea is that 4K with reduced settings looks superior to say 1440p with max settings. It all depends on the context really - what settings are needed to be toned down and by how much and what effect does that have on the image quality.
Across the board statements don't really hold up because if I was playing Diablo 3 for example at 4K I most certainly would not need two high end GPUs. If I was playing BF4 at 4K then I would need to turn settings down a notch or two unless I had two GPUs overclocked a bit but I would say that anybody who is moderately bothered about playing shooters probably isn't going to play them at 4K anyway. I think certain games work well with it; others less so.
Across the board statements don't really hold up because if I was playing Diablo 3 for example at 4K I most certainly would not need two high end GPUs. If I was playing BF4 at 4K then I would need to turn settings down a notch or two unless I had two GPUs overclocked a bit but I would say that anybody who is moderately bothered about playing shooters probably isn't going to play them at 4K anyway. I think certain games work well with it; others less so.
Associate
Its quite clear matthecat is trolling, he has not a clue.
Soldato
Again another poor argument from MadTheCat, using the 980 for 4K is a bad idea due to it's 256 bus rate, if he knew anything about 4k this would be on his list. The 295X2 only uses 4GB for gaming not 8 as it has 4GB per GPU. Nice try yet again little buddy.
Starting to wonder the same, though he puts in far to much effort.
Last edited:
Soldato
As far as I can see the only person letting the thread down and having his posts doctored is MadTheCat, every-one else here is simple having a discussion.