Minimum for 4k monitor?

Besty · 29 Dec 2013 at 20:26

Everyone to their own but I would not need to run 4xmsaa in games at 4k.

A pair of 290x or 780ti cards will be more than enough to run most well programmed games at around 60 fps at 4k. Excluding the usual suspects like Rome.

TheRealDeal · 29 Dec 2013 at 20:30

Besty said:
Everyone to their own but I would not need to run 4xmsaa in games at 4k.

A pair of 290x or 780ti cards will be more than enough to run most well programmed games at around 60 fps at 4k. Excluding the usual suspects like Rome.

Yea it would seem if you go 4k the game somehow has to be maxed including aa, rendering any other card barring a Titan useless.

Get 4 titans max out settings and aa and play a slideshow is now the way forward. It's all in the name of 6gb is needed for 4k gaming.

Gregster · 29 Dec 2013 at 20:38

Another interesting topic for gaming at 4K resolutions is whether or not you'll need antialiasing technology anymore. The argument basically says that with sufficient pixel density, the benefits of smoothing out lines with AA becomes much less apparent to the human eye. There is definitely truth to this statement, but in my game testing with the PQ321Q there were still plenty of cases where turning off AA result in jaggies and "shimmers" in objects that were improved with AA enabled. Skyrim was one such example:

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/ASUS-PQ321Q-315-4K-Tiled-Monitor-Review/Gaming-4K-PQ321Q

Seems you still want AA

Or stick with a 1080P screen and max settings out for the same visual experience....

jrmanders · 29 Dec 2013 at 20:41

That's because AA is not just about smoothing out jaggies but image noise.

TheRealDeal · 29 Dec 2013 at 20:42

Gregster said:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/ASUS-PQ321Q-315-4K-Tiled-Monitor-Review/Gaming-4K-PQ321Q

Seems you still want AA

Or stick with a 1080P screen and max settings out for the same visual experience....

Maybe 2x will cut it though. At 1080p 4x would be my minimum.

Gregster · 29 Dec 2013 at 20:44

TheRealDeal said:
Maybe 2x will cut it though. At 1080p 4x would be my minimum.

Maybe for you but if I was going 4K, I am a GFX ***** and would want all the trimmings.

TheRealDeal · 29 Dec 2013 at 20:58

Gregster said:
Maybe for you but if I was going 4K, I am a GFX ***** and would want all the trimmings.

It would seem at 4k even with 4 titans you would have to make sacrifices unless you like playing a slide show or jerky game. I guess it all depends on what fps you are aiming for.

Most people aim to have a constant 60 fps or above. Now in crysis 3 from the results above you would probably have to lower settings to where even the 4 way 780/ti's 3gb cards would be enough. To me on the gpu grunt we have atm 4gb is more than capable.

Besty · 29 Dec 2013 at 21:01

I dunno Gregster, with a game like BF4 4xMSAA is actually worse than 2xMSAA. Its not always a home run notching up that slider bar.

Personally, I would only be using a 4k screen for work and slower paced games, any fast action game just gets on my **** at 60hz these days. The legitreviews write-up was pretty good: http://www.legitreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-ti-vs-amd-radeon-r9-290x-at-4k-ultra-hd_130055

chaparral · 29 Dec 2013 at 21:17

TheRealDeal said:
Most people aim to have a constant 60 fps or above. Now in crysis 3 from the results above you would probably have to lower settings to where even the 4 way 780/ti's 3gb cards would be enough. To me on the gpu grunt we have atm 4gb is more than capable.

3Gb gpu would most likely be fine as well..

As any game with setting that used more then 3GB vram would most likely run at too low a framerate to play anyway..

TheRealDeal · 29 Dec 2013 at 21:21

chaparral said:
3Gb gpu would most likely be fine as well..

As any game with setting that used more then 3GB vram would most likely run at too low a framerate to play anyway..

Yep that's more or less what i was saying in that quote.

Gregster · 29 Dec 2013 at 21:22

Besty said:
I dunno Gregster, with a game like BF4 4xMSAA is actually worse than 2xMSAA. Its not always a home run notching up that slider bar.

Personally, I would only be using a 4k screen for work and slower paced games, any fast action game just gets on my **** at 60hz these days. The legitreviews write-up was pretty good: http://www.legitreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-ti-vs-amd-radeon-r9-290x-at-4k-ultra-hd_130055

Worst mistake for ever was me buying a 1440P screen. Scratch that, as in games like Tomb Raider and work space, it is fantastic but for fast paced games, I hate it. 1080P 120Hz for now or to actually see a cheap 4K screen (under a grand) up close and decide then.

I don't mind turning settings down but I want the wow factor (something I get with some games in 3D) and for a 4K screen to also do that, I would want at least to turn the settings to max and see what it should look like. I will have a read of that review as well cheers

LtMatt · 29 Dec 2013 at 21:27

MjFrosty said:
buys 2,000 pound monitor. Reduces in game settings...

Daft.

TheRealDeal said:
That's not really that strange tbh as when people were first making the jump to 1600p monitors some were saying they no longer needed aa or dropped it down to 2x. More pixels on screen, the jaggies stick out less and less memory needed. It's not so stupid when you think about it.

Spot on Real, but this is Frosty we're talking about.

Kaapstad · 29 Dec 2013 at 21:37

TheRealDeal said:
It would seem at 4k even with 4 titans you would have to make sacrifices unless you like playing a slide show or jerky game. I guess it all depends on what fps you are aiming for.

Most people aim to have a constant 60 fps or above. Now in crysis 3 from the results above you would probably have to lower settings to where even the 4 way 780/ti's 3gb cards would be enough. To me on the gpu grunt we have atm 4gb is more than capable.

Crysis 3 plays quite well on 4 Titans (no extreme highs or lows) and if I was using 4K on max settings it would be quite playable.

TheRealDeal · 29 Dec 2013 at 22:00

Kaapstad said:
Crysis 3 plays quite well on 4 Titans (no extreme highs or lows) and if I was using 4K on max settings it would be quite playable.

I still think 4gb of ram is fine for 4k until we move on to the next Generation of cards. Most people wanting to play close to max settings @4k will be buying each new gen off cards if they wanna keep up any how.

Bananawild · 30 Dec 2013 at 08:25

Nearly all reviews/commentators fail to point out that Titan cards fail to boot with 4K monitors in 60Hz (MST) mode. I had 3 Titans running a 4K monitor (boot at 30Hz then manually change to 60Hz) and Crysis 3 would run 60fps+ easily with everything except AA maxed out (AA at 4K is not really needed), because of this I changed to 3 R9-290X and performance wise they are identical to the Titans although I will change them as soon as a card with more Vram becomes available that can boot 4K @ 60Hz.

hideki · 30 Dec 2013 at 13:51

Just to point out, I wasn't complaining about the price of the 780TI, I was puzzled by it considering it is a single GPU solution.

I do appreciate everyone's suggestions but are they based on experience or theoretical possibilities. Are we saying 'go for 3xTitans or 4x780s' because that's the only thing that will provide enough graphical power or is it a case of over specification?

humbug · 30 Dec 2013 at 14:07

hideki said:
Just to point out, I wasn't complaining about the price of the 780TI, I was puzzled by it considering it is a single GPU solution.

I do appreciate everyone's suggestions but are they based on experience or theoretical possibilities. Are we saying 'go for 3xTitans or 4x780s' because that's the only thing that will provide enough graphical power or is it a case of over specification?

http://www.legitreviews.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-ti-vs-amd-radeon-r9-290x-at-4k-ultra-hd_130055/6

The AMD Radeon R9 290X doesn’t have the best average clock speed, but it should be noted that the card never fully stalled when running with these aggressive image quality settings. The EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Ti SC ran the benchmark great except for one spot near the start of the benchmark run where more than 3GB of frame buffer was being used and the card fell on its face and the game froze for a full two seconds. The Geforce GTX 780 Ti average frame rate was 7% higher than the Radeon R9 290X.

What card should you buy? We still have mixed feelings about this as the AMD Radeon R9 290X 4GB is the clear price versus performance winner at 4K. On the other hand the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3GB led more times than not, but we just can’t get over the 3GB of memory filling up in Far Cry 3 to say that it the must have card for 4K gaming.

3GB isn't enough for 4K, it seems, you will need the GTX Titan or the 290X

Keep in mind they used a factory overclocked GTX 780 Ti Superclocked vs the reference 290X which with the junk cooler have a habit of throttling.

3 Titans will cost you £2500, 3 290X will cost you £1500.

LtMatt · 30 Dec 2013 at 15:04

Bananawild said:
Nearly all reviews/commentators fail to point out that Titan cards fail to boot with 4K monitors in 60Hz (MST) mode. I had 3 Titans running a 4K monitor (boot at 30Hz then manually change to 60Hz) and Crysis 3 would run 60fps+ easily with everything except AA maxed out (AA at 4K is not really needed), because of this I changed to 3 R9-290X and performance wise they are identical to the Titans although I will change them as soon as a card with more Vram becomes available that can boot 4K @ 60Hz.

Interesting.

RogerMesenseless · 30 Dec 2013 at 15:18

Need lot of grunt for 4k. There was a PC at Eurogamer that had 780 SLI and Crysis 3 on medium settings was running ok, but with the occasional dip to sub 40 FPS.

chaparral · 30 Dec 2013 at 15:23

On the other hand the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3GB led more times than not, but we just can’t get over the 3GB of memory filling up in Far Cry 3 to say that it the must have card for 4K gaming.

We set game title to 8x MSAA Anti-Aliasing and ultra quality settings.

Idiots what did they expect by running at 8xAA at 4k on a pretty high demanding game..