Minimum for 4k monitor?

TheRealDeal · 31 Dec 2013 at 00:39

whyscotty said:
If memory serves, that was down to the wrong cables being used to connect the monitor in the reviews - ie User error

Maybe, to late for the guy in this thread as he already got rid of the titans.

No doubt there will be an 8gb 290x on the market at some point and people will find ways to get low fps but break the 6gb titan and says its not a 4k card lol.

Uncle Petey · 31 Dec 2013 at 01:25

Tonester0011 said:
Also, regarding 4K. I don't understand this whole, if you're buying for 4k. You HAVE to have all the settings dialed up to 11, or there's no point?
I'm not the best person regarding this as i turn most settings down regardless
of game, monitor blah blah as i prefer playable games over eyecandy.

I don't get it either.
Kaap reckons that if you're going to turn AA down a touch on 4k, you may as well get a 1600p screen and turn it up seeing as the screen sizes are the same/similar.

I see where he's coming from, but wouldn't that logic also mean that you should get a 27" 1080p screen and max it out rather than get 1440p screen and turn AA down slightly?

Perhaps that's not exactly the same thing, but close enough, right? Right?

Kaapstad · 31 Dec 2013 at 02:41

TheRealDeal said:
Tell that to the only guy in the thread who has a 4k monitor. He swapped out 3 titans for 3 r9 290x's. In gaming he said there is no difference but the 290x's have better 4k support in refresh rates.

He then said he was looking for cards with more than 4gb lol.

Kaapstad · 31 Dec 2013 at 02:51

TheRealDeal said:
No doubt there will be an 8gb 290x on the market at some point and people will find ways to get low fps but break the 6gb titan and says its not a 4k card lol.

This is a very big black mark against AMD, they should have had 6 or 8gb versions available at launch but they seem to have cut a few corners. the quality of the memory chips is questionable on the 290Xs - low vram overclocks compared to a 6gb Titan and the already mentioned 4gb only versions.

humbug · 31 Dec 2013 at 03:32

Kaapstad said:
This is a very big black mark against AMD, they should have had 6 or 8gb versions available at launch but they seem to have cut a few corners. the quality of the memory chips is questionable on the 290Xs - low vram overclocks compared to a 6gb Titan and the already mentioned 4gb only versions.

The use the same Hynix or Elpida Memory IC's as Nvidia, Kaap, you know this.

Rroff · 31 Dec 2013 at 03:41

Just because they use the same ICs doesn't mean they use the same binning.

humbug · 31 Dec 2013 at 03:55

Rroff said:
Just because they use the same ICs doesn't mean they use the same binning.

Even if they are binning, whose to say Nvidia are Using the "Higher Binned IC's" or AMD using the higher binned chips. or both.

As usual it all comes down to implying what is actually just pure conjecture.

Personally i very much doubt Black Screens have anything to do with the Memory IC's, unless Hynix and Elpida are selling reject broken IC's. they don't have "broken" in their binning range, if they have one at all.

I think its the Reference coolers over heating the IC's, or some problem with voltage regulation, vDroop. Or both.

bru · 31 Dec 2013 at 04:12

Have to agree with humbug here( my god it must be Christmas) I doubt the black screen issue is down to the memory chips themselves.

Rroff · 31 Dec 2013 at 04:23

I suspect voltage regulation is a possibility, seen them black screen when pretty much idle.

Silent_Scone · 31 Dec 2013 at 09:24

Better quality VRM, and GPU circuitry could be also why the Elpida memory clocks better on the 110 cards. Not to mention the temps of the VRMs themselves.

I just can't see how people are ok with paying over 2 grand for a panel only to have to play the game with reduced detail. Sounds like a case of daft-itous to me. Or the same people that can't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray

.

Super sharp image but not as sharp as my mate Bobs, because he can run ultra and the textures look better at 1440P.

Money well spent.

Kaapstad · 31 Dec 2013 at 09:39

humbug said:
The use the same Hynix or Elpida Memory IC's as Nvidia, Kaap, you know this.

Lets see some 290Xs clocked to 1850 or 1900 on the memory then or even 2000 the same as the 780ti's can reach.

1250 for a state of the art graphics card is taking the ........

Qitarah · 31 Dec 2013 at 09:51

If it was me and money was no object, Id just go tri/quad Titans and 4k monitor for the sake of it.

For any other situation I wouldn't be bothering with 4k until the next gen of top end cards.

Geeman1979 · 31 Dec 2013 at 10:18

Kaapstad said:
Lets see some 290Xs clocked to 1850 or 1900 on the memory then or even 2000 the same as the 780ti's can reach.

1250 for a state of the art graphics card is taking the ........

As do some of the 780's

Tonester0011 · 31 Dec 2013 at 10:34

Kaapstad said:
Lets see some 290Xs clocked to 1850 or 1900 on the memory then or even 2000 the same as the 780ti's can reach.

1250 for a state of the art graphics card is taking the ........

Didn't think the speed of the memory was important, it's all about bandwidth isn't it? Being on a 512bit bus they can get away with rather lackluster ram, save a few quid and still pull ahead.

1900mhz memory on 384bit is 360GB/s
1500mhz on 512bit is 384GB/s

(Overclocked examples, and guesses btw on numbers!!

)

Silent_Scone · 31 Dec 2013 at 10:37

Bandwidth is the channel width in which the clocks run, so there is no point having a huge channel when you don't have the memory quick enough to utilise it. I don't think the transfer per clock really makes any difference with the clocks so low on the 290x. If they could reach 2ghz they could quite possibly fly. But as Kaap has said, few corners cut here and there obviously.

chaparral · 31 Dec 2013 at 11:24

MjFrosty said:
I just can't see how people are ok with paying over 2 grand for a panel only to have to play the game with reduced detail. Sounds like a case of daft-itous to me. Or the same people that can't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray .

It always been the same with top end monitors that the GPU's available are not fast enough for the most demanding games ..

Example would be
in 2007 some were using a Dell 30" 1600p monitor with 8800gtx's playing crysis........

straxusii · 31 Dec 2013 at 11:29

I doubt the situation will ever change that to run 4k acceptably you need 2 or 3 of the current top end single GPUs, as better GPUs come out the games will push them more as has always been the case.

chaparral · 31 Dec 2013 at 11:34

straxusii said:
I doubt the situation will ever change that to run 4k acceptably you need 2 or 3 of the current top end single GPUs, as better GPUs come out the games will push them more as has always been the case.

GPU's will catch up...

It was not really that long ago when most people was gaming at around 1280x768...

TheRealDeal · 31 Dec 2013 at 11:35

Kaapstad said:
He then said he was looking for cards with more than 4gb lol.

He did yea and gpus move forward along with games. Next gen gpus will have the grunt to push this resolution and more memory which i think is what he meant about more memory. For now 4gb is enough to nearly max games and have playable games at the same time. Sure having the 6gb of the titan is a bonus but to me by the time your past 4gb the majority wont be feeling the game playable.

straxusii · 31 Dec 2013 at 11:57

chaparral said:
GPU's will catch up...

It isn't really about GPUs catching up, it's about current game makers not making games that destroy a current GPU at 4k, and I suspect that will only happen when 4k becomes common