If you happy with medium settings and running 4k which maintains 40FPS then a 980Ti or a Furyx would do you well. Though the 980Ti would be the better card as it runs better on nVidia cards currently. Just remember to turn Godrays to low and shadowdistance to medium and you can have all other settings on max at 4k and probably maintain that 40FPS easily!
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Upgrade from 6970 for Fallout 4 @ 4K
- Thread starter Participant
- Start date
It should still work..
But a slow CPU like an Q6600 is really going hold back a 980ti gpu..
I still remember how much faster my i7 2600k cpu was after I upgraded from an E85000 cpu there really was a night & day difference in performance
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,562
- Location
- Warwickshire
4690k
As-yet-unknown Devil's Canyon motherboard
980Ti
The above is going in my shopping basket very soon! I think I'll complete FO4 then sell the 980Ti.
That's the plan then. Thanks for all the help.
As-yet-unknown Devil's Canyon motherboard
980Ti
The above is going in my shopping basket very soon! I think I'll complete FO4 then sell the 980Ti.
That's the plan then. Thanks for all the help.
Yes, I regularly hit 40 fps in Witcher 3. Bear in mind without gsync/freesync your won't be seeing 40fps, you will be locked to 30
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,182
Try a 290X imo, should cope (and get one about £150-£160). Either way it'll be a BIG upgrade from the 6970. Also AMD aren't making drivers for the 6970 any more)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,052
Only if a game uses double buffered V-sync
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 654
lets put it this way, you DO need a free / g sync monitor for 4k, 4k is just too demanding
I feel 4k now is where 2560x1600 was in 2007 or so when I first got a 1600p monitor.
Beautiful, but buying it consigns you to 8 years of buying 2-3 of the top GPU each generation.
I wend 8800GTX SLI, then Tri-SLI, then 4870x2, then 4870x2 quadfire, then 7970, then 7970+7990 trifire, trying to keep up with that monitor.
I'll stick with my 1440p144 monitor now until 4k is properly mainstream.
Beautiful, but buying it consigns you to 8 years of buying 2-3 of the top GPU each generation.
I wend 8800GTX SLI, then Tri-SLI, then 4870x2, then 4870x2 quadfire, then 7970, then 7970+7990 trifire, trying to keep up with that monitor.
I'll stick with my 1440p144 monitor now until 4k is properly mainstream.
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,562
- Location
- Warwickshire
Both of these are fair, but I think you're (understandably) coming at this from a gaming-focused point of view.
I got a large 4K screen for desktop productivity and media (ex-games) consumption, with games as a secondary concern. I'm not aware of any 40" xSYNC monitors on the market, and the ~30" 4K screens just aren't big enough for what I need.
I fully expect not to play another game for two years after I've finished with FO4. I just need something that will 'manage' and get me 60Hz in Windows, not something that will look buttery smooth with most things on ultra.
Thanks.