• 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.

What would you replace SLI 670's with for 4K

Kaap has got a point. By the time Pascal arrives we could be hit with something like Crysis 4. And that could change everything overnight.

I'm just plodding along with the games I have and trying to get them as close to 60 FPS constant as I can.
 
With my Titan X's and 4K TV, generally if a game doesn't support SLI then I either:

Play other games until it's patched (Assassins Creed: Syndicate)

or

Play the games on my 1440p monitor (Fallout 4)
 
varkanoid said:
If you can put up with 40-60 fps a single 980ti would be fine.

You dont really need a lot of aa (if at all) with 4k. Low or 2x AA is fine.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true. If you can put up with 40-60 FPS and dips into single figures in some games and can handle the fact that some games will need the settings reduced heavily in order to meet that target then it's fine.

Reviews of both the 980ti and Fury X are both a little economical of the truth. Reviews always are. They cherry pick a scene, then run it for a minute or so. Not indicative of actual real world performance at all as I found out.

It's Fury X Crossfire or bust for me. My big gamble of course is that when the Fury X2 comes out soon AMD won't want it to look crap so they will make the drivers better. If that doesn't work I'm going to get a nice shiny 1440p monitor.
 
ALXAndy said:
That's not quite true. If you can put up with 40-60 FPS and dips into single figures in some games and can handle the fact that some games will need the settings reduced heavily in order to meet that target then it's fine.

Reviews of both the 980ti and Fury X are both a little economical of the truth. Reviews always are. They cherry pick a scene, then run it for a minute or so. Not indicative of actual real world performance at all as I found out.

It's Fury X Crossfire or bust for me. My big gamble of course is that when the Fury X2 comes out soon AMD won't want it to look crap so they will make the drivers better. If that doesn't work I'm going to get a nice shiny 1440p monitor.
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely loving my BenQ xl2730z - 1440p 144Hz freesync goodness, running off one 390X at the moment, perfectly smooth in all the games I play.
 
I wouldn't bother with 970's, just not enough VRAM, I have 295x2 + 290X trifire and 4gb is a problem at 2160p.

Waiting for next gen cards which fingers crossed will be massive improvement over what I have now.
 
4K is still a while away until it will run really well on a single card, i don't think even Pascal will completely solve that unless their high end cards are well over 2x as fast as 980Ti and let's face it that isn't going to happen.

At the moment if you want great performance in certain titles you'd have to drop the resolution, then you have to deal with interpolation bs. Running multiple cards = some issues and is not perfect either.

a 980Ti will run some games decently but most newer games I'd think you would have to drop to medium details if you don't want them to chug. GPU's aren't getting powerful enough to properly deal with 4K without dipping below 60fps. And from what I've seen many demanding games drop below even 30fps at the highest settings.

High refresh 1080p/1440p is the sweet spot still IMO, and now that I've gotten so used to 120hz the past few years, i won't be going back to 60.

TLDR: 980Ti should do decently depending what you are playing as long as you don't go crazy with the graphic settings.

Bit of a rant over, sorry :p
 
infernox said:
Your telling me for 4K I need a £500 card that couldn't even use AA in games like H1Z1.

Christ!
Click to expand...
1080p = 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

1440p = 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels

So already, 1440p requires rendering nearly DOUBLE the amount of pixels per second. That's already a fairly big ask.

4k(2160p) = 3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels

That's over DOUBLE the already demanding 1440p rendering demands. And FOUR times what it takes for 1080p.

I dont think a lot of people quite understand that 4k isn't just a new resolution bump. It's a GIANT leap.

GTX970 is basically the ideal 1080p card.

GTX980Ti is an ideal card for 1440p.

There is no ideal card for 4k yet. I wouldn't do with anything less than dual 980Ti's/Fury's personally.

Unless you're fine with 30fps, of course...
 
I run a UHD 40" Philips with my 970's. see spec...

Diablo III + RoS
BF4
Project Cars
FarCry3
GridAuto sport
Witcher2

All fine, very playable.
 
Seanspeed said:
GTX970 is basically the ideal 1080p card.

GTX980Ti is an ideal card for 1440p.

There is no ideal card for 4k yet. I wouldn't do with anything less than dual 980Ti's/Fury's personally.

Unless you're fine with 30fps, of course...
Click to expand...

+1, but I'd steer clear of multi gpu setups. And that is the problem, there is no single card suitable for 4K to drive it fast enough without issues.
 
Kaapstad said:
Not going to happen.

To run some of todays games at least 2 Big Pascal cards would be needed and with even more demanding games on the horizon 3 or more Pascal cards could be needed.

Even when Volta arrives a single card won't run 4K.

As GPUs become more powerful, games become more demanding.
Click to expand...

It really wasn't that long ago you needed two GPUs to run 1440p @Max settings 60fps
I think 4k single GPU isn't that far away. another year or two is my bet.
 
shankly1985 said:
It really wasn't that long ago you needed two GPUs to run 1440p @max settings 60fps
I think 4k single GPU isn't that far away. another year or two is my bet.
Click to expand...

I can not run all my games @1080p/60fps with a 82.7% ASIC Kingpin GTX 980 Ti that can clock over 1570/2102 on stock volts.
 
infernox said:
As above? What would be the minimum, would 2x 970s do it?

Although I am tired of SLI when it comes to H1Z1. Would a single card be capable? I dont play much anymore.

Mostly -

Killing Floor 2
H1Z1
Rocket League.
Click to expand...

What 4K monitor? With Gsync/Freesync or not?
It all depends, because with Gsync/Freesync if you manage to pull constant FPS above the minimum required for the tech to work, it works wonders.

I can tell you that games that support 1 GPU and run on 1 core like WOT at 2560x1440 with everything maxed out, runs at 75+ fps, which is within the range of the XL2730Z Freesync (40-144) and feels superb like eg Crysis 3 running at 120fps maxed out on CF.
On a non *sync monitor 75fps looks crap though. Same applied to games that run at 50fps. With Freesync runs, without looking crap. (I know since I have to use the old XL2410T atm).

4K is 4x the 1080p pixel count, 2.5x the 2560x1440 and 1.674x the 3440x1440. Thats a lot of pixels.

Consider this chart (which also presents that there is a limit on GPUs and not CPUs at, look the A10!!!!!)

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/85370-intel-core-i5-6600k-14nm-skylake/?page=8

7d2c4f0a-1885-4594-9104-0f2410e554dc.png


d52a3cd4-0757-4ab6-900f-1f0711e6d33a.png


45f0ff9c-259d-4957-97a8-f01531654d77.png


Double the numbers with the next generation for those games. However as newer games come out, more demanding, half the numbers, and comes back to square one.

You either keep away from 4K, or you make consentions not using everything maxed out and AA off.

3440x1440 Curved gsync/freesync (possibly HDR if we manage to get it this year) are the thing we should be targeting for at least another gen. Except AMD/NV can pull off a miracle for 4K gaming.
 
Seanspeed said:
1080p = 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

1440p = 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels

So already, 1440p requires rendering nearly DOUBLE the amount of pixels per second. That's already a fairly big ask.

4k(2160p) = 3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels

That's over DOUBLE the already demanding 1440p rendering demands. And FOUR times what it takes for 1080p.

I dont think a lot of people quite understand that 4k isn't just a new resolution bump. It's a GIANT leap.
Click to expand...

Exactly this.

I'd be surprised if a single Pascal will do at 4k what a 980 Ti does at 1440p.
 
This thread is interesting. I thought Pascal would tempt me into 4K, but by the looks of it, it's more likely to give me 100+ frames at 1440 with most games.

I think I could quite well enjoy my Swift+980ti for another wee while and just skip this next upgrade. If I have some extra cash lying around, I might treat myself to the 1080ti but I think I've pretty much made up my mind to avoid 4K for now.

SLI seems the only way to achieve it, and I can't be bothered to get into that viscious circle again.

OP, what fps are you hitting with your current 670's @ 1440p? Have you overclocked your monitor to push above 60? You seem to play a limited amount of games, so why are you shifting to 4K?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom