Possibly I was expecting too much. Back in the release day of the hd7970, all may games wnet smooth. Way over 60fps. But to be fair, there's a big difference between full HD and 4k. And 4k monitors are either very expensive, or poor panels. Once they manage to get fast monitors, at an affordable price, things may change. But my experience with 500-700 pounds 4k VA and IPS and TVs VA andar IPS were very poor. The transition n black scenes, despite any settings was flaked, very slow.
-
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.
When does a CPU hold back 4k resolutions
- Thread starter bakes0310
- Start date
No... 9900k is for using with a 2080ti @ 1080p cos 1080p is totally relevant and 300fps is an important gaming metric. The GPU being about half used at best isn't important /s
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,125
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Excuse bumping this thread but I have the chance to upgrade to an i5 8400 on the cheap, (spec in sig), checking reviews it seems to be a pretty good gaming CPU, as I'm running @ 3440x1440p would this be a good choice, and then plough more money into the GPU?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
8400 would be better than a 2500k.
Depending on what you call cheap. A gen 2 ryzen cpu overclockers would see you good for a lot longer
Depending on what you call cheap. A gen 2 ryzen cpu overclockers would see you good for a lot longer
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
good luck gaming at 4k. you need a 2080ti and top spec cpu and RAM. even then it won't play all games maxxed out. 4k gaming is ridiculously hard to do with decent settings.
i don't know why your even looking at 4k gaming tbh the screens cost a fortune too. so by your logic of saying it's cheap is wrong. you will need to spend £2K on a gpu and monitor. so having a 15 year old CPU would also be stupid. you would be better off upgrading to the latest when it comes to that level.
If cheap means pocket money.
6 core/6 thread CPU just isn't much of upgrade for any kind future proofness.
At the latest when multiplatter games capable to utilizing next-gen consoles appear it becomes bottleneck.
Unlike current/old at best tablet level CPUs when new consoles, those will comes with Zen2 based 8 core/16 thread CPU.
Don't need to max out settings to make games look good. Not sure where all this 2k is coming from unless your after a 9900k and 2080ti. Pretty sure posters have run on much lower systems and enjoyed their 4k gaming. Going to be running my pc in the living room on a Sony xf90 55", not the best TV but it's affordable.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
for mid range 4k the 6700k is a sweet spot... so god knows what you talking about.
at 4k the GPU is the problem not the CPU, unlike 1080p where a low end CPU is beat to death by the gpu demand data, @ 4k the gpu is so heavily loaded even an old i7 (4c8t) can keep up.
Yep, my o/c 2080ti on a 6700k @ 4.4ghz for a silent system holds its own. For example Far Cry 5's canned benchmark, my machine exceeds the results i've seen from a 2080ti's and 9900k's @ Ultra settings nevermind mid range
Tis a point I find myself keep making in less enlightened discussion areas (mainly looking a facebook groups). The whole "what card can I use without bottlenecks" question with no res mentioned gets a touch silly. Yeah, fair, probably assumed 1080p but... still worth checking/making the point.
The "CPU just issues API draw calls, the GPU has to do the work" idea is slow to percolate.
The "CPU just issues API draw calls, the GPU has to do the work" idea is slow to percolate.
I have a 4k monitor (60 hz) that I have switched between a FX8350 computer and an Athlon 880k computer. I think that in these cases the monitor has not been bottlenecked by the CPU but rather the GPU. Currently I am using a fury and a Vega 56. Whilst it is probably the GPU that is the limiting factor they are more than fine to get the FPS that I need to play world of warships (60 FPS at 4k using a vega 56 & FX8350 or 76 FSP at 1440 monitor using a Fury and Athlon 880K) or total war Warhammer 2 at max settings using a FX8350 and a Vega56.
I have a 4670k. I'm not sure whether it will suffice for ultrawide gaming (I'm happy with 60fps for now) and then just devoting my cash to a 1080ti/2080 or whether to dip into making a whole new build.
Kinda want the dust to settle on the Zen 3 release where the boards look hella expensive.
Kinda want the dust to settle on the Zen 3 release where the boards look hella expensive.
Yes. The higher pixel density on a 27" 4K monitor does significantly reduce the need for anti-aliasing. It's one of the first things I turn off.
No you don't. (Yes, I know I have a 2080 Ti and a high-spec CPU.)
You can't even play at 1080p with all details maxxed with some technologies enabled (RTX, anyone?).
That's just not true. I started gaming at 4k years ago (2014, maybe) on a GTX 780 ti with an i7-3770S. I was running Tomb Raider 2013 at a mix of medium and high settings.
People like to make statements sound like facts when they say things like “decent settings” and “can’t play the game at 4K”
What do these general statements even mean? Like trying to say a particular GPu can’t play a game at 4K, so does 30fps at High settings not count as playing the game or am I missing something? Xbox on x seems to play many games at 4K using a RX580 gpu inside of it - or does this not count as playing a video game, someone needs to tell the owners of consoles they aren’t actually playing video games!
I think People need to stop idolising some version of what constitutes playing a game and having that not measure up to their epenis. And also people need to be more specific in their statements, just come out and tell everyone how big your epenis is: so instead of “only a 2080ti can play games at 4K” tell the truth of how you really feel “only the 2080ti can get 60fps on Ultra stupid settings with 20 graphics mods and streaming to my 3 twitch followers”
What do these general statements even mean? Like trying to say a particular GPu can’t play a game at 4K, so does 30fps at High settings not count as playing the game or am I missing something? Xbox on x seems to play many games at 4K using a RX580 gpu inside of it - or does this not count as playing a video game, someone needs to tell the owners of consoles they aren’t actually playing video games!
I think People need to stop idolising some version of what constitutes playing a game and having that not measure up to their epenis. And also people need to be more specific in their statements, just come out and tell everyone how big your epenis is: so instead of “only a 2080ti can play games at 4K” tell the truth of how you really feel “only the 2080ti can get 60fps on Ultra stupid settings with 20 graphics mods and streaming to my 3 twitch followers”
Last edited:
1080ti, 2080 and 2080ti can play most games at 4k 60fps with some settings adjusted. I'm playing through ROTR now at 4k, which a few settings turned from very high to high. Thats on a 2080. And ROTR is quite demanding.
1080tis second hand are going for £450, new 2080s are hitting the £600/650 mark now and an ultrawide monitor from VAST/ElectriQ could be had for £310. 4k monitors are still quite pricey but my point is the whole setup won't be 2k for the gpu/monitor.
I think 4k/30 is disgusting but you're right.
And I think even a 1080 or 1070 for most older games will manage 4k fine. This is ignoring the RTX 2070. Its really a title by title basis.