By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Gaming at 4K: not anytime soon?

JEMC on 08 July 2013
HoloDust said:
green_sky said:

Going to wait for 8K. Now that would be a jump. The enemy crab would freak the hell out of me. Seems the pc master race will get there but consoles are now barely doing full hd. So it would be a while.

I mean there are rumours of Order: 1886 on PS4 running at 1920×800 but that could be intentional. Who knows. 


It's most certainly intentional, that's movie aspect ratio, and they said they are going for "filmic" experience. Though, it does help with pushing more eye candy too...;)

But doing that means almost 1/4th of the TV screen will be black bars. If they do that, they will get critized for it, a lot.

I mean, c'mon, not even Heavy Rain uses that and it's one of the most cinematic games out there. It's completely unnecessary.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
disolitude on 08 July 2013

I don't think its as far off as these guys make it seem.

I mean dual GTX 670s and 7950s run games just fine at 5970x1080 (bezel adjusted multi monitor res). You may have to use FXAA and lower some of the filters but 40-60 fps isn't an issue for most games.

4K is about 20% more so dual GTX 780s would be plenty.

Benchmarks like this that "max" out games for the sake of maxing out are cool...but not an accurate representation of PC gaming. Unless you like to waste power, generate heat and have lower frame rates with little to no benefit...its recommended you adjust the game's visuals.

 

Also, a lot of those cards are taking because of VRAM. At 4K you need more than 2GB for sure.



JEMC on 08 July 2013
disolitude said:

I don't think its as far off as these guys make it seem.

I mean dual GTX 670s and 7950s run games just fine at 5970x1080 (bezel adjusted multi monitor res). You may have to use FXAA and lower some of the filters but 40-60 fps isn't an issue for most games.

4K is about 20% more so dual GTX 780s would be plenty.

Benchmarks like this that "max" out games for the sake of maxing out are cool...but not an accurate representation of PC gaming. Unless you like to waste power, generate heat and have lower frame rates with little to no benefit...its recommended you adjust the game's visuals.

 

Also, a lot of those cards are taking because of VRAM. At 4K you need more than 2GB for sure.

The HD 7950 3GB beating the GTX 680 2GB in every test proves this.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

disolitude on 08 July 2013
JEMC said:
disolitude said:

I don't think its as far off as these guys make it seem.

I mean dual GTX 670s and 7950s run games just fine at 5970x1080 (bezel adjusted multi monitor res). You may have to use FXAA and lower some of the filters but 40-60 fps isn't an issue for most games.

4K is about 20% more so dual GTX 780s would be plenty.

Benchmarks like this that "max" out games for the sake of maxing out are cool...but not an accurate representation of PC gaming. Unless you like to waste power, generate heat and have lower frame rates with little to no benefit...its recommended you adjust the game's visuals.

 

Also, a lot of those cards are taking because of VRAM. At 4K you need more than 2GB for sure.

The HD 7950 3GB beating the GTX 680 2GB in every test proves this.

Yeah, I mean they could lower AA and prolly get by with 3 GB on some of these games, but something like Crysis 3 and Metro will use more than 2 GB as the frame buffer for 4K.

In other news, I just ordered 2 Gigabyte GTX 770s 4GB versions, that should be ample for the next few years... Selling my 7950s and hoping to get the Nvidia Shield when it comes out.  May even invest in one of those cheap Seiki 4K TVs since I heard they do true 120 hz input and refresh rate at 1080p. Those are essentially a 1080p@120 hz/4K@30 hz monitor.



HoloDust on 08 July 2013
JEMC said:
HoloDust said:
green_sky said:

Going to wait for 8K. Now that would be a jump. The enemy crab would freak the hell out of me. Seems the pc master race will get there but consoles are now barely doing full hd. So it would be a while.

I mean there are rumours of Order: 1886 on PS4 running at 1920×800 but that could be intentional. Who knows. 


It's most certainly intentional, that's movie aspect ratio, and they said they are going for "filmic" experience. Though, it does help with pushing more eye candy too...;)

But doing that means almost 1/4th of the TV screen will be black bars. If they do that, they will get critized for it, a lot.

I mean, c'mon, not even Heavy Rain uses that and it's one of the most cinematic games out there. It's completely unnecessary.

I can't recall it, but wasn't one of Silent Hills at that aspect ratio too?

Anyway, I can understand why they would opt for that ratio, it does looks a lot better than 16:9...yes, you have black bars, but I guess that's a matter of preference - I personally would love to see switch to 21:9 TVs, so having extra bars doesn't bother me in case it means better FOV.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 08 July 2013
HoloDust said:
JEMC said:
HoloDust said:

It's most certainly intentional, that's movie aspect ratio, and they said they are going for "filmic" experience. Though, it does help with pushing more eye candy too...;)

But doing that means almost 1/4th of the TV screen will be black bars. If they do that, they will get critized for it, a lot.

I mean, c'mon, not even Heavy Rain uses that and it's one of the most cinematic games out there. It's completely unnecessary.

I can't recall it, but wasn't one of Silent Hills at that aspect ratio too?

Anyway, I can understand why they would opt for that ratio, it does looks a lot better than 16:9...yes, you have black bars, but I guess that's a matter of preference - I personally would love to see switch to 21:9 TVs, so having extra bars doesn't bother me in case it means better FOV.

Maybe that'll be the next craze, super-wide-screen TVs. Only problem is the world just finished replacing all its TVs. XD



HoloDust on 08 July 2013
curl-6 said:
HoloDust said:
JEMC said:

But doing that means almost 1/4th of the TV screen will be black bars. If they do that, they will get critized for it, a lot.

I mean, c'mon, not even Heavy Rain uses that and it's one of the most cinematic games out there. It's completely unnecessary.

I can't recall it, but wasn't one of Silent Hills at that aspect ratio too?

Anyway, I can understand why they would opt for that ratio, it does looks a lot better than 16:9...yes, you have black bars, but I guess that's a matter of preference - I personally would love to see switch to 21:9 TVs, so having extra bars doesn't bother me in case it means better FOV.

Maybe that'll be the next craze, super-wide-screen TVs. Only problem is the world just finished replacing all its TVs. XD

Unfortunately, I don't think ultra-wide TVs will catch on - Phillips already discontinued their entire line last year, and I don't see others doing so well either.

PC monitors with that ratio may catch on though, but they're bit too expensive at the moment.



AnthonyW86 on 08 July 2013
disolitude said:
JEMC said:
disolitude said:

I don't think its as far off as these guys make it seem.

I mean dual GTX 670s and 7950s run games just fine at 5970x1080 (bezel adjusted multi monitor res). You may have to use FXAA and lower some of the filters but 40-60 fps isn't an issue for most games.

4K is about 20% more so dual GTX 780s would be plenty.

Benchmarks like this that "max" out games for the sake of maxing out are cool...but not an accurate representation of PC gaming. Unless you like to waste power, generate heat and have lower frame rates with little to no benefit...its recommended you adjust the game's visuals.

 

Also, a lot of those cards are taking because of VRAM. At 4K you need more than 2GB for sure.

The HD 7950 3GB beating the GTX 680 2GB in every test proves this.

Yeah, I mean they could lower AA and prolly get by with 3 GB on some of these games, but something like Crysis 3 and Metro will use more than 2 GB as the frame buffer for 4K.

In other news, I just ordered 2 Gigabyte GTX 770s 4GB versions, that should be ample for the next few years... Selling my 7950s and hoping to get the Nvidia Shield when it comes out.  May even invest in one of those cheap Seiki 4K TVs since I heard they do true 120 hz input and refresh rate at 1080p. Those are essentially a 1080p@120 hz/4K@30 hz monitor.

I would think the same thing but it doesn't look like it, GTX 680 4gb performing nearly identical to the 2gb version:



disolitude on 08 July 2013
AnthonyW86 said:
disolitude said:
JEMC said:
disolitude said:

I don't think its as far off as these guys make it seem.

I mean dual GTX 670s and 7950s run games just fine at 5970x1080 (bezel adjusted multi monitor res). You may have to use FXAA and lower some of the filters but 40-60 fps isn't an issue for most games.

4K is about 20% more so dual GTX 780s would be plenty.

Benchmarks like this that "max" out games for the sake of maxing out are cool...but not an accurate representation of PC gaming. Unless you like to waste power, generate heat and have lower frame rates with little to no benefit...its recommended you adjust the game's visuals.

 

Also, a lot of those cards are taking because of VRAM. At 4K you need more than 2GB for sure.

The HD 7950 3GB beating the GTX 680 2GB in every test proves this.

Yeah, I mean they could lower AA and prolly get by with 3 GB on some of these games, but something like Crysis 3 and Metro will use more than 2 GB as the frame buffer for 4K.

In other news, I just ordered 2 Gigabyte GTX 770s 4GB versions, that should be ample for the next few years... Selling my 7950s and hoping to get the Nvidia Shield when it comes out.  May even invest in one of those cheap Seiki 4K TVs since I heard they do true 120 hz input and refresh rate at 1080p. Those are essentially a 1080p@120 hz/4K@30 hz monitor.

I would think the same thing but it doesn't look like it, GTX 680 4gb performing nearly identical to the 2gb version:


Yeah but the settings for this benchmark aren't the same as the one OP posted.

For the OP, crysis 3 is getting 8 FPS on a GTX 680. The benchmark you posted is getting 20-25 fps, which means AA and settings must have been lowered to a point where VRAM isn't a bottleneck anymore. 



AnthonyW86 on 08 July 2013
disolitude said:
AnthonyW86 said:

I would think the same thing but it doesn't look like it, GTX 680 4gb performing nearly identical to the 2gb version:


Yeah but the settings for this benchmark aren't the same as the one OP posted.

For the OP, crysis 3 is getting 8 FPS on a GTX 680. The benchmark you posted is getting 20-25 fps, which means AA and settings must have been lowered to a point where VRAM isn't a bottleneck anymore. 

The description said FXAA enabled, though maybe at lower levels than that in the OP. But seriously at 4K resolution who gives a damn, will you even notice it? It's definitely not worth dropping a thrith of the framerate.

Looking at the SLI/crossfire performance you will see that high end gaming is definitely possible at 4k, as long as you don't crank filtering and AA settings up to pointless levels: