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?

disolitude on 08 July 2013
AnthonyW86 said:
disolitude said:

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:

Yep, totally possible I have no doubts. I mean there are people that game on 3X 2560x1600 monitors now. Thats way more pixels that 4K...

I have had no issues running 3X1080p with 2 670s and 2 7950s and high settings as long as FXAA is utilized and some details are left out like ambient oclusion or DOF...



Around the Network
JEMC on 08 July 2013
disolitude said:
JEMC said:
disolitude said:

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.

Lucky you.

Those versions with extra RAM almost never appear here, although this time I've seen them, but for 50€ more than a regular 770. I hope you make a thread sharing the performance you get with them.



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.

curl-6 on 08 July 2013

Is AA even needed at 4K?



JEMC on 09 July 2013
curl-6 said:
Is AA even needed at 4K?

Good question.

Lurking other forums I've seen responses from both sides. Some say that it's not necessary at all while other say that at least some minimum AA is still needed because the human eye can still see some odd patterns, even jaggies at that kind of resolution.

I guess it's something that varies from gamer to gamer.



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.

Viper1 on 09 July 2013
JEMC said:
curl-6 said:
Is AA even needed at 4K?

Good question.

Lurking other forums I've seen responses from both sides. Some say that it's not necessary at all while other say that at least some minimum AA is still needed because the human eye can still see some odd patterns, even jaggies at that kind of resolution.

I guess it's something that varies from gamer to gamer.

Not for the average sized computer gaming monitor.   24" @ 4K would produce a pixel density that would exceed the eyes' ability to perceive staggered pixels.  Some people with super sharp vision may still see some but nowhere near to the point that they'd need AA to smooth it out.

Large format TV's (55" and greater) may look slightly better if played with very basic AA.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
JEMC on 09 July 2013
Viper1 said:
JEMC said:
curl-6 said:
Is AA even needed at 4K?

Good question.

Lurking other forums I've seen responses from both sides. Some say that it's not necessary at all while other say that at least some minimum AA is still needed because the human eye can still see some odd patterns, even jaggies at that kind of resolution.

I guess it's something that varies from gamer to gamer.

Not for the average sized computer gaming monitor.   24" @ 4K would produce a pixel density that would exceed the eyes' ability to perceive staggered pixels.  Some people with super sharp vision may still see some but nowhere near to the point that they'd need AA to smooth it out.

Large format TV's (55" and greater) may look slightly better if played with very basic AA.

Fine, but which size is the smallest 4K TV/monitor available today? 30"?

And how long will it take them to launch 24" 4K monitors?



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.

Viper1 on 09 July 2013
JEMC said:
Viper1 said:
JEMC said:
curl-6 said:
Is AA even needed at 4K?

Good question.

Lurking other forums I've seen responses from both sides. Some say that it's not necessary at all while other say that at least some minimum AA is still needed because the human eye can still see some odd patterns, even jaggies at that kind of resolution.

I guess it's something that varies from gamer to gamer.

Not for the average sized computer gaming monitor.   24" @ 4K would produce a pixel density that would exceed the eyes' ability to perceive staggered pixels.  Some people with super sharp vision may still see some but nowhere near to the point that they'd need AA to smooth it out.

Large format TV's (55" and greater) may look slightly better if played with very basic AA.

Fine, but which size is the smallest 4K TV/monitor available today? 30"?

And how long will it take them to launch 24" 4K monitors?

AHA...I'm glad you asked because I was hoping someone would.

In fact, this is why we won't be seeing 4K resolution as a mainstream resolution for a very long time.    It's simply overkill for practically everyone.

You really need a 55" TV or larger to actually perceive a difference in resolution from 1920 to 4K.   Any TV/monitor sizes below will be largely indistinguishable (unless you sit 2 feet away from it).

There is no movie medium, no broadcast backing, the entertainment industry simply has little desire or need (or the hundreds of billions in capital it would require) to move toward 4K.

4K will be extremely niche for a long time.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Lafiel on 09 July 2013
JEMC said:
AnthonyW86 said:

But then you're conclusion would still be false. You don't need 4 titans for 60 fps average with 4k if you disable AA.

But if you disable AA then you are not gaming at max settings.

And it's not my conclusion .

well, 4k native resolution already is like having 4xFSAA at 1080p, because that's what FSAA does, render at a higher resolution and then downsize it to a smaller res

Viper1 said:

In fact, this is why we won't be seeing 4K resolution as a mainstream resolution for a very long time.    It's simply overkill for practically everyone.

You really need a 55" TV or larger to actually perceive a difference in resolution from 1920 to 4K.   Any TV/monitor sizes below will be largely indistinguishable (unless you sit 2 feet away from it).

yet photos taken in 4k clearly look much better than at 1080p or 720p (even when viewed on a smartphone screen)

there is a difference and it's obvious even at reasonable screen sizes



VGPolyglot on 09 July 2013

I don't really think we need 4K resolution at the moment.



JEMC on 09 July 2013
Viper1 said:
JEMC said:

Fine, but which size is the smallest 4K TV/monitor available today? 30"?

And how long will it take them to launch 24" 4K monitors?

AHA...I'm glad you asked because I was hoping someone would.

I'm here to help.

Viper1 said:

In fact, this is why we won't be seeing 4K resolution as a mainstream resolution for a very long time.    It's simply overkill for practically everyone.

You really need a 55" TV or larger to actually perceive a difference in resolution from 1920 to 4K. Any TV/monitor sizes below will be largely indistinguishable (unless you sit 2 feet away from it).

There is no movie medium, no broadcast backing, the entertainment industry simply has little desire or need (or the hundreds of billions in capital it would require) to move toward 4K.

4K will be extremely niche for a long time.

Well, I don't know you, but the distance between me and my monitor is about the length of my arm, so I would see the difference.

 

@Lafiel: There are so many types of AA that I'm completely lost, I don't know what does each one do.



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.