Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,808
-
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.
4K@60Hz gaming - Single card realistic yet?
- Thread starter HRL
- Start date
Hahahaha. Not willing to compromise on settings but an upscaled 1080p on medium settings is managing it? If that's the case then you can easily upscale 1080p on max right now!See that's the thing. My PS4 Pro manages with its bastardised 480 and tiled rendering, that's why I was surprised that we're still not quite there yet with single PC cards.
If I'm going to spend over £600 on a GPU I don't want to have to turn anything down to get a smooth 60fps.
I still remember getting a 9700Pro years ago and finally being able to max everything out. Showing my age I guess!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,886
Most PS4 Pro titles are at the very least 1440p, many are 1800p and some are native 4k (not many though)
That's what you'd think but for some reason the PS4 Pro pulls it off.
Thing is, I'm happy to compromise with the Pro for its price. Not so happy to compromise if I'm going to spend up to £700 on a GPU. I'd rather wait for Volta if the next ##80 or Ti is going to be more up to the task.
This conversation truly doesn't make sense.
Yes, Volta will be better, but almost immediately new games will come with even more taxing 'ultra' settings and you'll instantly be back in the position where you have to play with settings. The entire purpose of PC gaming is being able to customise to get the best experience possible. Cutting edge performance, which is what 4k 60hz is, has never had a one click solution.
You mention the 9700pro, and yes, that was a beast of a card, I remember when I bought that too, but within a very short space of time it was back to the usual of making a compromise between resolution and settings.
Yes, Volta will be better, but almost immediately new games will come with even more taxing 'ultra' settings and you'll instantly be back in the position where you have to play with settings. The entire purpose of PC gaming is being able to customise to get the best experience possible. Cutting edge performance, which is what 4k 60hz is, has never had a one click solution.
You mention the 9700pro, and yes, that was a beast of a card, I remember when I bought that too, but within a very short space of time it was back to the usual of making a compromise between resolution and settings.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,886
I wouldn't say PC graphics have moved on leaps and bounds for a few years now though.
just add custom resolution 3200x1800. If you are playing on tv sitting 2m away you wont notice the difference .. and its 5.7mln pixels instead of 8.3mln in 4k. thats about 30% less pixels to push.
I also tried 3840x1600 on my 55" and its nice 21:9 experience.
I also tried 3840x1600 on my 55" and its nice 21:9 experience.
Stagnanated for the most part, thats why we have to push higher and higher resolutions to artificially increase the performance needed.
Doesnt help no one builds games for PC hardware anymore, its all built around the weak ps4/xbone and then ported to pc with an ultra texture pack slapped on. People these days also seems to cry when a game doesnt run 100fps on their 1050ti, imagine these people when Crysis released
okay i'm sure that the 1080ti can easily push that too. The point is as stated ultra is silly and always will be far too taxing for modern hardware, console games to get the frame rates often push a mixture of low and medium settings with a few high which is even scaled up from lower resolutions, its like when people say that the xbox1 can easily do 1080p GTAv why cant you do it on max on pc for under £400. It's a completely different question resolution AND quality.
Yes and No. By that I mean there are those that will happy to know off a few demanding settings that make little visual impact, but can drastically tank FPS, other's who want a smooth 60 and will make tweaks then others who want to keep things cranked up (Sadly I fall partly into this camp I think). Then you have game's which will run fine maxed out, then other's such as Wildland's will not (maxed out).
I have my R9 Nano under water clocked to slightly above Fury X levels in my HTPC hooked up to a 4k TV, and for most the part have an enjoyable experience once I tweak some settings down. I will be moving to the Vega Nano in that build and while I do not expect Vega will do 4k with eye candy maxed, if it comes in at around GTX 1080 performance level's should be a solid card when you do tweaks to settings in games.
I have my R9 Nano under water clocked to slightly above Fury X levels in my HTPC hooked up to a 4k TV, and for most the part have an enjoyable experience once I tweak some settings down. I will be moving to the Vega Nano in that build and while I do not expect Vega will do 4k with eye candy maxed, if it comes in at around GTX 1080 performance level's should be a solid card when you do tweaks to settings in games.
People forget what a jump 1080p to 4k is. It's not like a one-generation 20-30% bump.....it's 4x the number of pixels!
Not surprising it's taking GPUs a while to catch up with the relatively sudden availability of 4k consumer panels.
Soldato
I couldn't go 4k after experiencing 120hz at 1080p, this is why i went 1440p & high refresh for now. Still a bit early for 4k if you want the performance IMO, I'll probably go 4k in a couple of years when panels are more mature and have better response/motion etc. Then single GPU's will be powerful enough not to struggle like some games do, down to the 30 fps range or so sometimes.
I'm hoping we stay at 4k for a decade or so, we've had leaps from 480p to 720p then to 1080p in a single decade, and the resolution jump has slowed down graphics advancement somewhat. The jump from PS1 to PS2 was enormous, not so much for PS3 to PS4. Bumping up the pixel count is taking up all the horsepower.
Soldato
Even 2 years ago I had 980 SLI that would do 4k 60hz on every game and it only had 4gb VRAM.
I would be right in saying for 99% of games. High-ultra is just a gimmick and most people wouldn't be able to notice the difference.
It's same with AA, it makes such a small amount of difference at 4k.
I would be right in saying for 99% of games. High-ultra is just a gimmick and most people wouldn't be able to notice the difference.
It's same with AA, it makes such a small amount of difference at 4k.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,808
That I agree with. Unless you're Kaap (who seems to have Superman microscopic vision) then it's pretty pointless
I play on a 65" 4k TV and in some games the AA @4k makes little difference but in others it's very noticeable. I wouldn't say it's cut and dry if its needed or not to get the best IQ. That said it's the first thing I kill if I need more fps at 4k.
Soldato
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 686
No. Even the 1080 Ti still struggles maintaining 60Hz/4K with certain games. Don't bother chasing 4K just now, the tech hasn't matured yet and any money you spend will just give you diminishing returns.