Advice on upgrades for 4K set.

[CMC79]

I game on an HTPC with an R9 290 and i5 3470K. I recently bought a Vizio M70-D3 as my new TV. Everything runs through a Denon S910 receiver which is fully HDMI 2.0a compliant, so the 290 is actually the weak link in the 4K chain now as it only has HDMI 1.4.

What would be a worthwhile upgrade to the 290? I have two connection options on the TV:

HDMI 1: 2160p/60Hz support with HDR; acceptable lag with gaming low lag turned on. HDR evidently raises the lag hugely but Vizio has a firmware update upcoming that should cut that down quite a bit, and I don't tend to play online FPS games. I'm currently using this port except at 1080p60 with GLL turned on.

HDMI 5: 1080p120 support, but no HDR support. This is the special gaming port with very low lag, with GLL turned on in software it's among the best TVs for input lag.

(I tried using a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter, which gave me 4K support on the 290, except I had lots of audio dropouts and the adapter seemed to add some input lag. So it seems a true HDMI 2.0 card is necessary)

Would I better off to get a new card to allow for 1440p/4K gaming, or stick with 1080p and go to the gaming port, in which case the 290 still holds its own? It seems the RX 480 is only marginally faster than the 290. Would a GTX 1060 6GB be much of an upgrade, or ought the 1070 be the minimum I look for as an actual performance upgrade? Thanks for any input any of you might have.

 

[Bacon1]

It seems the RX 480 is only marginally faster than the 290. Would a GTX 1060 6GB be much of an upgrade, or ought the 1070 be the minimum I look for as an actual performance upgrade? Thanks for any input any of you might have.

You are correct the 480 / 1060 aren't much of an upgrade over a 290, especially at 4k.

You might want to wait for vega but it's a few months out. 480 / 1060 won't have very playable settings @ 4k and 1070 / 1080 are pretty pricey for now. If you can find a good deal that you think is worth it go for it, but I wouldn't recommend 480/1060 unless you can sell the 290 for about the same price.

 

[CMC79]

I can get a Founder's Edition 1070 for $315 from Newegg ($40 rebate, AMEX $25 off of $200). That seems to be a pretty good deal, but I wonder if an even better deal might be had in the future if AMD is competitive in 2017 at the higher end of the market.

 

[VirtualLarry]

(I tried using a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter, which gave me 4K support on the 290, except I had lots of audio dropouts and the adapter seemed to add some input lag. So it seems a true HDMI 2.0 card is necessary)

I'm curious about this. It's possible that the audio dropouts were due to an HDMI cable that wasn't fully up to HDMI2.0 bandwidth / specs.

I recently (as of, yesterday or today) deployed a pair of Club3D DP-to-HDMI2.0 adapters, for my ASRock DeskMini mini-PCs, with Skylake CPUs (one G3900 Celeron, one G4400 Pentium), in Win10 1607 64-bit, connected to a pair of 40" 4K UHD TVs.

I had to go into advanced display properties, and change the refresh rate manually to 60Hz, after installing the adapters, but after that, it's been smooth sailing. I only use these for desktop usage, no gaming (no dGPU), but I haven't had any audio dropouts, and I listen to internet radio constantly.

Was your adapter a Club3D Active adapter, or was it a passive DP-to-HDMI cable, which probably wouldn't even give you HDMI2.0.

 

[CMC79]

I'm curious about this. It's possible that the audio dropouts were due to an HDMI cable that wasn't fully up to HDMI2.0 bandwidth / specs.

I recently (as of, yesterday or today) deployed a pair of Club3D DP-to-HDMI2.0 adapters, for my ASRock DeskMini mini-PCs, with Skylake CPUs (one G3900 Celeron, one G4400 Pentium), in Win10 1607 64-bit, connected to a pair of 40" 4K UHD TVs.

I had to go into advanced display properties, and change the refresh rate manually to 60Hz, after installing the adapters, but after that, it's been smooth sailing. I only use these for desktop usage, no gaming (no dGPU), but I haven't had any audio dropouts, and I listen to internet radio constantly.

Was your adapter a Club3D Active adapter, or was it a passive DP-to-HDMI cable, which probably wouldn't even give you HDMI2.0.

It was indeed the Club3D adapter. I experienced the dropouts during games mainly and thought at one point it might have been the game, but then I experienced the same issue watching a ripped movie (albeit less frequently than in games, in which it was about every 3-5 minutes).

That's a good point about the cables, and it's possible they are the culprit. One thing I have definitely picked up from the AVS Forum owner's thread for the M-series is that cable quality matters tremendously at 4K. All the cables in the chain are rated for 4K, but I have some different ones, so I might well try out swapping them out to see what happens. Or I could try 1440p and see if the problem occurs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hmm, that gives me a little bit of concern, that you were indeed using a Club3D adapter. So far (like 1-2 days), mine have been fine, for desktop usage, including audio.

I look forward to hear about your testing with alternate cables. I also wonder about your A/V receiver in the chain. I have no receiver in mine, just the DP output, adapter, and HDMI cable to HDMI2.0 port on TV.

Edit: You were using your adapter with an AMD 290 card, right? I've got my two adapters hooked up to Intel Skylake iGPUs, using whatever newest drivers Win10 1607 64-bit auto-installs. (Haven't looked into installing any of the more recent beta drivers off of Intel's web site.) I wonder if it could be driver bugs? I recall reading somewhere about someone having to manually select DisplayPort 1.2 somewhere, rather than DisplayPort 1.1 (the default), to get something to work. I don't recall if that was in the video card settings, or on the TV, or whether that was even an NV or AMD or Intel issue. (I didn't have to do anything like that with my set-up / hardware.)

 

[PrincessFrosty]

As always it depends what games you play or are likely to play, there's a great many games that run just fine in 4k on a medium end graphics card because the number of games that really push the graphics envelope as a percentage of all games out there is a tiny fraction.

However if you are interested in the very latest AAA games with all the bells and whistles turned on then you'll want at least a GTX1080, that's what I'm powering my 4k monitor with and I find it to be a great experience, there's really only 1-2 games that I play that require settings dropped from ultra to high/medium, one is Rainbow 6 Siege which is a surprisingly graphically demanding game.

A good case has been made for 4k in much less demanding games which people sink a lot of hours into, such as very common multiplayer games like DOTA2, TF2, CS:GO, LoL, and most MMOs. These constitute a absolutely insane number of gamer hours every day and are the kind of games that can run easily in 4k on medium rigs. So it really depends what you play and what sacrifices you're happy to make.

 

[ConsoleLover]

I mean Vega is just around the corner and AMD are likely to price is very competitively in order to gain some market share, though that may lead to some price wars. Knowing Nvidia they are unlikely to lower prices significantly, since they know they have loyalists who only buy from them no matter what, but you could save $20 bucks as opposed to now if you decide to go with Nvidia when Vega hits.

For now that 290 will be okay in your gaming port!

 

[CMC79]

I mean Vega is just around the corner and AMD are likely to price is very competitively in order to gain some market share, though that may lead to some price wars. Knowing Nvidia they are unlikely to lower prices significantly, since they know they have loyalists who only buy from them no matter what, but you could save $20 bucks as opposed to now if you decide to go with Nvidia when Vega hits.

For now that 290 will be okay in your gaming port!

I think that's good advice on waiting for Vega, and I'm a little bit of a AMD loyalist anyway (haven't been with Nvidia since the Geforce FX!) Part of me hates giving up that "free" $25 from Amex though!

I'll experiment around with the DP-HDMI adapter and see what I can do with it as well.

 

[Sonikku]

My 1060 has been perfect for 4k gaming in WoW and SWTOR but being MMOs, they aren't represenitive of what you can expect of 4k gaming. When I play Battlefront it's either 4k on medium or 1080p on ultra upscaled to 4k.

 

[zinfamous]

I think that's good advice on waiting for Vega, and I'm a little bit of a AMD loyalist anyway (haven't been with Nvidia since the Geforce FX!) Part of me hates giving up that "free" $25 from Amex though!

I'll experiment around with the DP-HDMI adapter and see what I can do with it as well.

FYI: Vega is probably ~Mayish at the earliest for any tangible release. If you can wait that long, more power to you. As others have said: 480/1060 is a wash for you right now.

 

[CMC79]

I look forward to hear about your testing with alternate cables. I also wonder about your A/V receiver in the chain. I have no receiver in mine, just the DP output, adapter, and HDMI cable to HDMI2.0 port on TV.

It's the cables, I think. I had one HDMI 2.0 cable that came with the TV from Vizio, two Amazon cables that said they were the latest standard and were 4K compatible, and a cable from SecuroMax that was well-rated on Amazon. I had been using the Vizio cable with an Amazon one originally. I swapped in both Amazon cables--one from PC to receiver, then from receiver to HDMI 1. Then the TV would not display a consistent image, let alone audio. Put the other two cables in and 4K resolution worked fine, but audio drops were present during gaming and during Spotify. I dropped the resolution to 1440p and the problem seems to have disappeared. I'm fairly positive it's the cabling, and there are some Monoprice cables that some on AVS Forum have had luck with, so I may try those out. 4K at 60Hz is just a lot of data to be sending, and it seems that devices that require that connection (like the Xbox One S, which seems to cause lots of problems for some TVs) need the very best cabling if the runs are 6 feet or more.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm just using generic "high-speed" cables from a few years back, when they used better wire gauge on cables.

 

[RussianSensation]

FYI: Vega is probably ~Mayish at the earliest for any tangible release. If you can wait that long, more power to you. As others have said: 480/1060 is a wash for you right now.

We'll know in just 4 days since NV should launch 1080Ti, while AMD is set to unveil Vega and related details such as what performance it targets and release time frame.

http://ve.ga/

I wouldn't touch a $600 1080 right now with a 10-foot pole. It's 7 months old and is still selling at MSRP. That's even worse than launch date since at least those who paid $650-700 for it in June got 7 months of bragging rights.

As soon as NV launches 1080Ti, 1080 users will be dumping these cards in droves and it should be possible to pick up used 1080s for $475-500. Most modern cards are so well built now that buying used has never been better.

I don't think a single 1070 is good enough for 4K at HQ*. I have 2x 1070 for 1440p. *I am assuming someone buying a new card for 4K will want to keep it for 2-3 years. 1070's advantage over 290/390 is not that large at 4K - just 38% (72/52)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Amp_Extreme/29.html

R9 290 cost $399 late 2013. That means more than 3 years later 1070 barely delivers just 40% more performance at 4K. That's nothing short of disappointing when performance used to increase 75-100% roughly every 2 years and 100% guaranteed doubling every 3. In 3 years, 1070 isn't even 50% faster than a 290 is at 4K. This is not a good time to buy a $400 graphics card.

 

[Keysplayr]

We'll know in just 4 days since NV should launch 1080Ti, while AMD is set to unveil Vega and related details such as what performance it targets and release time frame.

http://ve.ga/

I wouldn't touch a $600 1080 right now with a 10-foot pole. It's 7 months old and is still selling at MSRP. That's even worse than launch date since at least those who paid $650-700 for it in June got 7 months of bragging rights.

As soon as NV launches 1080Ti, 1080 users will be dumping these cards in droves and it should be possible to pick up used 1080s for $475-500. Most modern cards are so well built now that buying used has never been better.

I don't think a single 1070 is good enough for 4K at HQ*. I have 2x 1070 for 1440p. *I am assuming someone buying a new card for 4K will want to keep it for 2-3 years. 1070's advantage over 290/390 is not that large at 4K - just 38% (72/52)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Amp_Extreme/29.html

R9 290 cost $399 late 2013. That means more than 3 years later 1070 barely delivers just 40% more performance at 4K. That's nothing short of disappointing when performance used to increase 75-100% roughly every 2 years and 100% guaranteed doubling every 3. In 3 years, 1070 isn't even 50% faster than a 290 is at 4K. This is not a good time to buy a $400 graphics card.

You really just compared a GTX1070 to an R290 out loud. Didn't you...
I think we need fact checkers here...

 

[RussianSensation]

You really just compared a GTX1070 to an R290 out loud. Didn't you...
I think we need fact checkers here...

What facts don't you like? You got a problem with me comparing OP's 290 to a 1070? Read the OP, read my post. All the facts are there, including benchmarks. What is it that you don't agree with about 1070 beating 290/390 by only 40% at 4K?

Here is another source with much more favorable games for NV:
http://m.sweclockers.com/test/22153-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070/6

1070 is still only 44% faster than a 290X at 4K. TPU has much more modern games and Sweclockers barely tests DX12/Vulkan games, which brings 290/390 way closer to the 1070.

Still an extremely disappointing performance increase when we consider that 3 years have passed in terms of OP's time frame. Can you name any other time in history when performance increased just 40-45% in > 3 years at a similar price point?

Point still stands - 1070 is a weak card for 4K to keep for 2-3 years since it already struggles to run AAA games at 4K @ 60 fps. It's also not that big enough upgrade for 4K from an R9 290 given that 290 has been around for 3+ years. 1070/980Ti are great for 1080p 100-144Hz, 1440p 60Hz, not 4K.

As in the other thread, it's not smart to ignore CES 2017. Worst case scenario, next week the OP will have a better idea about the short-term direction of GPUs. NV may release refreshed 1070/1080 cards or drop prices, and we'll also get a lot of info on Vega and it's launch timing.

 

[Keysplayr]

What facts don't you like? You got a problem with me comparing OP's 290 to a 1070? Read the OP, read my post. All the facts are there, including benchmarks. What is it that you don't agree with about 1070 beating 290/390 by only 40% at 4K?

Here is another source with much more favorable games for NV:
http://m.sweclockers.com/test/22153-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070/6

1070 is still only 44% faster than a 290X at 4K. TPU has much more modern games and Sweclockers barely tests DX12/Vulkan games, which brings 290/390 way closer to the 1070.

Still an extremely disappointing performance increase when we consider that 3 years have passed in terms of OP's time frame. Can you name any other time in history when performance increased just 40-45% in > 3 years at a similar price point?

Point still stands - 1070 is a weak card for 4K to keep for 2-3 years since it already struggles to run AAA games at 4K @ 60 fps. It's also not that big enough upgrade for 4K from an R9 290 given that 290 has been around for 3+ years. 1070/980Ti are great for 1080p 100-144Hz, 1440p 60Hz, not 4K.

As in the other thread, it's not smart to ignore CES 2017. Worst case scenario, next week the OP will have a better idea about the short-term direction of GPUs. NV may release refreshed 1070/1080 cards or drop prices, and we'll also get a lot of info on Vega and it's launch timing.

It's not really so much the facts. It's the context in which you utilize to present those facts so that they can only be seen in a specific, "steered", way.
And please dont ask people to "read" something they've only just read. It implies that you dont accept the opinion of the other and only your opinion matters, thus, we should re-read everything you post until we submit to seeing things in the most narrow minded way possible.

 

[Headfoot]

Still not clear on which facts need to be "fact checked"

 

[Keysplayr]

Still not clear on which facts need to be "fact checked"

The context of the facts and how they are presented. I hope that's clear.

 

[ZGR]

We'll know in just 4 days since NV should launch 1080Ti, while AMD is set to unveil Vega and related details such as what performance it targets and release time frame.

http://ve.ga/

I wouldn't touch a $600 1080 right now with a 10-foot pole. It's 7 months old and is still selling at MSRP. That's even worse than launch date since at least those who paid $650-700 for it in June got 7 months of bragging rights.

As soon as NV launches 1080Ti, 1080 users will be dumping these cards in droves and it should be possible to pick up used 1080s for $475-500. Most modern cards are so well built now that buying used has never been better.

I don't think a single 1070 is good enough for 4K at HQ*. I have 2x 1070 for 1440p. *I am assuming someone buying a new card for 4K will want to keep it for 2-3 years. 1070's advantage over 290/390 is not that large at 4K - just 38% (72/52)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Amp_Extreme/29.html

R9 290 cost $399 late 2013. That means more than 3 years later 1070 barely delivers just 40% more performance at 4K. That's nothing short of disappointing when performance used to increase 75-100% roughly every 2 years and 100% guaranteed doubling every 3. In 3 years, 1070 isn't even 50% faster than a 290 is at 4K. This is not a good time to buy a $400 graphics card.

The games I play the most (ARMA 2/3, Rainbow Six: Siege, Elite: Dangerous) happen to be Nvidia favored. Because of that, I get over 100% more performance at 4k (same settings) from my r9 290 to the 1070; simply because Nvidia has total control. Is it an artificial performance advantage? Yes, but it does exist unfortunately. It is so one sided in Elite that I can match the R9 290's settings at 1080p to the 1070 at 4k and get the same FPS... It is depressing and worries me about the future of gaming in general.

Now for 4k gaming, the 1070 is fine for 60fps, but only if you are willing to forego Very High/Ultra HBAO+ and shadows. Lowering shadows to high and lowering HBAO+ to 'standard' is all that is required to get 60fps at 4k for the titles I play. Will this mean the 1070 will be a medium settings only card for 4k in ~2 years or less? Maybe, but not necessarily.

The ONLY title that cannot do 4k60 below high settings I play is Star Citizen which shouldn't count yet. I can't wait to play a game I want to play that annihilates my 1070 at 4k 'high', but I have yet to find one.

On my R9 290 and older cards, I was completely content with living without HDAO/HBAO and I probably will be doing the same on my 1070 in 2 years or so at 4k. If someone needs all the bells and whistles turned on, the upcoming 1080 ti or a Titan XP is a better choice.

The other problem with 4k is VRAM usage. Some of the titles I play are extremely VRAM hungry. I was surprised to see Elite be able to use all 8GB of VRAM and drop high res textures to blurry ones because I was out of VRAM. Lowering settings a tad fixed that, but the 1070's memory size became the bottleneck in that graphical configuration. I now feel like 8GB is perhaps not enough for 4k Ultra, and it definitely is not enough for 8k high. At minimum, the 1070 uses around 6GB of VRAM for all the titles I play made in 2014 and later.

Does this mean the Titan XP is the only worthy card? I would disagree, and classify it as a 4k 120hz card as I do not care about maximum settings; but rather the best possible tradeoff in performance and visuals.

Without my Gsync cap at 60, I am in the 80-100 fps range in the titles I play. I really do feel like the 1070 is plenty powerful for 4k60. Moving to 4k I was also surprised to be just as CPU limited as I was at 1080p because the 1070 is doing its job well at the settings I use.

I think 4k is an easy resolution to run at this point and my 1070 isn't working that hard. I have solid performance at 4k60 with it and I expect it to continue all the way until the 8GB is too much of a problem going forward.