The 4k Scare

[Mand]

Can someone explain to me why people think they still need things like 4x MSAA on a 4k display?

Pixel size has a significant impact on the presence of aliasing. Is it really that necessary once they get that small?

 

[Grooveriding]

Can someone explain to me why people think they still need things like 4x MSAA on a 4k display?

Pixel size has a significant impact on the presence of aliasing. Is it really that necessary once they get that small?

You still see aliasing. The jaggies were just as noticeable to me as they are at lower resolutions.

 

[SimianR]

Can someone explain to me why people think they still need things like 4x MSAA on a 4k display?

Pixel size has a significant impact on the presence of aliasing. Is it really that necessary once they get that small?

When 1024x768 was standard res everyone said the same thing about 1600x1200 (you won't need FSAA at that res you will barely see the jaggies!) and they said the same thing about 1080p and now people are saying the same thing about 4k... I think you'll always need some level of AA. Jaggies/shimmering on staircases and such drives me crazy and nothing but AA will fix it.

 

[Majcric]

Perhaps your larger monitor made the jaggies more profound than on the 24" Lava is using. Also I'd say the need of Anti-aliasing will vary from game to game. But me personally, I struggle to notice much difference between 4MSAA, 2MSAA, and 0 at 1440p.

 

[Mand]

When 1024x768 was standard res everyone said the same thing about 1600x1200 (you won't need FSAA at that res you will barely see the jaggies!) and they said the same thing about 1080p and now people are saying the same thing about 4k... I think you'll always need some level of AA. Jaggies/shimmering on staircases and such drives me crazy and nothing but AA will fix it.

Yeah...but display size also increased during that time too, which means that pixel size didn't decrease nearly as much as it is going from 1080p to 4k with the same sized display.

I mean, aliasing is a function of the Nyquist limit, and increasing the spatial frequency of your sampling increases the threshold at which you'll start to see aliasing. I hate to bring out a marketing buzzword, but if you were truly at "Retina" as your limitation, you won't see jaggies because your eye won't be able to resolve them. I suppose it may not go away completely for 4k, but I'm not talking about doing away with AA entirely - just stepping down slightly from the extreme AA that's been developed and promulgated throughout modern games. People seem to think that anything less than the absolute maximum possible is the only acceptable metric for framerates, and it seems like increasing resolution may open up a bit of margin on the AA side of the equation, to the point where you could drop it slightly and not actually have degradation in image quality.

 

[lavaheadache]

You still see aliasing. The jaggies were just as noticeable to me as they are at lower resolutions.

24 inch here. While I agree a trained eye will catch jaggies but to act likely some can live with the trade off, even then only when you can't run AA, is kind of silly.

My OP was about the general emotion about 4k's going around is that modern gpu's fail at the resolution. It is far from the case and I wanted to shed some light on the subject. A single 780 ti or even less is going to give you a great experience. Not one game I have makes playing a chore.

There was a Metro LL bench tossed in here as proof against my claim. That was merely showing a maxed out run sans AA. You could tick one setting off from the settings used and that game would fly. Even screen shots would be hard pressed to show the IQ difference. Sure, true max settings can sink any card combination out there, but if your goal is to enjoy 4k right now with NEARLY "maxed" out settings it won't break the bank.

My buddy is using the same screen on a $375 used 780 and claims to have great performance too. Not too hard to believe, eh?

 

[Majcric]

It also appears the the Ti's scale quite a bit better at 4k than titan, even before OC.

 

[lavaheadache]

Just for the sake of beating my point to death. The OP was not about how 4 way Titans can drop below 60 fps when 4 grenades blow up in your face while parachuting into the the Shanghai building toppling onto the rest of your squad at 8x AA 4k.

My point is that for the other times in your gaming adventures, single gpu's are capable of blowing you away using a 4k screen.

Now in case anyone missed the other fact. I do have 2 cards and lets just say I couldn't be happier with my overall experience

 

[Grooveriding]

24 inch here. While I agree a trained eye will catch jaggies but to act likely some can live with the trade off, even then only when you can't run AA, is kind of silly.

My OP was about the general emotion about 4k's going around is that modern gpu's fail at the resolution. It is far from the case and I wanted to shed some light on the subject. A single 780 ti or even less is going to give you a great experience. Not one game I have makes playing a chore.

There was a Metro LL bench tossed in here as proof against my claim. That was merely showing a maxed out run sans AA. You could tick one setting off from the settings used and that game would fly. Even screen shots would be hard pressed to show the IQ difference. Sure, true max settings can sink any card combination out there, but if your goal is to enjoy 4k right now with NEARLY "maxed" out settings it won't break the bank.

My buddy is using the same screen on a $375 used 780 and claims to have great performance too. Not too hard to believe, eh?

Dude it wasn't proof against your claim. Just using an example that at 4K max settings even with no AA modern games are generally in the 30-40fps range with 20-30 minimums on a single card. You could look at the entire 4K review at [H] and see the same sort of performance, even worse, in other games. Same can be said for benches here at Anand.

I agreed with you that you can dial settings down, and if you are going to compromise enough, you can get decent frame rates. For me I don't enjoy that. If I can't play on full settings with 4xAA and keep over 50fps I'm not happy with that experience.

4K is about compromising on detail settings in my personal experience. I could of handled forgoing just AA, but it's more than that. I play Battlefield pretty extensively and it was medium/high settings with no AA to keep 50+fps in BF3 with dual Titans. Battlefield was the game that sealed the deal for me and why I returned the screen. I'll be back on a 32" 4K with dual 20nm flagships and gsync in the panel.

I don't agree it's ready without significantly more compromise than just turning off AA. I doubt you could play Crysis 3 on much over medium settings with just a single 780 and it still would have some nasty 10-20fps drops.

 

[know of fence]

If AMD can claim that their APU can play @ 1080p, the 290x's and 780 Tis of this generation with 8-12 times the silicon should play 4K, especially since games are locked into another console cycle, meaning there won't be better physics, AI, detail and so forth for another 5 years.

What I'm burning to know is how 1080p looks scaled up to 4k, how do those frame rates averages compare?
Also what kind of AA are you referring to, the kind that just blurs the geometry or the kind that quadruples the image and samples it down to native size?

 

[Silverforce11]

All it takes is turning down settings a notch and 4K is very playable, same for Eyeinfinity. It's usually MSAA that has to go, or DoF or HDAO etc. A lot of settings give very little IQ gains for the performance hit so its a no brainer to cut them out.

 

[Sohaltang]

Why would you pay 700+ for a 4k screen to run it at inferior settings? That's like buying a 60k Shelby and leaving it in first gear. I would rather drop down on the resolution and crank up the settings. Both will likely rock your socks but the latter is much cheaper.

I can't stand stutter or fps dropping. Once you play at 120hz its hard to look at 60 HZ. 20-40 fps no matter how pretty is painful

 

[Silverforce11]

I don't consider it inferior when it runs 25% slower just so I get slightly DARKER shadows.. I mean if you care about crap like that, go ahead and get QUAD-GPUs. I don't.

 

[lavaheadache]

Why would you pay 700+ for a 4k screen to run it at inferior settings? That's like buying a 60k Shelby and leaving it in first gear. I would rather drop down on the resolution and crank up the settings. Both will likely rock your socks but the latter is much cheaper.

I can't stand stutter or fps dropping. Once you play at 120hz its hard to look at 60 HZ. 20-40 fps no matter how pretty is painful

Your car analogy doesn't work.

Why get a lot of vehicles when public speed limits very rarely get you above 70 mph?

I drive a 911, does that mean I go 175mph regularly?


How would having to drop a setting or 2 equate to driving in first gear? Wouldn't it be more like not pressing the nitrous button on passing? Some settings only show themselves in random occurances. Not full on neutering the experience like driving in first gear.

 

[bystander36]

Just think of 4K like another setting. There are lots of settings. 4K gives higher clarity, but you often have to reduce something else in order to get good FPS with that clarity.

You could just as easily say that if you play at 1080p, you are not maxing your settings, due to low PPI and screen size.

The question is, what is more important to you? PPI or a few graphical settings? No answer is right or wrong.

I personally will have a tougher time, as I need over 60 FPS before I stop getting nausea. Generally, I need 80+ FPS, though if latency is low enough and FPS are smooth enough, I can handle less. I'm curious to see how G-sync will effect my Nausea issues. A 4k G-sync monitor may be possible for me to handle.

 

[el etro]

Just for the sake of beating my point to death. The OP was not about how 4 way Titans can drop below 60 fps when 4 grenades blow up in your face while parachuting into the the Shanghai building toppling onto the rest of your squad at 8x AA 4k.

My point is that for the other times in your gaming adventures, single gpu's are capable of blowing you away using a 4k screen.

Now in case anyone missed the other fact. I do have 2 cards and lets just say I couldn't be happier with my overall experience

Other thing have to be pointed, and is not resolution relative:

A single GTX 670 can max out BF3 singleplayer with 60FPS at every moment, but can't do the same in multiplayer. Same comparsion goes to 4k performance in PES2014 or Skyrim/Dishornored vs 4k performance in Crysis 3/CoH2.

 

[Sohaltang]

I don't consider it inferior when it runs 25% slower just so I get slightly DARKER shadows.. I mean if you care about crap like that, go ahead and get QUAD-GPUs. I don't.

So play at 1080 or 1440

 

[Sohaltang]

Your car analogy doesn't work.

Why get a lot of vehicles when public speed limits very rarely get you above 70 mph?

I drive a 911, does that mean I go 175mph regularly?


How would having to drop a setting or 2 equate to driving in first gear? Wouldn't it be more like not pressing the nitrous button on passing? Some settings only show themselves in random occurances. Not full on neutering the experience like driving in first gear.

Fair enough. The better analogy is why buy a 911 and detune it to 87 octane or run it with crap tires. You already paying A ton to play with the big boys what's a few more bucks. If you can't afford 93 octane buy a Camero.

 

[bystander36]

So play at 1080 or 1440

What is better higher XXX setting, or higher resolution setting?

He gets higher pixels per inch and clarity with smoother edges at 4k, or he has slightly better shadows with low PPI and grainier picture at 1080p/1440p. Why is one better than the other?

It is personal preference.

 

[Silverforce11]

I prefer higher clarity, sharper visuals, and I am willing to sacrifice DoF or HDAO to get it because I feel those are gimmicks that add so little to the gameplay. Case in point: BF4, you are NOT going to GAF about darker shadows when you are busy killing or being killed. But you will notice sharper visuals all through playing it. AND you will probably play better since you can notice distant enemies or minor movement with the much better screen resolution.

 

[3DVagabond]

There is no doubt that there are settings that add little visually while taking a large toll on performance. I would think that quadrupling your resolution would be a bigger IQ improvement than these settings. No doubt that having your cake and eating it too is the preferable way to go though.

 

[cyclohexane]

Which 4k panel do you have? Do you get 60Hz?

 

[blastingcap]

Why would you pay 700+ for a 4k screen to run it at inferior settings? That's like buying a 60k Shelby and leaving it in first gear. I would rather drop down on the resolution and crank up the settings. Both will likely rock your socks but the latter is much cheaper.

I can't stand stutter or fps dropping. Once you play at 120hz its hard to look at 60 HZ. 20-40 fps no matter how pretty is painful

Most people do not play games only. A 4K monitor is great for things like editing photos, multitasking, etc. It will almost always help and not hurt your productivity applications. Given a choice between a 4K monitor with a single 780 Ti or a 2560x1440 monitor with a pair of 780 Ti's I'd go with the first choice. If it means having to turn of AA, fine, whatever, pixel density is so high that it will barely matter. If I must have it locked at 60 fps then I can turn down settings somewhat. Some stuff eats up fps like candy while offering barely any visual improvement--disable those things first.

Then, when the time comes that a single 780 Ti isn't good enough anymore, you just upgrade the video card at that point.

This is similar to what I did with my Eyefinity setup. I have not regretted it, especially since I typically play older games, so I *do* get a locked-60-fps experience in games like TF2, and get all the benefits of 3K resolution when not gaming, too.

 

[RapidSnail]

The comment about multi-GPU setups was intended to highlight the fact that 4K monitors don't have to be a compromise if you don't have the graphical horsepower to run 2160p at reasonable settings. This is because of the potential for perfect integer scaling, with the opportunity to run a game at a still beautiful 1080p.

However, it is not impossible to play at 2160p. Most GPU reviews only show 2160p FPS data at some max or ultra level of detail. Games can still look incredible without all of the sliders maxed. In fact, the need for some of effects like anti-aliasing is lessened or eliminated at such high pixel density.

In summary you don't need to have multi-GPU to play at 2160p. Therefore, one should not be afraid of 4K monitors solely on the premise of inadequate FPS. The primary benefit of 2160p in this setting is that one has the opportunity to lessen the resolution without worrying about non-integer scaling.

 

[lavaheadache]

Which 4k panel do you have? Do you get 60Hz?

Up2414q. Yes, 60 hz