The 4k Scare

[KaRLiToS]

The total pixel count for 4K is what, something close to triple-screen 1080p gaming? Would you say the performance can be extrapolated by looking at a benchmark result for 3x1080p surround/eyefinity, then multiplying by 3/4, to get an idea of what your performance would be on 4K?

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels so 2.1 MegaPixels
5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels so 6.2 MegaPixels (Triple 1080p)
3840x2160 = 8,294,400 pixels so 8.3 MegaPixels (4K)
7680x1440 = 11,059,200 pixels so 11.1 MegaPixels (Triple 1440p)

 

[Sohaltang]

Up2414q. Yes, 60 hz

1400$ monitor + 1400$ in GPUS

Starts thread about how you should not be scared of "spending thousands on 4K if you just turn down AA"

 

[bystander36]

1400$ monitor + 1400$ in GPUS

Starts thread about how you should not be scared of "spending thousands on 4K if you just turn down AA"

There are sub $1000 4k monitors.

He tested 4k with a single 780 ti, so under those circumstances, both the monitor and GPU can be sub $1000.

 

[Sohaltang]

There are sub $1000 4k monitors.

He tested 4k with a single 780 ti, so under those circumstances, both the monitor and GPU can be sub $1000.

so 700$ monitor and 700$ GPU plus supporting rig = sub par 4K performance. Good job. We have all learned something today

 

[Silverforce11]

so 700$ monitor and 700$ GPU plus supporting rig = sub par 4K performance. Good job. We have all learned something today

Yes we have, we've learnt that people's taste varies.

 

[lavaheadache]

so 700$ monitor and 700$ GPU plus supporting rig = sub par 4K performance. Good job. We have all learned something today

You missed the point entirely with your first post, somebody clarifies it for you. Second post, you seem aloof that the latest and greatest cost a premium and come to the conclusion of sub par performance. What's sub par about completely playable at near maxed out, when maxing out provides arguably negligible visual gains?

Glad you learned something cause I'm baffled

 

[Sohaltang]

You missed the point entirely with your first post, somebody clarifies it for you. Second post, you seem aloof that the latest and greatest cost a premium and come to the conclusion of sub par performance. What's sub par about completely playable at near maxed out, when maxing out provides arguably negligible visual gains?

Glad you learned something cause I'm baffled

A couple pretty well infomed members pointed out your definition of "fluiidly" and "playable" are pretty broad. Even you posted a video of 40 FPS BF4. Check the benchmarks posted on page 1. *most* dont consider 40 FPS with 20 FPS drops "playable". I know a guy who plays world of tanks on a igpu at about 20 FPS. For him he sees no need to upgrade and thinks that is just fine. To each their own. You may think PS2 looks just fine and I cant argue with your "perception". The benchmarks show what most of us already know. Your not gonna run 4K maxed on a single current gen GPU at industry standard (60FPS+) frame rates.

 

[lavaheadache]

actually that was BF3, and my performance was easily in the 50's 90% of the time. Every post you've made in this thread has been full of "you paid no attention". Guess I'll stop trying.....

Maybe I'm just slow and the performance I'm seeing sucks and I'm just content with it. Not sure about that though. If you know me from around here I have a very long history of voicing my opinion good, bad or ugly but always backed up by facts and open to discussion.

Lastly, you say single gpu's aren't going to run all the games maxed at 4k.... I NEVER SAID THAT. My OP clearly says a click or 2 down from max on single settings even.

 

[el etro]

so 700$ monitor and 700$ GPU plus supporting rig = sub par 4K performance. Good job. We have all learned something today

Sub par only in most demanding titles(titles that you can still turn off some things and will get playable FPS always(above 30FPS ever))...

Not everyone cares about play the games on more than 60 Hz/FPS.

But i understand the point about your posts. You state that the ones who spend money on premium class products like 4k panels generally will not tolerate meh framerates at so high image quality settings.

 

[bystander36]

What I take away is Sohaltang will not accept anything but the settings pegged on max. It is a common way of thought, but the reality is, games are only slightly less good looking at reduced settings. People spend tons of money trying to make 1080p games play at ulra maxed out on things like The Witcher 2, because they are unwilling to turn off Ubersampling.

I personally think this mentality is not meant for PC gaming. PC games are not intended to be played at maxed out settings. The recommended PC spec's for most games, cannot net you maxed out settings. PC settings are simply a set of possible choices to allow the user to self optimize the game. Some settings give hardly any visual improvements at huge costs to FPS. You pick and choose, and some choose higher resolutions as their choice of settings. Others choose super FPS, while others choose to turn on DoF, Ubersampling and what ever else they desire.

4k gives you an improvement that is not given with maxed out settings on a 1080p screen. That resolution may be better than Ubersampling is to them (and likely to anyone, in this case).

It is a person choice.

I personally will not be going to 4k, because I require 80+ FPS in most games to be content. I also wonder if G-sync might help with that. I'll likely end up going for a 1440p 120hz G-sync monitor my next purchase, but most people don't require 80+ FPS. Most people don't require to see maxed out in the video settings either. I've learned that modern games look better at high settings than Ultra, because I can hardly see a difference in visuals, but high gives me smoother frames, which matter more to me.

 

[el etro]

MaxOut settings with no AA/FXAA/MLAA/low SMAA and without maniac things like Supersampling is really reasonable for everyone that already owned a high end card(I had a a GTX 670 last year) IMO.

 

[Sohaltang]

4K is a new tech and I love that it will push GPU makers to make more of an effort. Right now they are happy to just beat the "other guy" by a couple percentage points. I dream of the day when I can run 3 1440 panels at 120 FPS. Its not today but we will look back one day and say "damn how did I live with 50 FPS". Games are only getting more demanding. I dont buy this mentality of new games wont push the envelope for years because of the new consoles. Personally I feel I can see and notice the difference, others cant. Like I said earlier It bothers me that I have 1500$ of GPU's at high overclocks and cant even max out my current single 1440P monitor. Guess suggesting that your can run 4K on a single GPU rubs me the wrong way. Monitor tech has just jumped way out over current GPU tech. And to that point I wish you the best and will drop out of this topic.

 

[3DVagabond]

I can't figure out if some people are just trying to justify their purchases of multi GPU setups or their livelihoods depend on pushing video card sales.

I've noticed that no matter how fast cards get it still seems to require 2xSOTA GPU's to drive 1600p. Games aren't really getting that much better looking to justify it, IMO. Sometimes I wonder if the GE and TWIMTBP programs don't make sure that they inject some extreme overhead features to keep it that way. /conspiracy theory

 

[UaVaj]

definitely not my cup of tea, like all eye candy maxed out, indeed still a nice review.
unless the game texture are 4k texture. you will still need AA.

can you repost a clearer video. that would be a big big plus. very hard to make out hardware load, game settings and game fps with that low resolution video. also play in a big open map.

looking forward to the next video.

 

[lavaheadache]

definitely not my cup of tea, like all eye candy maxed out, indeed still a nice review.
unless the game texture are 4k texture. you will still need AA.

can you repost a clearer video. that would be a big big plus. very hard to make out hardware load, game settings and game fps with that low resolution video. also play in a big open map.

looking forward to the next video.

will do tomorrow though, and with both cards on BF4. Unless we get that snow storm... then I will be out plowing all day and night.

 

[bystander36]

I can't figure out if some people are just trying to justify their purchases of multi GPU setups or their livelihoods depend on pushing video card sales.

I've noticed that no matter how fast cards get it still seems to require 2xSOTA GPU's to drive 1600p. Games aren't really getting that much better looking to justify it, IMO. Sometimes I wonder if the GE and TWIMTBP programs don't make sure that they inject some extreme overhead features to keep it that way. /conspiracy theory

I think they put those extreme features for a couple of reasons:
1) To give people with high end cards something to turn up, even at 1080p.
2) To keep their games relevant with review benchmark suites. If they have settings to keep pushing video cards, they continue to get free advertising with reviews.

 

[BrightCandle]

Regarding need for AA. Look at the aliasing you have in a game. When you halve the size of that pixel mentally you know its not at the point where you can't see it at all, it's a lot smaller but its still going to be viewable. Most people will also get bigger monitors for 4k as well, which will further reduce the improvement.

 

[3DVagabond]

Regarding need for AA. Look at the aliasing you have in a game. When you halve the size of that pixel mentally you know its not at the point where you can't see it at all, it's a lot smaller but its still going to be viewable. Most people will also get bigger monitors for 4k as well, which will further reduce the improvement.

Lava is running a 24"-4K monitor though. I haven't seen it, but I can't imagine needing much, if any, AA. It seems like turning down other settings might be more noticeable though due to the hires image?

 

[know of fence]

Lava is running a 24"-4K monitor though. I haven't seen it, but I can't imagine needing much, if any, AA. It seems like turning down other settings might be more noticeable though due to the hires image?

We need another pixel quadrupling (8K?) to get to "retina" density on a 24" screen, according to maths. So there is no way to get rid of AA altogether for now.

However 1080p 4x SSAA should look almost exactly like 4K with no AA. Which is both a strong argument for SSAA, since it can be had at a lower performance hit and it's a strong case for visual quality of 4K, after all AA is nothing but a carefully down-sampled high resolution frame.
Better yet 4x MSAA only comes with a ~25% perfomance hit.

Everyone stands to benefit from sharper text and pictures on a still 4K screen, only I highly doubt that there are benefits to pushing moving pictures beyond even 720p outside of large screens. Just a lot of pixels you never get to see. Perception obviously is about more than just pixels on the screen, or subjectivity.
For someone who is myopic (like me) the whole life is a blur anyhow. I suspect people who benefit from high resolutions tend to be literally far-sighted, sitting very close to the monitor.

The biggest gain in visual and game quality is to be had when line of sight is both increased and improved, allowing for an ever bigger virtual reality box around the player. 3D games managed that by scaling down the textures and geometry in the distance.
We'd be better off spending processing and bandwidth on that, than resolution, which more than ever is a dodgy upselling strategy.

 

[beginner99]

And how is the usability of windows 8 with such a huge resolution? (I know it will suck in Windows 7 or lower) Is text readable or is it tiny?

That would be my main gripe with such a huge resolution. I'm not blind but tiny fonts lead to more strain.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Not sure why so many people are having beef with Lavas findings, i doubt anyone in this thread is even taking 4k into consideration as a purchase.

Not sure if this whole new concept of a brand new high end resolution is new or not, been in this hobby going back to 2006 but i am shocked with how much negative press 4k is getting.

Cards will have to be manufactured to perform better per generation with 4k in mind, all other resolutions win as well eventually i would think.

 

[Mand]

Sub par only in most demanding titles(titles that you can still turn off some things and will get playable FPS always(above 30FPS ever))...

Actually the sub-$1000 4k displays all are capped at 30 Hz refresh rates, so you'll never see anything above 30 FPS. They're wholly unsuitable for gaming, well below "subpar."

 

[lavaheadache]

And how is the usability of windows 8 with such a huge resolution? (I know it will suck in Windows 7 or lower) Is text readable or is it tiny?

That would be my main gripe with such a huge resolution. I'm not blind but tiny fonts lead to more strain.

Windows 8.1 is great with the screen as they introduced a much better dpi scaling feature that is capable of scaling the entire desktop, ie and whatnot 200% mimicing 1080p. It works very well.


Skipsneeky, you mention you are amazed at all the negative press 4k is getting. Me too. That is exactly my drive for making this thread. People all over seem to think that if you hook one up to you machine everything simply turns into a slide show. Not the case. A $400 used video card will get you plenty of oomph to enjoy it. I have a 7970 kicking around here that Im tempted to try out. Curious to see how low i could go.

 

[Cerb]

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.

MSAA included in a list of low IQ gains for the performance hit.... Until displays reach a, "retina," level, which 4K ~24" still isn't, high-contrast dots and lines w/o AA are still going to be problematic, and MSAA offers IQ gains for the performance hit bested only by AF. Shader AA help reduce the need for high MSAA, but they can't do the job alone.

But, when will <150W cards handle 4K well? No used $400 video card or new $700 one, is going to be acceptable on air, even 3-slot ones I have no plans to implement a $250+ WC loop just to keep from having a video card that roars. OTOH, not using 3 out of every 4 pixels would be a bummer, too.

And how is the usability of windows 8 with such a huge resolution? (I know it will suck in Windows 7 or lower) Is text readable or is it tiny?

That would be my main gripe with such a huge resolution. I'm not blind but tiny fonts lead to more strain.

It's not going to be better than on 7. But, what's wrong with high resolutions on Windows 7? Choose 200%, and you'll be good for >95% of programs. Non-aware programs are rendered then stretched, while aware programs will adjust and very clear. Outside of gaming, I think only applications that try to be too helpful, like Firefox, will be issues.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I have a 7970 kicking around here that Im tempted to try out. Curious to see how low i could go.

Wondering how it will perform on all medium in BF3 with no msaa or motion blur enabled?I had a 7850 that i ran at those settings at 1080p and i never saw dips below 60fps and since my 770 is similar to the 7970 in BF3 i would hope it would do as well as my 7850 did at 1080p.