RE you not running 2 780Ti's in SLI. I cant tell much from your vid. Looks like 40-60 FPS with 1500$ worth of cards. The exact opposite of the point your trying to make.
I spent a small fortune on my 1440 rig and watching FPS dip makes me wanna hulk smash things (not really but I may be a bit OCD lol). Dropping even more $$ on a 4K monitor to see 40 FPS would make my blood boil. Turning down settings on a multi thousand dollar rig would make me lose sleep at night. Hell Im losing sleep becasue I cant get a constant 120 fps @ 1440p.
I'd love 4K at 24-27", but not for 1.5K. Give it to me for 750 and I'll bite and toss aside my two 1080p 22" Dells.
Just FYI:
4K @ 22" is 200ppi
4K @ 24" is 180ppi
4K @ 27" is 163ppi
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.
You're wrong. I just scoured my installed applications for one that didn't scale correctly, and was actually somewhat surprised to find the only one was 7-Zip (I usually use the context menu ).Whats wrong is that that scaling in Win 7 (and XP) is broken and looks terrible. It only increases font size not icon size so most icons text is cut off and a lot of programs just look terrible.
Averages for the fastest card on the planet right now @ 1440. Running 2 in SLI still has noticeable drops. 4K would be horrid
Clarify this please. Running 2 what? Any of the forementioned cards in the pics? Or just one in particular?
What kind of vRam usage are you guys seeing on the 4K displays? I'm seeing 2gb on 1080p right now using a 560ti...
Without AA, 3GB in 4k is more than plenty, though going beyond 2xMSAA in 4k, starts getting finicky and hitting VRAM max. Though at 4K resoultions, AA is starting to get to where its not needed, or 2X should be more than plenty and likely even unncessry, because at 4x the pixels of 1080p, 4K cleans up those jaggies pretty impressively on its own.
with 4GB's, your safe with a little more AA (course this greatly depends on the game design and how well it uses the memory buffer, 3GB could be more than plenty as well depending on that).
Whats really gonna be the killer is DX11.1/2 and OpenGL engines cranking out polys and fx at those resolutions, so VRAM shouldn't be as big of a worry as horsepower of the card, since you really won't need AA and thus it wont hammer VRAM nearly as hard without it.
The thing is... don't go running out buying cards with ridiculous amounts of VRAM just yet. Not only are you going to pay a premium for it, but unless you plan on hoping from 1080p, 1400p, or 1600p to a 4K resolution TODAY, all the latest high end cards out right now have sufficient VRAM for a single 4K monitor, and youll be doing unnecessary futuring proofing.
Meaning if you run out and buy a Titan -TODAY- to get a 6GB of VRAM safetynet for a monitor that your not gonna buy for another couple of years at decent mainstream prices and has ALOT of first gen woes (chips/refresh rates/etc that will improve after the first round of expensive releases), then you virtually just wasted your cash. Sure, you'll have that Titan with 6GB of VRAM for your shiny new 4k monitor later next year, but you'll be stuck on the performance of today. There'll be a couple generations of newer cards using newer architecture between now and then with plenty of VRAM to accommodate such resolutions as we get closer to more mainstream pricing and optimized 4k commercial monitors.
And even if your an early adopter of 4K at its massive cost as of current, your 780ti's and R290x's will run it fine, and probably even the next step down from those cards. Given the fact your not slamming it with antialiasing to hog up your buffer. But like I said, AA on 4k is kinda redundant.
Don't freak out.
/freaking out
Gotta say that is one of the better explanations I've seen on vRam usage on the up and coming high resolutions. I plan on moving to a 1440p monitor for the PC so I'm not too concerned with 4K. I'll get a 780 and be fine with 3GB. Honestly I was more curious than anything to see what kind of numbers people were seeing with on hand experience with the 4K resolution.
Clarify this please. Running 2 what? Any of the forementioned cards in the pics? Or just one in particular?
I can get 90-140 FPS in BF4 on Ultra with 4xMSAA.
780 GTX SLI
Im gonna be honest. I think 4k is a little hyped. I've seen it, used it... and was less than impressed, especially comparing to a 2k resolution like 1440p or 1600p. Especially on a monitor. The size of average monitors just isn't sufficient to notice the pixel density difference. Sure, you'll see less jaggies in games and the image may appear a little sharper, but im not lying when I say my HPzr30w 2560x1600 monitor hurts my eyes a bit. Aside from less jaggies at 1080p, the only real difference I noticed switching to it was smaller, harder to read icons, a little more desktop space, and better color vibrance (though that's from the S-IPS panel and chipset, not so much the resolution).
In fact, Im assuming most are going to buy a 4k monitor, and feel less than impressed if they're coming off a 2k resolution. They may even feel a bit stung coming off a really good 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 monitor with some great hardware chipset in it and ppi. It's because simply at desktop or workstation monitor sizes, its just not a significantly noticeable difference. They'll simply buy it because its the new thing to have.
And don't even get me started on TV's in 4k. Unless your doing 70 inches or greater on your shiny new 4k TV, its gonna be hard to distinguish from 1080p at those viewing distances and sizes, especially with some really good 1080p chips and pixel density in some of the higher end ones.
Same kind of rules apply for your average monitor sizes... sure, your closer to it than a TV per se, but your still a couple or few feet away on an already small screen. The difference isn't nearly as mind blowing as you see on say, a 80+ plus 4k tv were the pixels can hold the image together very well at larger panel sizes. After all, that's what it was designed for... to keep pixelization from appearing on larger screen sizes. And by that I mean TV's in excess of 70 inches, where the compaction of pixel density starts to show beyond at 1080p,
Honestly if you currently have a 1080p, and want to save some cash, jump to 1600p first while your waiting for 4k to come down in price. You'll likely notice little difference and have saved quite a bit in the process doing so especially if going with standard monitor sizes. Also, if you hop onto 2k monitor right now, youll have no worry of AA eating up your VRAM, youll still need less of it than 1080p, and itll make 4k even harder to distinguish from using it to clear up jaggies.
yeah that's what I was trying to figure out.. those framerates in that pic are incredibly low compared to what I was getting on my SLI'd Titans, and I was running 1600p with 4xMSAA, and I just upgraded to SLI'd 780ti's, and even faster than those framerates in that pic at 1600p.
Not sure where he got that pic, but its dead wrong.
That's actually pretty incredible. The fact they aren't hitting lower than 30 fps (with exception of crysis) with 4x msaa in ultra detail at 4k shows they hold up quite well under that much pressure. Especially for architecture design that focused primarily on 2k and lower.
Turn off the msaa since you really don't need it at 4k and your framerate will skyrocket.
That's the architecture.. not the vram, holding the card back with msaa enabled at 4k. You'll see that become a non issue over the next come years when newer cards are released.
But hey, if you already have your yacht, its probably not that much.. Why not go nuts!
This is basically what I'm seeing. The cards handle 4k very very well.
But you probably can play at something between medium and high at least with a much sharper image.You aint getting "ultra high" on the next crysis killer with a 4K display with a single gpu card of today. I agree, scaling is key, the display needs to scale well to meet my requirements. (but the idea of 4K desktop space gives me a nerdgasm).
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."