The 4k Scare

[Beavermatic]

4x SSAA is probably a good approximation for 4k resolutions for a 1080p monitor. SSAA requires that the extra samples are fully rendered pixels so Its having to render 4k pixels, but with a little extra work of taking the 4 samples and averaging them.

Its certainly going to take a lot of performance to run games at full resolution, which is why I think 1080p 4:1 is so important for 4k monitors.

Correct me if im wrong, but technically running SSAA 4x at 1080p is equivalent to running your card at 4k, since SSAA would be sampling the image to 4x 1080p, which is what 4k is, and then sampling that "cleaner" image back down to 1080p.

So a good test of how your card will run at 4k is simply to set it to 4x SSAA at 1080p and see what performance you get, albeit it may be a frame off here or there. Although SSAA may be slower (possibly) because its doing a bit more work to scale the image up, and then output that image back to your current resolution, where as no overheard just running it at 4k directly.

 

[Cerb]

I haven't seen FPS below 60 on my HD7950 and every game looks beautiful.

Have you been watching it with something that logs it? I can easily believe 60FPS (or over) most of the time, but 60 FPS min is hard to believe, without the games very much not looking beautiful, if they have any kind of distance to the player view, at least. In that case, how is 4K going to be a good experience? IE, if it was that cheap to get an average 150FPS in most games at good graphics settings, 4K would probably still leave them at 30-60.

I think you might have misread my post, and might want to calm down a little. 1080P can easily be pushed with current games now, such that their max settings are unplayable. Not that you should play at max settings, but that midrange cards still haven't surpassed our needs for 1080P, as games keep increasing the work needed per pixel. You should find a middle ground that works well, if the defaults aren't working for you. But now those middle ground settings then have to work for 4x the pixels, which means running much slower (variable, not as bad as 1/4, but surely worse than some light AA @ 1080P), but gamers aren't going to be lining up in droves to get a $700 video card so that those settings can work, leaving much lower settings to be used, or skipping out on 4K for awhile yet, which is more likely, IMO (but a 4K monitor could be handy for non-gaming, so how scaling is handled should be important).

The one bright side: UHD brings simple integer scaling factors to SD and HD, so I think filters for scaling really could help for GPUs not up to the task of the games at native, but without sacrificing the entire DPI improvement, much we've been doing with emulators for decades, now.

 

[Munsterberg]

How difficult is it for GPU's to actually run games on 4k?

 

[cmdrdredd]

How difficult is it for GPU's to actually run games on 4k?

It's pretty demanding. You can simulate it by doing super sampling or down sampling on your 1080p monitor. It is especially demanding when comparing it to the typical 1080p display. A lot more work to get 4k resolution.

 

[know of fence]

Correct me if im wrong, but technically running SSAA 4x at 1080p is equivalent to running your card at 4k, since SSAA would be rendering the frame in 4x 1080p, which is what 4k is, and then sampling that "cleaner" image back down to 1080p.

So a good test of how your card will run at 4k is simply to set it to 4x SSAA at 1080p and see what performance you get.

Indeed, 4x SSAA cuts frame rate by about as much as 4K does. But it might be actually slightly less hardware taxing overal, if there is any post processing done on the resulting 1080p picture after SSAA.
Averaging 4 color values for SS itself, shouldn't be terribly demanding.
To quote hardocp.com

"4X SSAA brings the framerate down to 22.8 FPS. This is 64.3% slower than if we had no SSAA enabled."

64.3% slower means to get 4x the resolution divide Framerate by 2.8 .

 

[skipsneeky2]

No problem here turning down settings to make my hardware work, using settings that look nearly as good as max to get fluid fps in my games.

My 770 can dip into the lower 40s during a explosion with complete maxed out ultra 1080p settings in BF3, drop motion blur and msaa and i rarely see a moment where i drop below 60fps.I run high and noticed slightly different shadows at best and some maps like Metro never dip below 72fps during a explosion.

Never run msaa in my games unless i pull a solid 60fps+ with it enabled.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

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?

It's exactly 4x the pixel count, for anyone like me with a 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 it's actually only approximate double the pixel count and I run basically all games smoothly at this res with 2x 580s in SLI.

I'm looking forward to 4k, I think it's going to be a big step in the direction of getting away from these nasty anti-aliasing methods we've seen recently, we've desperately needed a jump in pixel density for the longest time.

I'm probably more interested in replacing my 1080p projector with a 4k one rather than my monitor, the benefit at huge screens in the 100"+ range is going to be a really nice upgrade.

 

[blackened23]

As far as SSAA being equivalent to 4k resolution? It all depends on the type of supersampling used. 4X SSAA certainly would not be equivalent, that's not quite true. It all depends on what type of SSAA is being used, and most implementations are SGSSAA which will not be equivalent to 4k.

If you do some type of OGSSAA, or downsampling, you could create some rough type of equivalence there. However, I don't think OGSSAA is possible on the AMD side unless you do some fancy EDID override trickery. My rough recollection is the SSAA option in CCC simply "converts" MSAA to SGSSAA, someone correct me if i'm wrong. Nvidia does the same with their SGSSAA option. And SGSSAA won't create equivalence to 4k.

 

[tential]

Have you been watching it with something that logs it? I can easily believe 60FPS (or over) most of the time, but 60 FPS min is hard to believe, without the games very much not looking beautiful, if they have any kind of distance to the player view, at least. In that case, how is 4K going to be a good experience? IE, if it was that cheap to get an average 150FPS in most games at good graphics settings, 4K would probably still leave them at 30-60.

I think you might have misread my post, and might want to calm down a little. 1080P can easily be pushed with current games now, such that their max settings are unplayable. Not that you should play at max settings, but that midrange cards still haven't surpassed our needs for 1080P, as games keep increasing the work needed per pixel. You should find a middle ground that works well, if the defaults aren't working for you. But now those middle ground settings then have to work for 4x the pixels, which means running much slower (variable, not as bad as 1/4, but surely worse than some light AA @ 1080P), but gamers aren't going to be lining up in droves to get a $700 video card so that those settings can work, leaving much lower settings to be used, or skipping out on 4K for awhile yet, which is more likely, IMO (but a 4K monitor could be handy for non-gaming, so how scaling is handled should be important).

The one bright side: UHD brings simple integer scaling factors to SD and HD, so I think filters for scaling really could help for GPUs not up to the task of the games at native, but without sacrificing the entire DPI improvement, much we've been doing with emulators for decades, now.

I find a way to show FPS for my first couple hours of game play to ensure I'm not getting low FPS.
I disable any setting that isn't giving me a decent IQ boost. Usually I read Nvidia's guide on image settings and some independent ones to see which settings make a difference and which are just FPS hits with nothing gained.
Then I enjoy the rest of the game with 60+ FPS and great graphics.

From what I recall in this thread, no one said midrange cards were doing 4K. OP Said that 4K is playable and that people stressing multicard configurations just to get 4K were exaggerating. OP said "You can buy a single GPU card." He didn't say "Buy a single midrange GPU card."

My biggest gripe isn't even the GPU, it's the monitor/HDTV. The HDTV isn't out yet that I want for 4K. I don't want anything smaller than 70 inches and I don't want anything less than 60Hz. If it was out at a decent price, I'd move to a configuration capable of playing 4K but it's not . Also, the Seiki HDTV's only go up to like 65 inches and I've read in reviews that there are scaling issues.

The day the HDTV/Monitors are out at 60Hz in abundance, I'll simply get a 400-500 multicard solution that outperforms the best single card solutions and game at 4K and be happy.

 

[mizzou]

How difficult is it for GPU's to actually run games on 4k?

just look for eyefinity displays at high resolutions for a physical view of the pixel output needed.