Why are graphics cards not fast enough in 4K yet?

[pcslookout]

In my opinion of course.

I want at least 60 fps average in 4K and the GTX 1080 can't deliver that in all games.

What next graphics card AMD on Nvidia will be able to deliver that please ?

 

[pcslookout]

Sorry I forgot about the Titan X but even it is not fast enough for all games in 4K. For example Tom Clancy's The Division.

 

[littleg]

It's not necessarily just about the GPU. If the game is an unoptimised pig it's gonna run badly no matter what.

 

[pcslookout]

Is why Tom Clancy's The Division runs bad no matter what graphics card you have in 4K ? http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2016/09/20/nvidia-titan-x-pascal-review/7

 

[ZGR]

Every title I play at 4k can do 60fps except for Star Citizen on my GTX 1070. The problem with benchmarks is that they do Ultra settings. I lower shadows to medium or high depending on the title.

I just got Dying Light for example. I lower Shadows from Very High to High and turn off HBAO+ and suddenly I get a solid 60fps even with max draw distance.

Elite Dangerous can do everything on Ultra except for Shadows and maintain a solid 60.

Rainbow Six Siege must run at medium settings + Ultra textures to maintain 60 fps.

GTA V can do everything at Ultra except for shadows and no MSAA. I can go on and on... A weak GTX 1070 can do any title at 4k at nearly max settings and maintain 60 fps easily. There is this weird misconception that 4k isn't ready but in reality a weak R9 390 can do 4k low settings easily.

4k low > 1080p Ultra. 1080p and 1440p/1600p look like a blurry mess to me. Low resolution killed my interest in gaming and 4k brought it back.

Find a refurbished 4k monitor + a used 980 ti/1070/Fury(X) for a wonderful, cheap 4k experience. I got a refurbished Acer XB280HK Gsync for $350 at Best Buy online. It came with 1 dead pixel on the bottom left corner which is a non-issue at 4k. Never gonna go back.

Is why Tom Clancy's The Division runs bad no matter what graphics card you have in 4K ? http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2016/09/20/nvidia-titan-x-pascal-review/7

I own the Division but I hate it. I lowered settings to medium/high and I can get 60fps no problem. My gimped 1070 can handle 4k easily and so can yours.

 

[pcslookout]

Every title I play at 4k can do 60fps except for Star Citizen on my GTX 1070. The problem with benchmarks is that they do Ultra settings. I lower shadows to medium or high depending on the title.

I just got Dying Light for example. I lower Shadows from Very High to High and turn off HBAO+ and suddenly I get a solid 60fps even with max draw distance.

Elite Dangerous can do everything on Ultra except for Shadows and maintain a solid 60.

Rainbow Six Siege must run at medium settings + Ultra textures to maintain 60 fps.

GTA V can do everything at Ultra except for shadows and no MSAA. I can go on and on... A weak GTX 1070 can do any title at 4k at nearly max settings and maintain 60 fps easily. There is this weird misconception that 4k isn't ready but in reality a weak R9 390 can do 4k low settings easily.

4k low > 1080p Ultra. 1080p and 1440p/1600p look like a blurry mess to me. Low resolution killed my interest in gaming and 4k brought it back.

Find a refurbished 4k monitor + a used 980 ti/1070/Fury(X) for a wonderful, cheap 4k experience. I got a refurbished Acer XB280HK Gsync for $350 at Best Buy online. It came with 1 dead pixel on the bottom left corner which is a non-issue at 4k. Never gonna go back.



I own the Division but I hate it. I lowered settings to medium/high and I can get 60fps no problem. My gimped 1070 can handle 4k easily and so can yours.

This is true but I like all my graphics on Ultra if possible.

 

[ZGR]

This is true but I like all my graphics on Ultra if possible.

Ultra is overrated imo. I cannot tell the difference from High to Ultra at 4k; especially when playing the game. 1080p Ultra looks so blurry and the image quality is terrible compared to 4k low. But to each his own. 4k60 Ultra is possible with a Titan XP as well as 4k120hz medium. 4k60hz medium/high is right where the 1070 and 1080 fall in.

 

[pcslookout]

Ultra is overrated imo. I cannot tell the difference from High to Ultra at 4k; especially when playing the game. 1080p Ultra looks so blurry and the image quality is terrible compared to 4k low. But to each his own. 4k60 Ultra is possible with a Titan XP as well as 4k120hz medium. 4k60hz medium/high is right where the 1070 and 1080 fall in.

Ok you got me there. It may be. Though I don't know what 4k monitor to get can you reply to my thread and help ?

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/thinking-about-buying-a-new-pc-monitor-4k.2489979/

I know you already recommended some.

 

[ZGR]

Ok you got me there. It may be. Though I don't know what 4k monitor to get can you reply to my thread and help ?

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/thinking-about-buying-a-new-pc-monitor-4k.2489979/

I know you already recommended some.

I am recommending basically any 4k60hz monitor that is on a special refurbished/used sale. I think all 4k60 monitors are overpriced which is why I went refurbished. I wanted a Gsync monitor as well. So once I saw Best Buy was selling the Acer XB280HK, I spent about a week calling various Best Buys if they had any refurbished ones. The one in New Jersey had several. Not anymore...

Here is what Newegg has right now for refurbished 4k monitors:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...reType=97&name=LCD / LED Monitors&isdeptsrh=1

I think $330 is pretty good, but it lacks freesync/gsync which is a deal breaker.

Newegg has the refurbished Acer XB280HK 4k Gsync for $470 which is a tough buy, but not terrible imo.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009857

Not a huge Ebay fan, but as long as the seller has a 95%+ rating, I feel safe enough:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/272203927793?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true
No adaptive sync though...

4k Freesync AOC (I don't know AOC too well) from bestbuy:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/aoc-fea...-monitor-black-silver/5010800.p?skuId=5010800



As you can see, none of these I linked are too appealing for an Nvidia user. You gotta play the waiting game when it comes to good deals on 4k monitors. I spent about a month searching each day for a good deal before I saw the prices of the Acer XB280HK come down across the board on every site. I then narrowed my search to Best Buys that had a surplus of factory refurbished Acer's. In hindsight, I should have purchased all of them to flip them on Ebay for a nice profit. I only had a 2 week return window which made the whole transaction rather worrisome, especially when I had my old r9 290 to test it with.

I wish you good luck on your search. I will still be looking for the next good deal on a 4k Gsync so others can get one. Patience is a virtue '

 

[hawtdawg]

"Every title I play can do 4k at 60 fps. The problem with benchmarks is that they test games made in the last 4 years, I just play old games instead. "

 

[richaron]

This is true but I like all my graphics on Ultra if possible.

OP you have just answered your own thread topic.

"Ultra" settings are not the highest quality settings game devs can make. They can easily make settings which will tank performance down to a couple of fps or much lower. Orders of magnitude lower or higher performance are easily dialed in. People here seem to think it's a coincidence that "Ultra" settings produce barely acceptable* performance on top end hardware

But obviously the performance @ ultra settings is not a coincidence. It was chosen by someone, or a group of someones, to perform at that level. Ultra settings were chosen to push current hardware to it's limits, or past those limits to allow for future hardware. And many of the settings used to achieve the desired level of performance provide little to no noticeable increase in graphics quality.

I wonder what would happen if game devs changed the arbitrary "Ultra" settings of today to a less demanding, but equally arbitrary, "Ultra" settings which ran much faster? I suspect those who wasted big $ on their ZOMG gaming computer would hate it.

 

[ZGR]

"Every title I play can do 4k at 60 fps. The problem with benchmarks is that they test games made in the last 4 years, I just play old games instead. "

I don't consider R6 Siege, Dying Light, and Elite Dangerous that old... R6 and Elite still are getting DLC and updates on a monthly basis. 4k at low settings are suprisingly easy on a GPU from 2 years ago. The only title I have that can't hit 4k60 at low settings is Star Citizen. Every other title lets me go to high settings. Battlefield 1 Single Player (cant play MP atm) lets me do the same. 4k medium/high is not a pipedream.

 

[hawtdawg]

whoosh

 

[SlickR12345]

4k low > 1080p Ultra. 1080p and 1440p/1600p look like a blurry mess to me. Low resolution killed my interest in gaming and 4k brought it back.

LOL. 1440p is high enough resolution to where you don't even need AA, it looks crisp. 4k at low settings is literally crap, you can't have terrible textures, zero shadows, no volumetric lightning, low ambient effects, etc...and have better looking game. You can literally game at 10k resolution and low setting and it no substitute for high quality textures and high quality effects.

 

[ZGR]

Yo

LOL. 1440p is high enough resolution to where you don't even need AA, it looks crisp. 4k at low settings is literally crap, you can't have terrible textures, zero shadows, no volumetric lightning, low ambient effects, etc...and have better looking game. You can literally game at 10k resolution and low setting and it no substitute for high quality textures and high quality effects.

I am jealous that you find 1440p enough. I personally find 4k at 28" still too "pixely" in general, even with AA. If a measly 1070 can run most games at high (not very high) settings without AA at 3840x2160 then there is no reason to not go 4k unless you find 60hz intolerable. Gaming at 1080p or 1440p looks very blurry to me when I compare it to 4k at similar sizes. I have trouble discerning the difference between High and Very High in most games other than shading and textures; so the jump to 4k is absolutely worth it.

I find 1080p acceptable for 5" displays or smaller, and 1440p for larger phones and tablets. 4k is enougj for laptops imo. Past that point, individual pixels are easy to discern at opimal viewing length. 4k is not enough imo, but it is a great stepping stone to 8k120 OLED. No amount of anti aliasing will fix a low PPI.

4k high without AA > 1440p ultra with AA for my personal preference. If you need more than 60hz, then 4k is out of the question until the $5000 4k120hz is released.

 

[hawtdawg]

LOL. 1440p is high enough resolution to where you don't even need AA, it looks crisp. 4k at low settings is literally crap, you can't have terrible textures, zero shadows, no volumetric lightning, low ambient effects, etc...and have better looking game. You can literally game at 10k resolution and low setting and it no substitute for high quality textures and high quality effects.

I'm sorry, but you're smoking the finest crack available for consumption if you think you don't need AA at 1440p.



Personal attacks are not allowed.


eswuared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[ZGR]

nvm

 

[bystander36]

It's a simple answer. Dev's make more demanding games as GPU's get faster. They do so, so that people on 1080p and 1440p have a reason for high end hardware. 4K will always require more power than 1080p and 1440p.

The question you have to ask yourself is, "is 4K at lower visual settings better looking to you, than 1440p or 1080p at higher settings?" The only reason 4K can handle max settings is if dev's decide to hide higher quality settings from you, and make 1440p and 1080p capable of being run at max on low end hardware.

For some odd reason, many people like yourself, don't consider anything but Ultra acceptable, despite the fact that Ultra is likely no where near the highest settings the game could show should the dev's show you all the settings. As someone above mentioned, 4K at 60 FPS is very achievable on a wide range of hardware. Just pick settings that your hardware can handle.

 

[Thinker_145]

I'm sorry, but you're smoking the finest crack available for consumption if you think you don't need AA at 1440p.

I have always found this such a funny argument. The need for AA is entirely determined by the PPI not the resolution. For example a 32" 1440p screen will show exactly the same amount of aliasing as a 22" 1080p. I am sure a 100" 4K screen would be quite terrible.

 

[hawtdawg]

Even a standard 27in 1440p screen benefits hugely from AA.

 

[alcoholbob]

Depending on silicon lottery, you have somewhere between 30-45% overlocking headroom on the Titan X (over stock performance on stock fan curve) provided you are willing to put the card on water. Just worth noting. I don't think this is a card you should be gaming on without modding the cooler.

Also the Division averages 50fps at 4K on stock clocks. The minimum fps is a CPU limitation. A proper DX12 driver would raise the minimum fps quite a bit.

 

[Head1985]

Nv already have card for 4k/60fps, but dont want sell it to us.
GP102.In old days it will be already out and cost 500usd.
Today they just milking mainstream GTX1070/1080 for as much as they(for retarded prices) can and holding back real high-end.
Yeah it suck today.

 

[richaron]

I have always found this such a funny argument. The need for AA is entirely determined by the PPI and viewing distance not only the resolution. For example a 32" 1440p screen will have a different PPI as a 22" 1080p?. I am sure a 100" 4K screen would be quite terrible.

ftfy

I'll agree with you here, people need to provide more info to even make a simple point. Simply spouting their resolution (or worse, the vertical component of their resolution followed by a useless "p") isn't good enough for a technical discussion about image quality.

 

[guachi]

I own a 4k monitor and I game at 4k using an 8350 + 480. It helps I don't play FPS-needy games. But if I lower some settings - and there are always settings that have a heavy impact on FPS but minor impact on visual quality - I can play at 4k as long as I can keep the FPS above the Freesync floor, which is hacked to 33Hz for my monitor.

I have played TW:Warhammer and X-Com 2 at 4k with little problem as well as a few other 2016 releases (though not graphic heavy games by any means) like EU IV and the latest Combat Mission.

 

[bystander36]

4K will never be able to be run on a single GPU at the highest settings as long as the dev's give settings to push 1080p or 1440p.