4K gaming, 60 fps, ultra settings. when?

#1 Edited by gamer2444 (30 posts) -

I think that we will have it by 2016 for high end gpus , and by 2018 for mid range gpus.

what do you think?

#2 Posted by Jimmy_Russell (677 posts) -

Last year I had that with 4x GTX 680 and a brand new Panasonic 4K TV. Maximum of 3840 x 2160 px resolution. It will be the standard next year when the price of those displays is lower.

#3 Edited by ShepardCommandr (2580 posts) -

GTX 900 series minimum and that's probably with a dual gpu

#4 Posted by Jimmy_Russell (677 posts) -

GTX 900 series minimum and that's probably with a dual gpu

Noob, 6 series nvidia cards manage trip[le monitor with max resolution at 60 fps +. 4K resolution isn't that hard to achieve with current hardware.

#5 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2984 posts) -

@jimmy_russell: Are you trolling?

I have 2 Titan Blacks and can't turn every setting all the way up and get 60 fps at 1440p. 4k would be even worse.

You either missed the "Ultra settings" or the "60fps" part of TC's title. Or you aren't playing games from the past few years.

#6 Posted by Jimmy_Russell (677 posts) -

@jimmy_russell: Are you trolling?

I have 2 Titan Blacks and can't turn every setting all the way up and get 60 fps at 1440p. 4k would be even worse.

You either missed the "Ultra settings" or the "60fps" part of TC's title. Or you aren't playing games from the past few years.

My suggestion to you is find out what part of your Potato PC that is bottlenecking your video cards and stop playing games that are unoptimized.

#7 Edited by Coseniath (846 posts) -

Hello.

This depends purely on competition. AMD gave a little competition to Nvidia with 7970 and Nvidia responded with a GK104 (a 3,5b transistor chip) inside of GTX680 which was the first time a non falgship chip takes a x80 name. AMD pushed a little further with 7970Ghz ed and lower prices and make the way for the real flagship GK110 (a 7,1b transistor chip) to land.

IF rumors are true about a near 6k core GM100-110 chip are true, then it would be able to play 4K games at high-ultra settings.

So now we need firstly from TSMC to be able to produce 20nm chips (they will be able to at 2015). AMD to be competitive and/or Nvidia not to be greedy and release a GM100 chip GPU as soon as they are capable of creating it.

Also we know that the GTX880 will be a 3200 core GM104 chip with 4GB 256bit VRAM (an engineer sample was leaked). They said that they will release this at the 4Q2014.

So when are we going to see a GM100-110 chip? At least 8-12 (8 for a probably new Titan and 12 for a more reasonable priced GPU) months after GTX880 (aka GM104).

TLDR: So at the end of Q3 2015 we will have a single GPU that could handle 4K gaming at Ultra (or near Ultra) settings. Unless... Crysis 4 happens :P

#8 Edited by MonsieurX (30018 posts) -

Last year I had that with 4x GTX 680 and a brand new Panasonic 4K TV. Maximum of 3840 x 2160 px resolution. It will be the standard next year when the price of those displays is lower.

Nope

@ShepardCommandr said:

GTX 900 series minimum and that's probably with a dual gpu

Noob, 6 series nvidia cards manage trip[le monitor with max resolution at 60 fps +. 4K resolution isn't that hard to achieve with current hardware.

Wondering who's the noob

@GoldenElementXL said:

@jimmy_russell: Are you trolling?

I have 2 Titan Blacks and can't turn every setting all the way up and get 60 fps at 1440p. 4k would be even worse.

You either missed the "Ultra settings" or the "60fps" part of TC's title. Or you aren't playing games from the past few years.

My suggestion to you is find out what part of your Potato PC that is bottlenecking your video cards and stop playing games that are unoptimized.

#9 Edited by Jimmy_Russell (677 posts) -

This thread is retarded. You want to argue with facts? 4K gaming is last year. LAST YEAR. It's old now, moving on. I've got 4x GTX 680 and I run 4K resolution on a Panasonic 4K like a dream. So either you're playing unoptimized trash or you are bottlenecking your system with a shitty processor. Now you scrubs can GTFO because you're noobs and pretty much full of shit.

#10 Posted by MonsieurX (30018 posts) -

This thread is retarded. You want to argue with facts? 4K gaming is last year. LAST YEAR. It's old now, moving on. I've got 4x GTX 680 and I run 4K resolution on a Panasonic 4K like a dream. So either you're playing unoptimized trash or you are bottlenecking your system with a shitty processor. Now you scrubs can GTFO because you're noobs and pretty much full of shit.

-4/10

You should go back to the trolling school

#11 Posted by Jimmy_Russell (677 posts) -

Don't be mad because you can't afford 4K gaming. I'm not trolling, you are. I'm giving you the facts, you are just "-4/10 troll troll" lol umad.

#12 Posted by gregbmil (2607 posts) -

Don't be mad because you can't afford 4K gaming. I'm not trolling, you are. I'm giving you the facts, you are just "-4/10 troll troll" lol umad.

Lets see some pics, or it didn't happen

#13 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2984 posts) -

@jimmy_russell: OK let's settle this like grown ups. Go to the Benchmark thread, follow the directions and post your score.

#14 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2984 posts) -

@jimmy_russell:

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5244/2/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-black-+-234-way-sli-in-ultra-hd--4k-review-benchmarks---crysis-3-far-cry-3-metro-ll

4 x Titan Black sli & 3960X CPU

Crysis 3 - 49 fps

Metro Last Light - 47 fps

Those must be some magical 680's.

#15 Edited by MonsieurX (30018 posts) -

@jimmy_russell:

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5244/2/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-black-+-234-way-sli-in-ultra-hd--4k-review-benchmarks---crysis-3-far-cry-3-metro-ll

4 x Titan Black sli & 3960X CPU

Crysis 3 - 49 fps

Metro Last Light - 47 fps

Those must be some magical 680's.

#16 Posted by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

Could be soon if your not anal with settings.

One of my steam buddies has a 780 Ti classy and he's playing ultra 60FPS on most games at 2560x1600 (AA/AF is either turned off or on 2x and only the optimized advanced settings are turned on).

If your referring to 60FPS with only the base settings turned up then a single highend 20nm card might be able to get the job done on most games if the jump in architecture is good (30-50% jump would be nice).

In most cases base settings aren't that bad, its the advanced settings that really kill your performance (in some cases you lose 20-30FPS for maybe a 5-10% increase in visual quality). For example in Crysis 3 I lose almost 20FPS by turning motion blur (which is a preference setting) from medium to high and turning shaders from medium to very high (both of these settings add little visual quality while taking almost 20FPS off my performance).

Its hard to say when since there's some many variables (optimization, advanced settings, drivers, company preference on same games). If where referring to just base settings then I believe that a single highend 20nm GPU should be able to get great frames (base settings only) while still getting 85-90% of the eyecandy. Should be interesting to see the jump (its been 2.5 years since 28nm).

#17 Edited by Garfield360UK (19630 posts) -

People, calm it please.

#18 Posted by edinsftw (4238 posts) -

@jimmy_russell: Are you trolling?

I have 2 Titan Blacks and can't turn every setting all the way up and get 60 fps at 1440p. 4k would be even worse.

You either missed the "Ultra settings" or the "60fps" part of TC's title. Or you aren't playing games from the past few years.

He is actually right, i dont know why you cant turn everything up, im running 1600p on 2 6950s unlocked and overclocked and I can max everything but unoptimized games.

#19 Edited by Chatch09 (335 posts) -

lol looks like I wont be gaming at 4k until 2020....oh well, coming from console gaming for the past 20 years, 1080p @ 60fps with Ultra settings is still going to be a great upgrade for me. From what I've read I should be able to do 2560x1440 downsampled on high settings and still get 60fps with most games.

BTW is there any performance difference between downsampling and running 4k natively?

#20 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2984 posts) -

@edinsftw: OK you're gonna have to give me your list of games you can max. I will give you proof via benchmarks from reputable sites as well as screen shots of my own experiences. Granted there are currently 3 games that run sub 60 on my computer with Max AA. (Metro Last Lights physx was broken in the latest drivers though) But 4K is a huge jump from 1440p. Crysis 3 and Metro LL are both 40 fps or less with fewer than 3 Titan Blacks and a 3960X at 4K.

#21 Posted by PredatorRules (7815 posts) -

I think that we will have it by 2016 for high end gpus , and by 2018 for mid range gpus.

what do you think?

You can already have 60fps 4K, get 780 SLI or 290 Cross

#22 Edited by pyro1245 (772 posts) -

It will probably begin to be affordable by next year, standard by 2016.

#23 Posted by kraken2109 (13030 posts) -

Don't be mad because you can't afford 4K gaming. I'm not trolling, you are. I'm giving you the facts, you are just "-4/10 troll troll" lol umad.

#24 Edited by Alienware_fan (1514 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

@jimmy_russell: Are you trolling?

I have 2 Titan Blacks and can't turn every setting all the way up and get 60 fps at 1440p. 4k would be even worse.

You either missed the "Ultra settings" or the "60fps" part of TC's title. Or you aren't playing games from the past few years.

My suggestion to you is find out what part of your Potato PC that is bottlenecking your video cards and stop playing games that are unoptimized.

Whys anyone even replying to this fool.

#25 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2571 posts) -

JImmy is gone now that someone asked for benchies hahaha

#26 Edited by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3782 posts) -

I was just playing Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare at 3840x1620 at 60FPS on Ultra settings with a single GTX 780 Ti.

So I guess right now.

You guys need to realize that games like Crysis 3 and Metro last light... Are rare games so throwing up those to games as the oh look PC's aren't running 60FPS is dumb. The majority of games run with twice the frame rate as those games on their highest settings.

  • CSGO
  • Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare
  • Grid Auto Sport
  • Dishonoured
  • Dark Souls 2
  • Insurgency
  • Sniper Elite V2
  • Tribes Ascend
  • Just Cause 2

Above is a list of games I have forced 3840x1620 on through Nvidia Control panel and they all run above 50FPS average with my GTX 780 Ti and all are on the highest settings... Excluding AA and in case some ignorant fool asks its not to skew the framerate results its because at those resolutions AA does nothing!

Here's some Garden Warfare at 3840x1620.... Ultra Wide 4K!

#27 Edited by Old_Gooseberry (3578 posts) -

Shepardcommanders guess with the 9xx nvidia generation seems quite accurate... who knows though. Unless a single gpu can run it at 4k I don't consider it worth it, its too sloppy having 2,3 or 4 video cards running in a pc chugging down hundreds of watts of power. Nvidia will probably have some super expensive Titan type card that uses a single gpu come out next generation that may do 4k.

#28 Edited by edinsftw (4238 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

@edinsftw: OK you're gonna have to give me your list of games you can max. I will give you proof via benchmarks from reputable sites as well as screen shots of my own experiences. Granted there are currently 3 games that run sub 60 on my computer with Max AA. (Metro Last Lights physx was broken in the latest drivers though) But 4K is a huge jump from 1440p. Crysis 3 and Metro LL are both 40 fps or less with fewer than 3 Titan Blacks and a 3960X at 4K.

I do not know why you would want to run games with AA past 4x on a 1440p screen anyway. I will usually run games with 2x or 4x if its more noticeable at 1600p. My definition of max is AA until its not a noticeable imporvement, just because you can turn up more settings doesn't necessarily mean its going to look better - especially bloom settings. Also I have not tried crysis 3 on my computer as i refuse to give crytek any money. Metro LL is probably the only one where I get dips in certain places, game looks fantastic, but there are many optimization techniques they do not use, even when some of them would not really impact visual fidelity.

Also - screen quality adds more to visual fidelity than many graphics settings anyway.

#29 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

JImmy is gone now that someone asked for benchies hahaha

well guess that really russelled his jimmies.

#30 Edited by silversix_ (14299 posts) -

i wouldn't expect demanding games in ultra/60fps/4k any time sooner than 2018. And this is on a single ~$500 gpu, not a 3k dollars quad sli crap

#31 Posted by Gogoplexiorayo2 (154 posts) -

4k 60 fps with som dips down to 35-45 will be doable probably in 3 or 4 years with a high end flagship card.

#32 Posted by AzatiS (7525 posts) -

I think that we will have it by 2016 for high end gpus , and by 2018 for mid range gpus.

what do you think?

2017 for solid 4k/60fps imho

#33 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2571 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

JImmy is gone now that someone asked for benchies hahaha

well guess that really russelled his jimmies.

lmfao

#34 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16467 posts) -

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

I was just playing Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare at 3840x1620 at 60FPS on Ultra settings with a single GTX 780 Ti.

So I guess right now.

You guys need to realize that games like Crysis 3 and Metro last light... Are rare games so throwing up those to games as the oh look PC's aren't running 60FPS is dumb. The majority of games run with twice the frame rate as those games on their highest settings.

  • CSGO
  • Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare
  • Grid Auto Sport
  • Dishonoured
  • Dark Souls 2
  • Insurgency
  • Sniper Elite V2
  • Tribes Ascend
  • Just Cause 2

Above is a list of games I have forced 3840x1620 on through Nvidia Control panel and they all run above 50FPS average with my GTX 780 Ti and all are on the highest settings... Excluding AA and in case some ignorant fool asks its not to skew the framerate results its because at those resolutions AA does nothing!

Here's some Garden Warfare at 3840x1620.... Ultra Wide 4K!

What monitor can run 21:9 at 3840x1620 ?

I want it :O

edit: Oh, nvm, I see you are talking about supersampling or running 3840x1620 on a 2560x1080 monitor. I would love to do this too. Is there any way I can with an AMD card ?