PC gaming, 4K OR 60FPS. Not both.

  • 162 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by clyde46 (45951 posts) -

As it stands, you can have or the other. Not even two Nvidia Titan Blacks are enough currently. My advice, get a good quailty 2560x1440 and enjoy dat 144p.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/29/gaming-in-4k-the-future-is-now-if-you-give-up-60-frames-per-second/

The future—aka 4K gaming—is made up of very, very small pixels. After spending the past two weeks checking out games on Samsung's U28D590D 4K monitor, I'm still going to call 4K gaming the near future rather than the present. Yes, you can play games at 3840x2160 pixels right now. Yes, 4K monitors are becoming more affordable. But are they worth it? After spending a couple weeks using one, I can comfortably say: no, not yet. Even for a high-end graphics card (or two), 4K is too demanding for max settings and high framerates. If you're willing to play at 30 frames per second, though, 4K is a different story.

Oh and don't even think about running 4K on Windows 7.

Unfortunately, if you're still running Windows 7, 4K is a terrible experience, no matter what 4K monitor you're using. The OS isn't designed to scale to such a high resolution, and everything will be impossibly tiny unless you crank up DPI scaling to 125% or 150%. But that scaling is for text—it doesn't properly resize other UI elements or affect some applications like Steam. Chrome doesn't scale its text properly, either. Windows 8 is much better about properly scaling, and requires no setup to scale text, UI elements like Windows Explorer, and applications to 4K resolution. Text in Steam and Chrome is noticeably fuzzier than system text, but everything is usable and legible without constantly squishing your face up against the monitor.

#2 Posted by Heil68 (43891 posts) -

Selling PC now.

#3 Edited by Zelda187 (753 posts) -

The difference between 1440p and 1080p isn't nearly as noticeable as the difference between 720p and 1080p.

So I'd rather just have the increase in FPS

#4 Edited by parkurtommo (26734 posts) -

So all Microsoft needs to do is patch in proper scaling... Shouldn't be too hard?

#5 Edited by RyviusARC (4492 posts) -

I wouldn't mind a frame rate lower than 60fps in most games.

Also keep in mind that even the highest resolution console games are only 1920x1080.

For comparison:

1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

4k - 3840x2160 = 8294400 pixels

It's a 4x increase in pixels which requires about 4x the power from a GPU.

Even having the current hardware to run higher end games at high settings at 4k shows the power gap between PC and consoles.

Just imagine that gap in another 3-4 years when 4k is a lot easier to run.

#6 Edited by KungfuKitten (20960 posts) -

120fps + 4k is going to be our goal for the next few years. You need 120fps for nice 3D.
I think that would be good for an Oculus Rift type of device. At 1080p you still see the pixels? And you can downsample to 2k instead of AA.

#7 Posted by geniobastardo (1294 posts) -

4K for a home consumer isn't really a good choice. 1080p is the way to go this gen. 2K might be under consideration next gen.

#8 Posted by clyde46 (45951 posts) -

So all Microsoft needs to do is patch in proper scaling... Shouldn't be too hard?

Not going to happen considering Win8 is out and does a decent job of it.

#9 Posted by Desmonic (13731 posts) -

We'll get there in a couple of years, no worries.

Though honestly 4K resolutions (and above) feel more appropriate for work rather than entertainment. Of course it'll obviously trickle down to consumer grade tech (in price, popularity and availability) in a decade or so (or less even) but besides not needing any sort of AA at those resolutions I don't see many other benefits for gaming. For now at least.

#10 Edited by edwardecl (2222 posts) -

So all Microsoft needs to do is patch in proper scaling... Shouldn't be too hard?

The funny thing is Linux desktop managers have had this for years, the desktop automatically scales to the DPI of your display and everything scales not just text.

Windows is a total joke when it comes to things under the hood like that. I bet Windows 8 is the same if you want to use the desktop rather than tiles UI.

#11 Posted by Krelian-co (10637 posts) -

@Zelda187 said:

The difference between 1440p and 1080p isn't nearly as noticeable as the difference between 720p and 1080p.

So I'd rather just have the increase in FPS

#12 Edited by GoldenElementXL (2950 posts) -

I own 2 Titan Blacks and 1440p can be tough at 60+ fps and max settings on some games.

So I agree that 4K gaming isn't quite here yet. I probably won't be buying a 4K monitor anyway. 27"-32" monitor sizes don't do that resolution any justice. I wouldn't buy a 4K T.V. smaller than 70"

#13 Edited by NFJSupreme (5292 posts) -

Thanks captain obvious lol

#14 Posted by RyviusARC (4492 posts) -

I own 2 Titan Blacks and 1440p can be tough at 60+ fps and max settings on some games.

Is 1440p a noticeable difference from 1080p?

#15 Posted by farrell2k (5852 posts) -

Could we maybe use the XB1's "cloud power" somehow?

#16 Posted by Roler42 (696 posts) -

I rather stick to 60 fps

#17 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2950 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

I own 2 Titan Blacks and 1440p can be tough at 60+ fps and max settings on some games.

Is 1440p a noticeable difference from 1080p?

Oh yeah it's huge. I would highly recommend it for PC gaming

#18 Edited by Netret0120 (2080 posts) -

60FPS would be a bigger difference i reckon.

#19 Posted by Krelian-co (10637 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

I own 2 Titan Blacks and 1440p can be tough at 60+ fps and max settings on some games.

Is 1440p a noticeable difference from 1080p?

If you play on a big ass tv screen across the room, othewrise i wouldn't bother, is not THAT much of a difference and it takes a noticeable performance hit on the pc for gaming.

#20 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2950 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@GoldenElementXL said:

I own 2 Titan Blacks and 1440p can be tough at 60+ fps and max settings on some games.

Is 1440p a noticeable difference from 1080p?

If you play on a big ass tv screen across the room, othewrise i wouldn't bother, is not THAT much of a difference and it takes a noticeable performance hit on the pc for gaming.

The part I bolded in your post doesn't make any sense. The further you are from a screen makes the resolution not matter as much. If you are closer to the screen, the resolution makes a bigger difference. For example, If I sit close to my 70" I can see the pixels and it looks like garbage. But sitting 10' or more away cleans things up and it looks better.

A computer monitor only sits a couple of feet from the user so a higher resolution makes a big impact.

#21 Edited by jhonMalcovich (4624 posts) -

@clyde46:

Actually, not true. I made a research. GTX Titan Z (3000$), AMD R9 295 X2 (1500 USD), GTX 780 Sli (1100 USD) can do both 4k and 60fps in most games.

Later this year, I will buy a second GTX780 adn will be able to make a sli and play games at 4k, 50-60fps :D

So yeh, by making a SLI 4k is pretty afordable considering that is quite recent feature. In 3-4 years, a sinlge high-end gpu will be able to do 4k and 60fps without any hitch.

#22 Edited by farrell2k (5852 posts) -

@clyde46:

Actually, not true. I made a research. GTX Titan Z (3000$), AMD R9 295 X2 (1500 USD), GTX 780 Sli (1100 USD) can do both 1080p and 60fps in most games.

Later this year, I will buy a second GTX780 adn will be able to make a sli and play games at 4k, 50-60fps :D

So yeh, by making a SLI 4k is pretty afordable considering that is quite recent feature. In 3-4 years, a sinlge high-end gpu will be able to do 4k and 60fps without any hitch.

Before you even get into this with him, you should know that arguing facts with clyde46 is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, defecates all over the board, then flies away thinking it "won".

#23 Posted by faizan_faizan (7866 posts) -

I much rather have 60FPS at a lower resolution than 4K.

@clyde46:

Actually, not true. I made a research. GTX Titan Z (3000$), AMD R9 295 X2 (1500 USD), GTX 780 Sli (1100 USD) can do both 1080p and 60fps in most games.

Later this year, I will buy a second GTX780 adn will be able to make a sli and play games at 4k, 50-60fps :D

So yeh, by making a SLI 4k is pretty afordable considering that is quite recent feature. In 3-4 years, a sinlge high-end gpu will be able to do 4k and 60fps without any hitch.

What settings were used for the benchmark?

#24 Edited by jhonMalcovich (4624 posts) -

@faizan_faizan said:

I much rather have 60FPS at a lower resolution than 4K.

@jhonMalcovich said:

@clyde46:

Actually, not true. I made a research. GTX Titan Z (3000$), AMD R9 295 X2 (1500 USD), GTX 780 Sli (1100 USD) can do both 1080p and 60fps in most games.

Later this year, I will buy a second GTX780 adn will be able to make a sli and play games at 4k, 50-60fps :D

So yeh, by making a SLI 4k is pretty afordable considering that is quite recent feature. In 3-4 years, a sinlge high-end gpu will be able to do 4k and 60fps without any hitch.

What settings were used for the benchmark?

Check the source

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/palit-gtx780-jetstream-6gb-sli-ultra-hd-4k-review/12/

Mostly between high and ultra.

The thing is you don't need high Anti-Alising at 4k resolutions. The lowest AA is a way to go as object borders at 4k are smooth as hell already.

The funny thing is there is actually no difference in performance between gtx780 sli and Titan Black sli.

#25 Posted by adamosmaki (9501 posts) -

The way i see it 1440p and 1600p seem to becoming the sweetspot . Even affordable mid-range gpus like r9 280 are enough for 1600p and there is a decent jump in quality over 1080p

#26 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16419 posts) -

Meh, it'll be a couple of years before I'll go 4K

I'm plenty happy with my 21:9 monitor right now.

#27 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16419 posts) -

@faizan_faizan said:

I much rather have 60FPS at a lower resolution than 4K.

@jhonMalcovich said:

@clyde46:

Actually, not true. I made a research. GTX Titan Z (3000$), AMD R9 295 X2 (1500 USD), GTX 780 Sli (1100 USD) can do both 1080p and 60fps in most games.

Later this year, I will buy a second GTX780 adn will be able to make a sli and play games at 4k, 50-60fps :D

So yeh, by making a SLI 4k is pretty afordable considering that is quite recent feature. In 3-4 years, a sinlge high-end gpu will be able to do 4k and 60fps without any hitch.

What settings were used for the benchmark?

Check the source

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/palit-gtx780-jetstream-6gb-sli-ultra-hd-4k-review/12/

Mostly between high and ultra.

The thing is you don't need high Anti-Alising at 4k resolutions. The lowest AA is a way to go as object borders at 4k are smooth as hell already.

Good point, you don't need to "max out" a game on 4K since AA doesn't need to be cracked to max.

#28 Edited by jhonMalcovich (4624 posts) -

The cheapest solution for 4k and 40-60fps gaming now is a gtx780 sli. You don't even need for it a high end power supply, as a 750Watts will do. GTX 780 consumes 250W, so a sli will consume a 500W and the rest 250W is more than enough for the rest of your PC. No special refregeration is required unless you gonna overclock the sli setup, as GTX780 don't heat much at all. I would advise to add a 40USD cooler for CPU to keep it safe.

So coming down, a GTX780 sli doesn't require a powerful power supply and special refregeration, costs about 1000-1100USD. A way to go if you want the cheapest 4k solution.

#29 Edited by IgGy621985 (4744 posts) -

4K is still long way from becoming a standard.

#30 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (13792 posts) -

Waiting for the 880's myself. That should be a decent boost to get over the hump.

#31 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4624 posts) -

4K is still long way from becoming a standard.

Only If you think that 3-4 years is a long time though.

#32 Edited by MiiiiV (402 posts) -

I much rather have 60fps, preferably even more. Higher frame rate makes the gameplay much smoother, more responsive and precise and I'll take that any day over higher resolution.

#33 Posted by gameofthering (10191 posts) -

I'd rather just go up to 1440P 144Hz.

#34 Posted by Heirren (16819 posts) -

I still say build around 1080p and hunt down a plasma. They are simply the best display tech for games at the moment. It will be a while until 4K OLED goes down in price. Resolution isn't everything--people seem to not realize that a lot of detail is lost when the monitor doesn't display a good picture.

#35 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2449 posts) -

Waiting for 800 series and some price drop on 4K TV's and HDMI with 60FPS support. That would be my next generation. Imagine Witcher 3 in 4K.

#36 Edited by GoldenElementXL (2950 posts) -

@jhonMalcovich said:

@clyde46:

Actually, not true. I made a research. GTX Titan Z (3000$), AMD R9 295 X2 (1500 USD), GTX 780 Sli (1100 USD) can do both 4k and 60fps in most games.

Later this year, I will buy a second GTX780 adn will be able to make a sli and play games at 4k, 50-60fps :D

So yeh, by making a SLI 4k is pretty afordable considering that is quite recent feature. In 3-4 years, a sinlge high-end gpu will be able to do 4k and 60fps without any hitch.

Your benchmarks are using "custom settings." That's not very helpful. Playing games and "maxing" games at 4K are 2 different things. And with todays hardware we aren't quite there.

The rig used in these benchmarks is a i7 4690X at 4.6 GHz and 32 GB of RAM at 1866 MHz. That computer with a Titan Z costs well over $5,000. That runs Battlefield 4 at a 47fps average. The only thing that gets it over 60fps is 2 AMD R9 295X2's. (Crazy thing is that is about the same price as 1 Titan Z. Silly Nvidia) Crysis 3 only gets to 30 fps no matter how much money you throw at it. I'm gonna say we aren't ready for 4K gaming quite yet.

#37 Posted by IgGy621985 (4744 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:

4K is still long way from becoming a standard.

Only If you think that 3-4 years is a long time though.

Long enough for new hardware which will be able to run games at 60 fps.

Of course games today will run like shit on 4K.

#38 Posted by parkurtommo (26734 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@parkurtommo said:

So all Microsoft needs to do is patch in proper scaling... Shouldn't be too hard?

Not going to happen considering Win8 is out and does a decent job of it.

Bah. Greedy bastards.

#39 Posted by foxhound_fox (88026 posts) -

I'd much rather have a tri-monitor setup anyways. My eyes probably wouldn't be able to tell 4K apart from 1080p anyways.

#40 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2950 posts) -

I'd much rather have a tri-monitor setup anyways. My eyes probably wouldn't be able to tell 4K apart from 1080p anyways.

Time for some new eyes then.

#41 Edited by jhonMalcovich (4624 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

@jhonMalcovich said:

@clyde46:

Actually, not true. I made a research. GTX Titan Z (3000$), AMD R9 295 X2 (1500 USD), GTX 780 Sli (1100 USD) can do both 4k and 60fps in most games.

Later this year, I will buy a second GTX780 adn will be able to make a sli and play games at 4k, 50-60fps :D

So yeh, by making a SLI 4k is pretty afordable considering that is quite recent feature. In 3-4 years, a sinlge high-end gpu will be able to do 4k and 60fps without any hitch.

Your benchmarks are using "custom settings." That's not very helpful. Playing games and "maxing" games at 4K are 2 different things. And with todays hardware we aren't quite there.

The rig used in these benchmarks is a i7 4690X at 4.6 GHz and 32 GB of RAM at 1866 MHz. That computer with a Titan Z costs well over $5,000. That runs Battlefield 4 at a 47fps average. The only thing that gets it over 60fps is 2 AMD R9 295X2's. (Crazy thing is that is about the same price as 1 Titan Z. Silly Nvidia) Crysis 3 only gets to 30 fps no matter how much money you throw at it. I'm gonna say we aren't ready for 4K gaming quite yet.

What if I told you that in gaming i7 4960x (1500USD) performs the same as 7 4770k (330USD) FACT

RAM clock doesn't matter AT ALL.

So i7 4770k, 8GB 1600Ghz, GTX 780 sli will perform the same as i7 4960x , 32GB 1866Ghz, GTX 780 sli.

And buying GTX Titan Z would be a complete madness as for the half of that money I will make a triple GTX780 sli that will ra*pe TitanZ

#42 Edited by Couth_ (10056 posts) -

I'm expecting the 880 and 880Ti to be able to push 4k at 60 faps, 1440p at 120 faps

#43 Posted by Wasdie (49727 posts) -

It can be done with a lot of games, just not the most graphically demanding like Crysis 3. It's also expensive to have a 4k monitor and be able to power games at 60 fps with your GPUs.

#44 Edited by YearoftheSnake5 (7302 posts) -

I have no intention of moving to 4K any time soon. 1080 is still fine for me.

#45 Edited by MBirdy88 (8004 posts) -

@clyde46: I don't feel like I'm missing anything going beyond 1080p at the moment... its far too early still. I'l stick with 1080p ... a brilliant colour monitor(s) and 60 FPS.

#46 Posted by scatteh316 (4902 posts) -

That article is fail, the amount of games that can't run maxed out at 4k 60fps you can count on your hands.

#47 Edited by Snugenz (11839 posts) -

I'm in no rush for 4k, give it a few years and costs will be much more managable.

#48 Edited by RoboCopISJesus (1408 posts) -

Console gaming: usually 1080 or 60 fps, not both. Ouch.

#49 Edited by adamosmaki (9501 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

It can be done with a lot of games, just not the most graphically demanding like Crysis 3. It's also expensive to have a 4k monitor and be able to power games at 60 fps with your GPUs.

exactly. While Crysis , Arma and a few other demanding games are next to impossible to hit 60fps games like Batman,Skyrim, Tomb raider ( and pretty much every multiplat that is decently optimized ) are not that hard to hit 60fps on 4k. The way i see it the next gen of high end Gpu's should provide 60fps gaming with a single GPU and i expect mid-range gpu's in 2-3 years time to follow suit

#50 Posted by DEadliNE-Zero0 (1907 posts) -

I'll even take 60fps 720p any day. While i do have a harder time noticing 30vs60 in some games, like slower paced thrid person games, i find higher, stable frame rates to be more easily noticeable than 720vs1080p while simply playing.

So, 1080p is perfecty fine for me. I'll probably upgrade my TV to 4k long before my monitor anyway. In a few years that is.