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

@jhonMalcovich said:

@GoldenElementXL said:

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 tat will ra*pe TitanZ

I dont know if you chose the best game to prove your point, but I agree that for gaming the 4770K or 4970K are more than capable. (The 4960X does not cost $1500 though) Outside of gaming the 4960X has many advantages so your statement that the 2 will perform the same is false. But for gaming only purposes you are correct. And I only mentioned the RAM clock speeds because it was relevant to the specs of the rig used in the benchmarks I showed.

And the Titan Z does have a place. (As does the 295X2) I almost built a mini ITX computer and would have used that card. It is perfect for that since there is no room for 3 780 ti's. I chose to go a different route however.

It would be nice considering I'm -6.25 in both.

I wouldn't bet on it. The next gen top tier gpu will probably perform around 50% better than the gtx 780ti and that is not nearly enough to run demanding games at 4k at 60 fps or 1440p at 120fps.
Here a benchmark from Metro LL and a gtx 780ti manages an average of 26 fps at 4k, the minimum frame rate is most likely considerably lower.

OK I have to claim ignorance here. Is that really bad? I just had to look my prescription up and I'm -1.25 and -1. I can get by without glasses or contacts but I get headaches when I do that.

It's terrible. Without my glasses on, my focus distance is a couple feet at best. I can't play computer games without them, and can't read "casually" without them (i.e. sitting back with the book in my lap or something).

No shit you can't have both yet. I'm sure you were'nt getting 60 with 1080p in the 90s either

rip pc gaming

Well I apologize for my comment. I let the climate of System Wars cloud my judgement. I got into "calling out trolls" mode and made a comment that I should not have.

Anyways I have toyed with the idea of a 3 monitor setup myself. They look really freakin' cool. I would have to find monitors with really thin bezels though.

@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.

These cards won't be able to max all the 2015 games at 4k with 60fps.

So? They'll have to settle playing most games at 4k and some of the newer ones at 2k. Oh woe is them.

Only hitting 2k

#MasterRaceProblems

It's a valid point and hopefully these 4k monitors have good scaling because most lcds look like total crap out of native res.

lolsystemwars.

I don't even play pc games if they run at 60fps(some exceptions). 60fps is like looking at vomit after being accustomed to 144hz. You don't need a very fast gpu for 144fps, just a fast cpu at 1080p. Even a single gtx 670 will let you do 144fps+ in most games at 1080p.

I toplel'd when I saw that destiny runs at 30fps.

4k is a no go for me until they have 120 or 144hz models. Once you go to 120hz you can't go back. Just desktop usage alone is a night and day difference between 60 and 120hz.

I think I'll stick with 1080p/1200p, thanks. 1080P is crisp and jaggy free with any AA - so there's zero reason to upgrade (ever). I can't see a point 4k will ever be the standard - there's absolutely no reason for it. It's upping the resolution just for the sake - which might seem cool to people who don't understand resolution is low on the list of what makes good IQ, but it's not so useful for everyone else.

i prefer a high refresh rate monitor over a high pixel count one.

Depends on the game of course, I've played some titles in 4k with my single 780ti Direct CUII, no problem. JC2 and Dirt 3 for example, even with AA cranked up.

The image quality is just insane even when it's only downsampling from 4k to 1080P.

It will be a while until we can play the most demanding games in 4k though.

4K will become standard eventually. Manufacturers like to phase out the old cheap stuff which is what 1080p will be soon.

1080p is barely getting standard. TV content is still 720p and you'll need something new to hold 4k movies.

So,no that soon

I mean standard as in that's what people typically buy. That's why I mentioned manufacturers. Only way to keep selling expensive tv's and monitors is to phase out the old tech. 720 is still more popular than 1080p for programming yet 720p tv's are almost completely phased out.

GTX Titan blacks are not very good for 4K neither is the Titan Z. There is only one real option for such high resolution and high frame rates and that is the AMD 295 X2.

60fps all day long

Not sure where you are getting that. Nvidia's road maps have Maxwell at double the flops AND double the efficiency of Kepler - and I think efficiency is more important. You would see diminishing returns with those cards at 1080p but at higher resolution they will flourish

High end Kepler cards are already extreme overkill at 1080p, what exactly do you think they are targeting with Maxwell if not ultra high resolutions

It's a massive difference on my 30-inch monitor. I don't think I can ever go back, 1080p just feels too blurry to me now.

A simple calculation would show that the pixel count increase from 720p to 1080p (1152000) is actually lower than the pixel count increase from 1080p to 1440p (1612800).

60fps. I literally won't play a game if it isn't a stable 60fps.

I already have a 1440p monitor and that already looks really nice. I won't jump to 4k until single card hardware in the $4-500 can run in efficiently

No, not for a very, very long time. There's no 4k-native content, none on the horizon, and there's no reason for it to even exist. People aren't going to randomly upgrade to 4k monitors even if they were more common and cheap - it takes serious hardware to run games at 4k resolution, nobody will want to pay tons of extra cash for a barely noticeable boost in sharpness. It's a niche for enthusiasts.

Just saying that 50% performance increase is more likely. I've seen Nvidia's road map but a 100% performance boost is extremely rare. We'll just have to wait and see.
And I don't think that high end kepler like the 780ti is overkill for 1080p as it can't even maintain stable 60 fps in the most demanding games at 1080p, much less 120 or 144fps for those who have newer monitors.
Even if high-end maxwell will have double the performance of the gtx 780ti (which I think is highly unlikely) it still won't be able to run today's most demanding games at 4k 60fps or 1440p 120fps, let alone more damning upcoming games.

I'm cool with that as I don't have any 4k gear yet. Hopefully we'll get that 4k @ 60fps in about 3-4 years when I've saved up enough.

I'd say 60fps is more important since it just feels so crisp. I'm getting a 120Hz display soon so I'm interested to try out 120fps :) 4k will be awesome when it's more available.

Probably not. Games will be even more demanding. I just don't see maxed out games being played in 4K at 60FPS.

Good point. May as well go more detail rather than just more pixels. Does that mean they'll be more expensive though since it requires more effort to make :/ We just need to develop quantum computing for gaming.....

yeah another one coming to the club!

you won't regret it!

Netflix has 4k content.

1280x1024 was the most commonly used res by pc gamers at the beginning of the last console gen. 1080p didn't start becoming common until the 8800 gtx came out although 1680x1050 was just as if not more common for a long time.

Hardware keeps improving at a faster rate than software and with the new consoles being so outdated the hardware will get further ahead than ever. Soon we'll see $400 gpu's that can run the latest games at over 120fps at 1080p, so many will be inclined to upgrade.

4k is a big deal since you not only get sharper graphics but it's much better at eliminating jaggies than aa. Some games have awful aa implementation. In Tombraider I played without aa because both aa types blur the overall image.

4k/60fps or even 4k/120fps will be the standard in just a few years with the rate that PC hardware is advancing.

How long is this console cycle supposed to be again? 8 years? 10? I think you see where I'm going with this. The current generation of consoles will NEVER be rendering anything in 4k.

In before "but...but...the graphics aren't important, it's the gameplay!"

@Cranler: Even a lot of the 1080p content on Netflix looks like garbage because of poor bitrate. YouTube has the same problem.

Pay 4k to play X360 ports in 4k? No way Jose.

Console Gaming: 4k or 60fps. NEITHER.

This is absolute nonsense - 780Ti destroys 1080p. The only thing that can actually hinder performance(and greatly) is various forms of anti aliasing, which is not necessary at 1440+

Not for me. I use PS 3 and Netflix 1080p is just a slight step down from blu ray.

In most games yes, if we are talking without aa, the 780ti manges stable 60 fps in most games at 1080p max settings but when speaking of 1080p, I assumed at least 4x aa. And there are several examples where the gtx 780ti drops below 60 fps with 4x aa at 1080p max settings like Crysis 3, Metro LL and Arma 3
As for 1440p without aa (I agree, at that res. aa isn't necessary) there are still some cases where the gtx 780ti doesn't manage a stable 60 fps, Crysis 3 and Arma 3 come to mind again.
Don't get me wrong, the gtx 780ti is an awesome graphics card but it certainly is not "destroying" 1080p, if it were it would easily run all games at 1080 with some amount of aa and never ever drop below 60 fps.

oh trust me you'll see a difference. I said the exact same thing before seeing it in person.

1080p requires more bandwidth to transmit. You'll find most things being recorded live at 1080p then downscaled to either 1080i or 720p for transmission.

4k at this point is a waste. very little content to use with it and most of the affordable displays are garbage TN panels. The format its self is not even final yet so i would not rush out and buy one.

3440x1440.

Probably. That might also result in more laziness.

Why do I get the feeling you don't own any high end PC equipment. There isn't a single game out right now that the 780Ti won't get 60fps in at 1080p

Don't even believe what I am reading right now. You are really trying to suggest the highest end video game performance graphics card offered by Nvidia struggles at 1080p.. LOL

That's why I said 720p is more popular than 1080p.

I have no desire for 4K. I would rather go with a better technology than just adding pixels. Give me OLED at 1080P any day.