http://gamingtrend.com
September 01, 2015, 04:17:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 4K gaming  (Read 275 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Greg Wak
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 746


View Profile
« on: August 22, 2015, 04:36:10 PM »

So I'm getting hot for the Acer predator XB280HK. 4K gaming and Gsynch. However, after shelling out $680+ for this, I would have to stay with my nvidia 7702GB. Is this foolish?
Logged
EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 11763


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2015, 05:31:51 PM »

Honestly, it feels a bit silly to me.  A 2GB 770 isn't going to to be able to play many games at 4k with decent settings and a playable framerate anyway, so I'd say there's no real point.  I also don't think that 4K resolution is really even necessary on a 28" scale, you kind of get into the territory of diminishing returns. 

If it was me I'd probably stick with 1440p or lower resolutions unless you feel like spending the same amount of money on a video card.  Or just buy the video card with that money and stick with whatever monitor you already have and you'll get way more bang for your buck.

But I'm also one that thinks 4K is being pushed on consumers way before it's necessary (ie: before there is hardware to drive it or video content for it), so take my opinion with a grain of salt. 
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3949


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2015, 07:39:19 PM »

Quote from: EngineNo9 on August 22, 2015, 05:31:51 PM

I also don't think that 4K resolution is really even necessary on a 28" scale, you kind of get into the territory of diminishing returns. 

Having seen a 5k iMac, I disagree, it's stunning to look at and hard to look at anything else after seeing it. For gaming though, you are right. You need a really good graphics card to support anything at that high of a resolution and if you play action games everything will be moving too quick to care. The higher resolution really makes still pictures and text pop, can't see it being that important for most games.

Do many games even support it yet?
Logged
Greg Wak
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 746


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2015, 09:12:35 PM »

You can play pretty much any modern game in 4k as long as you have the card to drive it. And gsynch will help some, but maybe not enough for me. And Engine #9, thanks for your imput. I do agree with Lee though, it really looks like something to se a game running in 4K. I don't play action games, mostly rpgs and strat. Still, I get the feeling I can't get away with it until I can get a 980 at the same time.
Logged
TheAtomicKid
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2015, 08:09:34 PM »

I'll post something resembling the flip side of this argument.

The 770 CAN drive the display, albeit you'll either have to slow down, or reduces some of the eye candy until you can upgrade the car. Also, RPG's and strategy games generally demand less of your gpu.

In the meantime, the display is likely to last you ten years on your desk. And you get the non-gaming benefits for the entire time.

At most, tax season is 6 months away smile

Of anything you can buy for a computer.. the case, and the display, are the two things you will retain for the longest usage.

Atomic

Having said all this, I personally am still at 24" and 1920x1200... I just haven't wanted to update yet, although I did test a 40" tv as a monitor for a while. Slightly too big at the distance I sit... need 32" or so. But still no upgrade as I'm perfectly happy with my current for a while longer.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 08:15:58 PM by TheAtomicKid » Logged
Greg Wak
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 746


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2015, 08:04:06 PM »

Thank you AK. I value your opinion so I have been checking every day to see if you would chime in. I am so torn on this. Since it is a possibility I'm going to have to check out the display in person.
Logged
TheAtomicKid
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2015, 08:00:39 AM »

Here's a question... which is more important... physical monitor size, or resolution?

If it's size, you could get a larger monitor at like 2560x1440 (or 1080!... ultrawide) for less money.

If it's the resolution... well... it's the resolution, 4k's dont really come smaller than 27 inches or so. Just for giggles, checking now . As indicated, scratch that, they're available... you could shave some off the cost if you wanted.

G-sync you pay for, but tis handy if your card can't keep up... which is definitely more likely the higher resolution you go. Freesync is... err.. free... but pretty sure it wont work with nvidia cards... they're bad about interoperability with the Red Team.

What's got you set on this particular monitor? It's not particularly fast or anything, and it's not particularly cheap (or expensive, for that matter, for a 4k monitor)

Atomic

(just as an example, what I really 'need' right now, is an approximately 32 inch monitor with 1920x1080/1200 resolution... just the right size for when I'm sitting at the desk... slightly larger than current because sometimes I watch 'tv' from across the room and it would be nicer than the current 24 inch panel... yet keeping to the lower resolution in order to keep it sane where the gpu is concerned)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 08:07:22 AM by TheAtomicKid » Logged
Greg Wak
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 746


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2015, 01:12:34 PM »

Actually I'm not committed to this monitor. But in the latest PC gamer round up it was the most affordable with what I want, so I used it as an example. There are others out there. I am interested in 4K, resolution is most important to me. And I'm an nvidia fanboy so I want gsync. So the big question for me was weather a 770 could drive 4K at all without making games a slide show.
Logged
TheAtomicKid
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2015, 07:09:16 AM »

Guess it's down to what you want, then. Gsync will get some usage, since the 770 is on the slow side to drive the display, depending of course on whichever game you're running.

Best bet is to check reviews for the 770, and look for 4k testing. Then hopefully find at least SOME of the games you play on somebodies list.

Shop around though. There are quite a few 24 inch 4k displays available now... would save you some green if it's enough.

Atomic
* TheAtomicKid would LOVE a 32 inch 4k display.... but his gpu would probably crawl out of his case and try to murder him in his sleep... (gtx 780)

Found a review... http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/  there's some '5k' testing, which should give you an idea of what to expect.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2015, 07:14:32 AM by TheAtomicKid » Logged
Greg Wak
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 746


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2015, 07:58:10 PM »

Shows it doable. With room to spare for rpg's. Considering that's 5K not 4K, and not gsynch. Thanks-good stuff.
Logged
EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 11763


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2015, 01:13:14 AM »

Keep in mind that article is from more than 2 years ago with games that are even older. 

If you're talking about RPGs, take a look at 4k performance in The Witcher 3 which is a modern game:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_witcher_3_graphics_performance_review,6.html
That's showing 13 frames per second for Ultra settings and 4k resolution on a 770. 

Here's some more thorough tests which show even a 980 GTX can barely get above 30fps on Medium settings at 4K resolution:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark
With a 770 even 1080p with Ultra settings is less than 30fps. 

I don't say this to discourage you (I still have a 760 myself), just to make sure you're aware that driving a monitor at those resolutions for modern and future games is not great with an older video card.
Logged
Greg Wak
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 746


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2015, 04:09:43 AM »

Good points.
Logged
TheAtomicKid
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2015, 06:05:35 AM »

Good spot there Engine. Again, it boils down to what's acceptable in terms of performance, which leads to a key question. What's the MINIMUM framerate for g-sync on that monitor before it starts tanking? 40 fps? 30? Need more detailed specs. IIRC, with a 'normal' 60fps lcd panel, once you drop below (60fps), iirc, the next step down is... 30? fps. Someone chime in here with better info please. I'll dig for a bit and see if I can answer my own questions.

Atomic
Logged
TheAtomicKid
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2015, 06:09:01 AM »

One thing to note... yeah, it drops down to 13 fps... but that's at ultra settings... _with AA enabled_. At 4k, AA is not really a 'need', although 2x to smooth some of the edges a tiny bit might be nice... those few instances where you might notice it should fade into the background.
* TheAtomicKid personally uses 2x a lot... it's not as hard on the card as the other modes, and it's enough to take the ugly off.

Atomic
Logged
TheAtomicKid
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1483



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2015, 06:21:15 AM »

Ok. Update.

Between this... https://pcmonitors.info/others/nvidia-g-sync-variable-refresh-rate-technology/

and this... http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync/faq

I'm getting ... 'variable refresh rate down to 30 fps'

combined with 'ensures that every frame rendered by the gpu is displayed'

So, ideally, 30 fps and upwards, to the limit of the monitor to display frames.

Below 30fps, depending on the specs of the individual monitor. I'm expecting similar to what I mentioned previously... 20 fps, then 10 fps... whatever your card can reach... if it can't, drops all the way down to the next level, which is what happens in a 'normal' monitor anyway.

Atomic
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 06:32:13 AM by TheAtomicKid » Logged
Greg Wak
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 746


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2015, 01:16:31 PM »

Nice articles! Ideally, it does seem I should save up to get a Card and monitor at the same time if I want to go 4k. Thanks for all the help guys. It's a hard choice. I've been gaming for a @ 1650 for a long while and since I built my rig with a 770 when they first came out everything has run smooth maxed out. Even Witcher 3 with hair effect on. I've gotten way used to the smooth play. But 4K does look amazing. What to do.......
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.096 seconds with 55 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.019s, 2q)