add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments (Continued)

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Its no theory DUDE. 4k is not some unachievable resolution. Depending on the game I play, solid 40 - 60fps, low/medium settings no AA. Most of the distance draw I have set to low, quality settings (again, NO AA) medium. Some games, such as WoW, I can run at high settings (even in raids). The quality is very good, game play in ALL games I play is smooth. And when compared to 1080p game play, the resolution shines even at the quality settings I have set.

You DO understand that the vast majority of people who play video games don't run at 60fps, right? XB1 and PS4 don't run at a consistent 60fps, and commonly dip to mid 30fps on AAA titles. And according to Steam the vast majority of PC gamers run on low end hardware incapable of anything more than 30fps @ 1080p. Right now the leading gpu is the HD 4000, and I KNOW that can't run 1080p 60fps, and thats 25% of those surveyed.

So.. measly 30fps... That's the MINIMUM target for gaming, regardless of resolution. Please stop spewing inaccurate nonsense without posting facts to back your claims.

Have a read, you might learn something 30fps vs 60fps

Thought I'd throw this in here as well. Kepp in mind the quality settings. Enjoy R9 290 4k Benchmark

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Look, I have gamed on 4k for over a year with 2 GTX 970's. With 2 970's cards I was barely pushing 60 fps on games like battlefield 4, a game that is highly optimized. For you to say that you have a single graphics card that can magically run games (Im not talking about WoW or LoL, actual demanding games) at 60 fps is just a lie. Most 970's and 390's push around 30 fps at 4k unless you are either playing a game like WoW that is CPU bound and doesn't require much out of a GPU. I have been gaming at 4k for awhile now, buddy, I know what the **** the deal is with a single $350 GPU attempting to push 8 million pixels, its pretty poor.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Your comment stated, "it's a pain in the *** with anything but two gtx 980 ti's." is what I pointed out as false. I also gave a link showing that the R9 290 is fully capable of running max settings @ 4k at near 30fps. Turn AA off and your minimum frame goes above 30fps. Reduce quality settings and they go up even more. This is playable game play, whether its playable to YOU is a personal preference (and a preference I'm sure many HIGH end gamer's hold. But the high end gamer is a very, very, very, very small percentage of the custom PC gamer culture). There's nothing magical about that. It's how you obtain playable frames. I really could care less what you think when I suspect all you have ever used for 4k is a pair of 970's. If that's incorrect, I could still care less. Its the spread of false information that makes me call out comments like yours. Your comment is false and that's all there is to it. Would you like me to continue to link review after review of a variety of cards tested at 4k across a variety of games?

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Im not saying that you must have 2 GTX 980 ti's. I am saying that if someone is looking for a rock solid 60 fps at 4k without any stuttering or any bs that keeps someone from being immersed in the game then basically your only routes are 980/980 ti's in SLI or Fury/Fury X CF. It's one thing to play at 4k at 30 fps, which lets be honest here, almost anyone willing to throw money at 4k gaming is likely not looking to play at 30 frames per second and having the ability to play at higher resolution at 60 fps is the main draw. You are not seeing this from the eyes of an enthusiast, which you need to because anyone looking to invest in 4k gaming is, for whatever reason, not satisfied with full hd or quad hd and are willing to pay a premium for the highest end form of gaming we have right now (outside of VR). Almost all enthusiasts are not okay with 30 fps and are pretty adamant about nothing short of 60 and that's why im saying the things that I am saying. 4k gamers typically do not drop lots of money to play at the same frame rate as a console that doesnt even cost as much the 4k monitor itself.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Ok now we are getting down to it. The OP is a pretty Good build with a decent gpu. Your post was specific about not playing 4K and I was countering it. Hell yes an enthusiast is going to want to push 60fps in 4K... And is going to spend $6000 doing it. I am in. I way arguing that. An enthusiast is probably going to want a 3 screen setup and a hardcore water cooling system. But that's not what we are arguing about. Im arguing that 4K gaming is playable on something other than current high end cards. And if someone with a 290, or 390, or 970 or 980 decides they want to get a 4K monitor then they should be informed of the type of quality they can expect and let them make the decision of its worth it. But to tell some one, anyone, that they can't play 4K on a system that can is wrong.

Not an enthusiast? hehe ok. I'd be more than happy to list off my accomplishments with my current (and passed) rigs in a private message.

I'd also like to point out that nowhere in any of my comments to you have I stated ANYWHERE that anyone should go out and buy an outdated card, or any card for that matter, and play at 4K. I have no idea where that assumption is coming from. My comments are solely based around that fact that many cards can play at 4K and it's the owners of those cards choice to do so. But flat out telling them that they can't is false information.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

and why on God's green earth would anyone who takes the time to build a PC want to play at 30 fps??? I couldnt even deal with 60 so thats why im at 144hz now. Makes a world of difference.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

This comes down to personal preference. This is YOUR personal preference. Not standard on what can and can not play at 4k. You STRUGGLED to obtain 60fps at 4k with twin 970's in Battlefield 4? That's interesting as there are plenty of reviews out there that show a single GTX 970 @ 4k medium settings doing just fine. Actually here is one of those showing the 970 pushing 58fps in Battlefield 4. So happens the R9 290 pushed 63.2fps.

I'd say you might be doing something wrong like running at higher settings than your system is capable of.

R9 290 vs. GTX 970 in game benchmarks

And as to answer your question. I built my current rig almost 2 years ago. It can run 1080p/1440p at max settings in every game I play @ well above 60fps. But I decided 6 months ago it was time for 4k, and after I did I won't ever go back to a lower res. Unlucky for me I lost one of my 290's, but continued to play on a single card and it still works at 4k, even though i have the option to drop down to a lower rez... but... That's PERSONAL preference.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

yeah im calling bs on anandtech there because 4k on 1 GTX 970 is around ~30-40 fps...

http://www.techspot.com/review/898-geforce-gtx-970-sli-4k-gaming/page4.html

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Techspot tests were at ultra settings with some heavy AA AND HBAO for battlefield 4. Anandtechs bench was at medium settings with no AA.

I wouldn't call BS on either sites as both are pretty highly regarded. Any nonsense would have been called out quickly. And I'm not sure what kind of system Anandtech was running those benchmarks on.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

And of course, different strokes for different folks. I'd take 1080p 144hz any day over 4k 30/60 fps. I am a competitive gamer so that's why and in my experience anything under 60 fps is an absolute no go. Regardless of who you are, no one should settle for less than 60 fps, the reason for building a gaming desktop is usually because many people are tired of 30 fps and the mediocre graphics that consoles provide. I just cannot ever recommend anything that will get the OP anything under 60 fps at whatever the resolution they are inquiring about.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

And I can totally respect that. And by giving the OP information on how their system will run under a certain resolution under different quality settings is a good comment. That's my whole point behind this conversation. After informing them, you then let them know you don't recommend it. Now they have all the information you gave them in terms ofdocumented sources of what they can expect and at that point they can decide whether it's worth it or not. That's a better approach then telling them they can not run at all.

And as for building a custom desktop... I totally agree with what you are saying. But I see more builds on this site everyday that are barley capable of running 60fps on max settings @ 1080p that the owners label as gaming rigs. So there are individuals who are more than happy to play at reduced game quality to achieve playable fps. Far more than I see systems that can run 1440p @ 144hz, but it's still better than a console. And 4K @ medium quality is still a whole hell of a lot better than console quality.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

Keep it polite or don't comment on this site.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube