Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    Scarab Lord Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in UK where there is chicken
    Posts
    4,629

    Anyone playing on 4k?

    I am seriously upgrading my PC and monitor for some 4k contents. I have asked about what to upgrade but the shop said graphics card probably the only thing I am lacking as other components are still good, and considering this monitor:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B...f_rd_i=desktop

    Problem is, I am unsure current generation GPU are really 4k ready, even if it can display the resolution, it is pointless if the FPS is raped sideways.

    I have heard there are new cards coming out Soon™ that is more built for 4k but I don't want to wait indefinitely.

    Anyone here playing the game on 4k with a 980Ti? If so how is it running?

    If it doesn't turn out well I may have to end up leaving the game resolution 2560x1440 but have the PC set at 3840x2160, however since I play on boarderless windowed mode (so I can alt tab around easily) it wouldn't be full screen then would it? Or can you forcefully make it full screen even the game is set at 2560x1440? Will you lose much quality over it?

  2. #2
    FF14 runs well on 4k even with just a gtx970, see this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...k_with_little/

    For most other modern games, you will have to shell out, if you want to run for example fallout 3 or gta5 at 4k, just to name something, you're going to need a GTX 980 TI at the minimum, and a GTX TITAN Z 12GB if you want actual good performance. That card will run any modern game that supports it in 4k, but it is a €1500 card mind you.




    GTA5 4K performance with Intel Core i7 5820K processor w/Corsair H110 cooler, GIGABYTE X99 Gaming G1 Wi-Fi, 16GB Corsair Vengeance 2666MHz DDR4
    As you can see the Titan Z runs a 72 fps average, and the cheaper cards are still somewhat acceptable.


    In case of fallout 4 on 4k ultra you can see the shortcomings of the 980TI already:




    Titan Z isn't listed in this bench, but does run 60-70fps average on 4k ultra in other benchmarks.
    Last edited by Voidmaster; 2016-04-01 at 07:15 AM.
    Currently playing MMO's: FF14:ARR --- Played MMO's before: WoW, Wildstar, Tibia, Meridian59, Ultima Online, EQ, Rift, Lotro, GW2, AOC, WHO, EQ2, SW:TOR, ESO, SW:G,

  3. #3
    Elemental Lord Sorrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    8,392
    I run it at 4k with a 980ti and a 6700hq(Alienware expansion thing) I can get goid for at high laptop or high desktop

  4. #4
    Legendary!
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidmaster View Post
    For most other modern games, you will have to shell out, if you want to run for example fallout 3 or gta5 at 4k, just to name something, you're going to need a GTX 980 TI at the minimum, and a GTX TITAN Z 12GB if you want actual good performance. That card will run any modern game that supports it in 4k, but it is a €1500 card mind you.
    Not really. Even 980ti's in SLI have FPS drops down as low as 22 in GTAV and 28 in The Witcher 3.
    http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia-gtx-...g-performance/

    Crossfire Fury X's perform better in GTAV, and in fact just really performs better at 4k across the board:
    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/...5#.Vv6F3noRqVk

    IMO, 4k is not really ready for gaming yet. Some games, FFXIV and WoW, you can do, but other games you'd be better off just running at 1440p. 1080p still really is the standard though, with 1440p being the high end and 4k being barely obtainable in most games. If you do really want to play at 4k though, I'd recommend a Fury X or a Nano. With the Nano, you can remove the power limit it has on it and it will perform somewhere in between a Fury and a Fury X while being cheaper. Currently, the AMD Nano is really the best buy on the market, but with the next gen coming out this year, it's really not a good idea to buy and graphics card.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Not really. Even 980ti's in SLI have FPS drops down as low as 22 in GTAV and 28 in The Witcher 3.
    http://www.maximumpc.com/nvidia-gtx-...g-performance/

    Crossfire Fury X's perform better in GTAV, and in fact just really performs better at 4k across the board:
    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/...5#.Vv6F3noRqVk

    IMO, 4k is not really ready for gaming yet. Some games, FFXIV and WoW, you can do, but other games you'd be better off just running at 1440p. 1080p still really is the standard though, with 1440p being the high end and 4k being barely obtainable in most games. If you do really want to play at 4k though, I'd recommend a Fury X or a Nano. With the Nano, you can remove the power limit it has on it and it will perform somewhere in between a Fury and a Fury X while being cheaper. Currently, the AMD Nano is really the best buy on the market, but with the next gen coming out this year, it's really not a good idea to buy and graphics card.
    Did you read my whole post or just the sentence you quoted?

    I did say a 980 TI is the minimum for 4k gaming, and even showed some benchmarks to show that. I also said that you need a Titan Z if you want actual 4k performance. That card does do fine by the way for those games that support 4k.
    Maybe read whole post next time before saying things like "not really".
    Currently playing MMO's: FF14:ARR --- Played MMO's before: WoW, Wildstar, Tibia, Meridian59, Ultima Online, EQ, Rift, Lotro, GW2, AOC, WHO, EQ2, SW:TOR, ESO, SW:G,

  6. #6
    Scarab Lord Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in UK where there is chicken
    Posts
    4,629
    But if I mostly want to play FFXIV, 980Ti is more than enough to run 4k at a decent performance, like, average over 60 fps?

    Looks like I can get 4k for FF afterall if that's the case

  7. #7
    Elemental Lord Sorrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    8,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Grym View Post
    But if I mostly want to play FFXIV, 980Ti is more than enough to run 4k at a decent performance, like, average over 60 fps?

    Looks like I can get 4k for FF afterall if that's the case
    I can with a laptop processor and high laptop get at minimum 50fps you should be able to go max with a good desktop

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Grym View Post
    But if I mostly want to play FFXIV, 980Ti is more than enough to run 4k at a decent performance, like, average over 60 fps?

    Looks like I can get 4k for FF afterall if that's the case
    Yes a 980TI is more than good enough to run FF14 in 4k, this game is not that demanding on hardware.
    Just remember to put texture filtering to triliniar, it actually looks better than ansitropic and you won't get the fps drops in Mor Dhona
    Last edited by Voidmaster; 2016-04-03 at 11:26 AM.
    Currently playing MMO's: FF14:ARR --- Played MMO's before: WoW, Wildstar, Tibia, Meridian59, Ultima Online, EQ, Rift, Lotro, GW2, AOC, WHO, EQ2, SW:TOR, ESO, SW:G,

  9. #9
    Scarab Lord Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in UK where there is chicken
    Posts
    4,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidmaster View Post
    Just remember to put texture filtering to triliniar, it actually looks better than ansitropic and you won't get the fps drops in Mor Dhona
    What is that????

  10. #10
    omg, no. but i really would like to try out

  11. #11
    Where are people exactly getting their numbers from? What piece of content?
    I admit the game runs well however no one is giving numbers to where they are stressing their system, are people in 24 mans? 4 mans?, give people better context here, if people want to use a benchmark for numbers then the 24 man content is the best place to do it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also OP, running the game in full screen mode gives the best performance, if people are running the game on borderless window, give attention to the unhighlighted numbers in the resolution box because thats what you are getting.

    In DX11 mode, going borderless window drops the resolution to 720p as opposed to 2560x1080 that I natively have, also OP you can create custom resolutions to test your system, create a 4 k profile and use it in game and see where your performance drops, you must do this in fullscreen in DX11 mode, anyone that says borderless window works fine here is bullshitting.

    You only get the resolution output that you set while in fullscreen mode and not window or borderless window.

  12. #12
    Scarab Lord Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in UK where there is chicken
    Posts
    4,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorianrage View Post
    Where are people exactly getting their numbers from? What piece of content?
    I admit the game runs well however no one is giving numbers to where they are stressing their system, are people in 24 mans? 4 mans?, give people better context here, if people want to use a benchmark for numbers then the 24 man content is the best place to do it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also OP, running the game in full screen mode gives the best performance, if people are running the game on borderless window, give attention to the unhighlighted numbers in the resolution box because thats what you are getting.

    In DX11 mode, going borderless window drops the resolution to 720p as opposed to 2560x1080 that I natively have, also OP you can create custom resolutions to test your system, create a 4 k profile and use it in game and see where your performance drops, you must do this in fullscreen in DX11 mode, anyone that says borderless window works fine here is bullshitting.

    You only get the resolution output that you set while in fullscreen mode and not window or borderless window.
    Wait, boarderless window mode is bad? Cause I am running the game in that currently (but only 1920x1080), and in the boardless window mode setting that is also the resolution I use, so I am not actually getting 1080p?

    EDIT: in the system setting, for boarderless window setting, you have to choose "custom" and set whatever resolution you want, but the defult was 720p, could it be because you didn't change the resolution setting on boarderless window?

    My friend told me to hold onto the graphics card as apparently in a couple of months there is a new card coming out and that one is more designed for 4k gaming as opposed to the 980Ti.

  13. #13
    If you want a good cheap 4k card, i can recommend MSI R9 390x. It's in the mid between 980 and 980ti on 4k, if you oc it. Though its not much better than 970 in 1920x1080.

  14. #14
    Scarab Lord Grym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in UK where there is chicken
    Posts
    4,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Egeris View Post
    If you want a good cheap 4k card, i can recommend MSI R9 390x. It's in the mid between 980 and 980ti on 4k, if you oc it. Though its not much better than 970 in 1920x1080.
    Thanks, although I rather get the best card possible, especially when I fear that 980Ti isn't good enough, anything below that probably too risky.

    You running on 4k with settings on max? How is frame rate in 24man?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Grym View Post
    Wait, boarderless window mode is bad? Cause I am running the game in that currently (but only 1920x1080), and in the boardless window mode setting that is also the resolution I use, so I am not actually getting 1080p?

    EDIT: in the system setting, for boarderless window setting, you have to choose "custom" and set whatever resolution you want, but the defult was 720p, could it be because you didn't change the resolution setting on boarderless window?

    My friend told me to hold onto the graphics card as apparently in a couple of months there is a new card coming out and that one is more designed for 4k gaming as opposed to the 980Ti.
    The option for custom is not available to me due to my aspect ratio im gonna guess and does not allow me to change the borderless resolution but as you can see, a lot of people might not of noticed when they went borderless that the default res is 720p regardless of their native res.

    I run full screen personally since borderless will always show a slight performance dip in comparison and imo its how benchmarkers test games anyways.

    Also the new cards, well in truth no one knows, the big chips from both vendors aren't coming until 2017, we are getting the mid range chips this june from the looks of it.

  16. #16
    Ignore what the "custom resolution" says. The game still renders at whatever resolution your screen is (like a lot of other borderless windowed modes do) so if its 1080p it'll render it in that, not 720p and also the reason why that option is locked out. You can tell easily by switching between the two as there is no quality difference.
    Last edited by Aruhen; 2016-04-17 at 06:33 PM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Aruhen View Post
    Ignore what the "custom resolution" says. The game still renders at whatever resolution your screen is so if its 1080p it'll render it in that, not 720p. You can tell easily by switching between the two as there is no quality difference.
    Actually it will out put that, theres a obvious fidelity difference, just unlock your framerate and switch between the 2, full screen and default set custom res when in borderless window.

    There has been no game where borderless yields more FPS gain when set at same resolution then fullscreen, the renderscaling is reduced if not changed.

  18. #18
    No... that's how proper borderless fullscreen works. It works the exact same way in WoW. When you select it it just renders whatever resolution your monitor is set to and blacks out the actual resolution option. The game looks the EXACT same in both. I tried them both back to back.

    http://i.imgur.com/zIIC8sj.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/w6bpy1f.jpg

    When I switched to 720p to try it out there was a VERY obvious difference in quality in terms of UI and everything else. Or are you telling me the game magically upscales itself?

    This is WoW

    http://i.imgur.com/CRqJDH2.jpg

    Same?
    Last edited by Aruhen; 2016-04-17 at 06:52 PM.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Aruhen View Post
    No... that's how proper borderless fullscreen works. It works the exact same way in WoW. When you select it it just renders whatever resolution your monitor is set to and blacks out the actual resolution option. The game looks the EXACT same in both. I tried them both back to back.

    http://i.imgur.com/zIIC8sj.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/w6bpy1f.jpg

    When I switched to 720p to try it out there was a VERY obvious difference in quality in terms of UI and everything else. Or are you telling me the game magically upscales itself?

    This is WoW

    http://i.imgur.com/CRqJDH2.jpg

    Same?
    Assuming FF14 has proper borderless window in DX11, on my screen there is a obvious difference between what is displayed between the 2 modes and again do my test, unlock your frame rate, switch between fullscreen and borderless and leave custom on borderless at 720 p and fullscreen at 1080p, just see where your FPS lies.

    Also screen shots and video footage take the sample from the gpu but the game render down renders the footage ingame, yes its wierd and my video footage compared to ingame when using borderless yields different result, this only happens in FF14 and no other game does this.

    Once you have your FPS results, please tell me how borderless yields more FPS then fullscreen, also the UI becomes fucked once you start using 2560x1440, seems the game prior to having the extra settings for increase UI scaling was not optimised at all, there was plenty of threads regarding of the UI scaling at 4 k.
    Last edited by Thorianrage; 2016-04-17 at 07:05 PM.

  20. #20
    When did I say it yields more fps in borderless...? Christ I never even mentioned the word before. 105 in that scene in fullscreen and 103 in borderless fullscreen. Obviously there's a minor drop but that's to be expected considering you're also rendering the desktop too but its not "720p".

    Obviously you're having issues with it but come on you're implying now that I can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. There's a very OBVIOUS difference between then two... if this was an actual issue across the board then I bet you more people would have noticed it and not just you.
    Last edited by Aruhen; 2016-04-17 at 07:10 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •