4k or 3 screens?

[George002000]

Hi guys I've been looking into 4k for a while and I've been thinking if i should get one 4k monitor or 3 1080p screens. And the moment I've got a $100 graphics card because my 780 broke. So I've got a budget of $1200 - £700 to spend on a GPU it doesn't matter if it's one or two i can crossfire so if you could tell me good cards/card what would be able to run games on max setting on 4k and if you think i should get a 4k monitor or 3 screens.

Thanks.

 

[Embra]

Here is a link of a 295X2, you can ignore the spec card and look at the benches of various games at 4k to get and idea what to expect.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_295x2_review,18.html

For AMD, I think Sapphire is the best brand (Tri-x or Vapor).

 

[Computersloeber]

I would say the MSI lightning or Sapphire Vapor-X is the best you can get. But don't overlook cards like the Powercolor PCS+ because it is a good card and features a nice looking design.

 

[game junky]

I guess that all depends on what you're wanting to do - as a gamer, Nvidia Surrond is a very immersive experience (especially if they have thin bezels) and multiple displays from a practical standpoint offers great multitasking options (I myself rock 3 - 27" monitors at work and it's stupendous). As a movie buff who likes an uber clean picture, 4k is very intriguing and if you enjoy gaming on a single larger display this would probably be more up your alley. The crux of the problem for me with 4k is that there just isn't enough content for me to make the leap - yes, you can get some streamed 4k content through Netflix. Yes, you can purchase Sony's 4k media player and download their titles for a not so subtle fee for both the player and the individual movies. Yes, there are some game development studios who are starting to expand their max res options to include 4k. BUT, the word some is at the root of all of those media sources. This happens with every new display and media format technology - early adopters get taxed to be on the cutting edge and they get to enjoy a minimal amount of content at it's native resolution.

If it were me and I wanted to buy now, I would purchase a card capable of pushing 4k but buy a triple 1080p monitor setup. This gives you the option of expanding down the road without having to get punched in the wallet today.

Your Nvidia options are SLI'd 6GB 780(s) (plenty of vram to handle multiple displays or 4k) or a Titan - both will offer you the video memory you need to support Nvidia SLI at 1080p, the Titan would be the preference because you can add another Titan down the road if you decide you want to go full d-bag with multiple 4k displays.

 

[George002000]

I guess that all depends on what you're wanting to do - as a gamer, Nvidia Surrond is a very immersive experience (especially if they have thin bezels) and multiple displays from a practical standpoint offers great multitasking options (I myself rock 3 - 27" monitors at work and it's stupendous). As a movie buff who likes an uber clean picture, 4k is very intriguing and if you enjoy gaming on a single larger display this would probably be more up your alley. The crux of the problem for me with 4k is that there just isn't enough content for me to make the leap - yes, you can get some streamed 4k content through Netflix. Yes, you can purchase Sony's 4k media player and download their titles for a not so subtle fee for both the player and the individual movies. Yes, there are some game development studios who are starting to expand their max res options to include 4k. BUT, the word some is at the root of all of those media sources. This happens with every new display and media format technology - early adopters get taxed to be on the cutting edge and they get to enjoy a minimal amount of content at it's native resolution.

If it were me and I wanted to buy now, I would purchase a card capable of pushing 4k but buy a triple 1080p monitor setup. This gives you the option of expanding down the road without having to get punched in the wallet today.

Your Nvidia options are SLI'd 6GB 780(s) (plenty of vram to handle multiple displays or 4k) or a Titan - both will offer you the video memory you need to support Nvidia SLI at 1080p, the Titan would be the preference because you can add another Titan down the road if you decide you want to go full d-bag with multiple 4k displays.

So you would say go with a titan insted of dual Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Tri?

 

[Embra]

Titans are way overpriced and a 290x or 780ti out places it in every game... so no.

 

[MeteorsRaining]

NOTE: For the time being, A single Titan or even Titan Black can't better 780 Ti SLI or R9 290X CF in gaming. 2 of those giant Titans is a different thing thou.

 

[George002000]

NOTE: For the time being, A single Titan or even Titan Black can't better 780 Ti SLI or R9 290X CF in gaming. 2 of those giant Titans is a different thing thou.

Ok before i order this card i need to ask you a little more about this card. What games and what FPS do you get on these games?

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Which one are you finalizing? R9 290 CF or R9 290X CF?
If its R9 290 CF, then here's my experience with the single R9 290 (Sapphire Tri X) on My 4k (Asus 60Hz 1ms):

Hello!

Firstly, yes its 60Hz. Mine is just a week old, so don't expect crystal clear info on each and every aspect, I'm yet to explore them. I'd try my best to be transparent.

So I bought it about a week ago. Assembled my rig with it. It booted, no lag nothing.

General performance: Well its perfect! Its acting like I am on a FHD and not 4k. By that I mean no lag, no clutter, crystal clear performance.

Video Streaming: Oh its absolutely amazing. tried some 4k videos from youtube, and my god was I amazed!

Gaming-normal: Easy to handle games work without ANY sort of lag or error or anything. CoD Ghost was ice cream. Even Watch Dogs was not that bad, yeah some lag on Ultra but visibly clear on very high, and lagfree on high. Didn't expect R9 290 to be so good! I was actually thinking of CFX but I don't think I'll need it for a while. GTA V no lags.

The above games I could run at 35-45 on Ultra and 45-55 on very high. 60+ on high. What a performance R9!

Ultra gaming Multiplayer: So it was the hardest test, with BF4 and Far Cry 3 at ultra on Multiplayer.

I didn't have Crysis 3 so couldn't check.

Ultra: Both 35-40 FPS on Single player.
Multiplayer: BF4 got to about 35 FPS thanks to multi core optimization. FC3 stuck at around 30 FPS. NOT BAD!

VFX: I built this PC so that it specifically suits my VFX and Video rendering needs. I'm VFX undergraduate and have seen and worked with more cards than I could possibly name.
The experience was really good, the RAM was also crucial here, thanks lord I have CL9 Corsair Dominator Platinum @ 1866MHz. No lags, no screen drops, no difficulty in hovering my mouse around lol 😀
When I was converting and rendering heavy landscapes, the card was running well and I think I was able to open Chrome and listen to some music.

The display is more crisp than my eyes lol. Its so huge (pixel count wise) and fast my eyes envy it hehe Not a single lag in any sort of streaming or multi tasking. Very bright and vibrant display. I'm in love with my rig.

Overall: OMG what you waiting for! 😀

That's a PM I sent to one of the members here on his request to write up a review of my R9 290 on 4k.
Just imagine what 2 R9 290s will do! Absolute wonder!
50+ FPS on latest titles on ultra is sure. Maybe even more 😀

Also, I just wrote a tutorial for 4k vs 3XFHD, you might want to check that out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-2261324/extreme-builds-3x1080p.html

 

[game junky]

I guess that all depends on what you're wanting to do - as a gamer, Nvidia Surrond is a very immersive experience (especially if they have thin bezels) and multiple displays from a practical standpoint offers great multitasking options (I myself rock 3 - 27" monitors at work and it's stupendous). As a movie buff who likes an uber clean picture, 4k is very intriguing and if you enjoy gaming on a single larger display this would probably be more up your alley. The crux of the problem for me with 4k is that there just isn't enough content for me to make the leap - yes, you can get some streamed 4k content through Netflix. Yes, you can purchase Sony's 4k media player and download their titles for a not so subtle fee for both the player and the individual movies. Yes, there are some game development studios who are starting to expand their max res options to include 4k. BUT, the word some is at the root of all of those media sources. This happens with every new display and media format technology - early adopters get taxed to be on the cutting edge and they get to enjoy a minimal amount of content at it's native resolution.

If it were me and I wanted to buy now, I would purchase a card capable of pushing 4k but buy a triple 1080p monitor setup. This gives you the option of expanding down the road without having to get punched in the wallet today.

Your Nvidia options are SLI'd 6GB 780(s) (plenty of vram to handle multiple displays or 4k) or a Titan - both will offer you the video memory you need to support Nvidia SLI at 1080p, the Titan would be the preference because you can add another Titan down the road if you decide you want to go full d-bag with multiple 4k displays.

So you would say go with a titan insted of dual Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Tri?

If I were in a must-buy-now scenario, yes - I would rather buy something overpowered for my current needs knowing the recommended specs will evolve over the next few years. It's always easier to purchase a single card that suits your needs and add an additional card down the road so that you aren't having to upgrade (2) GPUs whenever you are dissatisfied with your GPU performance. If I could limp along for a few months, I would look at the 800 series GPUs. From all accounts, they are going to do something similar to the 700 series in terms of performance comparisons: the 670 was equivalent to a 760, a 680 was equivalent to a 770, etc. If that remains true which some of the random leaks indicate is likely, then you can pick up an 880 at launch which should be able to push (3) 1080p displays and you can add an additional 880 down the road when you're ready to buy a 4k display.

I am a get 'er done kind of cheapskate - it's cheaper to buy something good the first time instead of replacing it in a year or two.

 

[George002000]

I guess that all depends on what you're wanting to do - as a gamer, Nvidia Surrond is a very immersive experience (especially if they have thin bezels) and multiple displays from a practical standpoint offers great multitasking options (I myself rock 3 - 27" monitors at work and it's stupendous). As a movie buff who likes an uber clean picture, 4k is very intriguing and if you enjoy gaming on a single larger display this would probably be more up your alley. The crux of the problem for me with 4k is that there just isn't enough content for me to make the leap - yes, you can get some streamed 4k content through Netflix. Yes, you can purchase Sony's 4k media player and download their titles for a not so subtle fee for both the player and the individual movies. Yes, there are some game development studios who are starting to expand their max res options to include 4k. BUT, the word some is at the root of all of those media sources. This happens with every new display and media format technology - early adopters get taxed to be on the cutting edge and they get to enjoy a minimal amount of content at it's native resolution.

If it were me and I wanted to buy now, I would purchase a card capable of pushing 4k but buy a triple 1080p monitor setup. This gives you the option of expanding down the road without having to get punched in the wallet today.

Your Nvidia options are SLI'd 6GB 780(s) (plenty of vram to handle multiple displays or 4k) or a Titan - both will offer you the video memory you need to support Nvidia SLI at 1080p, the Titan would be the preference because you can add another Titan down the road if you decide you want to go full d-bag with multiple 4k displays.

So you would say go with a titan insted of dual Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Tri?

If I were in a must-buy-now scenario, yes - I would rather buy something overpowered for my current needs knowing the recommended specs will evolve over the next few years. It's always easier to purchase a single card that suits your needs and add an additional card down the road so that you aren't having to upgrade (2) GPUs whenever you are dissatisfied with your GPU performance. If I could limp along for a few months, I would look at the 800 series GPUs. From all accounts, they are going to do something similar to the 700 series in terms of performance comparisons: the 670 was equivalent to a 760, a 680 was equivalent to a 770, etc. If that remains true which some of the random leaks indicate is likely, then you can pick up an 880 at launch which should be able to push (3) 1080p displays and you can add an additional 880 down the road when you're ready to buy a 4k display.

I am a get 'er done kind of cheapskate - it's cheaper to buy something good the first time instead of replacing it in a year or two.

Yes but the thing is a titan can't handle games i play on max settings at 4k. But the R9 290 dual can.

 

[legend001523]

Do you mean290 x2?

 

[George002000]

Do you mean290 x2?

Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Tri-X OC 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card that's what i mean

 

[legend001523]

Why no 290x? Did we rule out the 780ti?

 

[George002000]

The R9 290 is better then the ti because the ti is more money and not that much better.

 

[George002000]

Which one are you finalizing? R9 290 CF or R9 290X CF?
If its R9 290 CF, then here's my experience with the single R9 290 (Sapphire Tri X) on My 4k (Asus 60Hz 1ms):

Hello!

Firstly, yes its 60Hz. Mine is just a week old, so don't expect crystal clear info on each and every aspect, I'm yet to explore them. I'd try my best to be transparent.

So I bought it about a week ago. Assembled my rig with it. It booted, no lag nothing.

General performance: Well its perfect! Its acting like I am on a FHD and not 4k. By that I mean no lag, no clutter, crystal clear performance.

Video Streaming: Oh its absolutely amazing. tried some 4k videos from youtube, and my god was I amazed!

Gaming-normal: Easy to handle games work without ANY sort of lag or error or anything. CoD Ghost was ice cream. Even Watch Dogs was not that bad, yeah some lag on Ultra but visibly clear on very high, and lagfree on high. Didn't expect R9 290 to be so good! I was actually thinking of CFX but I don't think I'll need it for a while. GTA V no lags.

The above games I could run at 35-45 on Ultra and 45-55 on very high. 60+ on high. What a performance R9!

Ultra gaming Multiplayer: So it was the hardest test, with BF4 and Far Cry 3 at ultra on Multiplayer.

I didn't have Crysis 3 so couldn't check.

Ultra: Both 35-40 FPS on Single player.
Multiplayer: BF4 got to about 35 FPS thanks to multi core optimization. FC3 stuck at around 30 FPS. NOT BAD!

VFX: I built this PC so that it specifically suits my VFX and Video rendering needs. I'm VFX undergraduate and have seen and worked with more cards than I could possibly name.
The experience was really good, the RAM was also crucial here, thanks lord I have CL9 Corsair Dominator Platinum @ 1866MHz. No lags, no screen drops, no difficulty in hovering my mouse around lol 😀
When I was converting and rendering heavy landscapes, the card was running well and I think I was able to open Chrome and listen to some music.

The display is more crisp than my eyes lol. Its so huge (pixel count wise) and fast my eyes envy it hehe Not a single lag in any sort of streaming or multi tasking. Very bright and vibrant display. I'm in love with my rig.

Overall: OMG what you waiting for! 😀

That's a PM I sent to one of the members here on his request to write up a review of my R9 290 on 4k.
Just imagine what 2 R9 290s will do! Absolute wonder!
50+ FPS on latest titles on ultra is sure. Maybe even more 😀

Also, I just wrote a tutorial for 4k vs 3XFHD, you might want to check that out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/faq/id-2261324/extreme-builds-3x1080p.html

Is this the card you've got?
https://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics+Cards/AMD+Radeon/Radeon+R9+290/Sapphire+Radeon+R9+290+Tri-X+OC+4096MB+GDDR5+PCI-Express+Graphics+Card+?productId=59704

Or do you have the 290x?

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Yes I own the card you provided in the link (the R9 290), and not the R9 290X.

 

[George002000]

Yes I own the card you provided in the link (the R9 290), and not the R9 290X.

How much better is the R9 290x?

 

[legend001523]

Your sentence contradicted itaelf, you say the r9 290 is better than the ti then you say it's not that much better..

 

[MeteorsRaining]

R9 290 is IMO a better choice, Tri-X overclocks like heaven and performs hell better than many R9 290X. Technically, its a matter of 2-5 FPS which I don't feel is worth the extra $100-120.
Compare: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review/4
The R9 290X was designed spcifically for 4k though, but CF of 290 vs 290X is also head to head.

^This's not in 4k but should give you some idea.
4k Test of R9 290 CF: http://www.legitreviews.com/xfx-radeon-r9-290-crossfire-video-card-review-at-4k-ultra-hd_139418/4

 

[George002000]

So the R9 290 4gb is the best in crossfire?

 

[George002000]

Oh wait no the titan's better.

 

[George002000]

Guys i need some help..

 

[MeteorsRaining]

Titan is not better in gaming compared to R9 290/ 290X CF or 780 Ti SLI.

 

[George002000]

Witch card/cards should i get? for 4k gaming?

 

[George002000]

To be honest with you i don't really play battle field. But i do play it. I want a card or cards that can run battle field on middle settings and that can run games like fifa counter strike and cod on max settings. And games like farcry and watch dogs on middle.
If you guys where in my poison what card/cards would you get? remember I've got $1200 buget.