Best 4K graphics card?

[CAaronD]

Anybody know a good 4K graphics card/cards that can run games such as Crysis 3, Battlefield 4 and so on with 4K and max settings and 40+ FPS? I'm not actually going to buy one so my budget is 2,000.

 

[nikoli707]

you guys should really be ditching 3dm11 and be running firestrike 4k as it is a far more realistic load that the gpu will be seeing running modern and upcoming games.

 

[CAaronD]

Let me ask you guys one thing. What are the benefits of playing at 4K? Other than the fact that you don't need to put any AA?

Much clearer picture, also especially helps when an enemy is just one tiny dot, with 1080p you may not be able to make out his head and mistake it for a rock. But with 4K you would be able to see every single detail there and you would have some advantages, etc. Basically much more detail.

 

[David Harrison]

Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourself

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K

Sorry

 

[David Harrison]

4k gaming is sky rocketing!

 

[Aphala]

R9 295X2 > Everything else (Currently)

295X2 is base god for 4k I have heard and seen that you can cap 44fps maxed on a lot of games.

 

[CAaronD]

This is an unofficial thread already lol. Yeah, but R9 295x2 is currently the king of 4K. Back when I asked this, the only options were 780ti/R9 290x. Do you think the 390s would be good as people have stopped mining with GPU's? How much performance increase do you think we will be seeing from the 390's.

 

[nikoli707]

This is an unofficial thread already lol. Yeah, but R9 295x2 is currently the king of 4K. Back when I asked this, the only options were 780ti/R9 290x. Do you think the 390s would be good as people have stopped mining with GPU's? How much performance increase do you think we will be seeing from the 390's.

two 290x's in cfx put up the same numbers than the 295x2 at almost half the price. i seriously dont understand why one would spend twice the money for the same performance.

for $1300 you can d5pump+360rad+ek block two 290x's and run about 1400mhz core and demolish the 295x2.

 

[Karadjgne]

Heres the problem with dual cards vrs dual gpu. Everybodys main pcie runs at x16, and for some they only have 1 pcie slot. Unless you run a 2011, pretty much you are stuck with x16/x4 or best case is x8/x8.

The 295x2 is an all in one, if it leaks its covered under warranty. Building your own wc cooling you dont get that. 1 drip while the pc is running and you potentially get a fried 290x.
The warranty alone is wort whatever small difference in price you imagine full wc xfire 290x's would be, besides the performance issues with my capable, but eminently feeble x16/x4 mobo

 

[nikoli707]

Heres the problem with dual cards vrs dual gpu. Everybodys main pcie runs at x16, and for some they only have 1 pcie slot. Unless you run a 2011, pretty much you are stuck with x16/x4 or best case is x8/x8.

The 295x2 is an all in one, if it leaks its covered under warranty. Building your own wc cooling you dont get that. 1 drip while the pc is running and you potentially get a fried 290x.
The warranty alone is wort whatever small difference in price you imagine full wc xfire 290x's would be, besides the performance issues with my capable, but eminently feeble x16/x4 mobo

very true... but i would imagine those who are actually going to purchase a $1400 gpu are definitely using at least a 3930k. though if one is not comfortable with blocking their card and running the water... the peace of mind is worth it.

 

[CAaronD]

4790k has enough horsepower for a R9 295x2. And it isn't really worth it to get a 4930k/3930k now as the new 5000 series are coming out. Also I think the main reason for buying the R9 295x2 is convenience, warranty, etc like he mentioned above. I'm quite sure that dual R9 390's (non x) Would already be able to keep up with the R9 295x2 if not beat it (not including the cooling part) I'm very sure we will be experiencing somewhere around a 10% performance boost from the 390x's over the 290x's.

 

[nikoli707]

i didn't mean right now... i just meant anyone with a $1400 gpu budget probably already had a $1400 budget for the rest of their rig and 1155/1150 wouldnt have cut it for them. my friend has a 3930k for almost 2 years now, he has sli 680s... but is debating on getting 290s for cfx since he can still sell his 680s for a decent price and the upgrade would only cost him $200-300. another friend was recommending to him to just get the 295x2 and i said no way.

 

[WildZeppelin]

Thought I'd give people an update on what it's been like gaming at 4K... Even with the 30Hz limitation, Farcry3 at Ultra settings at 4K looks stunning and runs smooth. Been playing Borderlands 2 and it's the same. I am having trouble with Skyrim, as it gets sluggish when turning around quickly. My version is heavily modded, so it is possible there are some problems yet to be fixed with that community. I know at 1080 I didn't have visual issues, but at 4K I'm getting the words "level up" always displayed on the screen. Can't find any info about anyone else seeing this, but I did a reinstall and got the same issue even without the mods at that resolution.
Tomb Raider looks sick at 4K, ultra. I can't understand how anyone would say 4K isn't worth it. I can tell you this, unless you're blind or just outright ignorant, there is a HUGE difference. Movies on my bluray player coming in HDMI 1.4 @ 60hz look amazing, but even running off my PC with Cyberlink Powerdvd 14 @ 30HZ (the pc is doing the upscaling to 4K), I can see far more detail and better colors. Games like Farcry 3 and even GTA4 at 4K display so much more on the screen at proper spacing so I've noticed far more accuracy in aiming, steering, collisions, ease of recognizing textures behind others..... Sure 1080 looks fine on a 1080 screen. Set at 4K screen next to it and you'd be amazed at the difference you don't realize is being lost.
HDMI 2.0:.... I'm really upset about this part of the set/w gpu co-op. I'd have thought by now there would be options, but we're in the 10th month of the 2nd year of 4K and haven't heard buttkuss from either GPU company. What I have now in my stats does an amazing job, so I'm not complaining. But you DO NOT need SLI to enjoy 4K gaming. My components aren't the best out and I'm enjoying the hell out of gaming. Anyway, if anyone has any questions about how things run, I'd be glad to tell you what I'm seeing.

 

[Jeffery Okada]

if your looking at gaming at 3840x2160 60hz DONT BUY ANYTHING YET!!!
DisplayPort 1.2 at the moment will not support a single stream image and will only produce a 4k image at 60hz using Multi stream transport (MST).
At the moment HDMI 2.0 is the only way at getting a true 4k image at 60hz with out the use of MST.
At this stage there is no GPU that supports HDMI 2.0 and Nvidia will not say when or even if they will have HDMI 2.0 on there next gen cards.
I also spoke to DisplayPort and they have told me that DP 1.2 not will but "might" support Single stream transport, but there has been no testing or research towards this so it don't look good for DisplayPort.
So untitled HDMI 2.0 is released onto a GPU. Your only option is to buy one of those MST screens and throw it away when the appropriate technology is released.
So if ya on a budget I would wait out.

I want to confirm this AND also add..... I just purchased a 4k Samsung monitor. I have 2x 7970 Sapphire cards in CS. I wanted to use HDMI and I was only getting 30hz. It was horrible. Then I moved over the the display port and was able to achieve 60hz. But it DID work on Mini-DP

Also adding to the 'what we can see with our eyes' pixel wise..... this is very true. I bought a 28 inch monitor and was very anxious when I ordered my screen... I was kind of annoyed that I have to change ALL of my font, customize my windows sizes, etc.... I could barely read anything without my glasses. So if you plan on getting a 4k, it should be at least 40' in my opinion.

I have been able to get 30-40fps, (sometimes higher) on maximum resolutions and details on most games on CS 7970 Cards. Once I hit the Aliasing past 2x, it gets unplayable.

 

[gridironcj]

With the current hardware available, I'd go with 3x GTX 780 6GBs if you want to stay under $2000 for your graphics solution. If money is not an option, 3 GTX Titan Blacks would give you great performance. However, you should wait until the 980 is officially announced and benchmarks are revealed.

 

[Darthmullet]

if your looking at gaming at 3840x2160 60hz DONT BUY ANYTHING YET!!!
DisplayPort 1.2 at the moment will not support a single stream image and will only produce a 4k image at 60hz using Multi stream transport (MST).
At the moment HDMI 2.0 is the only way at getting a true 4k image at 60hz with out the use of MST.
At this stage there is no GPU that supports HDMI 2.0 and Nvidia will not say when or even if they will have HDMI 2.0 on there next gen cards.
I also spoke to DisplayPort and they have told me that DP 1.2 not will but "might" support Single stream transport, but there has been no testing or research towards this so it don't look good for DisplayPort.
So untitled HDMI 2.0 is released onto a GPU. Your only option is to buy one of those MST screens and throw it away when the appropriate technology is released.
So if ya on a budget I would wait out.

I want to confirm this AND also add..... I just purchased a 4k Samsung monitor. I have 2x 7970 Sapphire cards in CS. I wanted to use HDMI and I was only getting 30hz. It was horrible. Then I moved over the the display port and was able to achieve 60hz. But it DID work on Mini-DP

Also adding to the 'what we can see with our eyes' pixel wise..... this is very true. I bought a 28 inch monitor and was very anxious when I ordered my screen... I was kind of annoyed that I have to change ALL of my font, customize my windows sizes, etc.... I could barely read anything without my glasses. So if you plan on getting a 4k, it should be at least 40' in my opinion.

I have been able to get 30-40fps, (sometimes higher) on maximum resolutions and details on most games on CS 7970 Cards. Once I hit the Aliasing past 2x, it gets unplayable.

Honestly, the people that say you can't tell a difference before xxx screen size or xxx viewing distance are blowing a bunch of hooey. We really don't know the limits of the human eye, and the naysayers are just against progress. People said the same thing about 1080p and 720p, and if you can't tell the difference than I'm sorry for your poor eyesight but it just isn't true.

Its really easy to tell the difference between 4k and 1440p, let alone 1080p. I know, I've personally compared a 23.5" 1080p screen, a 27" 1440p screen, and a 28" 4k screen. You can tell the difference, easily.

I happen to agree that the 28" 4k should not currently be your #1 choice, but it isn't because the resolution isn't beautiful for videos or gaming, its because interface scaling isn't ready for it yet. Windows 9 will hopefully be fixing a lot of that. That isn't about resolution, its software.

Concerning the OP, I'd say with the recent price drop by AMD (R9 295x2 video cards are $999.99 with two free games) that that is hands down the card you want. There is no better deal that will run as quiet and cool. A custom water cooling loop on xfire 290x will be more expensive.

 

[dooa]

Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourself

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K

Sorry

Looking at that chart so many have posted I see 1080P should be replaced at around 28" screen size given a normal viewing distance for a PC which is 24 to 30 inches. I sit at 26".
I am currently running a 28" Asus 4K with two 290x DCUOC pushing Display port 1.2 and frame rates in games are in the 60 FPS range which is the maximum for the monitor. I do notice a dramatic improvement in picture quality and gameplay as I get more information than 1080P provides.
You can get 4K now or wait for the price to come down, but there is no doubt 4K is better than 1080P all else being equal.

 

[chris1111]

Hello guys I am a programmer and i want to use 2 4K monitors Im not going to be gaming just extreme multitasking
and i don't want spend ridiculous amounts of money on a graphic card do you guys have any alternatives?

CPU choice: intel core i7 6 core 3.3ghz,

Monitors : 2* Asus PB287Q,

RAM: 32GB DDR3 2400mhz

Thanks:
😉

 

[RhinoBW]

I see a lot of talk justifying 4k by using 40" tv's. I will say this, I used to game on my 42" 1080p plasma and I did this for a year. I sat maybe four feet from it and yeah, it was great. Then I decided to go with a convential desk and three 27" 1080p IPS LED with super thin bezels.

Sometimes I miss that big screen, but I would much rather have my three monitors. Let me share some things that I had realized between a 42" and three 27":

1) After a certain amount of time, you fail to realize how big or small these screens in front of you truly are. You become too engrossed in the subject matter. The distance that I sat from a 1080p 42" made the pixels more noticeable and using a 1080p 27" makes the image more crisp; but, guess what? You truthfully don't notice it unless you are purposely bringing it to your attention to analyze it. None of this crispness, or lack-there-of, will come into play unless you are having a difficult time seeing/reading something (a nonexistant problem at these distances).

2) None of that matters with a triple monitor setup. Yes, you may fail to always notice those two monitors on your side, but you will never fail to realize how this opens up your view. It is an almost subconscious peripheal vision. Furthermore, particularly for RPG's and MMO's, these screens make great space to place quest logs, mini-maps, or even keep inventory and maps open and out of your main view (the center screen). Multiple monitors really opens things up for you and I really hate gaming on that single screen when it comes down to my ps4 and xbone.

Up to you, but between 4k and triple 1080p monitors, I will take the triple.

 

[dooa]

I went the opposite way that Rhino went. I had triple 1080 and got tired of one system taking all my desk space and jaggy text. I read online as much as I game and at 24" from a 28" monitor I find the difference in text quite noticeable. In games I was using the two side monitors for junk. In MMO's I had maps and inventory open which is only one keystroke and really not used all that often. In FPS I have tunnel vision and almost never get information from the side monitors. My FPS scores have not changed. The triple setup is certainly more immersive, but not more productive. The 4K at 60 Hz with its clearer text is more productive.
I set up a second system to the right of my main with my old monitor and like that set up much better. My game stays up and I can search on the second system. I have open space on the left for notes, food, iPhone, and headset rack.
Wifey just had cataract surgery and she is demanding a 4K. Her 27" 1080 is just not cutting it now that she can see better. Again, it is the text that pushes her to higher resolution, not gaming, although the games do look a LOT better. If you cannot see a dramatic change at 24" between a 27" 1080P and 4K, you need your glasses changed.

 

[CAaronD]

My eyesight is pretty bad to be honest (200 degrees on both eyes) and I normally don't wear my glasses when using the PC. Yet I can still see the difference between 1080p and 1440p on monitors of the same size. I'm currently using a 1080p monitor now however. I've never compared a 1440p monitor and 4K before though. Although I don't suppose there will be much difference, I should try that some day?

 

[Kernoll]

I'm running 4K with 2xGTX690's. The difference in how sharp the picture is compared to before is incredible. I'm getting around 35-40 fps and would like to see that get back up to 60 fps. I think that dual Titan Z's would be the best answer at this time. However, the GTX980's are supposed to come out soon with 8 GB VRAM which would make them perfect for 4K gaming.

 

[nikoli707]

the new AMDs are coming out in June.. I think that fiji xt is going to be nice

theres a rumor going around that the 300s are a bunch of rebrands. I dont believe it.

has nothing to do with this thread. and yes, many 300 series will be rebrands, this is already confirmed.