Choosing a 4k gaming graphics card(s) first build.

KadoSeth

Reputable
Sep 9, 2014
4
0
4,510
Hi this is my first post and build. I want to build something that i can game at 4k on staying above 60 fps (preferably much higher) on the X99 Rampage V mobo. What graphics card(s) should i get and id like to keep the card(s) under 3000. Thanks
also here's my build on part-picker any advice is appreciated.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/BV9G23
 
Solution


If you're considering a new monitor and you don't mind spending a lot, you really can't get any better than this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236405

Its very expensive, but once you factor in all the insane video hardware you'd need for 4K, this would be a cheaper option as a whole. And in...
yea the tech just isnt really there yet for 60fps + 4k gaming. That technology is still a few years away. Hell i run 2 780ti classifieds and at 4k gaming they only get 30'ish tops. If you are trying to do 60 fps+ at 4k you're gonna be waiting a few years sorry to say.
 

oxiide

Distinguished


Look at the benchmarks I posted. Most of those games break 60 FPS with a single 295X2. Battlefield 4 with ultra quality at nearly 70 FPS. I'd personally prefer 1440p @ 120/144 Hz, but 4K at 60 FPS is certainly doable with a budget like this.
 
Thos number from the link oxiide put up seem a little on the high side......Here are some from another site that IMO are a little more realistic at 4k ultra settings http://www.eteknix.com/4k-gaming-showdown-amd-r9-290x-crossfire-vs-nvidia-gtx-780-ti-sli/5/

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gtx_780_ti_sli_geforce_review,17.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/geforce-gtx-780-ti-sli_4.html#sect3

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/73345-nvidia-gtx-780ti-benchmarks-review-teardown-2x-3x-4x-sli-and-4k-resolution/

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/67103-pny-gtx-780-ti-xlr8-oc-single-sli-8.html
 

KadoSeth

Reputable
Sep 9, 2014
4
0
4,510
I also forgot to mention im trying to run a total of 4 displays (3 x 27" on bottom and one ultra-wide on top) i already own 2 27" displays and ill be buying the 4k display once i get back from deployment which would be in the bottom middle. im sure this may require some extra power.

and im just getting responses now my internet in the middle of the ocean is agonizingly slow.

azzazel_99 - wow i really didn't expect that answer i was under the impression hardware was ahead of the game but maybe i was reading about gddr6. speaking of that do you think i should just wait for that? im not going to be able to build this machine till probably late Jan time frame and if i remember correctly that's coming out in the not so distant future is it not?.
 
Man honestly you are gonna be waiting i would say a MINIMUM of 2 years before 4k gaming is even a serious thing. and gddr6? Even the latest graphics cards comming out now from nvidia the 900 series is still gddr5 so again you are probably gonna be waiting till the NEXT series of gpu's which is anywhere from a year or more away and even then they may not have gddr6.
 

oxiide

Distinguished
I think many of those benchmarks are using different settings than the Anandtech review I posted. Specifically, Anandtech tested BF4 at Ultra with AA off. Realistically, how badly do you need AA at the pixel density of a 27" 3840x2160 monitor? I consider that a fair test, provided its stated by the tester.

Regardless, 4K at 60 FPS is just a matter of throwing enough money at it. The OP wanted a graphics setup for under $3000. During the announced sale on the R9 295X2, he could get two and still have $1000 left over. But it looks to me like 60-ish FPS is doable with a single 295X2 in most titles at settings I would personally consider reasonable.
 
4k gaming at high fps takes serious graphics power.
It seem like dual GTX780 class cards is the entry point.
If you are looking at triple gpu, you are starting to get into diminishing returns.

Three suggestions:
1. It is looking like we will see a GTX980 in September. At least wait for that.
2. 4k resolution has many more pixels, reducing the need for aa which puts a big burden on the graphics card. Be prepared to reduce aa in your games.
3. If you determine that you do not need triple cards and the extra pcie lanes, , a 4790K may well be the superior gaming chip. Few games will use more than 2-3 cores and a 4790K is likely to give you higher overclocks per core.
 
agree with geofelt. You can turn down and adjust graphic settings to edge your way up to the 60fps mark but after 2 cards in sli you start to gain so little you have wasted your money on anything past the second gpu. I would DEF wait for the 980 series and beyond. Yes at 4k your need for AA becomes less however these numbers are just on the games that are out right now. What about when the next series of games comes out? 4k is barely even a blip on the radar in the minds of most gamers in terms of being a serious viable option for monitors because of the just barely ability to hit the 60+ fps marks now. When the next big title comes out in a few months whoeve may make it that 60fps ability now may drop to the 40's or 30's when the next setup of games hit. I would give it a year or two for the tech and gpu power to catch up to it before you considered building a 4k gaming setup. I would probably set your eyes on 1600p or 1440p perhaps for now? Then in a year or so maybe 2 when the raw gpu power has caught up and can be considered a viable option as much as 1440 or 1600p is now then maybe upgrade your gpu to whatever is out then and live happily ever after. Completely up to you but from a not wasting money stand point that's what i would do even if i had an unlimited budget because wasting money is wasting money no matter who describes what as a waste...Everyone agrees wasting is wasting.
 

KadoSeth

Reputable
Sep 9, 2014
4
0
4,510
alright, as disappointing as the answer is between this and other posts i think im going to give up on 4k, everything considered it is kinda a waste of money im gathering. maybe one day. that being said,

what do you guys think i should get for running at 1080? should i use an ultra-widescreen monitor as my middle display? does it matter? also ive always been partial to nividia and asus, i hate being bias but i am.
 

oxiide

Distinguished


If those extra monitors will be used for desktop activities, then it won't take any appreciable extra power. Your game is still 3840x2160 pixels, that's all your hardware is concerned about. If instead you intend to play games across multiple monitors, you're definitely going to be waiting a few years. No hardware exists, or likely will exist anytime soon, to allow gaming on multiple 4K displays with playable performance. 3x 1440p is already rough enough.

While I answered the original question from the perspective that the R9 295X2 (or dual 295X2's) are the best value you can get right now for 4K gaming, and that it/they will deliver good performance most of the time, you will undoubtedly have more options available in January. I don't disagree that waiting is a good idea when so much money is at play.

We're expecting the GTX 900's in the new month or two. AMD may have something new by the time you buy as well.
 
im partial to nvidia myself although the r9 295x2 is a nice card if you are only gonna do 1080p I recommend and 290x or a 780ti. If you want more than 60fps i say the 780ti or if ur gonna run a 1440p monitor the same 2 cards i just listed. Both the 290x and the 780ti are just really nice cards.
 

oxiide

Distinguished


If you're considering a new monitor and you don't mind spending a lot, you really can't get any better than this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236405

Its very expensive, but once you factor in all the insane video hardware you'd need for 4K, this would be a cheaper option as a whole. And in my opinion, 1440p + 144 Hz + Gsync would give you a better gaming experience than what 4K offers for the foreseeable future.
 
Solution