Gaming in 4k?

[wolfxmanjr]

Looking to buy a 4k monitor but I don't wanna waste money if I can't run it... Can my pc go 4k


Moba-Msi z170a gaming m5
Cpu- i7 6700k 4.2gh
Msi gtx 1080 8g x
16gb ddr4 ripjaws (2stick)

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Yes you can run 4K. Different games perform differently. Do you already have a monitor? What resolution/refresh rate?

*Battlefield 1 will not run well, low settings might get you 60fps. CoD will run great though at 60fps on high/ultra.

I ran the CoD WWII Beta at max settings in 4K w/ GTX 1070. Lowering anti-aliasing would have helped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTdo0taTAiU

I ran BF1 on ultra and was sitting at ~32fps. Low settings got me 55-65fps.

 

[ibjeepr]

Most consider a 1080 Ti the entry point to 60 FPS, 4k gaming and even that isn't at max settings. You can do it but with settings low enough to give the FPS you are comfortable with. Each game will vary.

 

[wolfxmanjr]

No I have not bought a 4k yet don't plan on it unless It will run great I'm going to be playing destiny 2

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

No I have not bought a 4k yet don't plan on it unless It will run great I'm going to be playing destiny 2

Well I'm asking if you already have a 1080p or high refresh rate monitor?

I believe 144Hz is better for first-person shooter games because it's a smoother gaming experience. I don't think GTX 1080 will do that with good graphics settings in 4K.

 

[photonboy]

1) Whether you can game at 4K or not doesn't even matter much. You can set the games to a LOWER RESOLUTION as needed and have the monitor simply scale (set to ASPECT scaling on monitor).

2) I would NOT get a 4K monitor unless you feel you have a specific need such as a video editing program (some are worse at 4K due to text scaling issues, and some are better)

3) Hard to recommend a monitor without a budget. The best monitors for NVidia graphics cards are GSYNC. Such as:

GSYNC
2560x1440
IPS
4ms (or less) response time
27" or greater
144Hz or greater

(alternatively ultrawide 3440x1440, 100Hz... but ultrawides have many scaling/support issues with games.. and they cost more)

OTHER:
Just quickly looked up and saw "You can do it but with settings low enough..."

That's a pretty dumb way to play a game really. Drop the QUALITY SETTINGS so that that you can hit 4K? It will only help smooth out some jagged edges (anti-aliasing).

There is always a BEST COMBINATION of resolution, FPS, visual settings that gives the best experience in a game. With a GTX1080 most games should be run at 2560x1440. Rarely will 4K make sense.

 

[ibjeepr]

1)

OTHER:
Just quickly looked up and saw "You can do it but with settings low enough..."

That's a pretty dumb way to play a game really. Drop the QUALITY SETTINGS so that that you can hit 4K? It will only help smooth out some jagged edges (anti-aliasing).

That's not your call to make, the info is for the OP to process and make their decision regardless of if you think it's "dumb" or not.

 

[ak47jar3d]

I game in 4k with a lesser gtx 980ti and you should be able to just fine. The picture quality will be much better than most monitors but won't be as smooth as 144hz plus monitors.

 

[geofelt]

It depends on the types of games you will play.
Fast action gaming at 4K requires a very strong graphics card.

OTOH, if you favor strategy or mmo types, then you may very well be satisfied with 60fps.
Many 4k monitors can't go faster anyway.

I had a similar situation some time ago with a GTX980ti.
I decided to get the 4k monitor first. It let me know just what I needed and what to expect with a stronger graphics card.

Buy the 4k monitor first; you may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[doubletake]

If you're ok with settling for less than max settings and/or ~60FPS, then you can get by with a 1080 in quite a few games. However, you really need to move up a notch if you want good 4k performance across the board. A single 1080Ti/Titan X does 4k about as well as a GTX 1060 does 1080p. You should either wait until that level of performance hits the lower x070 tier, or until they put out a flagship that's about twice as fast as the current ones.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

I forgot to mention when I played CoD WWII Beta, I played in 1080p 144Hz (150-200fps) and 4K 60Hz (60fps) and 1080p 144Hz was a MUCH better experience. 60fps in 4K still seems laggy to me *for that type of FPS game.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

I would wait and see how the GTX 1080 performs in Destiny 2 at 4K. It may do over 100fps, we don't know yet. Maybe tomorrow we will see.

 

[photonboy]

$750USD: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

That's pretty expensive. Hard to justify to most people, but it's GSYNC, 165Hz... one of the best gaming monitors but if your monitor is okay I'd WAIT for prices to drop.

$300 ish:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/T8dFf7/dell-monitor-u2515h

I bought my sister this monitor (25", IPS, 60Hz). It's a great value IMO. I game on a 27" version of similar specs (and GTX1080 gaming rig).

OTHER:
For 144Hz monitors without GSYNC support, you should learn how to use Adaptive VSYNC (Half Refresh) to synch to 72FPS.

NCP-> manage 3d settings-> program settings (add game)-> .. save

then tweak game settings so you get about 5% drops below 72FPS (you'll get screen tearing but not added STUTTER).

*144Hz is less prone to show bad screen tears, especially if the FPS is fairly low, so many games should simply use VSYNC OFF. Do not simply turn VSYNC ON blindly, and don't use it if you can't maintain 144FPS anyway.

Setting an FPS cap is also a good idea (with VSYNC OFF) in some games such as maybe 50FPS cap for Assassin's Creed Unity (if screen tears aren't obvous), 2560x1440 (only the top anti-aliasing settings kills the FPS rate in that game... on my GTX1080 setup I turned that off to mostly maintain 60FPS with Adaptive VSYNC forced on for my 60Hz monitor)

**Again, understanding how VSYNC works is very important for setting up a gaming rig. you can have a CRAPPY EXPERIENCE on the best system in the world if you don't set some games up correctly.

OTHER:
I should add that graphics cards will consume more power once the bandwidth to the monitor goes up (i.e. 2560x1440, 165Hz). Sometimes a LOT. Look into that if you decide to go that way. Not sure where it stands today as NVidia fixed some of the issues in the drivers to prevent the GPU frequency/voltage jumping too high when it got stressed with more desktop bandwidth.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

^What about Nvidia Fast Sync?

 

[ak47jar3d]

^What about Nvidia Fast Sync?

xD BURN!

 

[wolfxmanjr]

Ok so I will not be buying a 4k monster yet! But I still need a better moniter I'm currently using (2x Lenovo model# LI2323s)

I would like to main game on my middle (the new monitor) and just use the two others for discord/utube/twitch/maps anything really what would be a few amazing monitors to put in the middle of these two I have does not haft to match but needs to be able to work with the msi 1080x I have 1dvi/1hdmi/3 other plugs idk what they are

 

[photonboy]

^What about Nvidia Fast Sync?

MEH.
First of all, the game must be outputting (at minimum) just over 2x the FPS compared to the Hz of the monitor. For example, just over 120FPS if the monitor is 60Hz.

What happens is the GPU output is uncapped, then the last FULLY COMPLETE frame is used and any others discarded (if it does over 180FPS you drop two full frames every refresh cycle).

This reduces some of the LAG (latency). It's better than VSYNC ON, but not as good as GSYNC, nor is it as good as 120FPS on a 120Hz monitor.

I have a GTX1080 and experimented with several games but found I simply didn't notice the benefit. I tried i COD MW2 (old game) and was toggling between 120FPS and 180FPS but it really didn't feel much different than a locked 60FPS experience though I'm no "twitch shooter" so may be that's just me.

Heck, I tried VSYNC OFF and was jumping over 200FPS at times and that seemed about the same. I thought I'd see a lot of screen tear but I saw NONE. (it's there, but wasn't obvious)... weird because I thought High FPS vs Low Refresh made it weird, and High Refresh vs Low FPS was good for not seeing tears.

SUMMARY:
to be clear, the monitor itself still updates like normal (always do unless GSYNC/Freesync) such as 60x per second, and Fast Sync still always uses VSYNC.

So the only difference is in choosing the frame output from the GPU to ensure it's the newest one possible. So no screen tearing, and slightly reduced lag (though I felt no obvious difference).

OTHER:
I laughed my ass off when AMD was explaining how it "switched" from Freesync to their version of Fast Sync (part of Enhanced Sync or something). Why? Well they explained on a 144Hz monitor, so what was the scenario you'd expect that to work in?

I mean you'd have to be hitting over 288FPS for that portion to be active. You don't run an average, say, 120FPS in a shooter than "switch" over to that option. Not saying there's no point, but people need to understand how the technology works to use it correctly.

 

[photonboy]

Ok so I will not be buying a 4k monster yet! But I still need a better moniter I'm currently using (2x Lenovo model# LI2323s)

I would like to main game on my middle (the new monitor) and just use the two others for discord/utube/twitch/maps anything really what would be a few amazing monitors to put in the middle of these two I have does not haft to match but needs to be able to work with the msi 1080x I have 1dvi/1hdmi/3 other plugs idk what they are

Be careful mixing monitors.
I'm having a hard time confirming whether mixing REFRESH RATES (i.e. 60Hz + 144Hz, or 60Hz + GSYNC) causes problems.

It did, but not certain if it still does.

 

[photonboy]

^What about Nvidia Fast Sync?

xD BURN!

what does "burn" mean?

if you didn't notice yet I explain Fast Sync above

 

[wolfxmanjr]

I will only be gaming on the new monitor in the middle

 

[geofelt]

I will only be gaming on the new monitor in the middle

That is the right thing to do.
There are very few games that actually can use all three monitors.
A game will be directed to the primary monitor; that should be the one in the middle.
I might suggest a nice 27" 1440P monitor. Possibly a 30" 1600P monitor which is a bit uncommon.
For fast action games, you might want one with a faster tn panel.
OTOH, if you care more about image quality, look for a monitor with a IPS or similar panel.
Modern graphics cards are using more DP connectors that can handle higher resolutions at higher speeds. Pick a monitor with at least a good DP input.


Gaming performance will not be impacted by the two side monitors. They will be displaying largely static stuff like email or performance monitors.

 

[photonboy]

I will only be gaming on the new monitor in the middle

That is the right thing to do.
There are very few games that actually can use all three monitors.
A game will be directed to the primary monitor; that should be the one in the middle.
I might suggest a nice 27" 1440P monitor. Possibly a 30" 1600P monitor which is a bit uncommon.
For fast action games, you might want one with a faster tn panel.
OTOH, if you care more about image quality, look for a monitor with a IPS or similar panel.
Modern graphics cards are using more DP connectors that can handle higher resolutions at higher speeds. Pick a monitor with at least a good DP input.


Gaming performance will not be impacted by the two side monitors. They will be displaying largely static stuff like email or performance monitors.

all true, though I'll add:
1) 1600p not recommended. I would stick with 16x9 ratio
2) again, try to confirm if MIXING REFRESH RATES is problematic. I can't find info I trust (doesn't matter if they are all the same such as 60Hz)

I've even heard some people say they had a 144Hz monitor on the main GPU, and secondary 60Hz monitors on the iGPU (motherboard connections) to fix this issue which again may or may not still exist.

3) some games may work best with FULLSCREEN mode