Gtx 7870 (non TI) at 4k?

[dragotx]

How would a single GTX 780 3gb card perform at 4k resolution? The rest of my machine is plenty beefy (i7 4790, 16gb), but I'm not sure about the card.

 

[mr91]

Not enough juice, I suggest a Titan X...

 

[13thmonkey]

sli 970, sli 980

 

[Wisecracker]

GTX 780 = GTX 970 (roughly speaking)

At 3840x2160, the 780 might run a bit better (because of the *3.5*GB thang on the 970).

Any reason you are not going 1440p, or 3-monitor "Surround" ??

 

[mr91]

Titan X is a better solution because of the extra Vram in my opinion...

 

[mr91]

GTX 780 = GTX 970 (roughly speaking)

At 3840x2160, the 780 might run a bit better (because of the *3.5*GB thang on the 970).

Any reason you are not going 1440p, or 3-monitor "Surround" ??

3.5 is better than 3, the gtx 970 is performs significantly better than the 780 in my opinion.
The 970's Overclock better and the Maxwell architecture is better for new games.
I would take a 970 over a 780 ti without a doubt and the 780 ti is significantly better than the 780.

 

[MarkW]

4k video generates over 8 MILLION pixels per frame, and you probably would like 60 of those frames per second...

Thats roughly 4 times the pixels of a 1080p monitor, and roughly 2.5 times a 2560x1440p monitor.

Do the math. Can your video card get you 210 FPS now at 1080? Or 130 FPS at 1440?

No?

Could 4 Titan X's in SLI on a X99 motherboard do it? Depends on the game, but for most of the new ones, and all of the photorealistic games, the answer would still be, "No!".

I've worked in the PC industry for 35 years. And it seems like every time video cards almost catch up with whatever technologies game developers have started using to bring us the latest games, the game developers start using newer stuff, and that pushes the FPS numbers back down again. And that is where we are right now. In a few years, we will have much faster video cards than we have today, and most of these games will play very smoothly on our new systems. But it is a cat and mouse game. And right now, the cat is eating the mouse alive.

 

[13thmonkey]

4k video generates over 8 MILLION pixels per frame, and you probably would like 60 of those frames per second...

Thats roughly 8 times the pixels of a 1080p monitor, and roughly 4 times a 2560x1440p monitor.

Do the math. Can your video card get you 420 FPS now at 1080? Or 300 FPS at 1440?

No?

Could 4 Titan X's in SLI on a X99 motherboard do it? Depends on the game, but for most of the new ones, and all of the photorealistic games, the answer would still be, "No!".

I've worked in the PC industry for 35 years. And it seems like every time video cards almost catch up with whatever technologies game developers have started using to bring us the latest games, the game developers start using newer stuff, and that pushes the FPS numbers back down again. And that is where we are right now. In a few years, we will have much faster video cards than we have today, and most of these games will play very smoothly on our new systems. But it is a cat and mouse game. And right now, the cat is eating the mouse alive.

4k/2160p is only 4 times (not 8) the resolution of 1080p, you can fit 4 1080p screens in a 2x2 grid to get the same resolution.
compared to 1440p its a factor of 2.3 (not 4)

Actual 4k benchmarks:
2 way sli on GTx980's is acceptable in many conditions, often at ultra, so at high or lower it should manage it more easily.
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/79/amd-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-cf-vs-titan-sli-gtx-980-4k/index.html

 

[MarkW]

ok, you're right.

 

[Wisecracker]

... 3.5 is better than 3, the gtx 970 is performs significantly better than the 780 in my opinion.

My understanding is ... it's not a question of the "3.5 versus 3"

It's the higher latency of the .5GB -- it drags the other 3.5 down. So much so that the 'performance' when demanded at higher resolutions backs up to the Radeons ...

 

[dragotx]

GTX 780 = GTX 970 (roughly speaking)

At 3840x2160, the 780 might run a bit better (because of the *3.5*GB thang on the 970).

Any reason you are not going 1440p, or 3-monitor "Surround" ??

Mainly because the price difference on the two is too close to justify going with a lower resolution, when I figure I'll be upgrading my video card next year anyway.

 

[dragotx]

4k video generates over 8 MILLION pixels per frame, and you probably would like 60 of those frames per second...

Thats roughly 4 times the pixels of a 1080p monitor, and roughly 2.5 times a 2560x1440p monitor.

Do the math. Can your video card get you 210 FPS now at 1080? Or 130 FPS at 1440?

No?

Could 4 Titan X's in SLI on a X99 motherboard do it? Depends on the game, but for most of the new ones, and all of the photorealistic games, the answer would still be, "No!".

I've worked in the PC industry for 35 years. And it seems like every time video cards almost catch up with whatever technologies game developers have started using to bring us the latest games, the game developers start using newer stuff, and that pushes the FPS numbers back down again. And that is where we are right now. In a few years, we will have much faster video cards than we have today, and most of these games will play very smoothly on our new systems. But it is a cat and mouse game. And right now, the cat is eating the mouse alive.

I'm not too worried about setting games to ultra at 4k, I figure the extra resolution will help make up for quite a bit in that regards. I really wish I could find someplace with a 4k setup running so I can see how much difference it really makes.

 

[13thmonkey]

^i think that medium at 4k would look as nice as ultra at 1080p, but I can't prove it.

 

[mr91]

ok, you're right.

2x Titan X's is the way to go however this is a costly option...

 

[mr91]

... 3.5 is better than 3, the gtx 970 is performs significantly better than the 780 in my opinion.

My understanding is ... it's not a question of the "3.5 versus 3"

It's the higher latency of the .5GB -- it drags the other 3.5 down. So much so that the 'performance' when demanded at higher resolutions backs up to the Radeons ...

Example

Play Watchdogs with ultra textures with a 780 or 780 ti and you will experience hitching and stuttering @ 1080p & 1440p.

Play with watchdogs with 1080p ultra textures with a 970 and you don't have a problem because you don't exceed the 3.5...

Many games exceed 3 however are below 3.5 these days...

980 is a better option however Titan X is the ideal option...

 

[mr91]

... 3.5 is better than 3, the gtx 970 is performs significantly better than the 780 in my opinion.

My understanding is ... it's not a question of the "3.5 versus 3"

It's the higher latency of the .5GB -- it drags the other 3.5 down. So much so that the 'performance' when demanded at higher resolutions backs up to the Radeons ...

Example

Play Watchdogs with ultra textures with a 780 or 780 ti and you will experience hitching and stuttering @ 1080p & 1440p.

Play with watchdogs with 1080p ultra textures with a 970 and you don't have a problem because you don't exceed the 3.5...

Many games exceed 3 however are below 3.5 these days...

980 is a better option however Titan X is the ideal option...

 

[mr91]

^i think that medium at 4k would look as nice as ultra at 1080p, but I can't prove it.

Possibly however even if you statement is correct the OP might need more than a gtx 780 for 4k @ medium settings depending on the game...

 

[MarkW]

4k gaming is still something for people that have lots of money to blow. That will change over time, but we are not even close to being there yet.

 

[mr91]

I agree, I think the sweet spot is 1440p.

 

[mr91]

2 x Titan X's with a decent processor will do a decent job powering a 4k 60 hz Monitor and will have enough VRAM...