How good is the 7970 at 4K?

[QCube]

Hey,

In my build I have the XFX Radeon 7970 Double Dissipation 3GB. It's advertised with 4K capabilities but I'm curious as to what this can actually mean? I run all my games and my primary monitor at 1080p and It's great, I get framerates at around 70-90 on Battlefield 4 in ultra with temps around 65°C to 69°C. I notice a lot of 4K monitors coming into the market slowly and the competitors for big companies to dominate in 4K monitors but I'm curious, with my graphics card, If I'm to purchase a monitor in the near future (Most likely will) would I need to upgrade my graphics card too? If it can run in 4K surely the FPS would be quite low and I would have much higher temps?

If someone could explain to me.

-Cheers.

 

[Suztera]

It can output 4k movies, videos but it is not that good for 4k gaming.

 

[17seconds]

There's a lot of 4K benchmarks in this recent review:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_280X_Gaming_6_GB/6.html

The 7970 is not shown, but you can gather it'll be just under the performance of a GTX 680. If its the GHz edition, it'll be right around the performance of a GTX 680 or 280X. Basically, its not very good for 4K.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_280X_Gaming_6_GB/9.html

 

[DSzymborski]

You need a pretty aggressive GPU solution to be gaming at 4K at reasonable framerates - remember, we're talking 4 times the pixels of 1080p. I wouldn't recommend even bothering unless you're at the R9 290x/780ti tier and I don't think you'll really see as much benefit as you may like unless you go to an R9 295x2. We're very early into the world of 4K gaming, so to take part, be prepared to pay through the nose.

 

[QCube]

You need a pretty aggressive GPU solution to be gaming at 4K at reasonable framerates - remember, we're talking 4 times the pixels of 1080p. I wouldn't recommend even bothering unless you're at the R9 290x/780ti tier and I don't think you'll really see as much benefit as you may like unless you go to an R9 295x2. We're very early into the world of 4K gaming, so to take part, be prepared to pay through the nose.

It was only a curiosity I'm having since the 7970 isn't top of the line but it's still a high end GPU. I'm waiting for the 4K monitors to drop in price and they're coming down pretty quickly with the massive competition going on so hopefully 4K monitors will eventually be reasonably priced.

 

[ingtar33]

Well, understand that most games used in graphic card benching are graphic card challanging games. I've found most games not on the benching lists use much more "modest" hardware.

The 7970 can game in 4k... just understand that 4k has something silly like x4 the pixels that 1080p has so take the framerates a 7970 will get in a game at 1080p and divide it by 4... that's not THAT accurate but you'll be surprised how accurate it is. On low settings i suspect it will manage respectfully for more modest titles, more challanging (for the hardware) games likely will be unplayable for the 7970 in 4k.

Though i got to ask, why this interest in gaming in 4k? right now, no single gpu out there can really do it, you're basically left with the choice between a titan and a 290x for 4k, and then getting a 2nd for Sli/xfire... as that's the only way you'll be able to play it respectfully in most titles. Simply put we're probably 4 years away from gpus being able to game in 4k fairly well, and likely it will take that long before 4k monitors start to come down into reasonable price ranges. Top it all off, if you can afford a monitor for 4k, you can afford a r9-295x2... which i suspect is probably required equipment for 4k gaming.

 

[QCube]

Well, understand that most games used in graphic card benching are graphic card challanging games. I've found most games not on the benching lists use much more "modest" hardware.

The 7970 can game in 4k... just understand that 4k has something silly like x4 the pixels that 1080p has so take the framerates a 7970 will get in a game at 1080p and divide it by 4... that's not THAT accurate but you'll be surprised how accurate it is. On low settings i suspect it will manage respectfully for more modest titles, more challanging (for the hardware) games likely will be unplayable for the 7970 in 4k.

Though i got to ask, why this interest in gaming in 4k? right now, no single gpu out there can really do it, you're basically left with the choice between a titan and a 290x for 4k, and then getting a 2nd for Sli/xfire... as that's the only way you'll be able to play it respectfully in most titles. Simply put we're probably 4 years away from gpus being able to game in 4k fairly well, and likely it will take that long before 4k monitors start to come down into reasonable price ranges. Top it all off, if you can afford a monitor for 4k, you can afford a r9-295x2... which i suspect is probably required equipment for 4k gaming.

I was just questioning what my GPU is capable of. I wasn't looking in to purchasing any of these things. heck it'll be 8 years before I can afford something at this price. It wasn't a expandability question, it was a question of what my current gpu is capable of.

 

[Alyus]

Simply put we're probably 4 years away from gpus being able to game in 4k fairly well, and likely it will take that long before 4k monitors start to come down into reasonable price ranges.

This explains why this guy isn't a millionaire from playing the super lotto. His comment can be no further away from the truth and it's been merely 10 months since this comment was made. 4K monitors are now under $400.00 US and the R9 395X2 is on its way.

 

[ingtar33]

Simply put we're probably 4 years away from gpus being able to game in 4k fairly well, and likely it will take that long before 4k monitors start to come down into reasonable price ranges.

This explains why this guy isn't a millionaire from playing the super lotto. His comment can be no further away from the truth and it's been merely 10 months since this comment was made. 4K monitors are now under $400.00 US and the R9 395X2 is on its way.

congrats on the old thread resurrection.


1) it won't be mainstream until it's under $200
2) any 4k monitor smaller then 27" is a waste of pixels as the human eye can't tell the difference at "computer monitor distances"
3) any $400 -27"+ 4k monitor on the market now has
-too slow a response rate for gaming
-poor colors
-ghosting issues
-assorted other quality issues
in short, it's cheap junk. To find respectable 4k GAMING quality monitors you need to add a few hundred dollars to that number
4) I'll wait to see what the r9-390 does before i start wishing for a r9-395x2, right now AMD hasn't released the single chip card yet. has no release date in sight either. The TitanX almost can game in SLi in 4k, but it still is only scrapping up 20fps in crysis3 at that resolution, so to suggest that a r9-395x2 which has not been anounced, or released by AMD will be able to game in that resolution is foolhardy.

Listen, my comment was spot on when i made it, and it's still spot on today. Do you know how long it took 1080p to become mainstream? It was basically a "playable" resolution in 2005... but it wasn't until 2013 before it was a mainstream resolution. what happened to make it mainstream? two things

1) the price of 1080p, quality gaming monitors dropped under $200. (actually i suspect it was the relitively high quality 1080p monitors listed for $120 or so that REALLY made it mainstream)
2) single gpu graphics cards were released that could max or almost max everything in 1080p, while mainstream cards (sub $200) could max most things in 1080p as well. Basically it was the release of the GTX 660-680 and the release of the hd 7850-7970 cards which made 1080p "mainstream"

so for 4k to be a "relevant" gaming resolution you need a $200 gpu which can play it on high/ultra (with reduced AA) and a high quality 4k monitor for less then $200. Until those things happen, the number of people gaming in 4k will remain <2% of the gaming world. In short, irrelevant.

 

[Alyus]

Simply put we're probably 4 years away from gpus being able to game in 4k fairly well, and likely it will take that long before 4k monitors start to come down into reasonable price ranges.

This explains why this guy isn't a millionaire from playing the super lotto. His comment can be no further away from the truth and it's been merely 10 months since this comment was made. 4K monitors are now under $400.00 US and the R9 395X2 is on its way.

congrats on the old thread resurrection.


1) it won't be mainstream until it's under $200
2) any 4k monitor smaller then 27" is a waste of pixels as the human eye can't tell the difference at "computer monitor distances"
3) any $400 -27"+ 4k monitor on the market now has
-too slow a response rate for gaming
-poor colors
-ghosting issues
-assorted other quality issues
in short, it's cheap junk. To find respectable 4k GAMING quality monitors you need to add a few hundred dollars to that number
4) I'll wait to see what the r9-390 does before i start wishing for a r9-395x2, right now AMD hasn't released the single chip card yet. has no release date in sight either. The TitanX almost can game in SLi in 4k, but it still is only scrapping up 20fps in crysis3 at that resolution, so to suggest that a r9-395x2 which has not been anounced, or released by AMD will be able to game in that resolution is foolhardy.

Listen, my comment was spot on when i made it, and it's still spot on today. Do you know how long it took 1080p to become mainstream? It was basically a "playable" resolution in 2005... but it wasn't until 2013 before it was a mainstream resolution. what happened to make it mainstream? two things

1) the price of 1080p, quality gaming monitors dropped under $200. (actually i suspect it was the relitively high quality 1080p monitors listed for $120 or so that REALLY made it mainstream)
2) single gpu graphics cards were released that could max or almost max everything in 1080p, while mainstream cards (sub $200) could max most things in 1080p as well. Basically it was the release of the GTX 660-680 and the release of the hd 7850-7970 cards which made 1080p "mainstream"

so for 4k to be a "relevant" gaming resolution you need a $200 gpu which can play it on high/ultra (with reduced AA) and a high quality 4k monitor for less then $200. Until those things happen, the number of people gaming in 4k will remain <2% of the gaming world. In short, irrelevant.

You are entitled to your opinion--it can neither be wrong or right.

Fortunately, for me, I don't have to wait for the latest technology to go mainstream before I can purchase it. It will be long before any common PC gamer can afford to game at high quality 4K (and by then, technology will be far more advanced) but at least they fair better than the common console peasant by a notch or two.

Latest gaming technology may be irreverent to you, but it will always be relevant, important and applicable for the top 1% gaming enthusiast.