Is 30fps good for Crysis 3?

[Death Prodigy]

I'm mostly used to playing games like L4D2, fast-paced first-person shooters at 30fps or lower. I'll be upgrading my rig to a 2-way GTX 780 Ti set-up, the GPUs will be overclocked and water-cooled.
I'll be playing Crysis 3 at 4K with maximum detail settings turned on, including 4x MSAA, and that would lower my framerates to around 30-35 fps. Is that OK?

 

[leeb2013]

$6500 to play Crysis at 30fps.

1) what info do you have to show it'll be that slow?

2) I think 60fps on a 1140 monitor or 3 x 1050 monitors would be better than 30fps at 4k.

Crysis is not demanding on the CPU, so it's a bit of an overkill.

How about you try playing a game at 30fps and see if it suits you, either by setting V-sync to every other fame (ie 30fps) or increase settings until a game hits 30fps. That would make more sense than asking other people to guess whether you'd would be bothered by 30fps.

 

[Death Prodigy]

Well, this is merely a setup for now, not meant to future proof or anything. I'd go with 2560x1440, but apparently there's a lot of difference in image quality between that and 4K

 

[mr91]

Well, this is merely a setup for now, not meant to future proof or anything. I'd go with 2560x1440, but apparently there's a lot of difference in image quality between that and 4K

I have a single gtx 780 ti for my 1440p monitor and games like Titanfall, Call of duty ghosts, Bf4 use most of my VRAM.

Many games will exceed 3 gb of Ram @ 4K, especially if you use anti aliasing.

 

[Death Prodigy]

Well... Then I have another question
Is 2560x1440 with 8x MSAA equivalent to 4K?

 

[coolcole01]

No aa is like fake resolution but not that much.

 

[Death Prodigy]

Thing I was wondering is, most people play games to be immersed in it, and often times, won't bother to nitpick framerate or jagged edges or abit of blur during battles.

 

[Death Prodigy]

Is 2560x1440 that much different in image quality from 4K?

 

[coolcole01]

Its about twice the pixels actually a little more

 

[mr91]

Is 2560x1440 that much different in image quality from 4K?

I play Crysis 3 on ultra using smaa on my Samsung 1440 PLS factory calibrated 970d and it looks great, I don't turn on MSAA because it reduces my fps and and gaming experience.

I've never played Crysis 3 on a 4k monitor however if you decide to buy a 4k panel make sure you get the high end Asus panel and get it calibrated. "Stay away from the lower priced TN panels"

I personally don't like the way Crysis 3 plays @ 30 fps that's why I don't enable MSAA, with smaa the game play is more fluid and on ultra settings with a calibrated pls monitor the game looks phenomenal.

If you decide to get a high end 4k monitor I suggest you get a couple Titan Z's when they come out or get 3 Titan blacks if you need the system right away.

 

[mr91]

4k Does look better in general however you need a lot more graphics horsepower.

 

[Rationale]

Is 2560x1440 that much different in image quality from 4K?

I play Crysis 3 on ultra using smaa on my Samsung 1440 PLS factory calibrated 970d and it looks great, I don't turn on MSAA because it reduces my fps and and gaming experience.

I've never played Crysis 3 on a 4k monitor however if you decide to buy a 4k panel make sure you get the high end Asus panel and get it calibrated. "Stay away from the lower priced TN panels"

I personally don't like the way Crysis 3 plays @ 30 fps that's why I don't enable MSAA, with smaa the game play is more fluid and on ultra settings with a calibrated pls monitor the game looks phenomenal.

If you decide to get a high end 4k monitor I suggest you get a couple Titan Z's when they come out or get 3 Titan blacks if you need the system right away.

MSAA is mostly frosting over 1080p anyway. At 1440p pixel walk is mostly wiped out, so SMAA ends up looking great as well. Also, a lot of people apply the 4xMSAA standard when they really shouldn't. 2xMSAA at 1440p has just slightly less of a performance hit and quality than 4xMSAA at 1080p (but much clearer and with fewer jaggies anyway due to there being more real pixels of course). 4xMSAA and above at 1440p is an exponential framerate drop for exponentially diminishing returns. I've only run at 1440p a couple times since the monitor I use most of the time is 1080p and my card can't handle 1440p in many games, but I would never use more than 2xMSAA or SMAA at 1440p. Otherwise there's just too much of an FPS drop and VRAM hit for too little gain, imo.

It's also worth noting that poorly calibrated monitors with their sharpness turned too high will exaggerate jaggies and make shader AA less effective.

 

[mr91]

I just noticed that in a previous post you wanted the 24 inch Dell, I think that is too small for 4k, check out the link below

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236338


You might as well go for a 1440p if you're considering the Dell UP2414Q in my opinion, Can you imagine how small the text would be when surfing the internet? You would have to make lots of adjustments.

 

[Rationale]

I just noticed your post you want the 24 inch Dell, I think that is too small for 4k, check out the link below

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236338


You might as well go for a 1440p if you're considering the Dell UP2414Q in my opinion, Can you imagine how small the text would be when surfing the internet? You would have to make lot of adjustments.

I agree.

Then again, 27" 1440p would be overall better than 24" 4K in my opinion. Obviously 4K would be clearer and such, but it would throw off so much optimization and would create so many scaling oddities it wouldn't be worth it to me.

Not to mention, 1440p is quite a mature technology now and there are some really good screens starting to release at 1440p. 4K screens still tend to have tradeoffs. If it's not an exorbitantly high price, it's a low refresh rate or cheap panel. Not necessarily TN, but usually not more than 6-bit.

 

[BuzzKenway]

get the ROG Swift monitor its 1440p and 27" and supports 3D Vision !!!!!!

 

[mr91]

I agree, 1440p is more mature, it would be nice if a 1440p G-Sync PLS/IPS monitor was released.

A 4k G-sync monitor would be a good idea as well because if I'm spending 10k plus on a computer and screen, perfection is the only option. lol

I think 4k isn't worth the substantial premium over 1440p however if money wasn't a factor I would get the ASUS PQ321Q with 2 Titan z graphic cards.

 

[BuzzKenway]

I agree, 1440p is more mature, it would be nice if a 1440p G-Sync PLS/IPS monitor was released.

A 4k G-sync monitor would be a good idea as well because if I'm spending 10k plus on a computer and screen, perfection is the only option. lol

I think 4k isn't worth the substantial premium over 1440p however if money wasn't a factor I would get the ASUS PQ321Q with 2 Titan z graphic cards.

+1 ^

 

[Death Prodigy]

Well, from what I've heard, the 24 inch 4k monitor is the maximum budget I have for monitors. Guess I'll have to go with an 1440p monitor then 🙁 Guess that isn't a bad thing, but there would be lots of difference in image quality, but I guess for $10,000 less (2 Titan Z at $3000 + $3500 monitor,) you can't expect superb image quality.

 

[Death Prodigy]

Seriously, unless you're a billionaire or an extremely rich, extremely HARDCORE gamer where your life is entirely dependent on gaming, there's no way it's possible to afford a $15,000 computer (CPU, liquid cooling and all)

 

[Death Prodigy]

Seriously, unless you're a billionaire or an extremely rich, extremely HARDCORE gamer where your life is entirely dependent on gaming, there's no way it's possible to afford a $15,000 computer (CPU, liquid cooling and all)

 

[Death Prodigy]

Oops sorry about the double post

 

[Rationale]

Well, from what I've heard, the 24 inch 4k monitor is the maximum budget I have for monitors. Guess I'll have to go with an 1440p monitor then 🙁 Guess that isn't a bad thing, but there would be lots of difference in image quality, but I guess for $10,000 less (2 Titan Z at $3000 + $3500 monitor,) you can't expect superb image quality.

Gaming PCs aren't about getting the best quality ever, they're about getting the best balance of quality you can afford and/or want. Technically you could buy a WQUXGA screen and go much higher than 4K, but video cards today just aren't meant to run that, so it would hurt your experience rather than help it. Likewise, 4K isn't efficient today either. You "could" go 4K and settle for merely high settings 30 fps in next gen games, or you could go 1440p and use those 2 780 TIs to run everything next gen on ultra at 60 fps. In most circumstances, 1440p will actually look better and cost less, because that's the level technology is at right now.

It's the same reason the PS4 isn't running everything at 1440p. Technically, the PS4 could run every game at 1440p if they decreased textures, meshes, physics, LoD, and lighting. However, developers find that games actually can look and run better if you use the efficient resolution meant for the video card. The PS4's most efficient resolution happens to be either 900p or 1080p.
A 780 TI, even 2x 780 TIs, are meant for efficient operation at 1440p, not 4K. Trying to push a PC higher right now will cost a lot more and arguably look worse since to make up for the massive performance drop of the higher resolution you'll need to cut graphics settings sooner.

 

[Death Prodigy]

Well so I've selected a 1440p Asus IPS monitor and 2 GTX 780 Tis.
Hope the image quality doesn't suck!

 

[mr91]

Are you getting this one PA279Q?

The two 780 ti's will have enough VRAM for most games however if you are planing on playing BF4 and want to increase the scaling you will run out of Vram.

One 780 ti will be good enough for 1440p however if you want two 6 gb of memory would be ideal.


I suggest you get 2 Titan blacks or wait for a 6 gb variant of the 780 ti however I'm not sure if one will ever come out.

 

[mr91]

Well, from what I've heard, the 24 inch 4k monitor is the maximum budget I have for monitors. Guess I'll have to go with an 1440p monitor then 🙁 Guess that isn't a bad thing, but there would be lots of difference in image quality, but I guess for $10,000 less (2 Titan Z at $3000 + $3500 monitor,) you can't expect superb image quality.

The image Quality will be great however the concept of diminishing returns kicks in and without G-Sync you might get noticeable screen tearing in some games...

 

[bystander]

Thing I was wondering is, most people play games to be immersed in it, and often times, won't bother to nitpick framerate or jagged edges or abit of blur during battles.

Looking at your frame rate all day is a way to destroy immersion, but don't kid yourself, low FPS destroys immersion too. At 60 FPS, everything runs smooth, and you get flowing motion, when you are at 30 FPS, things fell choppy and destroys immersion, and in my case, makes me sick.

Even 60 FPS does not feel as good as 80-144 FPS. Getting to 80 FPS makes games feel more fluid and immerses me more than a high resolution can. Seeing trails on graphics as a result of motion blur also ruins immersion.