trying to game at 4k or 2k and very unhappy with my r9 295x2

[Blasterbolt]

So at the end of last year i took the plunge and sold my asus gsync 1080p 144hz monitor and my gtx780 and bought the Asus PB287Q 28" and the r9 295x2.

The rest of my system is as follows.
i7 4770k clocked at 4.5 gig
ih100 liquid cooler
8 gig of 1600 hz ram
ssd 250 pro harddrive.
and I am useing the new amd omega ccc drivers.
Also I am using the display port connection.

Well the only game i am happy with is BF4 as that will run at 60 fps in 4k nps.

Assassins creed unity is a nightmare in 1080p I get 25-27 fps. 2k I get the same result and in 4k I am gettings about 22-29 but its choppy as hell.That is running on high settings with 0 AA.

In dragon age inquisition 1080p i get 30-50 fps but it looks horrible. 2k I get the same results and 4k I get between 22 fps and 56 fps. Settings are on high with 0 AA again.

In shadows of mordor I got the same thing to the fps from 4k to 2k was only about 5-6 better and 1080p was no gain at all.

I borrowed another 290x from a mate and tried to run it in 3 way crossfire but the noise was horrible and also the gamins I got were not what I had expected at all so I ditched the 3 way idea.

Is it the GPU that cant cope running games at lower resolutions or is it the monitor? I am really wondering weather to got for 2 gtx 980 in sli. I was wondering what fps in 4k would I be able to expect? Also though if its not possible to hit 60 fps solid in 4k could I achieve that in 2k with the nvidia cards?

Or should I may be wait and see in nvidia will release some new cards in the new few months?
Any advice would be great !

 

[chenw]

AC:U is botched for AMD cards, Xfire doesn't work at all, so that is an exception.

I don't know much about the others, but I don't think they should be anywhere near as bad.

Did you completely uninstall nVidia Drivers by the way?

 

[LostAlone]

Ok, a few things first off - Assassin's creed is HORRIBLY optimised and runs badly on every piece of hardware around. That's nothing to do with your rig.

Secondly, nothing on the market can be guaranteed to run most games at 4k at an acceptable frame rate. It's just not a big priority for the developers, and the jump in muscle needed can either be marginal or vast depending on how the developers of the game implement various aspects of the engine and if they even bother to include any additional 4k assets. The world just isn't ready for 4k gaming yet, and it's a total crap shoot what results you are going to get. It's not just a matter of hurling money at the problem and hoping. Neither hardware developers or game programmers are making enough effort to optimize for such a tiny portion of the audience.

I can't say for sure if your GPU isn't up to it, but I strongly doubt that's the problem in any of these situations. The 295x is a POWERFUL card. You can build a rig with more direct GPU power, the new nVidia line up is currently the most powerful but it's far from a big leap in performance and you'd be paying a MASSIVE premium to roll the dice on performance again. The FPS results you'd get from 980's would be... Well, it would depend on the game and the settings. Same as everything else.

Before you go spending big rafts of money the best thing you can do is go to specific forums for each game and talk to other people to help you understand the quirks of each individual game and how to get the best balance of FPS to quality. That way you can hopefully find out what games react best to horsepower and what ones aren't really designed to be run at max on todays hardware. Many games aren't, and sadly that's part of the problem. New games push the envelope in new and exciting ways basically because that helps to sell new graphics cards. It's not coincidence that most AAA releases partner with a graphics card company.

 

[i7Baby]

ACU still needs work - http://www.pcgamer.com/ubisoft-acknowledges-assassins-creed-unity-problems-on-amd-hardware/

and Dragon Age - http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-inquisition/user-reviews

Shadow of Mordor has some fixes available - http://www.crashwiki.com/top-10-fixes-shadow-mordor-crashes-errors-wont-start-black-screen-config-nvidia-sli-dx11-support-hd-textures-slow-mouse/ but I'd though it should be OK on your PC.

I'm not sure if you can crossfire a R9 295x2 with a R9 290x - http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=10732

 

[chenw]

AC:U runs fine(ish) on nVidia right now, but AMD is being left totally out in the dark, hence I wouldn't use it as a way to judge the viability of AMD cards.

That being said, I do agree that 4k just isn't ready, there is no GPU that can handle 4k on its own, games have problems with UI scaling in 4k, and 4k is still being limited to 60Hz.

One way to make 4k a bit more enjoyable is go with 4k G-Sync and use 980's or 970's, the G-sync will alleviate the low frame rate somewhat.

 

[Blasterbolt]

Well i got my 970s today and omg the difference between them and the 295x2 is massive!. Unity in 2k now runs on ultra at a full 60 fps and so does dragon age!

Also when I ran haven on the same settings the sli 970s got double the score and fps of the 295x2 at 1080 and 2k ! I know that some of the games are bias to gpu manufactures but even so I am so glad i got the 970s . One question though in sli gpu 1 runs at 75 degrees and gpu 2 runs at 66 degrees what is the safe full load temps for these cards?

 

[i7Baby]

Those temps are OK. The primary gpu always runs hotter - it does the major share of work and is sitting over top of the secondary and copping the heat given off.

 

[-Lone-]

Well i got my 970s today and omg the difference between them and the 295x2 is massive!. Unity in 2k now runs on ultra at a full 60 fps and so does dragon age!

Also when I ran haven on the same settings the sli 970s got double the score and fps of the 295x2 at 1080 and 2k ! I know that some of the games are bias to gpu manufactures but even so I am so glad i got the 970s . One question though in sli gpu 1 runs at 75 degrees and gpu 2 runs at 66 degrees what is the safe full load temps for these cards?

That's because the 295x2 is made for 4k, not lower resolutions, you'd need a 2nd 295x2 if you wanted to run 4k@ultra.

 

[chenw]

AC:U is also an inaccurate game to base the GPU performance on, because that game is so botched for AMD cards that I feel sorry for AMD owners with that game (Xfire does not work, and card for card 290x is worse than 970 on almost all resolutions).

 

[-Lone-]

AC:U is also an inaccurate game to base the GPU performance on, because that game is so botched for AMD cards that I feel sorry for AMD owners with that game (Xfire does not work, and card for card 290x is worse than 970 on almost all resolutions).

Good thing I never used my AC:U free game codes for buying my SSDs, lol. Anyone want it?

 

[Blasterbolt]

Well i got my 970s today and omg the difference between them and the 295x2 is massive!. Unity in 2k now runs on ultra at a full 60 fps and so does dragon age! I actually tried a second 295x2 which a mate had and it got micro stutters all over the place in BF4 and rome 2 .

Also when I ran haven on the same settings the sli 970s got double the score and fps of the 295x2 at 1080 and 2k ! I know that some of the games are bias to gpu manufactures but even so I am so glad i got the 970s . One question though in sli gpu 1 runs at 75 degrees and gpu 2 runs at 66 degrees what is the safe full load temps for these cards?

That's because the 295x2 is made for 4k, not lower resolutions, you'd need a 2nd 295x2 if you wanted to run 4k@ultra.

Yes but the 2 970's are getting about 3 fps less then the 295x2 was in 4k!!

They run bf4 in 4k maxed out same as the 295 did. The really issue with the 295 in dragon age and rome2 and every other game I try to play is that in 4k it ran like crap 20-50 fps and stutters all over the place apart from BF4 which was the only game it managed to run . Dont know if I got a bum card or something but the 295 was a massive fail for me and a waste of £700 just praying I can resell it for £200 :/.

 

[-Lone-]

Again, you said it yourself, 4k "maxed" and that's with 1x 295x2 in your case, you need 2, obviously you can't with just 1x 295x2, nothing can play 4k maxed with just 2 GPUs max.

 

[Blasterbolt]

Again, you said it yourself, 4k "maxed" and that's with 1x 295x2 in your case, you need 2, obviously you can't with just 1x 295x2, nothing can play 4k maxed with just 2 GPUs max.

The 295 did manage to play bf4 maxed out in 4k .Its problem was on other games with 0 AA and meduim to high settings it was hitting 24-50 fps depending on the title and the part of the game you were in . Best example I can give was in inquisition at 4k on high settings 0 AA some parts of the game ran at 50 fps but as soon as you hit combat or an area with alot vegetation it shoot down to the low 20's .

End of the day the card I got has a hard time keeping 50 fps + into days new AAA titles at medium/high settings let alone ultra. Back when it was review the titles they used were the new tome raider and far cry 3 so it can manage todo the 50 fps + on those at the best settings. Its just so strange that when you try running the 295 in 2k or 1080p it is terrible.

 

[-Lone-]

lol...I just said the 295x2 is made for 4k on my first comment I made, it is for 4k, not lower resolutions. That's how's why it is terrible at 1440p or 1080p, and what did you expect when there's so much graphical details on the screen for just 2 GPUs, of course it'll go down to 20 fps if you only have 2 GPUs, you can get 295x2, Titan Z, 970/980 SLI, same thing, but depends on which games too.

Edit: I have faith in the 295x2, but not that much faith, there is no 2 GPUs that can handle 4k maxed and not fall in fps. BF4 ran fine because it is optimized for AMD, more cores and mantle, all those kind of stuff. Funny how you didn't freeze, but it might have depended on which specific point of the game you were in, I froze in this specific point in game without crossfire for 4k ultra.

 

[Embra]

4k Dragon Age:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dragon_age_inquisition_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html