Trying to pick a graphics card for battlefield 4. But want to get 4k monitor in future

[LOA5000]

I have been doing allot of research and i cant make up my mind what i want to do.

I want to get a good setup for battlefield 4. So i just need to upgrade my graphics card. I want to be able to play ultra with at least 60 fps. And also i would like to get a 4k monitor in the future so i dont know if i should pick a card that i can sli later on to handle the 4k. But i was reading it takes 4 titans to drive the 4k monitor. So i dont know what to think. So i dont know if i should get a card that will work for my pc now to play battlefield 4 on my monitor and when i get the 4k monitor in the future. Bueld a whole new pc? lot to think about.






My current set up.

ASUS PB278Q Monitor 2560x1440
ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX
Gtx 680 2gb
8gb of Ram
Solid State Hard Drive
X Hauf Case
Corsair Professional Series HX 850 Gold

 

[sna]

I have been doing allot of research and i cant make up my mind what i want to do.

I want to get a good setup for battlefield 4. So i just need to upgrade my graphics card. I want to be able to play ultra with at least 60 fps. And also i would like to get a 4k monitor in the future so i dont know if i should pick a card that i can sli later on to handle the 4k. But i was reading it takes 4 titans to drive the 4k monitor. So i dont know what to think. So i dont know if i should get a card that will work for my pc now to play battlefield 4 on my monitor and when i get the 4k monitor in the future. Bueld a whole new pc? lot to think about.






My current set up.

ASUS PB278Q Monitor 2560x1440
ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+ AMD 990FX
Gtx 680 2gb
8gb of Ram
Solid State Hard Drive
X Hauf Case
Corsair Professional Series HX 850 Gold

You don't need 4 Titans to drive a 4k Monitor, we already have games running on 3 monitors with just 2x SLI 680/780.. that is 3x 1920x1080 = 5760x1080 = 6.2 Mpixel
4k= 3840 × 2160 = 8.3 Mpixel

so theoretically you just need 3x680/780 SLI to run games on a 4k Monitor

keep in mind that 4k Monitors start at $3800 they are not cheap ...

 

[sam_p_lay]

Expect to need around 2-3 times as much muscle to achieve the same framerates at 4K. So 4x GTX Titan SLI sounds about right. Looking at current games, not even a GTX690 will deliver a constant 60fps+ at 1440p and ultra in Crysis 3.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Pixel count vs framerate scaling is actually a pretty inconsistent and difficult thing to project. sna is right about the monitor cost though - these aren't gonna be cheap for a very very long time.

 

[LOA5000]

So what do i need to get constant 60 fps? Whats by best choice? I was looking at the titan, But it just barely gets by for battlefield 3 for the benchmarks on 2560x1600. Not to mention battlefield 4. My brother will give me 350 dollars for my current card. I just need to figure out if i should wait or get something now. And what should i get. Now the 7970 6gb looks cool but i dont know. i would need 2 and that would not future proof me

 

[sna]

Expect to need around 2-3 times as much muscle to achieve the same framerates at 4K. So 4x GTX Titan SLI sounds about right. Looking at current games, not even a GTX690 will deliver a constant 60fps+ at 1440p and ultra in Crysis 3.

and why are you taking Crysis 3 as reference ? and I disagree with your comparison.

you should think in MPixel and do your math.

 

[LOA5000]

I consider 1200 dollars in my reach for the 4k monitor

 

[sna]

So what do i need to get constant 60 fps? Whats by best choice? I was looking at the titan, But it just barely gets by for battlefield 3 for the benchmarks on 2560x1600. Not to mention battlefield 4. My brother will give me 350 dollars for my current card. I just need to figure out if i should wait or get something now. And what should i get. Now the 7970 6gb looks cool but i dont know. i would need 2 and that would not future proof me

how much is your maximum budget?

I would say get 2x GTX 780 SLI if you can afford it.

 

[J_E_D_70]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7120/some-quick-gaming-numbers-at-4k-max-settings

Is the article showing 4k on ultra is not realistic in the near term. Folks make some good points tho - do you need 16x af and 4x msaa at 4k? I dunno.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Expect to need around 2-3 times as much muscle to achieve the same framerates at 4K. So 4x GTX Titan SLI sounds about right. Looking at current games, not even a GTX690 will deliver a constant 60fps+ at 1440p and ultra in Crysis 3.

and why are you taking Crysis 3 as reference ? and I disagree with your comparison.

you should think in MPixel and do your math.

Because it's the most demanding game out currently. And you should stop thinking in Mpixel because you're wrong.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-5.html

GTX670: 61fps at 1080p and high

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-7.html

GTX670: 25.9fps at 3x 1080p and high

Triple the resolution should equal 1/3 the framerate according to you. So why is it 42% as much framerate? It doesn't work as simply as you think it does.

 

[cookybiscuit]

Nothing you can buy now will be any good for 4K, the GPU power just isn't there yet unless you spend a whole heap of money. Just wait a bit, 4K is still very new and you aren't missing anything through giving it a bit of time to mature and for the rest of technology to catch up.

 

[sna]

Expect to need around 2-3 times as much muscle to achieve the same framerates at 4K. So 4x GTX Titan SLI sounds about right. Looking at current games, not even a GTX690 will deliver a constant 60fps+ at 1440p and ultra in Crysis 3.

and why are you taking Crysis 3 as reference ? and I disagree with your comparison.

you should think in MPixel and do your math.

Because it's the most demanding game out currently. And you should stop thinking in Mpixel because you're wrong.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-5.html

GTX670: 61fps at 1080p and high

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-7.html

GTX670: 25.9fps at 3x 1080p and high

Triple the resolution should equal 1/3 the framerate according to you. So why is it 42% as much framerate? It doesn't work as simply as you think it does.

you are saying exactly that you need LESS power for more Mpixel ..

25.9fps in 3 monitors , vs 61 fps one monitor

so big NO you don't need 4 titans it seems the more resolution , the less extra power you need per Mpixel .

you just defeated your argument.

25 fps in 3 monitors is GREAT if one only gives 61 , coz the expected is 75 !!!

 

[sam_p_lay]

I only proved it's not as simple as you think it is - you can't just count pixels like you seem to think. Cookiebiscuit is right about waiting to see what happens with 4K and not worrying too much about it at the moment.

 

[LOA5000]

so rite now or my setup i need 780 sli?

 

[J_E_D_70]

Sna, not sure what you're driving at. I linked the article the rest of us are talking about and it clearly shows 4 titans for two of the three tested titles. It would be a miracle if bf4 takes significantly less horsepower than Sleeping Dogs or Metro, so you're still talking three Titans.

 

[trogdor796]

Just stick with your GTX 680 for a while. Buying a new card right now for 4K is pointless, as it won't be significant for a few years earliest. NOTHING on the market right now is gonna work well for driving games at that resolution. People are talking 3 or 4 way SLI setups, um no. I wouldn't want to deal with diminishing returns of scaling. Anything past 2-way is kind of dumb IMO.

Just wait until 4k monitors become mainstream, and then get a GPU to go with it at that point(likely the 900 series or later).

 

[LOA5000]

okay good point. Problem is the 680 is not good enought for 2560x1440

 

[sam_p_lay]

You could always add a second. Prices have come down now. Or get 2x GTX770 4GB.

 

[LOA5000]

Yeah i am not sure the 2gb is good enought. I was looking at the gtx 770's classified 4gb

 

[sam_p_lay]

Sounds like a good idea! That would handle even Crysis 3 maxed with ease.

 

[sna]

You could always add a second. Prices have come down now. Or get 2x GTX770 4GB.

GTX 770 is just a GTX 680 with better specs..

He should get the new Generation , 2x GTX 780 in SLI .. 384-bit , GK110 (the same of Titan)

 

[LOA5000]

the 780 only having 3gb scares me

 

[sam_p_lay]

Loads of cards are just other cards with better specs. GK110 is still the Kepler architecture. That's irrelevant anyway - architecture and chip designations like GK104 have absolutely nothing to do with real world performance. Nobody cares if they have a GK104 or GK110 - they care about three things:

- how fast is it?
- how much does it cost?
- will it work with my hardware?

GTX780 adds an average of 15% framerates on average over the GTX770. Enough to turn 30fps into 34fps. I don't think that's worth the price difference, but some people feel it is. If you do buy GTX780, I'd advise holding off until AMD's new lineup. That will drive down prices on the GTX780.

 

[LOA5000]

and i bet the 770 classified is as good as a stock 780

 

[sna]

the 780 only having 3gb scares me

Loads of cards are just other cards with better specs. GK110 is still the Kepler architecture. That's irrelevant anyway - architecture and chip designations like GK104 have absolutely nothing to do with real world performance. Nobody cares if they have a GK104 or GK110 - they care about three things:

- how fast is it?
- how much does it cost?
- will it work with my hardware?

GTX780 adds an average of 15% framerates on average over the GTX770. Enough to turn 30fps into 34fps. I don't think that's worth the price difference, but some people feel it is. If you do buy GTX780, I'd advise holding off until AMD's new lineup. That will drive down prices on the GTX780.

and i bet the 770 classified is as good as a stock 780

nope..

it is a new chip , and 384-bit VS 256-bit ...

you are talking future proof ... DONT BUY OLD TECH.

If you insist , wait for the GTX790 or a 6G GTX 780 ... I am sure some one like Asus will make one.