Hardware & Technical Is 4k Gaming Worth It?
- Thread starter Huggy
- Start date
For me id say no, but it depends on your screen size and budget.
A single gtx980 is no where near enough for 4k in ED unless you never plan to land on a planet or are happy to drop from ultra settings.
A 980ti is pretty much the minimum to run ED in 4k/ultra at 60fps. 970(oc'd)/980 will hit 25-35 fps planetside at 4k/ultra.
If you're running less than a 40" screen I wouldn't bother either. The difference would be minimal compared to using DSR with a lower res screen.
These are just my opinions, many many people swear by 4k and will strongly disagree with me.
A single gtx980 is no where near enough for 4k in ED unless you never plan to land on a planet or are happy to drop from ultra settings.
A 980ti is pretty much the minimum to run ED in 4k/ultra at 60fps. 970(oc'd)/980 will hit 25-35 fps planetside at 4k/ultra.
If you're running less than a 40" screen I wouldn't bother either. The difference would be minimal compared to using DSR with a lower res screen.
These are just my opinions, many many people swear by 4k and will strongly disagree with me.
Last edited:
I have a single overclocked 980 and run on ultra settings and have no problems with fps on planets in 4k, or fps anywhere else.
Don't know where you got your info from, but its wrong from my own experience.
Last edited:
what about a 970 at 1080 with DSR up to 4K? Would text be readable? Or forget DSR on the card, and just using the TVs native upscaling?
Last edited:
I was only speaking from my limited personal experience, i had a reference 980 on test for a couple of months that I used with standard (pre horizons) ED, it barely managed 4k. Would hover around 35-45 fps in stations and only get locked 60 in space. Since horizons is significantly more demanding I doubt it could manage at 3840x2160 without lowering settings.
I currently have a 970 which it overclocked to outperform a ref 980, but still only gets max 35 fps planetside at ultra settings in 4k.
If you've got a locked 60fps at 3840x2160 and ultra settings then you've got one hell of a powerful card and I'm a little jealous
I was only speaking from my limited personal experience, i had a reference 980 on test for a couple of months that I used with standard (pre horizons) ED, it barely managed 4k. Would hover around 35-45 fps in stations and only get locked 60 in space. Since horizons is significantly more demanding I doubt it could manage at 3840x2160 without lowering settings.
I currently have a 970 which it overclocked to outperform a ref 980, but still only gets max 35 fps planetside at ultra settings in 4k.
If you've got a locked 60fps at 3840x2160 and ultra settings then you've got one hell of a powerful card and I'm a little jealous
finally some common sense... sincerely those who say they are happy 4k users with a 980ti (or even lower range card) i don´t know what you are talking about
4K it´s IMPOSSIBLE to run smoothly and 60fps locked, i´m a happy customer of a 980ti.. and as soon as i go to 2K.. i have serious and constant drops in the FPS, and unplayable in 4k..., yeah, playing at 25 30 fps even if it´s 4K it´s unplayable and it´s not any improvement over 1080p/60
that´s the main reason i din´t buy a Oculus rift, and that´s the main reason i have not buyed a 4k monitor even if i made a huge investment in the rest of my rig.. if you want to play 4k in a decent way you need 980ti SLI at least!!, and not sure how it´s supported in ED right now.
Last edited:
I think the short answer is.
Not yet.
4k gaming is very expensive, the gain might be a lot in some games, but the cost is also a lot.
Course with the graphic cards that should come out this year, that might change we will see if they focus on VR or 4k gaming or both? but yeah 4k isn't there yet. Least of all because many 4k tv's have fairly high input lag.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Not yet.
4k gaming is very expensive, the gain might be a lot in some games, but the cost is also a lot.
Course with the graphic cards that should come out this year, that might change we will see if they focus on VR or 4k gaming or both? but yeah 4k isn't there yet. Least of all because many 4k tv's have fairly high input lag.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
This also, if you want everything on, basically have the same image quality as 1080p, currently 4k is going to be very expensive.
If your getting low fps on a 4K monitor with a single GTX 970 I would suggest you turn supersampling down to .65, the lowest it will go. It is only really much use on a 1980 by 1020 so it can simulate 4k on a small monitor. It makes little if any difference to my Samsung 27" 4K, except to the frame rate. At .65 I happily get just over 60FPS in stations and well over 100 in space. Setting supersampling to 1.0 chops that FPS down to around 30 in stations but shows no discernible difference on the video quality output. I have tried taking the supersampling up to 2.0 and it starts crawling at 5 to 15 fps but still doesn't improve the video image to any noticeable effect. Also you don't need a great deal of AA with a 4k monitor.
I have been using a 4K monitor for over 6 months now with a Gtx 970, so it has had a good workout.
I have been using a 4K monitor for over 6 months now with a Gtx 970, so it has had a good workout.
Last edited:
IMHO, no. I actually stepped down from 4K to 1440p, because I quickly tired of lowering settings in multiple games to run at native res. I honestly don't feel like the visual quality in games has suffered at all.
4k is only worth it on a big screen, & I mean bigger than 42 inches or better yet more than 50" Most people can't tell 1080p from 720p on anything less than a 40" tv so there really isn't much point.
Using a 4K since a couple weeks with a 980 GTX 4GB, my CPU is a i7 2600K and still I get 60fps in space and about 40 on planets.. no lag is noticeable for me.
I rather spend the money on a 4K screen and a GPU than a VR headset as you use the monitor a lot more than a Rift or Vive (for which you also need a strong GPU anyway).
So if you can afford it (mine cost 450 euro's ASUS PB287Q) go for it.
I rather spend the money on a 4K screen and a GPU than a VR headset as you use the monitor a lot more than a Rift or Vive (for which you also need a strong GPU anyway).
So if you can afford it (mine cost 450 euro's ASUS PB287Q) go for it.
Disagree, a 27" 4k monitor screen around 20 inches away looks a lot sharper than a 1980x1020, and larger monitors than a 27" tend to be seated twice or more the difference away from the screen, plus their reaction time doesn't usually hit the 1MS response time of the lower screen sizes of the 27" monitors.
If you have a large TV screen as opposed to a 27" monitor you don't get the best display for video gaming while sitting a distance away that makes the screen comfortable you get to see a lot of distractions of everyday life which can spoil immersion.
As for most people not being able to tell the difference. I have a 1980x1020 144hz 23" that is now my second monitor and that was my primary before the 4k. But right from the start when I fired up the 4K the picture was far superior. Now I know what one person sees is subjective to that person but my partner and friends were all pretty knocked out by the difference when they saw it.
I'm running a GTX980 TI at 4k and land fine on planets with 60fps, supersampling isnt set so high though as that is the general killer, setting it to 1 or above and the FPS gets a shot in the head.
as for gaming in general, unless you're computer is up to par with very new tech as well, a gfx card alone wont enable you to play in 4k. I still think you are looking at a expensive high end machine overall. And you are better off waiting for the next gen graphics cards overall as well.
AND you wont be able to play any game the world throws at you, ED is one of not that many well optimized games out there, so you will find yourself tweaking, a lot (MMORPG's are generally well optimized, mostly). You can almost forget jumping into a game and setting it to "ultra" and go and your norm FPS will be 50-60 depending on the game as well.
as for gaming in general, unless you're computer is up to par with very new tech as well, a gfx card alone wont enable you to play in 4k. I still think you are looking at a expensive high end machine overall. And you are better off waiting for the next gen graphics cards overall as well.
AND you wont be able to play any game the world throws at you, ED is one of not that many well optimized games out there, so you will find yourself tweaking, a lot (MMORPG's are generally well optimized, mostly). You can almost forget jumping into a game and setting it to "ultra" and go
and your norm FPS will be 50-60 depending on the game as well.
For me (everyone is different) 4k is the best thing since sliced bread. Once experienced going back to 1080 is unthinkable (it looks like a blurry mess to me now). As fantastic as VR is I will not touch it until they offer at least 4K (per eye) resolution.
4k is particularly good for space and flight sims since detail in distant ships is crystal clear allowing a much more effective visual sense of the tactical situation. I did not want to downgrade FPS or quality settings to achieve 4k so I went the SLI route. Specifically I have two NVidia GTX Titan X GPUs and a ACER 28" 4K monitor with G-Sync. I went with the Titan X GPU since I like lots of memory overhead (12GB per card). Even though some people claim antialiasing is not needed for 4k I disagree and max out all settings here as well (with 12 GB this is possible).
As for performance in Elite Dangerous, I max out every detail setting and lock G-Sync to 60 FPS and that is where it stays all the time (including in Horizons on planets). I highly recommend G-Sync since the action is completely fluid with no micro stutters or screen tear which provides an outstanding illusion of reality. If I shut off G-Sync I get about 80-90 FPS on planets and well over 100 in space which gives a sense of the overhead available.
I do not recommend attempting 4K with any single GPU card on the market today. Even with the Titan X I am lucky to get 60 FPS in space and 45 FPS on planets with SLI disabled. It is ok in space but just not acceptable on planets, even with G-Sync enabled. Every other game I have (with the exception of X-Plane which is CPU bound for some strange reason) runs at 4K 60FPS locked as well.
If you are crazy enough and have the money I highly recommend the SLI approach (even two 980s would provide good results). Otherwise wait a year or two until single card solution's can provide consistent 60 FPS results (otherwise you will be disappointed if you care about totally fluid on screen action).
Finally there is a huge difference comparing 28" monitors 1080 vs 4K. You do not need to get a massive screen to see the difference - it really pops at 28". When available (assuming in a few years) I would like to move to 8K and a larger screen (perhaps 30 - 40" range). For 8K I think a larger screen will be necessary to get the full benefit.
I think within 5 years 8K will be the standard resolution and the days of poor framerates will be forever behind us (even at mainstream hardware pricing). Just a few more GPU generations to go. CPU capability is already where it needs to be.
4k is particularly good for space and flight sims since detail in distant ships is crystal clear allowing a much more effective visual sense of the tactical situation. I did not want to downgrade FPS or quality settings to achieve 4k so I went the SLI route. Specifically I have two NVidia GTX Titan X GPUs and a ACER 28" 4K monitor with G-Sync. I went with the Titan X GPU since I like lots of memory overhead (12GB per card). Even though some people claim antialiasing is not needed for 4k I disagree and max out all settings here as well (with 12 GB this is possible).
As for performance in Elite Dangerous, I max out every detail setting and lock G-Sync to 60 FPS and that is where it stays all the time (including in Horizons on planets). I highly recommend G-Sync since the action is completely fluid with no micro stutters or screen tear which provides an outstanding illusion of reality. If I shut off G-Sync I get about 80-90 FPS on planets and well over 100 in space which gives a sense of the overhead available.
I do not recommend attempting 4K with any single GPU card on the market today. Even with the Titan X I am lucky to get 60 FPS in space and 45 FPS on planets with SLI disabled. It is ok in space but just not acceptable on planets, even with G-Sync enabled. Every other game I have (with the exception of X-Plane which is CPU bound for some strange reason) runs at 4K 60FPS locked as well.
If you are crazy enough and have the money I highly recommend the SLI approach (even two 980s would provide good results). Otherwise wait a year or two until single card solution's can provide consistent 60 FPS results (otherwise you will be disappointed if you care about totally fluid on screen action).
Finally there is a huge difference comparing 28" monitors 1080 vs 4K. You do not need to get a massive screen to see the difference - it really pops at 28". When available (assuming in a few years) I would like to move to 8K and a larger screen (perhaps 30 - 40" range). For 8K I think a larger screen will be necessary to get the full benefit.
I think within 5 years 8K will be the standard resolution and the days of poor framerates will be forever behind us (even at mainstream hardware pricing). Just a few more GPU generations to go. CPU capability is already where it needs to be.
Last edited:
I have been playing elite since the beta on a 28" 4K G-Sync monitor for about 18 months. I run SLI 980's, a single one won't cut it. It looks great and I have trouble playing anything in 1080p anymore.