FWIW.. I logged a performance hit using VR a while back just after 2.1 went live.. May or may not be related.. I get absolute stalls, nearly crashed my asp into a station as the game is running under the stall but the display is just halted.. Other than that, its certainly running good when it runs good!
4K performance since 2.1
- Thread starter ilmostro
- Start date
Hey your gaming on the same tv I am
And yes it is definately a native 3840x2160 panel that supports 4k@60hz. I currently have a 970 which stands no chance at running 4k. I only get 20-25 fps in stations and closer to 15 on planets, 60fps in space though. Hoping 2xgtx1070s will get me closer to running in 4k, probably not though, sli and elite apparently don't get along.
Not noticed any perf differences tbh between 2.0 and 2.1.
Last edited:
There are 960s with 4gb ram and since he didnt say what model he has, how the do you know?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you know this? Did you sat next to him? And no system ever goes "lets try 4k" without any manual change from the user...
I am using a 4k with a GTX 980 and, at least sometimes, I have similar problems. But I am not in the bubble atm so I can't rly check that.
My guess would be, like you already mentioned, that the new menues including the avatars are not 100% optimized yet and still need to be worked on. If it worked before that would be the only logical explanation. And downscaling, even IF the TV would not support native 4k, would NOT result in performance problems because of it, rather make the picture go fuzzy. In that case the downscaling is done by the TV, not the card itself. And yes, I know what I am talking about. I am (was) a professional games and hardwaretester for years.
Last edited:
mind to post a screenie of your settings?
Hey your gaming on the same tv I am
I currently have a 970 which stands no chance at running 4k. I only get 20-25 fps in stations and closer to 15 on planets, 60fps in space though. Hoping 2xgtx1070s will get me closer to running in 4k, probably not though, sli and elite apparently don't get along.
Not noticed any perf differences tbh between 2.0 and 2.1.
TBH - when I first tried it, it wasn't great, but running the Nvidia optimisation thing made a big difference to speed, and still had pretty good settings. The only change I made was to turn off AA, as you really don't need it at 4K, IMO of course!
Last edited:
how people can say they have stable playing at 4k & 60 fps with a 970??
i have 980ti tried 4k and it's annoying stutter sttuter and more stutter
i'm really tired of this fantastic threads... for me they are not about performance... they are about PERCEPTION of performance.
This just doesn't match any review , test or analysis.. c'mon.
i have 980ti tried 4k and it's annoying stutter sttuter and more stutter
i'm really tired of this fantastic threads... for me they are not about performance... they are about PERCEPTION of performance.
This just doesn't match any review , test or analysis.. c'mon.
The problem is: You. Not us. Deactivate AA and Bloom, and you almost double your FPS under 4k. Check your 4k-Display also for the appropriate HZ-Settings. And so on. Its a bit of science and lotsa reading. But it clearly works.
The reason could be down to many things. Just posting which GPU you have and expecting anyone with a lower card to get lower frame rates is not science. Then there is the matter of which services you have running, AV (does any gamer still use AV when playing?) and other third party bloatware can cripple even the fastest of i7 systems to an absolute crawl making games unplayable.
Back OT... I've already put the cash to one side for two RX 490's which I'll be using by the end of the month just for 4K gaming (I wanted the Pro Duo but the wife sad something I can't type in the forums!) . Good to hear the game is very playable at 4K res.
Does any human still connect to the Internet without AV? Or are you talking about that horrible virus from Norton? You'll never get rid of that.
What makes you say this? It's almost totally untrue. Why are you misleading people?
FWIW, my game time is 1068 hours, and 99% of that was on the GTX960 @ 4K.
I fully agree that some of the Uber games like Battlefront, Crysis or whatever aren't going to work at 4K, buy Elite has been fine for me. I was concerned about Horizons, and yes there is a hit, but it's still playable in the SRV. The only time I dropped back to 1080p was when I had a week or so playing CQC, as then you don't really care for the pretty graphics over the max steady FPS.
I fully agree that some of the Uber games like Battlefront, Crysis or whatever aren't going to work at 4K, buy Elite has been fine for me. I was concerned about Horizons, and yes there is a hit, but it's still playable in the SRV. The only time I dropped back to 1080p was when I had a week or so playing CQC, as then you don't really care for the pretty graphics over the max steady FPS.
Just out of curiosity, what settings are you actually using?
Personally I prefer to have everything set to ultra and run at 1080/60 rather than low/med at 4k. But if you're getting solid fps without too much sacrifice I'm impressed.
From what you mentioned before I think you used geforce experience to tweak the game settings for 4k@60. So it may be worth checking that it didnt drop you down to 0.65x supersampling or something, anything below 1 ain't good
Personally I prefer to have everything set to ultra and run at 1080/60 rather than low/med at 4k. But if you're getting solid fps without too much sacrifice I'm impressed.
From what you mentioned before I think you used geforce experience to tweak the game settings for 4k@60. So it may be worth checking that it didnt drop you down to 0.65x supersampling or something, anything below 1 ain't good
that confirms what we are saying.
also... how is possible you notice more the fps drop in cqc when actually is less graphics demanding? it's just a small piece of the full game designed for fast action.. i will say it again... it's not performace, it's perception of performance.
I was pre Horizons pretty much maxing everything apart from not bothering with AA, but I started playing with things a bit more since I got Horizons to find a good compromise. I sure I could still tweak things a bit more, but for now am ok (or was pre 2.1) with things as they are.
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
My educated guess with the frame rate drop in the mission board (which I also see @4k resolution, but with SLId GTX 980s) is due to the NPC portraits being generated.
Its funny how a few people immediately jumped in to tell the OP he was wrong. The guy says he was playing at 4K, why call him a liar?
OK, so a GTX960 is not generally accepted as a card that can run high end games at 4K ... but Elite isn't a highest-high-end game. I was quite happily running at 4K with full Ultra settings on a GTX970 until Horizons hit, when I either had to downgrade the quality to Medium or the resolution to 1440p for planetary surfaces, so I can well believe that running with lower settings on a GTX960 4K is entirely possibly.
The OP's question is whether anyone else sees FPS dips for a few seconds when loading the bulletin board, not please shoot down everything I said as untrue.
OK, so a GTX960 is not generally accepted as a card that can run high end games at 4K ... but Elite isn't a highest-high-end game. I was quite happily running at 4K with full Ultra settings on a GTX970 until Horizons hit, when I either had to downgrade the quality to Medium or the resolution to 1440p for planetary surfaces, so I can well believe that running with lower settings on a GTX960 4K is entirely possibly.
The OP's question is whether anyone else sees FPS dips for a few seconds when loading the bulletin board, not please shoot down everything I said as untrue.