Hardware & Technical How viable is ED in 4k?

[Porina]

Over the past couple of days I've been wondering about options to "go large" with displays without too much cost or complexity. I thought about the 3 monitor route but I'm not sure I'd like the wideness of it. Then I started looking at 4k UHD TVs. There are some historic threads on this topic but they're rather out of date. It is probably worth a look with what is available today, and at what cost.

Why 4k? Well, currently I'm using a 1200p 24" monitor. For practical purposes let's call it 1080p. Keeping a similar pixel size, going to 4k means I'd need about a 48" display. That's right into TV territory. My logic was to alter the FoV settings so what I see is about the same size, but due to the bigger display you can see more around you.

I popped into a local store yesterday to check out the displays. There are some panels as big as 55" for under £1k, although on checking out the reviews there is a case of you get what you pay for, with lower cost panels tending to have longer input lag, more potential motion blur/smearing, and smaller gamut than more expensive models. Suffice to say I will need further research to decide if any of the more affordable panels are "good enough".

The other problem is driving it! I've tried my system with 2x AA on before... which should be comparable to driving 4k. It was pretty, but the frame rate wasn't and dropping into the 20's and 30's at high quality settings. I will have to play more to see what my R9 280X can do, but an upgrade is likely on the cards if I want decent 4k performance. I'd like to keep an average framerate around 60fps, with occasional minima around 30fps acceptable. I don't know if a single card can do that, or if I will need to look at SLI in some way...

 

[popuptoaster]

Most card companies and hardware reviewers are recommending Crossfire or SLI for 4k, at 4k you are pushing FOUR times as many pixels as you would at 1080. Even a Titan X is going to struggle to manitain a decent frame rate at high quality settings in a modern AAA game.

 

[Zetta]

The problem with these resolutions is how close you need to be to get the full benefit, even on 48"+ TVs. A hi-res laptop or monitor makes sense but generally you're not going to get full benefit from a TV at normal viewing distances. Have a read of Does 4K Resolution Matter? to see what I'm getting at.

 

[Zephyriel]

Personnaly, unless you are very rich and are sure you will always have two or three of the very best gpu in SLI, I see no reason to go beyond 1080p or 1440p...
I recently bought a 27' 1080p monitor and am very happy with it, the picture quality is good, and my setup allows me to supersample a bit, which is enough for me.
If you want to know how your PC will fare with a 4k display, try using Nvidia DSR option and run your games in 4K on your normal monitor, and you'll see if they run well enough for your tastes.

 

[Porina]

While I didn't explicitly state it, it was implied I would be using the bigger display at a similar viewing distance I currently use with a 24" monitor. Thus the bigger display gives me more field of view, at a comparable pixel detail level. With the standard FoV, I often find myself wishing I had a bit more vision around me both horizontally and vertically, therefore the 3 monitor approach wasn't a solution for that. To throw in an insane idea, is 6 monitors possible? Arranged 3 wide, two high. I do think this would be getting rather messy to configure if it is even possible.

I don't run an nvidia card so would need the AMD equivalent to DSR test it out. As said I have tried using 2x AA (or whatever it is called), and that was rather punishing on my current R9 280X. I estimate about double the performance would give reasonable performance levels, so a bit more than double would probably be enough. I need to play about some more with display options.

I wouldn't go for a Titan X, and I'd need to work out the numbers to see if two of lower cards makes more economic sense.

I will admit I didn't consider 1440p displays, which would require further research. My gut feeling is it wont be a big enough step over 1080p to be worth the cost, so it will be 4k or stick with 1080p.

 

[xondk]

4k isn't viable yet at least not for single cards other then the biggest and most expensive ones, and even those cannot run 4k 60 fps guarentee'd with everything turned on.

But I think next year if the next Nvidia architecture is as big a leap as it is promised to be then 4k single card will be viable, maybe even value single cards like in the price range the 970 gtx currently has.

 

[Porina]

After much thought I now do agree that 4k isn't going to be realistic with what I want to pay. 4k might as well describe the price. I'm kinda happy to pay for a new TV as a side effect, but likely needing two high end GPUs is the killer for now. I'll check in again next generation

 

[Heph]

Respectfully disagree with the general consensus on 4k. I push a 4k monitor (the cheap Acer your can get with 60hz refresh, 1ms response, $300) with a 870m from my MSI GS60... I get a constant 30-40fps in game (oddly in-menu drops to 20fps). Since it's a space sim I don't notice the sub-60fps at all. Fact is the "smoothness" with which stars zoom by your ship is just not terribly noticeable, and in-combat or station docking seems to be just fine. Furthermore I personally prefer the tradeoff of smooth surfaces in cabin vs smoother movement (since I can't really see it) in this game. To be fair station docking is the only part I ever notice as slightly less smooth, and that only happens once in awhile.

if you go 4k I will say this... I had to switch to fixed-window mode and get out of full-screen.. The game did not like full screen at all with 4k, but does fixed window no problem.

Some games would suffer tremendously from 30-40fps.... Elite (given the nature of the game) does not IMO.