The 4k question....specifics...

[Stones]

I'm running an Asus Z97-A mobo with an i7 4790k chip and Asus GTX970 Strix GPU. I've read a ton on 4k tvs but, I'd appreciate any opinions you all might have on upgrading to a 4k tv. In particular, I'm thinking about the Samsung 55" - 60hz. Model # UN55HU6950.

Thanks

 

[blowfishrulez]

You'd be an early adaptor to 4K. That means you pay too much and have limited content to display in 4k. I don't think PCars in 4K will run well enough on your 970 but i can be wrong here.

 

[NLxAROSA]

I think that one is okay in terms of input lag when upscaling from 1080p to 4k. Not sure about native 4k input lag though, that's a number I can't seem to find for any TV. See also my (0 replies) topic here.

You'd be an early adaptor to 4K. That means you pay too much and have limited content to display in 4k. I don't think PCars in 4K will run well enough on your 970 but i can be wrong here.

Depends on settings of course. It's definitely playable while hotlapping and dropping the detail a few notches. Haven't tried with a full grid though, will give that a go later on.

 

[Stones]

... Haven't tried with a full grid though, will give that a go later on.

Does that imply you did get a 4k tv?

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

You need more than "3.5GB" of VRAM to play in upscaled or real 4k for modern games even at the lowest settings. Yeah you can SLI GTX970s to have more FPS but still you only have "3.5GB" of VRAM. GTX970 is only 3.5gb not 4GB as advertised.

 

[Pseudopod]

You'd be an early adaptor to 4K. That means you pay too much and have limited content to display in 4k. I don't think PCars in 4K will run well enough on your 970 but i can be wrong here.

I'm not so sure. I don't think there are many PC games that are impossible to tweak or modify to run in real 4k resolution. Some might have enormous GPU requirements in 4k, but that's a different matter all together, and mostly an issue for new games. Your 4k monitor is going to last you a lot longer than whatever graphics card you have now will.

There are 40" 4k PC monitors on the market today that do not cost significantly more than what 4 24" 1080p monitors would cost. If you can't make the most recent games run smoothly in full 4k res, you can still modify the setup in software to act like a dual screen setup for extreme widescreen gaming (3840x1080), without getting ugly bezels in the way. The top/bottom of the display could then be used to display static 2D stuff, depending on how useful that would be for whatever game you're playing.

I would most likely be doing this instead of getting a third monitor for my desktop PC, whenever I can afford it.

I'm not sure why a simple upscale of a 1920x1080 game would require a lot more VRAM. This is something the display is probably even capable of doing on its own.

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

The only real 4k GPU now is the 12GB Titan X. It destroyed the enormous 6.5GB VRAM requirement of Shadows of Mordor even at 4k Ultra.

 

[Stones]

... GTX970 is only 3.5gb not 4GB as advertised.

I've read that about the 970, as well. Seems when it comes to anything pc related, they're a little lax on "truth in advertising".

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

I've read that about the 970, as well. Seems when it comes to anything pc related, they're a little lax on "truth in advertising".

Yeah I'm a victim of that... Long story short, I RMA'ed my R9 290 last december but because of holidays I received my GTX970 a day before the news broke out that its only a 3.5gb card. I should have followed my gut and took the 980 instead. Yeah its still a good card and $100 cheaper here. But still...

 

[Stones]

So you feel the 970 is not enough card for 4k, in a general sense?

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

I tested Dying Light and other games in DSR 4k (upscaled 4k) at lowest settings hitting only 28-36fps and I immediately hit 3560mb+ VRAM and the games stutters and dip. But will definitely slowed down if you hit 3.6GB . The games are just unplayable beyond 3.4gb. And thats only an upscaled or fake 4k and not a real 4k.

 

[Myles Prower]

4k is overrated, 1080p 144Hz is way better

 

[20832]

So you feel the 970 is not enough card for 4k, in a general sense?

A 970 isn't a 4k card simply put. It's great at 1440p, but anything beyond that you start to take some pretty heavy performance hits. A decent 980 (Gigabyte, EVGA or MSI specifically) or something like the 8GB Sapphire R9 290x are good and "cheap" 4K capable card. If you really want to look at decent performance @ 4K with a single card, you should start thinking about the new Titan X, because other than this bad boy, no card is really able to push 4K at pleasent (50+ FPS) at decent (high or more) settings.

Disclaimer: The things in brackets are personal opinions and not the general idea of "good performance"

 

[NLxAROSA]

Does that imply you did get a 4k tv?

Not yet, still doubting.

And thats only an upscaled or fake 4k and not a real 4k.

Wrong. DSR 4K is real 4k. It downscales to 1080p (or whatever you use on your monitor) so it fits on your screen. Upscaling is something completely different (and hardly costs any GPU cycles)!

I just ran Procect CARS at the Nordschleife at 4K/UHD, everything medium, except textures high, no AA, and it ran at 90-105 FPS, max. 2200MB GPU VRAM usage with a grid of 20 cars. So no problem for the 970GTX. Mileage may vary with different cards/games though.

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

Wrong. DSR 4K is real 4k. It downscales to 1080p so it fits on your screen. Upscaling is something completely different!

I just ran Procect CARS at the Nordschleife at 4K/UHD, everything medium, except textures high, no AA, and it ran at 90-105 FPS, max. 2200MB GPU VRAM usage with a grid of 20 cars.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that its processing real 4k...But isn't racing games a bit less demanding than shooters or open world games?

Whoops sorry!

 

[NLxAROSA]

Like I said, mileage may vary, and some games are particularly VRAM hungry. Project CARS isn't one of them though. 👍

And yes, that's the awesome thing about DSR, you let the GPU render at 4k, then downscale it to 1080p and there's no need to use AA because the resolution + smoothing will get rid of the jaggies.

(Upscaling is when you run a resolution like 800x600 and then stretch it to let's say 1600x1200)

Will try at some other tracks that are more demanding.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Like I said, mileage may vary, and some games are particularly VRAM hungry. Project CARS isn't one of them though. 👍

And yes, that's the awesome thing about DSR, you let the GPU render at 4k, then downscale it to 1080p and there's no need to use AA because the resolution + smoothing will get rid of the jaggies.

(Upscaling is when you run a resolution like 800x600 and then stretch it to let's say 1600x1200)

Will try at some other tracks that are more demanding.

Try Spa at 10pm, rain, 20 AI. That's one of my worst combinations

 

[ULTRAVIOLENZZ]

Like I said, mileage may vary, and some games are particularly VRAM hungry. Project CARS isn't one of them though. 👍

And yes, that's the awesome thing about DSR, you let the GPU render at 4k, then downscale it to 1080p and there's no need to use AA because the resolution + smoothing will get rid of the jaggies.

(Upscaling is when you run a resolution like 800x600 and then stretch it to let's say 1600x1200)

Will try at some other tracks that are more demanding.

Yeah also I use DSR as AA for most of my games though I can only use 1440p max for playability because my cpu sucks.:tup:

 

[Stones]

From what I've read so far, it seems I would have to tone down the settings (in game) in order to run decent fps (w/ 4k tv). I'm running Assetto Corsa at 2880 x 1620 (in game) with fps steadily above 40, everything maxed out, except motion blur is off. Just trying to get a feel if it's worth my time to do the 4k thing.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Try Spa at 10pm, rain, 20 AI. That's one of my worst combinations

Date? (e.g. in the winter this is night, in the summer it's just after sunset)

Just trying to get a feel if it's worth my time to do the 4k thing.

Same here, I'm still tempted/doubting wether I should make the move.

 

[20832]

From what I've read so far, it seems I would have to tone down the settings (in game) in order to run decent fps (w/ 4k tv). I'm running Assetto Corsa at 2880 x 1620 (in game) with fps steadily above 40, everything maxed out, except motion blur is off. Just trying to get a feel if it's worth my time to do the 4k thing.

Question would be if you really want/need the size of a TV, because there are (similar priced) 4k monitors out there, that are pretty big. If you really want to spend this much for a TV, then you might want to get a 4k Monitor with G Sync.

Something like this, because the overall experience of 4k will be more pleasent because of the decreased latency and alos through G Sync you will have reduced tearing due to the adaptive refresh rate of the monitor 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

Try Spa at 10pm, rain, 20 AI. That's one of my worst combinations

Tried it, was night, thunderstorm, 20 AI. FPS slashed in half (45-60). Though still playable IMO. Might have to turn down a few more options to get a steady 60FPS+. The 45 was when starting at the back of the grid BTW, FPS rises quickly as grid dispersed.

That said, it's not the huge drop in FPS I expected compared to running 1080p/Ultra.

 

[Willfred_1]

Question would be if you really want/need the size of a TV, because there are (similar priced) 4k monitors out there, that are pretty big. If you really want to spend this much for a TV, then you might want to get a 4k Monitor with G Sync.

Something like this, because the overall experience of 4k will be more pleasent because of the decreased latency and alos through G Sync you will have reduced tearing due to the adaptive refresh rate of the monitor 👍

While I like the Idea of 4k gaming I do be leave you would get a better experience from a oculus rift or similar device. The first decent Vr gear is coming out at the end of the year I think. So may be save a bit.
Within the WMD section I believe I read Vr gp guys are already doing quicker laps than no Vr people.

 

[Stones]

...
Something like this, because the overall experience of 4k will be more pleasent because of the decreased latency and alos through G Sync you will have reduced tearing due to the adaptive refresh rate of the monitor 👍

I'm thinking 55".... which is why I mention tv. I'm running on a 46" - 1080p now, which is pretty clean, actually. Just thought the 4k would bring the eye candy out even better.

 

[20832]

I'm thinking 55".... which is why I mention tv. I'm running on a 46" - 1080p now, which is pretty clean, actually. Just thought the 4k would bring the eye candy out even better.

The problem simply is that UHD still is not a "consumer oriented" resolution. UHD requires some fairly high end hardware to get a fairly decent experience from it. So as of right now I'd say, stick to 1080p, wait for UHD TV's to drop in price and maybe even start saving up for a better/faster card.

While I like the Idea of 4k gaming I do be leave you would get a better experience from a oculus rift or similar device. The first decent Vr gear is coming out at the end of the year I think. So may be save a bit.
Within the WMD section I believe I read Vr gp guys are already doing quicker laps than no Vr people.

The problem is that Oculus Rift is not for everybody and the experience you get, although nice and immersive, is nothing for the long term. The best option (relying here on reputable sources on YouTube) is the HTC Vive as of right now, which will (apparently) come out in Q2 or early Q3.

 

[Myles Prower]

Give 4K a couple more years, when the tech is more powerful and accessible with more games are running DX12 or Vulcan. Or you can set all your money on fire and get a 5k SLI Titan X configuration

 

[NLxAROSA]

One question I would like specifically answered is input lag at 4k native. E.g. all tests that are done using Leo Bodnar tester are upscaled 1080p (because that's what the device tests). But I couldn't care less about that, I want to know what input lag is at 4k native (I'll let the PC do the upscaling at hardly any cost). But no test shows that currently.

 

[Pseudopod]

Edit.
Maybe I should read the posts I am replying to properly first.

 

[NLxAROSA]

While I like the Idea of 4k gaming I do be leave you would get a better experience from a oculus rift or similar device.

I have played Project CARS in "ghetto-VR" using my Android smartphone and a ColorCross headset, and even that is already absolutely awesome. Definitely getting a consumer-grade VR device when they hit. 👍

 

[MJRL]

Not yet, still doubting.

Wrong. DSR 4K is real 4k. It downscales to 1080p (or whatever you use on your monitor) so it fits on your screen. Upscaling is something completely different (and hardly costs any GPU cycles)!

I just ran Procect CARS at the Nordschleife at 4K/UHD, everything medium, except textures high, no AA, and it ran at 90-105 FPS, max. 2200MB GPU VRAM usage with a grid of 20 cars. So no problem for the 970GTX. Mileage may vary with different cards/games though.

Don't you get input lag with DSR?
I have a GTX970, i'm running Asseto Corsa at 140/170 FPS, i think i will give it a try.