Need a card for 4k resolution...but not really 4k gaming

T

Trepidati0n

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
9,269
Need a card that can drive a 4k display (most likely the Phillips 40") for desktop applications and videos. I don't really need it to play games (Minecraft at best). I have a 560 Ti (which won't cut it) right now and willing to upgrade in order to facilitate this. Budget is up to $300 if it is justifiable...but prefer to stay below $200. Just not sure if i should choose a last gen card or a current gen card. I don't really have a lot of love for ATI (I went through driver hell for years and why I went back to nVidia after many years in red camp)...but willing to consider it.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Need a card that can drive a 4k display (most likely the Phillips 40") for desktop applications and videos. I don't really need it to play games (Minecraft at best). I have a 560 Ti (which won't cut it) right now and willing to upgrade in order to facilitate this. Budget is up to $300 if it is justifiable...but prefer to stay below $200. Just not sure if i should choose a last gen card or a current gen card. I don't really have a lot of love for ATI (I went through driver hell for years and why I went back to nVidia after many years in red camp)...but willing to consider it.
Click to expand...
Just get a 970 or 980...a 980 ti will be better for UHD vdeo and editing though \m/
 
N!ck said:
Just get a 970 or 980...a 980 ti will be better for UHD vdeo and editing though \m/
Click to expand...

Are you smoking crack? You don't need a GTX 980 Ti for video, not even for video editing!

The OP will be just fine with a GTX 960 4GB. It has enough power to play 1-2 year old AAA games at 4k on mid/high settings:

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 G1 Gaming 4GB review

See there where Shadow of Mordor 4k got 22 fps, ultra settings? You can make that playable at high/mid.

And casual games are even less demanding.

You get HDMI 2.0, which gives you more options (i.e. TVs) for your monitor choice. You also get HEVC 4k decode acceleration, which is a nice bonus.

The most expensive card I'd consider is the GTX 970. If has almost double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 960 and more ROPs, giving it more grunt at 4k. But it doesn't have HEVC decode. Your choice if you want a more future-proof card, or the 4k HEVC decode.
 
Last edited:
To piggyback, the GTX 950 is a cheaper option than the 960 if gaming isn't a priority. Cut down version of the 960 with the same HDMI 2.0 and HEVC decoding support.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
To piggyback, the GTX 950 is a cheaper option than the 960 if gaming isn't a priority. Cut down version of the 960 with the same HDMI 2.0 and HEVC decoding support.
Click to expand...

True, but I thought that 4GB ram might be important, even if we're only talking casual games here.
 
Any 750 Ti with DisplayPort will do the job if you're going to get the Phillips screen. Otherwise you'll need HDMI 2.0 e.g. on the 900 series - what everyone suggested above.
 
aeliusg said:
Any 750 Ti with DisplayPort will do the job if you're going to get the Phillips screen. Otherwise you'll need HDMI 2.0 e.g. on the 900 series - what everyone suggested above.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go with the 750 Ti, since it's exactly the same fill rate as the GTX 560 Ti he's replacing.

I know he's not gaming heavily, but even the GTX 750 Ti could have trouble running casual games at 4k. If you must have "best value," I'd say don't go any lower than the GTX 950.
 
N!ck said:
Yeah.24/7 with the crack over here you fugging know-it-all loud mouth.
Click to expand...

Well you'd better fucking share you mooch!
How else can I maintain my incisive and antipathetic demeanor?

You think this professional level of assholedom comes naturally? I need to be blitzed sister!
 
Last edited:
for 4k really anything is gonna chug a bit. I have a friend that had 3x 980ti's in his rig (hes a rich kid with money to burn) that still couldnt reach 60fps solidly in all modern games (even discounting the poorly optimized ones).

edit:
I'm bad at reading. 4gb and not crap and you're fine for your needs. 4gb 960 will be fine, but would probably be worth future proofing a bit with a 970 or even 980.
 
Might as well wait to see what's announced next week. Maybe there will be some lower-end Pascal cards coming out somewhat soon.
 
Thanks a bunch for all your comments and talk about crack...I like crack...and video cards. I'll wait a little for Pascal but most likely get the 960.
 
N!ck said:
Demanding that I share would make YOU the mooch.
You're not as smart as you think you are, there, try-hard.
Don't waste my time.
Click to expand...

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

HHc4XpY.jpg
 
I just upgraded to a 4GB GTX 960 after the fan control on my 6870 died. I chose the 960 since I'm also thinking of going with a 4k TV as a monitor in the near future and knew I'd need HDMI 2.0. Price was a consideration, as I originally intended to go with a 970 for better performance. I had actually bought a 970 from my local MicroCenter (would have been ~$250 after rebates and selling the game code) but couldn't fit it in my mATX case. Went back and got a 960 instead (they didn't have any other cheap 970's). I figured the extra $20 or so over the 950 would be worth it, especially to get the 4GB of VRAM.

I don't game much nowadays and I don't have a 4k display yet (still using my Dell 3008WFP though, so I do have to drive 2560x1600). I'm hoping the 960 will be able to max Diablo 3 at 4k. Would be a nice bonus to be able to run Star Wars Battlefront too, but I haven't tried that yet.
 
Older demanding games (pre-2013) the 960 can play at 4k pretty competently. Newer games like Battlefront, you'll have to turn things down quite a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top