• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Power needed for 4K

X

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,668
Looking for help on how much power I need to run 4K in the following games. I want that new 28" Samsung monitor.

Diablo 3
StarCraft II
Dota 2
Heroes of the Storm
Citys Skylines

I don't do much gaming outside of that on PC, but would like smooth performance on these games I do play.

Looking at the new Radeon 380 with 4GB ram. Not sure if that is enough though.

Any suggestions.

Price not an issue, but I don't like wasting money on power I don't need.
 
Your gonna need at least a GTX 980Ti because any card lower than that isn't going to be powerful enough, unless if your running at optimal settings like medium.
 
Well those are all RPGS/RTS that don't really need much power. I think you're fine with a single 970. Except maybe for Cities Skylines.
 
I've used a single 980 to play all of those at 4k but Cities. I was 60FPS or higher for certain.

I don't feel games like Cities need to be capped at 60FPS constantly to be enjoyable, but I certainly wouldn't consider a 960 sufficient.

Personally though, I'd get this 290X. It's a good deal and will do what you want.
 
I haven't played any of the games in your list, so I can't comment specifically on them.

It is going to depend on your preferences. If you are happy turning down quality settings, you can get away with less. If you want everything turned up, + good AF and AA, it's going to take some serious GPU power.

I find for most older titles I can get away with the single 990ti.

Then there are titles like Metro 2033, in which I tested the opening chapter, and could only muster ~40fps with two 980ti's in SLI.
 
I've played D3 and SCII on my single 980 @ 4k without any issues. I think the only game you'd have issues with might be the last game on your list, but I don't think it would be much o f a problem for a single 980.
 
Wow can we stop propagating this 4k needs 800 dollar GPU stereotype. Everyone that replied a 980ti should be ashamed. None of those games except skyline needs a 980ti. Id say 80% of the games on the market are doable at 4k on a 970.
 
TDSlam720 said:
Wow can we stop propagating this 4k needs 800 dollar GPU stereotype. Everyone that replied a 980ti should be ashamed. None of those games except skyline needs a 980ti. Id say 80% of the games on the market are doable at 4k on a 970.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know anything about the games he's listed. Never played any of them.


I'm simply.commenting from my own 4k experience, which is:

-Civ5: Perfectly playable on one 2013 GTX Titan or one 980ti

-Red Orchestra 2: Some maps playable on a single GTX Titan, most maps playable on a single 980ti, some maps require both my 980ti's to maintain good frame rates.

-Metro 2033: Not playable with one 980ti, barely playable with two in SLI.

These are the only games I have played singe going 4K.
 
TDSlam720 said:
Wow can we stop propagating this 4k needs 800 dollar GPU stereotype. Everyone that replied a 980ti should be ashamed. None of those games except skyline needs a 980ti. Id say 80% of the games on the market are doable at 4k on a 970.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure those 5 games he listed is all he is ever going to want to play. the 980 Ti can be had for $649. I would rather spend that for some future proofing as opposed to spending a couple hundred less to experience sub par performance for a 4k monitor, and having to sacrifice lower graphical settings. A 970 is not going to run 4k games at anything close to high/ultra. Guru3d benchmarks, the 970 is lucky to maintain above 30FPS in older titles like Tomb Raider and Bio Shock. If you're going to give advice, give at least good advice.
 
I ran Starcraft 2 at 4K on my 780 Ti. I think I ran it at ultra quality too (likely AA turned off), but it's so long ago I don't recall.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041749696 said:
Well, I don't know anything about the games he's listed. Never played any of them.


I'm simply.commenting from my own 4k experience, which is:

-Civ5: Perfectly playable on one 2013 GTX Titan or one 980ti

-Red Orchestra 2: Some maps playable on a single GTX Titan, most maps playable on a single 980ti, some maps require both my 980ti's to maintain good frame rates.

-Metro 2033: Not playable with one 980ti, barely playable with two in SLI.

These are the only games I have played singe going 4K.
Click to expand...


Civ5 can be maxed out quality in 4K on a 770 and still be a sold 60fps (or higher probably but my 4k TV only goes to 60Hz) and the crappy Beyond Earth works fine too.

Now that I have a 980ti though (as of two hours ago) I just bought dying light and I'll probably try some others. Which whoever made the point, once he goes 4k the OP is probably going to want to try some other games and a 980ti is really the best performance/$ right now for a single 4k card.
 
no single GPU of the current generation is good enough to play the latest games at 4K with all eye candy... maybe next gen stuff but most likely the generation after that.
 
XvMMvX said:
Diablo 3
StarCraft II
Dota 2
Heroes of the Storm
Citys Skylines

I don't do much gaming outside of that on PC, but would like smooth performance on these games I do play.
Click to expand...

People seem to skip that part and focus straight on the first meaning. 970 and equal is more than enough for Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, DOTA 2 and Heroes of the Storm.

I have a 980Ti and don't recommend it at all for above games at 4k. Cities Skylines is a bit more demandnig, I have not gamed on 4k in that game, but my 670 ran it maxed on 1080p with no hickups whatsoever (I know 2160p is a lot more demanding than 1080p but there's also a huge difference between 670 and 970).

Being future proof is nice and all, but since he's barely gaming and seems to be the person who don't mind waiting, why waste more than 2x money on 980Ti for next to no gain when he can wait and get the next gen? IF he wants to be futureproof.
For my need, not even SLI 980Ti is enough, but for his needs, 970 or equally good AMD card will do fine at 4k.
 
XvMMvX said:
Looking for help on how much power I need to run 4K in the following games. I want that new 28" Samsung monitor.

Diablo 3
StarCraft II
Dota 2
Heroes of the Storm
Citys Skylines

I don't do much gaming outside of that on PC, but would like smooth performance on these games I do play.

Looking at the new Radeon 380 with 4GB ram. Not sure if that is enough though.

Any suggestions.

Price not an issue, but I don't like wasting money on power I don't need.
Click to expand...

hmmm i like the 380 but i think the 390 or older 290x would be better suited...think the 980 would be ok also if not out of budget.....now with reduced settings the 4gb 380 be ok but the current price on the 290x is hard to overlook
 
Island said:
And I'm sure those 5 games he listed is all he is ever going to want to play. the 980 Ti can be had for $649. I would rather spend that for some future proofing as opposed to spending a couple hundred less to experience sub par performance for a 4k monitor, and having to sacrifice lower graphical settings. A 970 is not going to run 4k games at anything close to high/ultra. Guru3d benchmarks, the 970 is lucky to maintain above 30FPS in older titles like Tomb Raider and Bio Shock. If you're going to give advice, give at least good advice.
Click to expand...

Yes I said 80% of the games out there, grats using 2 games that have been consistently used in benchmarks over the past couple years to defend your position. Really destroyed my argument. Dude will be fine with a 970 in the games he mentioned.
 
Thanks for all the responses. Especially to the people that actually read my needs. I understand about other games being more demanding, but I just do not play them anymore. I enjoy looking at your guy's setups and screenshots but I am not going to invest in playing them. I don't have the time.

My gaming time is spent where my friends/brother are. My bro and I play mostly blizzard games, I have a group that plays Dota, and my other friend plays BF4 (soon to be battlefront) on PS4. If I do get a single player game I usually just get it on PS4 and play it. Trust me I tried to get my friend on PC when the PS4 dropped but he didn't want to because he dad also plays with us and wouldn't be able to handle it. That and I like the controller for most things... sue me.

People seem to skip that part and focus straight on the first meaning. 970 and equal is more than enough for Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, DOTA 2 and Heroes of the Storm.

I have a 980Ti and don't recommend it at all for above games at 4k. Cities Skylines is a bit more demandnig, I have not gamed on 4k in that game, but my 670 ran it maxed on 1080p with no hickups whatsoever (I know 2160p is a lot more demanding than 1080p but there's also a huge difference between 670 and 970).

Being future proof is nice and all, but since he's barely gaming and seems to be the person who don't mind waiting, why waste more than 2x money on 980Ti for next to no gain when he can wait and get the next gen? IF he wants to be futureproof.
For my need, not even SLI 980Ti is enough, but for his needs, 970 or equally good AMD card will do fine at 4k.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this response Nebell (and TDSlam720).

It seems from most of the feedback from folks who understand what I do that the 380 (although a nice card) might be a little light. There is right at $100 different in the two, am I reading correctly that there is $100 of value there?
 
MrMike said:
I've used a single 980 to play all of those at 4k but Cities. I was 60FPS or higher for certain.
Click to expand...

Similar here. I was playing Witcher 3 @ 4k-60hz at max settings with a 'playable' average of 28 fps with a single 980 & a mild OC. With 2x 980 Ti's in SLI I'm seeing 45-75 fps depending on the area.

In Elite Dangerous I was usually between 30-60 fps depending on in-game location with the 980, now my minimum frames are 45 and max is well over 100. However I'm using Nvidia overriden 4x MSAA & 2x SS now, I wasn't before.

In short, a 980 Ti would be your best bet, no less than a standard 980 (or equivalent).
 
Op,

Which Samsung 28" monitor are you referring to? Does it have G-Sync?

I am able to play those Blizzard games with a GTX 760 smoothly on my Acer XB280HK which has G-Sync although I recently upgraded to a GTX 980 for maxed settings gaming :)

The only game I haven't played is Cities so I can't help you there.
 
Xb280hk here with a 980ti. I own and play all the titles in the OP. G sync is fantastic. 980ti is way overkill for everything but cities skyline. That game hovers in the 40s? and felt the same with my titan x. But very playable with g sync. It's the kinda game that I feel would still feel glitchy even with 980ti sli tho.
 
Thanks for even more responses. After reading everything I am starting to question if the value is even there. After some discussion/research I am wondering if a game needs to be designed with 4K in mind before it is worth it (Blizzard games probably do not have the advanced textures).

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LU28D590DS/ZA

That is the monitor I am looking at. Also looking at the Acer I saw mentioned here.

I might have bit off more of an idea than I can chew, 27" 1080P monitor might be back into consideration until 4K matures a bit.
 
XvMMvX said:
Thanks for even more responses. After reading everything I am starting to question if the value is even there. After some discussion/research I am wondering if a game needs to be designed with 4K in mind before it is worth it (Blizzard games probably do not have the advanced textures).

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LU28D590DS/ZA

That is the monitor I am looking at. Also looking at the Acer I saw mentioned here.

I might have bit off more of an idea than I can chew, 27" 1080P monitor might be back into consideration until 4K matures a bit.
Click to expand...

Every game I have tried thus far is an amazing experience at 4k, I don't think fancy textures really matter that much (but they probably do improve things).

Try DSR/VSR maybe, and see if you like that? Going actual 4k can only make things better from there.
 
XvMMvX said:
Thanks for even more responses. After reading everything I am starting to question if the value is even there. After some discussion/research I am wondering if a game needs to be designed with 4K in mind before it is worth it (Blizzard games probably do not have the advanced textures).

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LU28D590DS/ZA

That is the monitor I am looking at. Also looking at the Acer I saw mentioned here.

I might have bit off more of an idea than I can chew, 27" 1080P monitor might be back into consideration until 4K matures a bit.
Click to expand...

You can always compromise on 27" 1440p resolution. It's where most people are staying while they wait for 4k-capable cards to fall to $200 :D

The 380 is a capable 1440p card if you're playing lighter titles.

There's lots to choose from!
 
XvMMvX said:
Thanks for even more responses. After reading everything I am starting to question if the value is even there. After some discussion/research I am wondering if a game needs to be designed with 4K in mind before it is worth it (Blizzard games probably do not have the advanced textures).

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LU28D590DS/ZA

That is the monitor I am looking at. Also looking at the Acer I saw mentioned here.

I might have bit off more of an idea than I can chew, 27" 1080P monitor might be back into consideration until 4K matures a bit.
Click to expand...

Do IT! :D I have that exact monitor and it is literally incredible. I have a single R9 290 and it even plays Crysis 3 quite smoothly at 4k and medium settings. :) Looks a lot better than 1080p Ultra settings as well. Sorry but, to have good 4k gaming, you do not need 60fps Ultra settings.

Edit: I think you would be fine with one R9 390 or 390x for the cost. Then when you are ready, you can double up if you want.
I speak from direct experience, this is a fantastic 10bit monitor. After all, would you have gone from simple dial up to 128kbit isdn when you could get 5 Megabit dsl at that time? Whatever you do get, get it because you want it and will be happy with it. I made the mistake of going 2 x 27 inch monitors and regretted it right up until I purchased this 4k monitor.

Thankfully, someone bought the 2 monitors from me for $300 so I only really lost out on the tax I paid. Once again, whatever you want to get, get it, forget about what every one else thinks.
 
Reflecting back tho. I would go with the Acer XB270HU (1440p/IPS/144hz/G sync) instead of my xb280hk 4k. Get to swap between 144hz and g sync. And DSR for 4k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top