Anyone gaming on a 1070ti at 4k?

[mopardude87]

Have decided today is the day to make the move to 4k, jumping on a 43'' HDR tv from a Acer 27'' 1440p panel.

My most actively played recent game is occasionally BF1 and GTA V with BF4 getting most of my time.I play some Overwatch occasionally too.Besides shadows in the BF titles and maybe grass and shadows in GTA V it should be a fairly good experience right? I hope to jump on a 1080 ti later on this year perhaps. I can deal with a performance drop given the increase in resolution i just wonder how bad off it will be.

Been also hearing HDR can be a bit of a pain to set up but coming from a IPS i think anything less then a HDR panel is technically a downgrade. Seeing decent panels start at $238 or so its almost like why have i waited this long.It's prob the size and performance hit over anything else.

 

[n0x1ous]

not gonna be a great experience unless you are ok with console framerates and settings

 

[Cableman]

I recently switched from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor and I have a 1070 (not ti). I play Doom, GTA V and Wolfenstein 2, and get 60 fps on average with occasional drops in the 50s (highest presets with minor tweaks). I am sure you'll be ok with a 1070ti, definitely not console settings and frames.

 

[amenx]

Same, I moved to 4k 2 years ago on a 1070. A LOT of older games do 60fps easily. Even newer, tough to run titles can run well enough, though with lowered settings (esp no AA) but usually under 60fps. Although now on a 2080, just to turn up settings a bit higher, surprised on how far I could get away with a 1070 and decent image quality. Much prefer gaming @ 4k with lowered settings than maxed out on 1440p, especially with slower paced, SP games.

 

[mopardude87]

Since Wednesday i have wall mounted a 40'' Samsung smart tv and its been great.I could sit on my bed or at my desk and see my desktop perfectly fine and that is with scaling at 250% over the recommended 300%. GTA V so far is the game that tanked the worst but its still enjoyable with some lowered settings. Overwatch plays like a dream with a constant 60+ which is nice on all max settings. Drop effects to low and kill msaa and BF4 holds what appears to be a constant 60+. BC2 i just shut off msaa and its 70+ .

I may revisit some older titles. Not sure how something like Bioshock will work with the resolution but should be interesting either way.

Overall just for general desktop usage and watching things from my bed, this 40" has been the best thing i have hooked up to my computer since my first 24'' flat panel back in 2008. Given i got distance vision issues and can read this text from 7 feet away on my bed is nothing short of amazing.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I would imagine it would be fine, I run games in HD (4k in theory is 4x as demanding) on a Radeon HD 7800 fine. That's a much lower spec card compared to the 1070 TI. Mind you most of the games I play are probably not as demanding as some of the latest high end titles. Unreal Tournament is probably somewhat demanding I guess. Though it's still in Alpha so not all maps are fully textured.

At work we have 3 4k monitors running off the built on card of a office grade computer. It's pushing it, and sometimes a bit flaky, but it works. That's not gaming mind you...

Either way it can't hurt to try, worse case scenario might have to bump down the resolution or other settings.

I have 2 1070's but they are busy mining. When I upgrade to a 4K monitor I'll probably convert my mining rig into a gaming rig as it's an upgrade from what I have now.

 

[Shmee]

I would prefer 1440p high refresh with high FPS if possible, but if you are ok with lower FPS on a 4k screen, it should be doable with some settings tweaking.

 

[ZGR]

I gamed on a 1070 at 4k60. Obtaining 60fps is easy with older games especially once overclocked. Newer games turn it into a 1080p60 card.

GTA V is easy at 4k60. I play it heavily modded. Overwatch is gonna suck at 60hz though.

 

[sxr7171]

I recently switched from a 1080p monitor to a 4k monitor and I have a 1070 (not ti). I play Doom, GTA V and Wolfenstein 2, and get 60 fps on average with occasional drops in the 50s (highest presets with minor tweaks). I am sure you'll be ok with a 1070ti, definitely not console settings and frames.

It depends. Some people prefer consistent frame rates. So even with a 2080ti I play some games at 4K with 30fps. Otherwise they just drop frames and stutter too much.

It all depends on which compromise you prefer. Reduce quality settings and get 60fps or keep quality and get 30fps.

 

[ZGR]

It depends. Some people prefer consistent frame rates. So even with a 2080ti I play some games at 4K with 30fps. Otherwise they just drop frames and stutter too much.

It all depends on which compromise you prefer. Reduce quality settings and get 60fps or keep quality and get 30fps.

I tried that for Assassin's Creed Odyssey at 4k ultra and decided to lower my settings to go back to 60. What games do you play at 30fps?

 

[sxr7171]

I tried that for Assassin's Creed Odyssey at 4k ultra and decided to lower my settings to go back to 60. What games do you play at 30fps?

Right now I’ve decided that AC origins and Odyssey I might play at 30 FPS or 60 FPS with lower settings. I’m not sure.

I played and liked origins when it came out. But I think i’m done with it. I haven’t gotten into odyssey yet. I might not for a while. I save games for times when i’m not working so much.


Metro exodus is impossible at 60fps with RTX on.

These games run on consoles at 30fps so it’s not like they are unplayable at 30 FPS. It’s really on a case by case basis. If you’re playing I’ll agree 60fps lower settings is better. If you’re just there to marvel at the graphics and take a scenic stroll in another world with a few fights thrown in, then 30 FPS max settings could be better.

 

[Furious_Styles]

It depends. Some people prefer consistent frame rates. So even with a 2080ti I play some games at 4K with 30fps. Otherwise they just drop frames and stutter too much.

It all depends on which compromise you prefer. Reduce quality settings and get 60fps or keep quality and get 30fps.

Having a 2080 ti and playing at 30fps is like a daily kick in the nutsack. I can't believe anyone would do that by choice.

 

[amenx]

Having a 2080 ti and playing at 30fps is like a daily kick in the nutsack. I can't believe anyone would do that by choice.

The problem is when some think their set of standards are absolute or must apply to all. It doesnt. Many people are very tolerant of 30fps. Ask the millions of console users. For me, 4k, is more than worth the sacrifice over the higher FPS, higher hz lower res monitors (especially with slower paced games). Detail (4k), image quality, larger screen size are by far the most criteria I have for gaming , PC usage and entertainment. Small (27" or lower) screens are so off-putting to me, that I refuse to use them as my main display, regardless of the higher fps/hz they may give me. Secondly, there are by far many more games (even AAA titles) that are playable at 60fps easily with a 2080ti than are hamstrung down to 30fps. Plus so many settings adjustments that can bump up FPS with minimal image quality loss. Due to this, even when I was on a 1070, still preferred 4k. There are many gamers who dont care about screen size and even do most of their gaming on 6" phones (mobile gaming is now bigger than PC gaming). So there are a vast array of people with different standards to gaming, screen size, IQ, FPS, Hz, etc. Pretty hard to convince others their preferences are superior to any others preferences. So each to their own.

 

[Furious_Styles]

The problem is when some think their set of standards are absolute or must apply to all. It doesnt. Many people are very tolerant of 30fps. Ask the millions of console users. For me, 4k, is more than worth the sacrifice over the higher FPS, higher hz lower res monitors (especially with slower paced games). Detail (4k), image quality, larger screen size are by far the most criteria I have for gaming , PC usage and entertainment. Small (27" or lower) screens are so off-putting to me, that I refuse to use them as my main display, regardless of the higher fps/hz they may give me. Secondly, there are by far many more games (even AAA titles) that are playable at 60fps easily with a 2080ti than are hamstrung down to 30fps. Plus so many settings adjustments that can bump up FPS with minimal image quality loss. Due to this, even when I was on a 1070, still preferred 4k. There are many gamers who dont care about screen size and even do most of their gaming on 6" phones (mobile gaming is now bigger than PC gaming). So there are a vast array of people with different standards to gaming, screen size, IQ, FPS, Hz, etc. Pretty hard to convince others their preferences are superior to any others preferences. So each to their own.

1070 with 4k is a tough ask. You must either play really old stuff or be okay with even sub 30 fps. I'm on a 1070 now @1440p and I'd say it's the bare minimum for that res.

 

[ZGR]

1070 with 4k is a tough ask. You must either play really old stuff or be okay with even sub 30 fps. I'm on a 1070 now @1440p and I'd say it's the bare minimum for that res.

Well, I got my first 4k monitor to play ARMA 2 on an R9 290... It was great!

But Elite Dangerous, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Division 1, GTA V, Dying Light, Rainbow 6 Siege, ARMA 3, all my RTS games, Kerbal Space Program, Insurgency Sandstorm, Destiny 2, and Alien Isolation all can maintain 60fps.

Some like Ghost Recon and Division 1 meant lowered settings, but most games ran great. Moving to the 1080 ti saw essentially no performance gain in most of the games I play.

Now some of the newer games? Anthem makes the 1070 a 1080p card. Same with Division 2, Star Citizen (lol), and Assassin's Creed Origins + Odyssey.

I also needed to overclock the 1070 (2050/9400) to eek out 60fps on Ghost Recon.

 

[Furious_Styles]

Well, I got my first 4k monitor to play ARMA 2 on an R9 290... It was great!

But Elite Dangerous, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Division 1, GTA V, Dying Light, Rainbow 6 Siege, ARMA 3, all my RTS games, Kerbal Space Program, Insurgency Sandstorm, Destiny 2, and Alien Isolation all can maintain 60fps.

Some like Ghost Recon and Division 1 meant lowered settings, but most games ran great. Moving to the 1080 ti saw essentially no performance gain in most of the games I play.

Now some of the newer games? Anthem makes the 1070 a 1080p card. Same with Division 2, Star Citizen (lol), and Assassin's Creed Origins + Odyssey.

I also needed to overclock the 1070 (2050/9400) to eek out 60fps on Ghost Recon.

Yeah I'm running Apex with a 100% fps config and I get drops to 60 but typically stay around 100 fps. I give thanks for gsync every day.

 

[amenx]

1070 with 4k is a tough ask. You must either play really old stuff or be okay with even sub 30 fps. I'm on a 1070 now @1440p and I'd say it's the bare minimum for that res.

It isnt as tough of a task as it may seem. As mentioned, tweaking game settings can go a long way towards upping your FPS. No AA (can do without it @ 4k), no blur or ultra shadows or high ambient occlusion, etc, and can easily stay above 30 FPS. And it will still look far better than games maxed out at 1440p. Now have a 2080 just to get a little more headroom, but was perfectly content with the 1070 @ 4k. People assume they need ultra settings on everything and thats what probably intimidates them about 4k.

 

[Furious_Styles]

It isnt as tough of a task as it may seem. As mentioned, tweaking game settings can go a long way towards upping your FPS. No AA (can do without it @ 4k), no blur or ultra shadows or high ambient occlusion, etc, and can easily stay above 30 FPS. And it will still look far better than games maxed out at 1440p. Now have a 2080 just to get a little more headroom, but was perfectly content with the 1070 @ 4k. People assume they need ultra settings on everything and thats what probably intimidates them about 4k.

I doubt it looks better than 1440p when you have to turn all that stuff down. But 30fps is no-go territory for me in any game. I prefer high refresh rates and high fps, but I've played stuff at that low before. Most recent I can remember was Witcher 3 with a 770. Again so thankful for gsync it's the only thing that made that tolerable.

 

[amenx]

Well, I moved from 27" 1440p which I've been on for last several years, so intimately familiar with how it looks vs my 40" 4k screen. Still have the 1440p unit in my 2nd rig with the 1070. On the 40" screen, an apple looks like an apple with all its fine details and textures. On the 27" screen, an apple looks like a cherry, not as immersive, everything shrunk down in size, textures too indistinct. Never moving back to less than 30" regardless of FPS, Hz or otherwise.

 

[Arkaign]

I have an OLED 4K 65" (the B8) , but 4k60hz non-Gysnc feels like complete ass to me personally in games, despite looking nice at a standstill. I do basically everything but movies on a 120Hz Gysnc 3440x1440 UW Curved. Even my friend's budget 32" 1440p LG 75Hz Freesync feels miles better to game on.

HDMI 2.0+ Variable Refresh TVs should be the magic though, when they become common 2020-2021 and onwards. Then we can have the best of all worlds without psycho budgets. 4K to 8K, high refresh, variable refresh, HDR, OLED, etc.

 

[ZGR]

I have an OLED 4K 65" (the B8) , but 4k60hz non-Gysnc feels like complete ass to me personally in games, despite looking nice at a standstill. I do basically everything but movies on a 120Hz Gysnc 3440x1440 UW Curved. Even my friend's budget 32" 1440p LG 75Hz Freesync feels miles better to game on.

HDMI 2.0+ Variable Refresh TVs should be the magic though, when they become common 2020-2021 and onwards. Then we can have the best of all worlds without psycho budgets. 4K to 8K, high refresh, variable refresh, HDR, OLED, etc.

My buddy's 4k OLED tv has insane input lag in games even in game mode. It is so bad that moving around in a game feels like it is being streamed from another state. I know later models got a lot better, but I am also hoping for some magic!

 

[PrincessFrosty]

not gonna be a great experience unless you are ok with console framerates and settings

Mmm not really. It comes down to what games do you play.

I ran a single 1080 for ages which is only marginally faster than a 1070Ti and I'd argue that in my steam library of 720 games maybe 3-4 wouldn't run comfortably in 4k. Even games like GTA5 run at a playable 50-60fps average.

There are only a handful of newer titles which are exceedingly graphically intensive, typically these are hand picked to be used for bench marking by review sites, but they constitute maybe 10 titles that stretch the latest hardware to its limits, and there's tens of thousands of other games that are either just older or less demanding that run in 4k just fine.

Of my game library the only seriously demanding games that just couldn't run at 4k without butchering the settings were Kingdom Come: Deliverance, The Witcher 3 and more recently Shadow of the tomb Raider which were the 3 games that really convinced me to add a 2nd GPU in SLI.

 

[CP5670]

My 1080 Ti gets a constant 60fps for 4K in 95% of the games I've tried. A few recent games can't sustain that and are more like 40-50fps, but even there I can often get 60fps by turning down a few graphical settings that cause a big performance hit for little visual improvement. A few other games drop to the 30s in some areas regardless of the graphical settings, and are either CPU limited or just poorly optimized (Dishonored 2 comes to mind).

I have an OLED 4K 65" (the B8) , but 4k60hz non-Gysnc feels like complete ass to me personally in games, despite looking nice at a standstill.

The image persistence on these TVs at 60hz is somewhat noticeable and makes some games look blurry in motion. They do support 120hz at 1080p, where the blur goes away completely, or BFI at 4K which removes the blur but cuts the brightness in half. Despite these issues, I still prefer gaming on the TV at 4K just for the big screen size and perfect blacks. Any gaming LCD feels tiny and not immersive to me after getting used to gaming on the TV.

 

[Arkaign]

How far away are you sitting from your TV?

34" UW curved feels a lot more immersive in my chair vs ~6' from a 65".

 

[CP5670]

I sit about 4' away from a 55" one. I use it like a regular computer monitor, except it sits at the back edge of my desk.