Will 20nm based gpus be able to handle 4k res for gaming?

[bystander36]

I think its garbage and will only play on the maximum detail settings. Again I'm sorry my opinion bothers people.

I want the visual details. Villify me and tell me I'm wrong all you want. If I buy a PC game I want all the details and graphics it offers turned on.

I assume you only play a few games, like Crysis 3, Farcry 3, Metro 2033 and similar? Most games maximum are lower in visual quality than those games at medium.

In cases like Metro 2033, there is virtually no difference between high and very high visually. The differences in Metro 2033 are mostly about physics, and scripted calculations versus real time calculations.

There are some really great games you are missing out on, if you think Crysis 3 looks like garbage at medium settings.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I assume you only play a few games, like Crysis 3, Farcry 3, Metro 2033 and similar? Most games maximum are lower in visual quality than those games at medium.

In cases like Metro 2033, there is virtually no difference between high and very high visually. The differences in Metro 2033 are mostly about physics, and scripted calculations versus real time calculations.

There are some really great games you are missing out on, if you think Crysis 3 looks like garbage at medium settings.

Miss out on what? I play all the top games but only at max details. Stop making stuff up.

so you act like a child and max all the sliders and pout if it does not run smooth?

I could post videos all day long and you would not have a clue what the actual settings are if I did not tell you. those with common sense reduce some of the settings if they dont see a visual difference. hell sometimes just knocking down shadows a notch or two can double or triple framerates making a game perfectly smooth with no obvious visual difference. keep on with your brilliant plan though.

Who said I pout? I have no problem with games running poorly at all. Again...quit making stuff up.


You guys are missing my entire point. I am running hardware that is capable of running games at max details at my resolution so why would I accept lower??

 

[bystander36]

Miss out on what? I play all the top games but only at max details. Stop making stuff up

Games like Dishonored, Dragon Age: Origins, Batman AC, Skyrim and so on. These are great games, but do not look as good as Crysis 3 at medium. If you find Crysis 3 at medium to be garbage, what do you do with games who maximum detail is worse than Crysis 3 at medium?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Games like Dishonored, Dragon Age: Origins, Batman AC and so on. These are great games, but do not look as good as Crysis 3 at medium. If you find Crysis 3 at medium to be garbage, what do you do with games who maximum detail is worse than Crysis 3 at medium?

I play them at their max details. Anything less than that is not good enough to me. In the case of dishonored I also ran 4x sgssa. You are totally making things up as you go along. I think crysis 3 at medium looks like crap compared to the game when it is maxed out. Never once did I say "as compared to game x".


I have my opinion on how PC games should be played on hardware capable of it.

 

[bystander36]

I play them at their max details. Anything less than that is not good enough. In the cade of dishonored I also ran 4x sgssa

So it doesn't matter how good or bad a game looks, it doesn't matter to you, as long as it says "maximum detail", it looks great, and if not, it looks like garbage to you. I bet the original Crysis 2 looked better to you than the DX11 patched version, since the original was easy to max.

You really should be playing consoles. Many PC games are designed around the idea of not playing it at maximum.

 

[toyota]

I play them at their max details. Anything less than that is not good enough to me. In the case of dishonored I also ran 4x sgssa. You are totally making things up as you go along. I think crysis 3 at medium looks like crap compared to the game when it is maxed out. Never once did I say "as compared to game x".


I have my opinion on how PC games should be played on hardware capable of it.

speaking of making things up you are flat out full of crap. no way in hell would you immediately recognize Crysis 3 was on medium and not very high settings. even low looks almost the same expect it has pop in. medium, high and very high have very little visual difference between them so stop saying medium is garbage because you are making a fool of yourself.

 

[bystander36]

I play them at their max details. Anything less than that is not good enough to me. In the case of dishonored I also ran 4x sgssa. You are totally making things up as you go along. I think crysis 3 at medium looks like crap compared to the game when it is maxed out. Never once did I say "as compared to game x".


I have my opinion on how PC games should be played on hardware capable of it.

You didn't say it looked like garbage compared to how it looks maxed out either. You just said it looks like garbage.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So it doesn't matter how good or bad a game looks, it doesn't matter to you, as long as it says "maximum detail", it looks great, and if not, it looks like garbage to you. I bet the original Crysis 2 looked better to you than the DX11 patched version, since the original was easy to max.

You really should be playing consoles. Many PC games are designed around the idea of playing it at maximum.

Are you looking for a fight on the forums or something? When the hell did I ever say that? Please quote it...

Seriously it isn't that damn hard to understand. I take every game on PC and put it maxed out because I can and lower details are unacceptable in my opinion.

I played crysis 2 maxed and then in dx11 also maxed. Dx11 had a few better details with tessellation etc. So...I don't even know what you're trying to say.

 

[cmdrdredd]

speaking of making things up you are flat out full of crap. no way in hell would you immediately recognize Crysis 3 was on medium and not very high settings. even low looks almost the same expect it has pop in. medium, high and very high have very little visual difference between them so stop saying medium is garbage because you are making a fool of yourself.

When you look at the textures on plants and the environment in general you can tell. Don't act like everyone is blind to the differences because they aren't. Maybe you have to struggle to see them but you can see them if you look.

 

[bystander36]

Are you looking for a fight on the forums or something? When the hell did I ever say that? Please quote it...

Seriously it isn't that damn hard to understand. I take every game on PC and put it maxed out because I can and lower details are unacceptable in my opinion.

I played crysis 2 maxed and then in dx11 also maxed. Dx11 had a few better details with tessellation etc. So...I don't even know what you're trying to say.

What I'm saying is your idea of what is garbage vs. good looking seems to revolve entirely based on the setting label.

Saying Crysis 3 at medium is garbage and yet Dishonored is good at maximum is ridiculous. Visual quality isn't about a setting label.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What I'm saying is your idea of what is garbage vs. good looking seems to revolve entirely based on the setting label.

Saying Crysis 3 at medium is garbage and yet Dishonored is good at maximum is ridiculous. Visual quality isn't about a setting label.

Nobody said that...I am saying anything less than max is bad to me. I have said that so many times and you continue to ignore it.


Let's get back on topic though.

We won't be able to max games with single cards at 4k resolution for a while. The new 20nm cards still won't be enough. It might be possible for some titles but crysis and metro are a couple that probably won't be playable. Although when 4k monitors and TVs are commonplace we may have some new GPU tech that can. I suspect though you will still need multi GPU configs to get really super smooth gameplay.

 

[bystander36]

Nobody said that...I am saying anything less than max is bad to me. I have said that so many times and you continue to ignore it.

How is what you said any different than I how I said it?

If the label is "max", then good. If the label is not "max", then garbage.

It is this kind of thinking that leads Dev's to not push graphics details. God forbid, someone has to turn down a setting.

 

[blackened23]

I've actually spent time viewing a ton of screenshots between High and Very high in crysis 3 , and there aren't differences -- I think very high is one of those "overkill" settings with minimal benefit yet a huge framerate loss. Maybe i'll post my own screenies later with direct comparisons. Trust me -- i've tried to "see" a difference. And didn't see any between H/VH. I did, however, see a tremendous framerate drop for no apparent reason associated with VH in crysis 3.

In the end, everyone has their preference -- It is all subjective and if you prefer maxing games out, that's fine. I'm not going to sit here and condemn you (as some others seem to be doing) for your preference, I mean that's the beauty of PC gaming - it is very scalable and everyone can play games however you want! If you want to max games out, that's fine, that's totally your preference. However, I think the cost of entry for maxing games out is largely becoming ludicrous in this day and age, considering you'd need dual 780s or dual Titans to max games at 1600p? I think the average person would say EFF that. Especially when you get the same graphics by lowering one setting. I remember back in the day, a single Voodoo II would max everything out, no sweat, at the highest resolutions no problem. 299$. But now? Dual Titans to max a game out? Yeah....Eff that.

That's just my opinion, though.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I've actually spent time viewing a ton of screenshots between High and Very high in crysis 3 , and there aren't differences -- I think very high is one of those "overkill" settings with minimal benefit yet a huge framerate loss. Maybe i'll post my own screenies later with direct comparisons. Trust me -- i've tried to "see" a difference. And didn't see any between H/VH. I did, however, see a tremendous framerate drop for no apparent reason associated with VH in crysis 3.

In the end, everyone has their preference -- if you prefer maxing games out, that's fine. I think the cost of entry is largely becoming ludicrous in this day and age, considering you'd need dual 780s or dual Titans to max games at 1600p? Excuse me, but I think the average person would say EF that. Especially when you get the same graphics by lowering one setting.

That's just my opinion, though.

Well, turning off AA or running smaa in crysis 3 brings the performance up to very playable levels without dropping shadows or anything like that. I have no frame rate issues at 1440p. At 4k I would have lots of slowdown I am sure.

 

[bystander36]

It used to be that graphical details and resolution were sliding scales that we had to choose between with every game. Our monitors could play at a large array of resolutions, so when a game came out, we had to choose between high resolution, or high settings. In many cases, it might look better to use a higher resolution and lower settings, in other cases, you lowered the resolution and use higher settings.

It seems that we may enter that type of thinking again. If you get a 4k monitor, you can choose to use lower settings with a high resolution, or you could choose 1080p or some resolution in between, with higher settings.

 

[blackened23]

Well, turning off AA or running smaa in crysis 3 brings the performance up to very playable levels. I have no frame rate issues at 1440p. At 4k I would have lots of slowdown I am sure.

True, it'll be a long while before 4k gaming becomes any type of mainstream. Definitely don't disagree. I would rather the tech be available than not, though.

 

[cmdrdredd]

True, it'll be a long while before 4k gaming becomes any type of mainstream. Definitely don't disagree. I would rather the tech be available than not, though.

Sure, progress has to start somewhere. Like was said, I think when 4k really hits we will have GPUs that can do it pretty easily. Maybe not single GPU, but a dual card solution probably won't be a problem at that point.

The good thing about 4k is it will reduce the necessity for high levels of AA since the image should be super sharp. We will just need to find a way to remove the temporal AA which is much less demanding to fix isn't it?

 

[CZroe]

I'm not worried. I'd be happy with 4k for 2D/pre-recorded stuff and quarter-resolution with AA for real-time 3D. It would scale perfectly as if the native resolution was simply half the horizontal and vertical resolution. Native-res vs. quarter-res hasn't been a good option with the densities we've been used to but 4K on a desktop-sized monitor should be fine. I do recall F.E.A.R. had an option to render internally at quarter-res but the result was horribly low-res with the display densities of the time. Not so with desktop-sized 4K displays.