Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 19

Thread: 4K graphics cards on a budget

  1. #1
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    4K graphics cards on a budget

    I've just been hunting around for GPU reviews at 4K, but everything I've seen has been looking at the top-end cards, and running everything at ultra - has anyone seen any sites looking at lower price cards, e.g. the 770, 760, 750 Ti and AMD equivalents and testing them at 4K with sensible settings and seeing whether it actually works or not?

    Or is the answer simply no, and you need a 780/290x for games to be playable, even at low settings?

  2. #2
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,621
    Thanks
    3,757
    Thanked
    5,060 times in 3,912 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    I would rather have lower resolution and higher image quality in a game!!

    Have a look at the 2560X1440 benchmarks for common games. GameGPU is a good place to start.

  3. #3
    Asleep
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    344
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked
    38 times in 34 posts
    • Repressor's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus M4A89GTD PRO
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
      • Memory:
      • 12GB Corsair
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung HD502HJ
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI HD5850
      • PSU:
      • 620W Seasonic
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H X3

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    I'd assume the consensus would be to run at 1080p with the 4x scaling for fullscreen.

  4. #4
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    My intention is to run at 4K native, otherwise I might as well stick with my 1080p monitors.

    Thing is, Cat, 2560x1440 is less than half the number of pixels needed for 4K so I imagine it would be fairly misleading. I don't mind dialling down the graphics a bit, but it's just so difficult to tell whether that's feasible when the current reviews have such a narrow scope.

  5. #5
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    31,621
    Thanks
    3,757
    Thanked
    5,060 times in 3,912 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    My intention is to run at 4K native, otherwise I might as well stick with my 1080p monitors.

    Thing is, Cat, 2560x1440 is less than half the number of pixels needed for 4K so I imagine it would be fairly misleading. I don't mind dialling down the graphics a bit, but it's just so difficult to tell whether that's feasible when the current reviews have such a narrow scope.
    If a game cannot run well at reasonable settings at 2560X1440,then 4K is really a no go then!

  6. #6
    Supermarket Generic Brand AETAaAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    654
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked
    147 times in 129 posts
    • AETAaAS's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Gaming Plus
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 2600
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Vengeance 3000
      • Storage:
      • Intel 660p 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080TI SC2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus 850W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Focus G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP Envy 32
      • Internet:
      • 17mbps

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    I don't understand, jim. What is there to be gained from running at 4k resolutions but having poor details? It will look awful and will be made worse by having exaggerated jaggies because I'm assuming AA will be one of the sacrifices along the way. As Repressor points out, going with a lower res and scaling is a better option (and sometimes it negates the need for AA sometimes, the pixels get massaged )

    I would have a look at the following article; http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,23.html

    It seems possible that anything around a 680/770 or a 7950/70 will be able to push past the 'playable' 30FPS, since they already sit around 20FPS with settings maxed out. But what a 'playable' frame rate for you might more than 30, it is for me. However, at normal resolutions, a greater than doubling of frame rate is not uncommon with shifting settings so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  7. #7
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,749
    Thanks
    1,788
    Thanked
    3,288 times in 2,647 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    A pair of 270s in crossfire is probably close to the best performance/price while still getting a playable game with settings turned down - they perform a little better than a titan, and you can get high mem versions.

  8. #8
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    If a game cannot run well at reasonable settings at 2560X1440,then 4K is really a no go then!
    Fair point, I guess it would need to be pushing 100 fps @ 1440p to be much cop at 4K.

    Quote Originally Posted by AETAaAS View Post
    I don't understand, jim. What is there to be gained from running at 4k resolutions but having poor details? It will look awful and will be made worse by having exaggerated jaggies because I'm assuming AA will be one of the sacrifices along the way. As Repressor points out, going with a lower res and scaling is a better option (and sometimes it negates the need for AA sometimes, the pixels get massaged )

    I would have a look at the following article; http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...review,23.html

    It seems possible that anything around a 680/770 or a 7950/70 will be able to push past the 'playable' 30FPS, since they already sit around 20FPS with settings maxed out. But what a 'playable' frame rate for you might more than 30, it is for me. However, at normal resolutions, a greater than doubling of frame rate is not uncommon with shifting settings so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    The consensus seems to be that there is no point in AA anyway once you're at 4K resolutions, which makes it all the more frustrating when people are testing at 4K with 16x AA.

    The problem with details is that from experience, a lot of the settings sound great, but actually, once you're in game, they make no difference at all. For instance, one of the first things I tend to do in games is to disable shadows, because they add no immersion for me whatsoever. And the same goes for water reflections and the like. Now, I'm not saying that I'd go into a game and immediately drop everything down to low, including textures, because I know that will look dreadful. Whilst your review suggests that really powerful cards are needed to push 4K, they're answering the question "what happens now that I can really push these cards to the limit?" and "what do you need to have the ultimate gaming experience". I suspect that gaming with some of the settings dialled down, at 4K, would be a much better overall experience than gaming at 1080p with thicker grass, shadows and tessellation - but I may well be proved wrong. Once I have a 4K setup, I might write a review to that effect.

    The Tweakguides reviews used to be interesting (I think he stopped doing them though). For instance, in Oblivion, some of the changes were night and day, whilst others were so negligible that you had to really study the stills in order to work out what was going on, let alone which was "better". Graphics card reviewers have a habit of whacking everything on max to push the card, because that's their job, rather than doing what the Tweakguides guy did and saying how cheap a graphics card can you get away with without sacrificing too much quality. Of course, he was working per game rather than per card, which explains the difference.

    EDIT: Here's an interesting example: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...xwell/?page=12

    Take a look at the BF3 and FC3 screens, at ultra, high and medium, and flick between them. I honestly can't tell why one is significantly better than another, and if there is any difference that needs careful studying of stills then I'm fairly confident it won't bother me mid-game.
    Last edited by jim; 12-04-2014 at 10:01 AM.

  9. #9
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    A pair of 270s in crossfire is probably close to the best performance/price while still getting a playable game with settings turned down - they perform a little better than a titan, and you can get high mem versions.
    I'm currently wondering whether a GTX 770 might do the trick - problem is, I've never spent more than ~£200 on a graphics card and I'm not sure I can start now.

    Also, given that I'm running mATX, I'm not sure how well a crossfire solution would run - when I ran a pair of 4870 cards for a while it was disastrous. Are there any reviews of 270 crossfire up at the moment? My google-fu is failing me.

  10. #10
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    30,749
    Thanks
    1,788
    Thanked
    3,288 times in 2,647 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    I'm currently wondering whether a GTX 770 might do the trick - problem is, I've never spent more than ~£200 on a graphics card and I'm not sure I can start now.
    Then wait for a while. 4k gaming is not the preserve of good value for money at the moment - it's not well supported by cables or operating system. Strictly 'early adapter' territory!

    Also, given that I'm running mATX, I'm not sure how well a crossfire solution would run - when I ran a pair of 4870 cards for a while it was disastrous. Are there any reviews of 270 crossfire up at the moment? My google-fu is failing me.
    Lots of reviews of 270X in crossfire, and again bang for buck would be to overclock a 270 up to 270X levels.

    But I hadn't appreciated the mATX situation - again another compromise that would act against 4k gaming at the moment IMHO.

  11. #11
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Then wait for a while. 4k gaming is not the preserve of good value for money at the moment - it's not well supported by cables or operating system. Strictly 'early adapter' territory!
    Yes, on reflection I think that may be the answer. I'm mainly going 4K for additional workspace on the desktop, but I was hoping that it would be possible to get a mid-range graphics card and do some mid-range gaming. I don't play games much at the moment anyway, and tbh right now I'm only playing Euro Truck Simulator 2 (for about 2 hours a week), which probably isn't stretching my GTX 570 all that much.

    Lots of reviews of 270X in crossfire, and again bang for buck would be to overclock a 270 up to 270X levels.

    But I hadn't appreciated the mATX situation - again another compromise that would act against 4k gaming at the moment IMHO.
    Hadn't looked up the 270X, will look. But yeah, I was going for more of a minimalist, quiet option with this machine and it doesn't lend itself to bleeding-edge performance. I'll definitely be going 4K, but there's no way I'm going to spend a fortune on the graphics (even £200 seems a bit nuts). The GTX 570 is fine for me right now, so I'll probably pick something up that's 4K capable and of a similar speed (as I understand it the 570 maxes out at 2560*1600), which will be cooler and quieter for starters, and then if I need to I'll run games at 1080p and it'll be no different to now. I'll run some benches on 4K as well and put them up on here, might be some interesting stuff.

  12. #12
    Supermarket Generic Brand AETAaAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    654
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked
    147 times in 129 posts
    • AETAaAS's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Gaming Plus
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 2600
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Vengeance 3000
      • Storage:
      • Intel 660p 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080TI SC2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus 850W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Focus G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP Envy 32
      • Internet:
      • 17mbps

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    I broadly agree; graphics don't really excite me very much anymore. Obviously gameplay is paramount; a graphically stunning game with physics effects and post processing up the backside with poor gameplay is essentially sh!t on a silver platter.

    There is however quite a big leap from 'low' to 'medium' in some games. Battlefield 4 and Killing Floor are two games I recently played with a big gulf between the two. Far Cry 3 however looks good even on low. So it depends on your sensitivity to quality as well.

    And I have to admit when I was stuck with a low performance system for a while; I didn't even care about the graphics when the game was good enough.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked
    23 times in 21 posts

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Might not be something you want to hear, but I'd wait at least until the next generation, that gives you time to save and get better value

  14. #14
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by CustardInc View Post
    Might not be something you want to hear, but I'd wait at least until the next generation, that gives you time to save and get better value
    Question is, when isn't that the case?

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked
    39 times in 30 posts
    • Goobley's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus H81I-Plus
      • CPU:
      • i3 4130
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP Blue
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Caviar Blue
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI R9 270 Gaming
      • PSU:
      • EVGA 500B
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master Elite 120
      • Operating System:
      • Linux Arch/Mint/Windows 7 Ult. 64bit/OS X
      • Monitor(s):
      • 23" iiyama IPS
      • Internet:
      • Meh

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    Question is, when isn't that the case?
    Sure, you can always say this about computers, however, if you need an upgrade then clearly waiting is not a good option. I've always thought of it as a case of accepting before you buy something that it's outdated. WRT 4k gaming I would try it with the best card you're comfortable getting (if you're sure that your 570 can't output the required pixels using 2xDVI or similar and viewing the 4k screen as 2 panels). One of the good things about 4k screens is with that pixel density things will scale wonderfully, it probably wouldn't be overly obvious in games that 2560*1440 isn't native resolution and 1080p is just 4:1. So if the 4k screen is for productivity etc. then I'd just try the gaming and see how it goes
    Last edited by Goobley; 13-04-2014 at 03:27 PM. Reason: Gah, damn typos make me look illiterate!

  16. #16
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 4K graphics cards on a budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobley View Post
    Sure, you can always say this about computers, however, if you need an upgrade then clearly waiting is not a good option. I've always thought of it as a case of accepting before you buy something that it's outdated. WRT 4k gaming I would try it with the best card you're comfortable getting (if your sure that your 570 can't output the required pixels using 2xDVI or similar and viewing the 4k screen as 2 panels). One of the good things about 4k screens is with that pixel density things will scale wonderfully, it probably wouldn't be overly obvious in games that 2560*1440 isn't native resolution and 1080p is just 4:1. So if the 4k screen is for productivity etc. then I'd just try the gaming and see how it goes
    Yes, should make for some interesting testing opportunities as well. I could buy a 780 Ti if I want, but I just don't game enough for anything like that to be worth the expense, so I'm happy to get something a little more sedate and take my time with it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •