This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

2K or 4K at this point

#21triple sPosted 2/1/2014 8:42:48 AM
I'd go 1440p. It's going to be a huge jump regardless but you're going to have less issues maxing out games for a while. We're at the beginning stages of this new gen so in a year or two, there's going to be a lot more games that are demanding than what's out now. By then, you might not need a SLI/Crossfire setup to run 4k.
---
GT:Triple S 06
Steam ID:triples22
#22koolkid777Posted 2/1/2014 9:19:01 AM
kill2this posted...
ThePCElitist posted...
urtv posted...
xcmon3yx2 posted...
St34lth24 posted...
You need a pretty beasty computer to run 4k.


that i have


somehow doubt it and even then you will most likely wont be able to run everything at max


I can do 4k gaming just fine. Mad brah?

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/unlocked/amd-r9-290x-crossfire-4k-resolution-overclocking-benchmarks-idnum118/


"We used four reference design AMD R9 290X graphics cards for our test." Taken from that site. So you have four?


It depends on the game. For example, I get 60FPS on BF4 using a 3570k at 4.2GHz and dual 7970s clocked @ 1125/1575MHz on 4k with all settings on ultra (can't recall the AA at the moment, but everything else was on ultra.) And they played constant. The limiting factor is that my TV is 4k @ 30Hz, so despite getting the required FPS, it's not pleasing to the eye. Thus, I play on 2560x1600p@60Hz or 1920x1080@120Hz
#23triple sPosted 2/1/2014 12:36:24 PM
Killah Priest posted...
I'm finding it hard to justify even 1440p.


Then why you talking CF 290x's, lol?
---
GT:Triple S 06
Steam ID:triples22
#24pwnater777Posted 2/1/2014 12:51:33 PM
I like the K naming. Easier to tack on one number than 3 or 4.
---
"That's NASCAR tactics."
"Opinions are like magnets, nobody knows how they work." - Foppe
#25xcmon3yx2(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2014 7:19:06 PM
what tv do you have?, kool
---
http://www.youtube.com/user/xcmon3yx777,(3DS FC: 5257-9927-9011), (Steam: xcmon3yx2), (XBL: HakudoshiV77360), (WoW: xcmon3yx2#1204)
#26Majoras_pantsPosted 2/1/2014 7:22:47 PM
1920 x 1080 is plenty for me.

I doubt I'll ever bother going any higher until I have to. I just don't see the point. Anytime lower, meh, no thanks. But I'm cool with 1080p. I'm used to it, looks great, I'm not raising the bar by getting used to a higher resolution.

It'll save me money, too, when I don't have to worry about more expensive hardware for higher resolutions.
---
"What's a strategy game? You mean like Mass Effect?"- A console gamer
#27MachEvolutionPosted 2/1/2014 7:30:03 PM
The use of 'k' for this new naming trend is actually meant as a 'x' as in 4xHD resolution, or 8xHD resolution. For whatever reason, whatever marketing department started this trend decided 'k' would appeal to consumer more than 'x'.

In terms of textures though, most of the time 2k is for 2000x2000 resolution textures, and 4k is 4000x4000. In this case, the 'k' is being properly used a a substitute to shorten 2000 to 2k.
#28TheWayOfTheGunPosted 2/1/2014 9:31:53 PM
xcmon3yx2 posted...
St34lth24 posted...
You need a pretty beasty computer to run 4k.


that i have


Then what's the problem?
---
Glorious God Gamers > PC Master Race > Console Peasants ---> http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/508/644/9eb.jpg