Dullahan said:Cromulent said:Wobels said: 4k response time makes me cringe. Went with a 1ms response 144hz 2k my self i hate bottle necking.Doesn't bother me. I'd rather go with a pro IPS 4k monitor running at 60Hz than a god awful TN panel monitor with poor viewing angles. The monitors I'm looking at are 4 - 5ms response times which are absolutely fine. Plus the fact that most computers can only just manage 60fps at 4k with a single card graphics solution.
I'll be getting a 1080Ti to go along with my 4k monitor I think.
You'll need a second if you're serious about maintaining even close to a consistent 60fps.
Benchmarks seem to disagree with you but I can always just bump the graphical quality down a bit. No need to always play games on ultra.
Khendall said:I think it's a must in actual game industry to design games for 4k, especially in MMO industry cause these games are meant to be played many years after release. With the last graphic cards generation, performances are no longer an issue for 4k, any config with a single 1080GTX can support at least 40+ fps on any recent game in 4k full options.
Currently the benefits of 4k on PC are not so obvious for players because of the size of monitors, on a 24' or 28' the difference between 4k and full HD is not striking enough. That's the reason why I decided to try it on a 55' TV as monitor, it's great on solo games and I'm looking forward to test Pantheon with it, I have great hopes of an upgraded immersion and comfortable UI.
I found the jump from full HD to 4K dramatic. It was an amazing moment. I equate it to the time I first experienced SSD and the amazing performance boost it created. I recommend FO4 or Skyrim if you want to see great 4K.
These 4K monitors, they are the curved variety? I currently run a 1920x1080 monitor which was built for quality sterioscopic viewing. I love the immersion of 3D vision, but it tends to not work well with advanced shaders, shadows, and special effect. I assume that Pantheon will not have this capability for a while, if at all in the future.
Farrinard said:These 4K monitors, they are the curved variety? I currently run a 1920x1080 monitor which was built for quality sterioscopic viewing. I love the immersion of 3D vision, but it tends to not work well with advanced shaders, shadows, and special effect. I assume that Pantheon will not have this capability for a while, if at all in the future.
Not all 4K monitors are curved. Although the curves ones are pretty cool. If/when they come down in price in the future, I may try one because it seems like the next best thing to surrounding you like a 3D image. Because yeah, as you said, I don't think 3D capability is on the radar for Pantheon. I imagine that would get tiresome after a long play session.
I still vote for virtual reality capability though :P
Bazgrim said:Farrinard said:These 4K monitors, they are the curved variety? I currently run a 1920x1080 monitor which was built for quality sterioscopic viewing. I love the immersion of 3D vision, but it tends to not work well with advanced shaders, shadows, and special effect. I assume that Pantheon will not have this capability for a while, if at all in the future.
Not all 4K monitors are curved. Although the curves ones are pretty cool. If/when they come down in price in the future, I may try one because it seems like the next best thing to surrounding you like a 3D image. Because yeah, as you said, I don't think 3D capability is on the radar for Pantheon. I imagine that would get tiresome after a long play session.
I still vote for virtual reality capability though :P
I've never been a fan of curved monitors. They screw up my multiple monitor set up by not fitting with other monitors properly. Give me a proper 32" or bigger flat screen 4k monitor and I'll be happy. Bonus points if it has Nvidia G-sync.
Cromulent said:Bazgrim said:Farrinard said:These 4K monitors, they are the curved variety? I currently run a 1920x1080 monitor which was built for quality sterioscopic viewing. I love the immersion of 3D vision, but it tends to not work well with advanced shaders, shadows, and special effect. I assume that Pantheon will not have this capability for a while, if at all in the future.
Not all 4K monitors are curved. Although the curves ones are pretty cool. If/when they come down in price in the future, I may try one because it seems like the next best thing to surrounding you like a 3D image. Because yeah, as you said, I don't think 3D capability is on the radar for Pantheon. I imagine that would get tiresome after a long play session.
I still vote for virtual reality capability though :P
I've never been a fan of curved monitors. They screw up my multiple monitor set up by not fitting with other monitors properly. Give me a proper 32" or bigger flat screen 4k monitor and I'll be happy. Bonus points if it has Nvidia G-sync.
Sounds like you need a bigger desk :P
Bazgrim said:Cromulent said:Bazgrim said:Farrinard said:These 4K monitors, they are the curved variety? I currently run a 1920x1080 monitor which was built for quality sterioscopic viewing. I love the immersion of 3D vision, but it tends to not work well with advanced shaders, shadows, and special effect. I assume that Pantheon will not have this capability for a while, if at all in the future.
Not all 4K monitors are curved. Although the curves ones are pretty cool. If/when they come down in price in the future, I may try one because it seems like the next best thing to surrounding you like a 3D image. Because yeah, as you said, I don't think 3D capability is on the radar for Pantheon. I imagine that would get tiresome after a long play session.
I still vote for virtual reality capability though :P
I've never been a fan of curved monitors. They screw up my multiple monitor set up by not fitting with other monitors properly. Give me a proper 32" or bigger flat screen 4k monitor and I'll be happy. Bonus points if it has Nvidia G-sync.
Sounds like you need a bigger desk :P
I'd love a bigger desk but my desk already pretty much covers an entire wall in my study. I'll be buying a third monitor soon which will mean I'll have two 24" 1200p monitors and one 27" 1440p monitor. I have no idea if I'll bother to get a 4k monitor just yet. I might wait for a little bit until the tech settles down a bit. At the moment there are really only two GPUs that can cope with 4k gaming in a single card solution and I don't have either of them so going up to 4k gaming is going to be expensive.
I'll keep an eye on prices though.
bigdogchris said:GTX 1070, 1080 or 1080TI can do 4k to some degree. But it's still way to early to speculate. There will be 1 or 2 more generation of Nvidia GPU's and 2 generations of AMD GPU's released before Pantheon ships. That should be close to do double the current GPU performance. Plus, Pantheon is a Unity engine game so it's not going to push the upper end of GPU requirements anyways.
I have an MSI 1070 and 4K was not a pleasant experience. I opted for a 32" 2560X1440 monitor and I love it. My 1070 runs every game I play exceptionally well, and they look incredible.
i7 6700K
MSI GTX 1070
240GB SSD X2
32GB DDR4
Farrinard said:Bazgrim said:I still vote for virtual reality capability though :P
Now that's something I could get behind! Once prices go down and I do not have to sell my kidney to get the best possible experience. :3
Yeah, VR would be great once they get past all the cables being needed to be attached. Dang it, need to go to the Best Buy across town to see the Occulus Rift in action now...
Cromulent said:Dullahan said:Cromulent said:Wobels said: 4k response time makes me cringe. Went with a 1ms response 144hz 2k my self i hate bottle necking.Doesn't bother me. I'd rather go with a pro IPS 4k monitor running at 60Hz than a god awful TN panel monitor with poor viewing angles. The monitors I'm looking at are 4 - 5ms response times which are absolutely fine. Plus the fact that most computers can only just manage 60fps at 4k with a single card graphics solution.
I'll be getting a 1080Ti to go along with my 4k monitor I think.
You'll need a second if you're serious about maintaining even close to a consistent 60fps.
Benchmarks seem to disagree with you but I can always just bump the graphical quality down a bit. No need to always play games on ultra.
No offense, but why play games at 4K if you can't play at full quality? If I am going to play at 4K, I'm going to want full quality. I am using a 1070 and chose a 32" 2560X1440 and play every game with graphics at ultra. If I go the 4K route, I'll add a 2nd 1070.
Anistosoles said:Cromulent said:Dullahan said:Cromulent said:Wobels said: 4k response time makes me cringe. Went with a 1ms response 144hz 2k my self i hate bottle necking.Doesn't bother me. I'd rather go with a pro IPS 4k monitor running at 60Hz than a god awful TN panel monitor with poor viewing angles. The monitors I'm looking at are 4 - 5ms response times which are absolutely fine. Plus the fact that most computers can only just manage 60fps at 4k with a single card graphics solution.
I'll be getting a 1080Ti to go along with my 4k monitor I think.
You'll need a second if you're serious about maintaining even close to a consistent 60fps.
Benchmarks seem to disagree with you but I can always just bump the graphical quality down a bit. No need to always play games on ultra.
No offense, but why play games at 4K if you can't play at full quality? If I am going to play at 4K, I'm going to want full quality. I am using a 1070 and chose a 32" 2560X1440 and play every game with graphics at ultra. If I go the 4K route, I'll add a 2nd 1070.
Because resolution is more important than quality. At 4k you see far more on your screen at once. That is what makes 4k so good. Of course it would be nice to play 4k games at Ultra but that isn't going to happen. Only the 1080Ti Titan X come close to being able to manage it. No other card comes close. Also SLI sucks. Done it before. Never again.
Anistosoles said:Cromulent said:Dullahan said:Cromulent said:Wobels said: 4k response time makes me cringe. Went with a 1ms response 144hz 2k my self i hate bottle necking.Doesn't bother me. I'd rather go with a pro IPS 4k monitor running at 60Hz than a god awful TN panel monitor with poor viewing angles. The monitors I'm looking at are 4 - 5ms response times which are absolutely fine. Plus the fact that most computers can only just manage 60fps at 4k with a single card graphics solution.
I'll be getting a 1080Ti to go along with my 4k monitor I think.
You'll need a second if you're serious about maintaining even close to a consistent 60fps.
Benchmarks seem to disagree with you but I can always just bump the graphical quality down a bit. No need to always play games on ultra.
No offense, but why play games at 4K if you can't play at full quality? If I am going to play at 4K, I'm going to want full quality. I am using a 1070 and chose a 32" 2560X1440 and play every game with graphics at ultra. If I go the 4K route, I'll add a 2nd 1070.
2560X1440 is not the native resolution, best visual representation is at the native resolution. I have 2 4K tv's, 2 systems at my desk. GTX 1070 and GTX980it. Playing in native 4K resolution - Awesome!. Playing at 2560X1440, not so awesome.
I am so sorry, i forgot i made this post and thought it died a long time ago.
I am happy to see a few people kept it alive, lots of good information from each setup included here. Also thanks Brad for explaining a few things.
I personally always aim for 60+ fps in all games. So what does that mean? lots to me. I would rather cut down shadows etc.. to gain the performances, but when i am playing alone or in a lagless area, i want to see the great graphics of the game.
I lost the 780ti card at christmas time, the GPU burned out, and just fell out of 3 yr warranty so i am going to wait and purchase the 1070's or 1080's when the prices drop.
The 960 seems to do ok for the most part, 45+ fps in most cases, but no where near what the 780ti sc did.
21:9 > 4k. I can't repeat this often enough. 4k is a hot topic buzzword that doesn't change much. The ultrawide aspect ratios truly change what you experience. Pixel density is great, but actually having MORE CONTENT on the screen is such a game changer. Go play diablo 3 in 4k and then play it at 3440x1440 and tell me which is mo betta.
Krixus said:21:9 > 4k. I can't repeat this often enough. 4k is a hot topic buzzword that doesn't change much. The ultrawide aspect ratios truly change what you experience. Pixel density is great, but actually having MORE CONTENT on the screen is such a game changer. Go play diablo 3 in 4k and then play it at 3440x1440 and tell me which is mo betta.
4k has a higher vertical and horizontal resoultion than an ultra wide. The only thing that changes is the aspect ratio.
4k = 3840 x 2160
Ultra wide = 3440 x 1440
So from where I am standing 4k is better in all respects. You'll fit more content on a 4k monitor than an ultra wide. Plus 4k is better for productivity as well. Fitting multiple source code files on screen at once is a life saver.
Cromulent said:Krixus said:21:9 > 4k. I can't repeat this often enough. 4k is a hot topic buzzword that doesn't change much. The ultrawide aspect ratios truly change what you experience. Pixel density is great, but actually having MORE CONTENT on the screen is such a game changer. Go play diablo 3 in 4k and then play it at 3440x1440 and tell me which is mo betta.
4k has a higher vertical and horizontal resoultion than an ultra wide. The only thing that changes is the aspect ratio.
4k = 3840 x 2160
Ultra wide = 3440 x 1440
So from where I am standing 4k is better in all respects. You'll fit more content on a 4k monitor than an ultra wide. Plus 4k is better for productivity as well. Fitting multiple source code files on screen at once is a life saver.
The only thing that changes is the aspect ratio? That's the entire point. Why in the world do you think that 1920x1080 is such an improvement over 1600x1200? It's barely even a pixel increase(do the math). It's the ASPECT RATIO that matters. That exact factor is what created the "HD" revolution": aspect ratio. This is the next iteration in that revolution. You don't even understand what an increased aspect ratio is. You will not see ANYTHING at 4k that you would not see at 1080p. You will just see it, depending on screen size, at a higher pixel density. 21:9 literally means you will have an increased aspect from 16:9. You will see things on your screen that people in a 16:9 aspect ratio will not be able to see.
21:9, or really 2.35:1, has been a movie industry standard for a reason.
1920/1080 = 1.7778
3840/2160 = 1.7778
They are the exact same aspect ratio. Again, you will see NOTHING MORE on 4k than you will see at 1080p, you will simply see it at a higher pixel density.
You will literally SEE MORE, at 3440x1440 or 2560x1080. Like I said, go play D3 at 16:9 and then play it at 21:9.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFMw4vBghwc
Mod Edit: Included link that demonstrates ratio rather than have it in a post by itself and no other content.
Kilsin said:Thread has been cleaned up, Krix and Crom relax please, misunderstandings when it comes to PC aspect ratios, among other things, are common but we can still discuss them in a mature manner without lowering the quality of the thread.
My apologies. Also apologies to Krix as well.
Cromulent said:Kilsin said:Thread has been cleaned up, Krix and Crom relax please, misunderstandings when it comes to PC aspect ratios, among other things, are common but we can still discuss them in a mature manner without lowering the quality of the thread.
My apologies. Also apologies to Krix as well.
Same.
Farrinard said:The moment I went to 120+ Hz, my entire perception of games changed... Needless to say, I now find anything below 80 FPS to appear graphically choppy and unrealistic. Remember back in the day when 30 FPS was the thing?
Haha yes I do!
I am in the same boat now too with my 144 hz monitor, smooth as butter and has spoiled me! :)