Ode to Boutique PC Builders

[Joelist]

I've checked a number of GTX 980 reviews now:

http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-gtx-9...single-gpu-benchmarks-and-impressions/#page-1

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/unlocked/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review-benchmarks-at-4k-idnum325/

As expected, the performance nosedives on 4K displays with games set to anything like maximum. The best seems to be maybe 30 FPS and usually more around 20 FPS. This is not surprising, as you're asking the card to drive more than double the number of pixels as 1080p so what suffers is FPS.

The moral of the story seems to be - if you use a single GTX 980 then keep your monitor setting no higher than 1440p.

 

[Annoyed]

It is an AWESOME gaming card. It allows your computer rig to breathe easier because of the GPU and memory on the card. Joelist mentioned throwing it in SLI but I would not do that. It is awesome all by itself, and it can output 4K and everything below that. You can run 4 screens at full 1080pHD with no lag.

Also, I would not recommend a 4K monitor over a standard 1080P monitor (at this time, because of them being so new). Do yourself a favor and check one out in the flesh. They are crispy and extremely fine in detail, but unless your games or simulations are using it, the 4K is not worth it. Stores like the one I checked out had an actual 4K demo playing on it. But none of the games on the market are rendering in 4K.

Since at this time, there is no content being released at 4K, it would seem to me that 4K resolution is a marketing trick, nothing more. Yes, they can upscale a 1080 image to 4K, but the added detail is derived, not actual.

Just as with home theater receivers, with all sorts of artificially generated rear, wide, high and god knows what else channels. Very little content has an actual rear channel encoded into it. But you can always select some mode with artificially generated rear channels. As far as I'm concerned, these artificial channels do not make things sound better, and very often sound worse. Yes, a "Star Wars" bluray that really does have a 6th (rear) channel encoded into it sounds great, but not so much on the derived rear channels that Dolby/Neo and the others create. This is why I have my receiver set to "straight decode" only for digital sources; I want to hear what the content creator put there, not what the receiver puts there.

I assume that the visual equivalent is much the same.

 

[Joelist]

Actually a lot of people are out there gaming at 4K. It doesn't actually require content released at 4K. After all, 4K is simply like having 4 1080p displays stitched together. What it does is render images ultra sharp.

Me, I don't see the need. But some do and if you want your game to run at any normal speed in such an ultra HD environment then a LOT of GPU and CPU power is needed at present.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Since at this time, there is no content being released at 4K, ...

Not entirely true. Netflix released House of Cards S2 in 4k. Both Netflix and Amazon have several new offerings available in 4k. DirecTV is offering some VOD in 4k and Comcast has started offering content in 4k to its XFinity customers, both having only recently started and will be begin offering 4K live channels in 2015.

 

[Overmind One]

Since at this time, there is no content being released at 4K, it would seem to me that 4K resolution is a marketing trick, nothing more. Yes, they can upscale a 1080 image to 4K, but the added detail is derived, not actual.

Just as with home theater receivers, with all sorts of artificially generated rear, wide, high and god knows what else channels. Very little content has an actual rear channel encoded into it. But you can always select some mode with artificially generated rear channels. As far as I'm concerned, these artificial channels do not make things sound better, and very often sound worse. Yes, a "Star Wars" bluray that really does have a 6th (rear) channel encoded into it sounds great, but not so much on the derived rear channels that Dolby/Neo and the others create. This is why I have my receiver set to "straight decode" only for digital sources; I want to hear what the content creator put there, not what the receiver puts there.

I assume that the visual equivalent is much the same.

Completely agree there. All that false interlacing and simulated 4K is a marketing trick. Throw it in there with digital zoom (as opposed to optical) on cameras, claims of over 50-mpg on economy cars (which were run using a computer on a trickle flow of fuel), and a bunch of other gimmicks to qualify as a "new product". I never use the simulated modes either. Anybody doubting the stupidness of it need just take a song (or just straight speech) made in mono and try it in simulated stereo. Just LOL!

 

[Overmind One]

Not entirely true. Netflix released House of Cards S2 in 4k. Both Netflix and Amazon have several new offerings available in 4k. DirecTV is offering some VOD in 4k and Comcast has started offering content in 4k to its XFinity customers, both having only recently started and will be begin offering 4K live channels in 2015.

The current generation of premium smartphones are recording in true 4K video now, and I do know about these other offerings, but still the existence of 4K video is only to sell new TVs and cameras. There are already 8K units being developed. I think the point being made here is "Is this necessary? Is it worth it". Granted, 4K is liquid smooth looking to me but still not worth the premium they want for it over 1080p. The 8K units coming after that are just plain stupid, since 4K is already beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish it from anything higher in resolution. The TV industry is seeking ways to keep it a growth industry and going higher in resolution is not the path IMO. Give us video tabletops. Give us flexible 4K wallpaper that can be applied and removed and interplexed with additional panels on the other walls. Give us video floors...digital windows for interior cruise ship rooms and basement apartments...etc.

 

[Joelist]

Actually if you go enough upthread the original point was (from me) a bit admiring towards the boutiques who hand build PCs as opposed to their being built by robots on an assembly line. Falcon Northwest last year rolled out the Tiki Z which stretched the boundaries of the hardware a good deal and actually made 4K gaming at max settings possible in an ITX form factor.

Does one NEED such a unit? Heck no! But I have to give it to Falcon for the engineering expertise they displayed in actually making such a beastie work.

 

[Bluce Ree]

The current generation of premium smartphones are recording in true 4K video now, and I do know about these other offerings, but still the existence of 4K video is only to sell new TVs and cameras. There are already 8K units being developed. I think the point being made here is "Is this necessary? Is it worth it". Granted, 4K is liquid smooth looking to me but still not worth the premium they want for it over 1080p. The 8K units coming after that are just plain stupid, since 4K is already beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish it from anything higher in resolution. The TV industry is seeking ways to keep it a growth industry and going higher in resolution is not the path IMO. Give us video tabletops. Give us flexible 4K wallpaper that can be applied and removed and interplexed with additional panels on the other walls. Give us video floors...digital windows for interior cruise ship rooms and basement apartments...etc.

The human eye is not that straightforward. Resolution is relative to size and distance. If you show 4k on a 200" screen, you will see it, depending how far you are from it, and that's where higher resolutions come into play.

 

[Overmind One]

The human eye is not that straightforward. Resolution is relative to size and distance. If you show 4k on a 200" screen, you will see it, depending how far you are from it, and that's where higher resolutions come into play.

Well, in special applications, hell yes. I can even see perhaps a 24k TV. But only in a football stadium or as the flexible hull screen of a blimp. Most people are going to be within 8ft of their TV screen when watching it, and that is a stretch. 4K is noticeably sharper than 1080P. But 8K wont have the same jump at the same distance, at least not visually. Its a marketing gimmick for home use. I can hear it now..."Just like the one used at Dodger Stadium!". Every commodity needs a growth market or sales halt and people stop buying.

My point is that the technology has a high limit in terms of useful resolution. Its like horsepower. Who the hell needs 700hp on a street vehicle? It would never be used EVER on the street, and never at top speed. The other way this growth is achieved is by slapping special editions on them, or getting a celebrity endorsement. Sometimes, a special color is enough. I guess it depends on the buyer. I will most likely get a 4K TV and stop there.

 

[Joelist]

Word to the wise - just because a product says it can connect to/output 4K does not mean it can actually drive such a display respectably. Case in point - I got to witness an attempt to play not a game but a movie (Guardians of the Galaxy) on a 4K 24" display using a PC with a good CPU, plenty of RAM (16GB), SSD and a single GTX 980. It was "watchable" but the minute you hit any scenes with more than minimal screen action it stuttered visibly.

The strain on the GPU and VRAM of trying to drive four times the pixel count of a 1080p display just drove the FPS into the floor. So relatively "calm" scenes looked good but the minute anything happened that caused the usage need on the VRAM and GPU to spike it was just too much. I guess it shows why Nvidia's current guidance on this is for anything more demanding than minimum scenarios 4K needs dual 980's in SLI. That or the ultimate GTX card - the TITAN Z.

 

[Tripler]

 

[Overmind One]

Word to the wise - just because a product says it can connect to/output 4K does not mean it can actually drive such a display respectably. Case in point - I got to witness an attempt to play not a game but a movie (Guardians of the Galaxy) on a 4K 24" display using a PC with a good CPU, plenty of RAM (16GB), SSD and a single GTX 980. It was "watchable" but the minute you hit any scenes with more than minimal screen action it stuttered visibly.

The strain on the GPU and VRAM of trying to drive four times the pixel count of a 1080p display just drove the FPS into the floor. So relatively "calm" scenes looked good but the minute anything happened that caused the usage need on the VRAM and GPU to spike it was just too much. I guess it shows why Nvidia's current guidance on this is for anything more demanding than minimum scenarios 4K needs dual 980's in SLI. That or the ultimate GTX card - the TITAN Z.

Have you seen the demo video they usually show, with the flying through the canyon and over the ocean, and in a forest? I saw that, and Call ofDuty: Advanced Warfare. They looked absolutely gorgeous in 4K. But I have seen Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare in 1080p and it looks just as good to me from 6 feet away. I think if you have the money for a super tricked out rig like that, it is good for bragging rights . I do think SLI enhances video greatly in games.