Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4K video card recommendations?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 14, 2013 5:49:13 PM

I have been looking for a card that supports 3840 x 2160 resolutions. I am not a big gamer but do some video editing. The "professional" cards like the Quadro are expensive. I'd like to stay <$300. I like Nvidia software & drivers but it looks like Radeon supports higher resolutions in their less expensive cards. Thanks!:) 
May 14, 2013 6:01:22 PM

4k? I envy you. <300 is hard to push that resolution. May i ask, if you can afford a 4k monitor why is your gpu budget 300?
If you can i would go down to something like 1600p or 1440p and get a better gpu.
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 6:11:03 PM

4k and <$300 are oxymorons, I wouldn't dream of it.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 14, 2013 6:14:55 PM

Hakumisoso Terror said:
4k? I envy you. <300 is hard to push that resolution. May i ask, if you can afford a 4k monitor why is your gpu budget 300?
If you can i would go down to something like 1600p or 1440p and get a better gpu.


I purchased one of the 50' Seiki 4k panels that have been on sale for ~$1,200. It didn't work that well with my up-scaling dvd player so I want to try it from the computer. I work from home and have many windows open at the same time. The extra screen space would be nice.
m
0
l
June 12, 2013 5:01:09 PM

My Radeon HD 7850 2GB works beautifully with 4k resolutions. I picked up this card brand new for $150. This is truly a great graphics card for the money.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2013 8:33:47 AM

victorc777 said:
My Radeon HD 7850 2GB works beautifully with 4k resolutions. I picked up this card brand new for $150. This is truly a great graphics card for the money.


hehehehehheheheheheheheh
m
0
l
December 6, 2013 4:12:34 PM

Ted Ga said:
I have been looking for a card that supports 3840 x 2160 resolutions. I am not a big gamer but do some video editing. The "professional" cards like the Quadro are expensive. I'd like to stay <$300. I like Nvidia software & drivers but it looks like Radeon supports higher resolutions in their less expensive cards. Thanks!:) 

This:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CMr-96...

Source:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/4K-Monitor-Re...
m
0
l
December 9, 2013 8:55:04 AM

u53rn4m3 said:
4k and <$300 are oxymorons, I wouldn't dream of it.
Sears has 4k TV's for less than $500 so spending > $300 on a video card is silly at best. I have the same question: I am looking at a 4K TV with an HDMI 1.4 input for $489. What card will handle this? I am just looking for the screen resolution and real estate to do things like WRITE PROGRAMS, not PLAY STUPID GAMES. What it the MINIMUM card that will handle it - 4K at 30Hz (HDMI 1.4)? The cards above are overkill. I understand that built-in HD Graphics 4500 will handle it. Will HD Graphics 4000 do it?

m
0
l
December 9, 2013 9:03:09 AM

Raheel Hasan said:
victorc777 said:
My Radeon HD 7850 2GB works beautifully with 4k resolutions. I picked up this card brand new for $150. This is truly a great graphics card for the money.


hehehehehheheheheheheheh


That was a useless response. I seriously doubt the "graphics card expert" tag line. More like "Graphics Card Snob"...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 9, 2013 10:09:46 AM

StevenR01 said:
Raheel Hasan said:
victorc777 said:
My Radeon HD 7850 2GB works beautifully with 4k resolutions. I picked up this card brand new for $150. This is truly a great graphics card for the money.


hehehehehheheheheheheheh


That was a useless response. I seriously doubt the "graphics card expert" tag line. More like "Graphics Card Snob"...


Look at the comment above. Have u ever heard of 7850 and 4K resolution. Even titan which is more than twice as powerful as a 7850 is only getting 33 fps at this resolution. 7850 will hardly get 12 fps at 4K res.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,36...

For this resolution u need atleast 770sli or 780sli
m
0
l
December 9, 2013 1:11:23 PM

StevenR01 said:
u53rn4m3 said:
4k and <$300 are oxymorons, I wouldn't dream of it.
Sears has 4k TV's for less than $500 so spending > $300 on a video card is silly at best. I have the same question: I am looking at a 4K TV with an HDMI 1.4 input for $489. What card will handle this? I am just looking for the screen resolution and real estate to do things like WRITE PROGRAMS, not PLAY STUPID GAMES. What it the MINIMUM card that will handle it - 4K at 30Hz (HDMI 1.4)? The cards above are overkill. I understand that built-in HD Graphics 4500 will handle it. Will HD Graphics 4000 do it?



That 4k tv you bought is going to look a lot worse than a 1080p monitor. TV pixel quality is substantially worse than monitor, and at 50 inches those pixels are blown up even more. You pretty much need to be sitting 8+ feet away to not notice the quality drop, and at that far away you can't even tell you're watching a 4k screen.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 3:19:05 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
StevenR01 said:
u53rn4m3 said:
4k and <$300 are oxymorons, I wouldn't dream of it.
Sears has 4k TV's for less than $500 so spending > $300 on a video card is silly at best. I have the same question: I am looking at a 4K TV with an HDMI 1.4 input for $489. What card will handle this? I am just looking for the screen resolution and real estate to do things like WRITE PROGRAMS, not PLAY STUPID GAMES. What it the MINIMUM card that will handle it - 4K at 30Hz (HDMI 1.4)? The cards above are overkill. I understand that built-in HD Graphics 4500 will handle it. Will HD Graphics 4000 do it?



That 4k tv you bought is going to look a lot worse than a 1080p monitor. TV pixel quality is substantially worse than monitor, and at 50 inches those pixels are blown up even more. You pretty much need to be sitting 8+ feet away to not notice the quality drop, and at that far away you can't even tell you're watching a 4k screen.


Umm... no.

Happily running a Seiki 55" 4k ($850) off a very modest Asus GT 640 ($99) from approximately 3 to 4 ft away.

Screen real estate is jaw dropping. Color is great. Clarity and definition are outstanding and its bright as hell. 4k pictures are breath taking, 4k video is life changing, and workstation application use (video editing, audio production, etc) is 100000x easier.

Did I miss something?
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 3:28:55 AM

Happy4kUser said:
MapRef41N93W said:
StevenR01 said:
u53rn4m3 said:
4k and <$300 are oxymorons, I wouldn't dream of it.
Sears has 4k TV's for less than $500 so spending > $300 on a video card is silly at best. I have the same question: I am looking at a 4K TV with an HDMI 1.4 input for $489. What card will handle this? I am just looking for the screen resolution and real estate to do things like WRITE PROGRAMS, not PLAY STUPID GAMES. What it the MINIMUM card that will handle it - 4K at 30Hz (HDMI 1.4)? The cards above are overkill. I understand that built-in HD Graphics 4500 will handle it. Will HD Graphics 4000 do it?



That 4k tv you bought is going to look a lot worse than a 1080p monitor. TV pixel quality is substantially worse than monitor, and at 50 inches those pixels are blown up even more. You pretty much need to be sitting 8+ feet away to not notice the quality drop, and at that far away you can't even tell you're watching a 4k screen.


Umm... no.

Happily running a Seiki 55" 4k ($850) off a very modest Asus GT 640 ($99) from approximately 3 to 4 ft away.

Screen real estate is jaw dropping. Color is great. Clarity and definition are outstanding and its bright as hell. 4k pictures are breath taking, 4k video is life changing, and workstation application use (video editing, audio production, etc) is 100000x easier.

Did I miss something?


You missed the part where there is virtually no 4k video or imagery in existence at this moment and your really looking at 1080p upscaled.
m
0
l
December 17, 2013 2:58:04 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
Happy4kUser said:


Umm... no.

Happily running a Seiki 55" 4k ($850) off a very modest Asus GT 640 ($99) from approximately 3 to 4 ft away.

Screen real estate is jaw dropping. Color is great. Clarity and definition are outstanding and its bright as hell. 4k pictures are breath taking, 4k video is life changing, and workstation application use (video editing, audio production, etc) is 100000x easier.

Did I miss something?


You missed the part where there is virtually no 4k video or imagery in existence at this moment and your really looking at 1080p upscaled.


4k is a fair match for around 8 megapixels. Then there are all of the cameras that have even higher res. My camera (nex-7) shoots pics at 6000x4000. I'm also fairly sure that even a novice user will recognize that the desktop is not upscaling when there is a LOT more stuff on the screen, and it's still sharp and legible.
m
0
l
December 26, 2013 10:16:09 AM


That 4k tv you bought is going to look a lot worse than a 1080p monitor. TV pixel quality is substantially worse than monitor, and at 50 inches those pixels are blown up even more. You pretty much need to be sitting 8+ feet away to not notice the quality drop, and at that far away you can't even tell you're watching a 4k screen.
[/quotemsg]

You should consider that the pixel size of a 2k/25" monitor should be the same size as a 4k/50" monitor.
m
0
l
February 8, 2014 10:42:25 PM

gastj3 said:
MapRef41N93W said:

That 4k tv you bought is going to look a lot worse than a 1080p monitor. TV pixel quality is substantially worse than monitor, and at 50 inches those pixels are blown up even more. You pretty much need to be sitting 8+ feet away to not notice the quality drop, and at that far away you can't even tell you're watching a 4k screen.


You should consider that the pixel size of a 2k/25" monitor should be the same size as a 4k/50" monitor.


Exactly. Why do so many people not get this. A 50" 4K TV makes for an awesome desktop. Way better than multiple smaller monitors. Great for video editing. Great for writing code. Great for just having a lot of windows all visible at once.

As for content, 1080p is fine, and looks great upscaled to 4K. No need to wait for 4K content.

For GPU power, the main thing I'm interested in is CUDA acceleration for Adobe Premiere Pro. Currently looking at GTX 660 or GTX 760 cards.

m
0
l
April 8, 2014 8:47:03 AM

MapRef41N93W said:
Happy4kUser said:
MapRef41N93W said:
StevenR01 said:
u53rn4m3 said:
4k and <$300 are oxymorons, I wouldn't dream of it.
Sears has 4k TV's for less than $500 so spending > $300 on a video card is silly at best. I have the same question: I am looking at a 4K TV with an HDMI 1.4 input for $489. What card will handle this? I am just looking for the screen resolution and real estate to do things like WRITE PROGRAMS, not PLAY STUPID GAMES. What it the MINIMUM card that will handle it - 4K at 30Hz (HDMI 1.4)? The cards above are overkill. I understand that built-in HD Graphics 4500 will handle it. Will HD Graphics 4000 do it?



That 4k tv you bought is going to look a lot worse than a 1080p monitor. TV pixel quality is substantially worse than monitor, and at 50 inches those pixels are blown up even more. You pretty much need to be sitting 8+ feet away to not notice the quality drop, and at that far away you can't even tell you're watching a 4k screen.


Umm... no.

Happily running a Seiki 55" 4k ($850) off a very modest Asus GT 640 ($99) from approximately 3 to 4 ft away.

Screen real estate is jaw dropping. Color is great. Clarity and definition are outstanding and its bright as hell. 4k pictures are breath taking, 4k video is life changing, and workstation application use (video editing, audio production, etc) is 100000x easier.

Did I miss something?


You missed the part where there is virtually no 4k video or imagery in existence at this moment and your really looking at 1080p upscaled.


Damn and I thought that netflix 4k was 4k. OH wait IT IS. Even youtube (why?) has real 4k content.

m
0
l
April 8, 2014 8:54:45 AM

Video editting is very much about CPU, but going 4K means you're playing with the wolves, sire, you'd better have some real weapon under your belt.... <500$ maybe a better choice. I recomend the r9 290
m
0
l
April 8, 2014 9:33:24 AM

Andy Nguyen said:
Video editting is very much about CPU, but going 4K means you're playing with the wolves, sire, you'd better have some real weapon under your belt.... <500$ maybe a better choice. I recomend the r9 290

No Modern editors Like FCP X (which is being used more and more like the original FCP. ( And Premier and Vegas are all more and more GPU. FCP X is fully openCL and will use the GPU for everything until it needs more threads or power then go to the CPU. Much of Smoke on Mac is GPU as well but its a mix still. AVID. Well they are going backrupt so..... OK its CPU bound.
m
0
l
May 30, 2014 10:09:19 AM

The GT630 (approx $80) works just fine with the 4k Seiki monitors. I have clients that do cad work (steel detailing) professionally on that setup and they love it and wont go back to 1080p.

Don't take advice from people who haven't actually used the technology.
m
0
l
!