Best 4K graphics card?
Tags:
- Games
-
Graphics Cards
-
Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
CAaronD
March 6, 2014 11:37:55 PM
bygbyron3
March 6, 2014 11:41:09 PM
Related resources
- Best graphics card (or cards) for a non-gaming dual 4k display set up? - Tech Support
- Best Gaming Graphic Card Under 4k or 67$ For Amd Apu A6 - Tech Support
- best graphics cards for my low end pc under 4k - Forum
- Best Graphic cards within 4k range ? - Tech Support
- 4k HTPC graphics card recommendations - Tech Support
CAaronD
March 7, 2014 1:32:41 AM
madsmagnus
March 7, 2014 6:26:25 AM
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourself
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
-
Reply to madsmagnus
m
0
l
HowFarToAsgaard
March 11, 2014 11:36:16 PM
if your looking at gaming at 3840x2160 60hz DONT BUY ANYTHING YET!!!
DisplayPort 1.2 at the moment will not support a single stream image and will only produce a 4k image at 60hz using Multi stream transport (MST).
At the moment HDMI 2.0 is the only way at getting a true 4k image at 60hz with out the use of MST.
At this stage there is no GPU that supports HDMI 2.0 and Nvidia will not say when or even if they will have HDMI 2.0 on there next gen cards.
I also spoke to DisplayPort and they have told me that DP 1.2 not will but "might" support Single stream transport, but there has been no testing or research towards this so it don't look good for DisplayPort.
So untitled HDMI 2.0 is released onto a GPU. Your only option is to buy one of those MST screens and throw it away when the appropriate technology is released.
So if ya on a budget I would wait out.
DisplayPort 1.2 at the moment will not support a single stream image and will only produce a 4k image at 60hz using Multi stream transport (MST).
At the moment HDMI 2.0 is the only way at getting a true 4k image at 60hz with out the use of MST.
At this stage there is no GPU that supports HDMI 2.0 and Nvidia will not say when or even if they will have HDMI 2.0 on there next gen cards.
I also spoke to DisplayPort and they have told me that DP 1.2 not will but "might" support Single stream transport, but there has been no testing or research towards this so it don't look good for DisplayPort.
So untitled HDMI 2.0 is released onto a GPU. Your only option is to buy one of those MST screens and throw it away when the appropriate technology is released.
So if ya on a budget I would wait out.
-
Reply to HowFarToAsgaard
m
0
l
HowFarToAsgaard
March 12, 2014 4:29:48 PM
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
For people like my self who game on 40" + screens, 4k is the holy grail. A 3840x2160 resolution might not be much of a difference on a 17" screen but for 40" or more there is a huge diferancne. You would be blind not to know the diferance
-
Reply to HowFarToAsgaard
m
0
l
madsmagnus
March 13, 2014 2:09:50 AM
HowFarToAsgaard said:
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
For people like my self who game on 40" + screens, 4k is the holy grail. A 3840x2160 resolution might not be much of a difference on a 17" screen but for 40" or more there is a huge diferancne. You would be blind not to know the diferance
You are missing the point, you have to be insanely close to the screen to notice 4K - and most people just don't do that.
For example your 40 inch screen, you have to be freakin 2,5 feet(0,6m) from the screen to grasp the full potential of 4K. WHO THE HELL IS 2.5 feet from a 40 INCH !?
-
Reply to madsmagnus
m
0
l
madsmagnus said:
HowFarToAsgaard said:
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
For people like my self who game on 40" + screens, 4k is the holy grail. A 3840x2160 resolution might not be much of a difference on a 17" screen but for 40" or more there is a huge diferancne. You would be blind not to know the diferance
You are missing the point, you have to be insanely close to the screen to notice 4K - and most people just don't do that.
For example your 40 inch screen, you have to be freakin 2,5 feet(0,6m) from the screen to grasp the full potential of 4K. WHO THE HELL IS 2.5 feet from a 40 INCH !?
no, you don't have to be insanely close to the screen to notice it.
-
Reply to unknownofprob
m
1
l
madsmagnus
March 13, 2014 5:04:06 AM
unknownofprob said:
madsmagnus said:
HowFarToAsgaard said:
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
For people like my self who game on 40" + screens, 4k is the holy grail. A 3840x2160 resolution might not be much of a difference on a 17" screen but for 40" or more there is a huge diferancne. You would be blind not to know the diferance
You are missing the point, you have to be insanely close to the screen to notice 4K - and most people just don't do that.
For example your 40 inch screen, you have to be freakin 2,5 feet(0,6m) from the screen to grasp the full potential of 4K. WHO THE HELL IS 2.5 feet from a 40 INCH !?
no, you don't have to be insanely close to the screen to notice it.
I don't see 4K becoming a standard in gaming for a long time.. We have such great DPI now with pure 1080p that 4K will really just seem useless to most.. Some technologies, even though greater, just don't have as big an impact on the market - it's all about supply and demand. And the demand for 4K just won't be there, people are just fine with running 1080.
But whatever, to get back to the subject (which has been answered) - The best buy for 4K gaming would be R9 290 depending on what country you are in. If your country hasnt been hit by the increase of AMD card prices due to mining, then the price/performance ratio on 290 compared to 290X, or any NVIDIA high end cards just is just WAY better.
-
Reply to madsmagnus
m
0
l
CAaronD
March 13, 2014 10:13:46 AM
HowFarToAsgaard
March 13, 2014 4:25:16 PM
I have used a 40" Sony XBR for a monitor for over 4 years, and i will never go back to anything that's 40" or less. I tried using a dell 30" and though it had a bigger resolution,it was just too small for me. I sit about 1 meter or less away and i can tell you right now there is a tremendous amount of difference in resolutions when using large screens. 4K is the new way of computing being that fact that you don't have to settle for little tiny screens and sit at ya desk like little hermits. Time to PC like a Boss. The bigger the screen the more virtual realization you get. But this is only accomplished by using bigger resolutions. If ya ask me, 3840x2160 is still too small.
The only reason PC screens are as big as they are is because its the maximum size you get can out of a 1920x1080 resolution without having any loss of pixel density. So yeh i kinda agree on your point when it comes to a 22" screen but 55" screen 4K is a must.
-
Reply to HowFarToAsgaard
m
0
l
madsmagnus
March 14, 2014 3:44:52 AM
caj said:
no the only card capable of handling 4k gaming prop is either 780ti or titan black. 290x isnt worth the price & heat issuesWhat the HELL are you talking about? That really depends on which country you are in and regarding the "heat issues" - ehm, have you heard about custom coolers from manufacturers ? DIRECTCU II, TwinFrozr ? Ring a bell ?
-
Reply to madsmagnus
m
0
l
madsmagnus
March 14, 2014 3:46:13 AM
HowFarToAsgaard said:
I have used a 40" Sony XBR for a monitor for over 4 years, and i will never go back to anything that's 40" or less. I tried using a dell 30" and though it had a bigger resolution,it was just too small for me. I sit about 1 meter or less away and i can tell you right now there is a tremendous amount of difference in resolutions when using large screens. 4K is the new way of computing being that fact that you don't have to settle for little tiny screens and sit at ya desk like little hermits. Time to PC like a Boss. The bigger the screen the more virtual realization you get. But this is only accomplished by using bigger resolutions. If ya ask me, 3840x2160 is still too small.
The only reason PC screens are as big as they are is because its the maximum size you get can out of a 1920x1080 resolution without having any loss of pixel density. So yeh i kinda agree on your point when it comes to a 22" screen but 55" screen 4K is a must.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
-
Reply to madsmagnus
m
0
l
madsmagnus said:
caj said:
no the only card capable of handling 4k gaming prop is either 780ti or titan black. 290x isnt worth the price & heat issuesWhat the HELL are you talking about? That really depends on which country you are in and regarding the "heat issues" - ehm, have you heard about custom coolers from manufacturers ? DIRECTCU II, TwinFrozr ? Ring a bell ?
Agreed, what the hell are you on about.
+Have you heard of the Powercolor R9 290X LCS (liquid cooling system) version, now that stays very very cool, Hawaii XT + LCS = good temps.
-
Reply to unknownofprob
m
0
l
HowFarToAsgaard
March 16, 2014 8:43:13 PM
madsmagnus said:
HowFarToAsgaard said:
I have used a 40" Sony XBR for a monitor for over 4 years, and i will never go back to anything that's 40" or less. I tried using a dell 30" and though it had a bigger resolution,it was just too small for me. I sit about 1 meter or less away and i can tell you right now there is a tremendous amount of difference in resolutions when using large screens. 4K is the new way of computing being that fact that you don't have to settle for little tiny screens and sit at ya desk like little hermits. Time to PC like a Boss. The bigger the screen the more virtual realization you get. But this is only accomplished by using bigger resolutions. If ya ask me, 3840x2160 is still too small.
The only reason PC screens are as big as they are is because its the maximum size you get can out of a 1920x1080 resolution without having any loss of pixel density. So yeh i kinda agree on your point when it comes to a 22" screen but 55" screen 4K is a must.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
wow a graph chart. Although this is more then debatable, i don't need a graph to tell me what looks better first hand. You obviously don't own a 4K display so you really don't a valid opinion. I own a 4K display and there is more then a noticeable difference and alot more work space when working on a 3840x2160 resolution. Also if 1080p was so great why then do we need Anti-aliasing? at 4k theres almost no need for it.
I dont know why but im starting to see that there are some 1080p fan boys getting around and i don't see the point.
2160p is far much better then 1080p as to 1080p to 720p the end
-
Reply to HowFarToAsgaard
m
0
l
bygbyron3
March 16, 2014 9:20:41 PM
CAaronD
March 16, 2014 9:45:52 PM
HowFarToAsgaard
March 16, 2014 9:56:50 PM
CAaronD said:
Thanks all. I'll just settle for 1440P, 4K dosen't seem worth it for all that money
Id only change to 4K if your on a 40" or more screen.
I got my sony for under $2500 and its an ass kicking to 1080p, but im limited to 30hz at the moment so for games im still at 1080p for now
The time HDMI 2.0 is released on a GPU, the price of a 4K screen will be alot cheaper.
-
Reply to HowFarToAsgaard
m
0
l
powelie
June 17, 2014 2:05:31 PM
HowFarToAsgaard
June 17, 2014 5:54:23 PM
powelie said:
I sit 3 feet from a 50" 4k running at 30fps because I need hdmi 2.0 enough said I will pay nvidia or amd any amount of money I want hdmi 2.0 right now no questions or excuses screw dp I don't careHow amazing is 4K at 50"
I was amazed at how good watch dogs looks at 4K and makes anything smaller looking like a baby's toy. The picture quality out ways the fact that im stuck on 30hz. I don't even bother using 1080p 60hz anymore its just so crap at 50". I did at first but Iv gotten use to 30hz now and its not a issue to me considering the amount of quality im getting. Its almost like im gaming on a 4K console if that makes sense? So when HDMI 2.0 comes out its going to be another world changer.Its really annoying to hear anyone say anything about 4K when not even owning a 4K unit them selves. They have no idea what there talking about and just go off what they read.
Here is my verdict
GTX770 4GB is the lowest card you want to go with when gaming at 4K. This card will get you over 30fps no problem in newer games. But the brilliant thing about 4K is that it revitalises older games such as dead space and mass effect.
I agree there is not much difference when under 30" but 40" or more ITS A MUST!
I Also don't understand why people spend thousands on there GPU's and then go buy a average display?
-
Reply to HowFarToAsgaard
m
0
l
Best solution
David Harrison
July 23, 2014 1:15:54 PM
HowFarToAsgaard said:
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
For people like my self who game on 40" + screens, 4k is the holy grail. A 3840x2160 resolution might not be much of a difference on a 17" screen but for 40" or more there is a huge diferancne. You would be blind not to know the diferance
-
Reply to David Harrison
Share
David Harrison
July 23, 2014 1:20:04 PM
Current generation of GPUs is insufficient for real 4K gaming, unless you Crossfire.
780Ti is useless for 4k as well, since it's crippled by it's small 3GB RAM, Crossfired R290X is better there since at least you have reasonable amount of VRAM, but really, you'd better just wait for the next generation of cards for 4k.
Or of course you can buy Titan Z or something, if you have the money.
780Ti is useless for 4k as well, since it's crippled by it's small 3GB RAM, Crossfired R290X is better there since at least you have reasonable amount of VRAM, but really, you'd better just wait for the next generation of cards for 4k.
Or of course you can buy Titan Z or something, if you have the money.
-
Reply to Gaidax
m
0
l
jman1968
July 31, 2014 2:46:52 PM
madsmagnus said:
HowFarToAsgaard said:
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
For people like my self who game on 40" + screens, 4k is the holy grail. A 3840x2160 resolution might not be much of a difference on a 17" screen but for 40" or more there is a huge diferancne. You would be blind not to know the diferance
You are missing the point, you have to be insanely close to the screen to notice 4K - and most people just don't do that.
For example your 40 inch screen, you have to be freakin 2,5 feet(0,6m) from the screen to grasp the full potential of 4K. WHO THE HELL IS 2.5 feet from a 40 INCH !?
Nobody, but PC gamers sit much closer to their monitors so it is perfect for PC gaming. The difference is noticeable as I am looking at a 28" UHD monitor now. As for the thread, check out benchmarks for r9 290's in crossfire. For around $800 you can game at 4K with the settings pretty much maxed out.
-
Reply to jman1968
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 1, 2014 3:19:01 AM
jman1968 said:
madsmagnus said:
HowFarToAsgaard said:
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
For people like my self who game on 40" + screens, 4k is the holy grail. A 3840x2160 resolution might not be much of a difference on a 17" screen but for 40" or more there is a huge diferancne. You would be blind not to know the diferance
You are missing the point, you have to be insanely close to the screen to notice 4K - and most people just don't do that.
For example your 40 inch screen, you have to be freakin 2,5 feet(0,6m) from the screen to grasp the full potential of 4K. WHO THE HELL IS 2.5 feet from a 40 INCH !?
Nobody, but PC gamers sit much closer to their monitors so it is perfect for PC gaming. The difference is noticeable as I am looking at a 28" UHD monitor now. As for the thread, check out benchmarks for r9 290's in crossfire. For around $800 you can game at 4K with the settings pretty much maxed out.
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 1, 2014 3:21:28 AM
David Harrison
August 10, 2014 1:17:42 PM
madsmagnus said:
Okay before you even start PLANNING to go 4k, let me tell you a little story about how the normal human eye can't see the difference at normal viewing distance anyway. Actually better yet, read the article yourselfhttp://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Just check the graph/chart in that article and calculate which size screen at which distance you have to be at to make use of 4K
Sorry
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 10, 2014 1:22:22 PM
I guess you have never seen a 4k display because FSX at 4k is a as real as it gets , for example London City Extreme at 4k looks like you are in a real airport , 1080p is ok but not a patch on 4k . Get a 4k screen and you will be amazed! I think people said similar things about HD TV but who would want to go back now to 720p?
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 10, 2014 1:24:52 PM
David Harrison
August 10, 2014 1:28:28 PM
I read a post here a couple weeks ago. Dude is running xfire 295x2's on a 4k monitor. Of course he has a $5k pc, a 2011 maxed out with full wc. His only problem was trying to get the 2 cards to play nice with each other. For some odd reason the xfire wouldnt work but either single card would. He said the 4k was amazing but was looking at 30ish fps on bf4.
-
Reply to Karadjgne
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 11, 2014 2:45:27 AM
The R9 295 x 2 would be a great 4k card(s) especially in quad crossfire! So by the way would 4 x HD7990 , especially as the bitcoin boys are now offloading them on ebay for some reason. But what I don't understand is why Nvidia charge so much for dual GPU cards . Why is the Titan Z over £2000, when 2x titans are about £1400? Most other markets if you buy two together its cheaper. Wonder if thats why they made over a billion $ last financial year???
If you can wait 3 or 4 months R9 295 x 2 should come down to £699 like the HD 7990 did . Lol
If you can wait 3 or 4 months R9 295 x 2 should come down to £699 like the HD 7990 did . Lol
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 11, 2014 3:12:49 AM
You will need a 3dMark 11 score of at least 20000 to get 50+ fps at 4K.
Follow this link :http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_295x...
Follow this link :http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_295x...
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
CAaronD
August 11, 2014 7:15:13 PM
Dual Hd 7990's wouldn't be very great, because of the frame dips, major heat, noise, etc. If the HD 7990 was still at <$500 it would be probably the best value 4K GPU
But now that the price has shot up to $1,000 it just isn't worth it. Probably the best value for your money now is Dual R9 290's. They would only cost $700 and they would be able to run BF4 at max settings 4K with 40 frames on average.
But now that the price has shot up to $1,000 it just isn't worth it. Probably the best value for your money now is Dual R9 290's. They would only cost $700 and they would be able to run BF4 at max settings 4K with 40 frames on average. -
Reply to CAaronD
m
0
l
4k only needs fxaa or smaa... hardware aa is pointless unless you are taking frame still photos, or you are already getting far more than 60/120/144fps, or whatever fps matches the refresh rate your monitor is set to. by not using hardware antialiasing, vram usage is reduced dramatically. crysis 3 maxed out with fxaa at 4k is only using a tad over 2gb.... this 6/8gb stuff is overkill. their going to have to invent some new processes or whatever to use the vram in these cards if we all switch to 4k.
-
Reply to nikoli707
m
1
l
David Harrison
August 12, 2014 1:50:15 AM
CAaronD said:
Dual Hd 7990's wouldn't be very great, because of the frame dips, major heat, noise, etc. If the HD 7990 was still at <$500 it would be probably the best value 4K GPU
But now that the price has shot up to $1,000 it just isn't worth it. Probably the best value for your money now is Dual R9 290's. They would only cost $700 and they would be able to run BF4 at max settings 4K with 40 frames on average.-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 12, 2014 1:56:27 AM
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
CAaronD
August 12, 2014 5:46:42 PM
David Harrison said:
Dual HD 7990's mine running around 70c on benchmarks , no more noise than gtx 780 , total cost for dual set up £580 , about the same cost as one gtx titan but 3Dmark 11 of 23k instead of 14K, so best bang for buck at the moment. Dual R290s cost around £400 but 3Dmark 11 16K. Happy days.I was talking about the old price. Now it's almost impossible to find a HD 7990 that hasn't been used for more than 9 months, or hasn't been used for heavy mining for less than $600 ... The HD 7990''s already cost $1,000. It just isn't worth it at $1,000.
-
Reply to CAaronD
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 13, 2014 12:52:21 AM
CAaronD said:
David Harrison said:
Dual HD 7990's mine running around 70c on benchmarks , no more noise than gtx 780 , total cost for dual set up £580 , about the same cost as one gtx titan but 3Dmark 11 of 23k instead of 14K, so best bang for buck at the moment. Dual R290s cost around £400 but 3Dmark 11 16K. Happy days.I was talking about the old price. Now it's almost impossible to find a HD 7990 that hasn't been used for more than 9 months, or hasn't been used for heavy mining for less than $600 ... The HD 7990''s already cost $1,000. It just isn't worth it at $1,000.
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
David Harrison
August 13, 2014 12:56:39 AM
-
Reply to David Harrison
m
0
l
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- Solved4k graphics card solution
- SolvedWhen will a graphics card come out that can handle 4K? solution
- SolvedGraphics card for 2.5k gaming pc 4k resolution solution
- SolvedDecent 4K Graphics Card? solution
- Solvedneed Graphics Card advice for dual 4k Monitor setup solution
- SolvedNon gaming triple 4k Setup - Graphics card recommendations solution
- SolvedNon-HDCP 4k Graphics Card solution
- Solved4K monitor to have the best graphics quality with Geforce GTX 780Ti solution
- SolvedNeed help picking out 2 graphics card for 4k in SLI solution
- SolvedNeed a Graphics card for my dad that will support 4k (No Gaming) solution
- SolvedWhat AMD or Nvidia graphics card is good for 4k Gaming? solution
- SolvedBest single card for 4k gaming? solution
- Best $800 video card setup for 4k gaming? solution
- Does it require a good graphics card to run basic stuffs in 4k resolution solution
- Choosing a 4k gaming graphics card(s) first build. solution
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!
I've seen a $130 1GB GDDR5 support 4K graphics cards, such as the Sapphire Radeon Vapor-X HD 7770 GHZ? O.O what kind of FPS will those get on crysis 3 at lowest with 4K?