Overclock.net banner
21 - 40 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by F4ze0ne View Post

This monitor looks so awesome.

Does it have any dead pixels?

If so... Are they noticeable?
I haven't seen any on mine, i think some users did get some on theirs but i think most got good panels.

in this thread

Me personally i am really happy with mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
The screenshots look incredible.

What's your average framerate with quad fire in these games?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by F4ze0ne View Post

The screenshots look incredible.

What's your average framerate with quad fire in these games?
It varys unfortunately but it also depends on settings used. I drop settings to get close to 60fps avg as i can. Most games it varys in that case, but some are really tough and some are very forgiving. I am trying to understand why performance has changed drastically for me from trying triple 4k eyefinity. Games for instance like Crysis 3 and Witcher2 really never ran properly no matter what settings i choose. However on this setup with VSR they are now playable and i get roughlt 40-60fps on Medium or give or take some settings low vs high. I suspect VSR is actually somehow reducing the load where as triple 4k was brutal and buggy.
Granted 6400x3600 isn't triple 4k but its pretty close. I think the biggest thing for me is i've only had one game not work so far, and that was FalloutNV. With triple 4k eyefinity in portrait none of my DX9 games worked at all fullscreen and had to run windowed which defeated crossfire and was too slow.

Here is Tomb Raider @ Ultra - i would have ran Ultimate but there appears to be a bug with TressFX and super high resolutions.

TR for example i turn off Motion blur, screen effects and FXAA because they actually reduce the quality. I am finding more now than ever at such high resolutions most games post processing effects actually severely reduce the quality and clarity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Some shots from borderlands 2 so far its running 60fps with everything up except physx, because of course well Nvidia specific. This game isn't exactly super hard to run.




390x can't get here soon enough, i just hope it really kicks arse in extreme resolutions with HBM..
thumb.gif


Edit: you know while this is entirely a different beast I would still love to compare this to a 5k monitor side by side. I am willing to bet this will look better the scaling is amazing, and AA is totally useless. I will test BF4 and Alien Isolation since they have some horrible aliasing at medium distances and long
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
For fun, i'll throw these Valley results in here. Nothing ground breaking exactly but the fact 4GB 290x can still run at such high resolutions should be impressive within itself. Again, i'm running pcie 2.0 and cpu's from Q1'2010. So maybe if i decided to try something newer my FPs would be higher but i wouldn't put too much hope on that as GPUs are the heavy lifters here. The only real hope is if PCIE 3.0 could help some. I also doubt it will as i think the GPU's drop out first before all of those items.

Valley Ultra 6400x3600 AVG FPS 30


Valley Medium 6400x3600 AVG FPS 49
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Quick video of Deux Ex no mods - i am hopefully getting a 60fps cam soon so no more motion blur/ghosting in the videos as the camera is 29fps sadly that as i mentioned im using. Its defintely not happening in the game and its driving me nuts when i view the videos.

Edit:
Also what it looks like when using a single screen resolution
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Witcher2 in game and one potato cam shot- this one is running pretty well and it used to not.
It floats from 40s-mid 70's and i do have quite a few things turned off, including ubersampling and AA as they are not needed and kill FPS
I'll let the shots speak for themselves wether its good or bad...










potato cam


Can't wait for witcher 3
thumb.gif


EDIT ADDED BONUS! i turned all my settings down and got this:


lol - Origin is giving away Ultima 8 Gold edition Pagan for the old school peeps. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Probably one of the last updates with data i'll do as i am moving in the next few days. Here is a short clip with my potato cam for Dragon Age Inq. i'm only running Tri-fire on this video as i was tested settings and gpu scaling performance. I show settings at beginning, sorry its all i got for now.
p.s. watching it in the post instead of going to youtube and setting it to 1080p is about as close as it will get to the actual quality. Sadly after using a potato cam and youtube compression maximizing the video would just make it beyond horribad worse than it is lol.
tongue.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
GTA5 - so i managed to get GTA5 downloaded before i tear down my machine to move. A few in game shots and it was running between 30-50fps so far(OSD in shots for proof). Didn't get very far but did a little driving and it seems to play decent enough @ 6400x3600. No AA and i left in game settings at default, i had to turn off the vram limit warning because it wouldn't let me play above 4k at first. Well aside from that it does crash when i hit ESC havent had a chance to figure that out may have a corrupt file.










forgot a heaven 4.0 shot, it runs like a dog for me at this resolution, but looks pretty
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,533 Posts
Looks awesome
smile.gif
If you want to push FPS you should take a close look at your VRAM usage. The performance:prettiness ratio is pretty good when using high-quality textures, but it's the primary violator of VRAM usage. If you start maxing VRAM, you will see super low FPS like in Heaven 4.0.

E.g. Crysis could probably be much nicer without losing too much FPS if you increase the Texture Detail, as long as you're not maxing VRAM.

Everything has to look super nice on that monitor though
biggrin.gif
184 DPI display essentially removes the need for anything AA-related.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
I did try to do some Vram size testing before breaking it down. Unfortunately I don't know how accurate it is. I ran a few tests with just a single card and the only one so far that got close to 4gb with no AA is Alien Isolation. I want to say ultra heaven and max tessellation without AA hit 3gb. It seems like im finding a major issue with games using SSAO or any ambient occlusion. Mostly in DX9 games but some others like heaven. I was able to do a quick test with heaven and found with a single card I got less than half the fps once I turned on Amient occlusion. Not sure if this is a driver issue or what. I welcome suggestions though. Its been hard to hold back from getting 8gb 290xs but with the 3xx so close I am waiting patiently. Obviously I cant even look at green team for this setup they don't have a 2x2 surround option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonX View Post

Looks awesome
smile.gif
If you want to push FPS you should take a close look at your VRAM usage. The performance:prettiness ratio is pretty good when using high-quality textures, but it's the primary violator of VRAM usage. If you start maxing VRAM, you will see super low FPS like in Heaven 4.0.

E.g. Crysis could probably be much nicer without losing too much FPS if you increase the Texture Detail, as long as you're not maxing VRAM.

Everything has to look super nice on that monitor though
biggrin.gif
184 DPI display essentially removes the need for anything AA-related.
Thanks for checking it out, I will redo the OP when I get a chance. It may not be making sense to many folks. Probably the whole monitor scaling part makes people not sure. Once im back up and running ill give a go with windows 10 as well, since its got decent ui scaling.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,533 Posts
SSAO slays high-resolution output. It does a per-pixel calculation, so on your 23.04 megapixel display, it's has to do 10 times as many calculations per frame as opposed to a regular 1920x1080 display
tongue.gif
Waiting for 3xx seems like the best option if you want more graphical fidelity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonX View Post

SSAO slays high-resolution output. It does a per-pixel calculation, so on your 23.04 megapixel display, it's has to do 10 times as many calculations per frame as opposed to a regular 1920x1080 display
tongue.gif
Waiting for 3xx seems like the best option if you want more graphical fidelity.
For me personally, the resolution and using hi-def textures do most of the work. SSAO works in many titles and it still remains playable, that said I usually turn off bunches of other features simply because it degrades image quality. For instance things like bloom, chromatic abberation, post processing if applicable.

I was really hoping the 390x would give me a boost and maybe run 3 in CF or even 2 if performance is there. I don't want to wait until June but the 290x will hold me over I just wish I could verify for sure 8gb does or doesn't make a big difference. Using AB to read VRAM:) usage, it indicates in many titles VRAM is not my limiting factor.
I never use AA except in Alien Isolation (fxaa).

I have hynix memory on all 4 of my 290x's and to keep my waterblocks I might be able to get the sapphire 8gb reference model, but it has elpida memory so I may be limited on OC and then it may reduce performance.

I also am wondering if PLP will be supported on 3xx because that may be worth checking out. So many options and so little time :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,533 Posts
Personally I would get the 3xx's alone because of the power of the GPU's, and not so much because of the VRAM amount - although that could still be a limiting factor in some games, regardless of AB showing that or not.

It's more about the game hiding options from you because you have insufficient VRAM.
I remember reading some of the newer AAA titles being limited by 4GB cards even at 1080p, and I can't imagine your super high resolution helping
tongue.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonX View Post

Personally I would get the 3xx's alone because of the power of the GPU's, and not so much because of the VRAM amount - although that could still be a limiting factor in some games, regardless of AB showing that or not.

It's more about the game hiding options from you because you have insufficient VRAM.
I remember reading some of the newer AAA titles being limited by 4GB cards even at 1080p, and I can't imagine your super high resolution helping
tongue.gif
I think the biggest issue with 3xx right now is the unknowns. How will it perform, will it scale well in CF, will there be any issues with CF and XDMA at first like 290x had. It took a while to run triple 4k properly in quad cf. Of course I am not a spoiled little brat who expects it to work perfectly in such a high resolution right out the gate. I guess I am just weighing the pros and cons and too much is unknown until its in my hands to install and run :)

I will hold onto my 290x cards until I am happy with 3xx of course. I am stil down and out on my move, and was hoping for some news this week but its looking like june is the month to bet on at this rate.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,533 Posts
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
Top