Thinking about 4k... what would I need?

[Warty]

I have an older PC which I upgraded with more RAM and a better video card (GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1060 Windforce OC 3GB) last year. In the meantime, I had to a different desk arrangement, and now my TV is closer to me, and I really notice the pixels. I also noticed you can get a 4K 43" TV for a lot less than I got this 42" 1080p TV years ago. But what would I need to do to get decent gameplay out of AH? Full new rig, I am guessing, but out of curiosity, what? Is the 4K totally driven by the graphics card? Could I maybe just get an uber card, and keep rest of PC the same?

[DaddyAce]

I think that GPU will run 4K with your graphics settings dialed down.  I have the same GPU and an i3 6100 CPU with 8 GB Ram running a 1440 p monitor, and looking at MSI Afterburner output, find that sometimes my GPU is limiting frame rate, and sometimes it seems to be the CPU, depending on the situation, so yes your cpu can limit frame rate I believe.

[Spikes]

The rest of your PC specs would be good to have. It depends how old the processor is, but generally yes, as long as the CPU is decent the jump to 4K will be all about the GPU.

1060, especially the 3GB may struggle with 4K. Usually the 1070 is the "benchmark" minimum for 4K, and really it depends on game optimization and whatnot. 1060 would run 4K but I'm not sure what settings or FPS to expect.

[Bizman]

^^^^ that.

Note that 4K will literally quadruplicate the load on your video card. The 1060 is very good for 1080p @ 60Hz but not much past that.

Also, if you get an "über" card, you'd probably also need a better power supply.

For what it's worth, a couple of my friends managed to get used info monitors, 46" and 54". They say the pixels don't show so there may be some difference in the panels and the pixel size compared to a regular TV. I've seen the 46" and can confirm the pixels didn't jump out at some 4 ft.

[Warty]

I think I used to sit about 6 feet away, and the pixels didn't bug me. Now my head is 3 feet away, and when NOT in the game, the pixels bug me. So I thought I'd look into 4k. This is the math I've found so far:

43" 4K TV: $350 + tax
Nvidia Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Founders Edition - $900??? I thought from reviews it would be $650, which is bad enough, but looking on Amazon, so far I see things in the $900 range.

That's a lot of green. I think I could get a whole new mongoosT stick and throttle for that much cash, and still have a few bucks left over. My stick setup isn't bad (until it breaks again, and I eventually run out of spare Suncom parts).

Current setup:
Corsair CMPSU-650TX 650 W ATX12V, EPS12V, 80 PLUS Certified
Intel Core i3-550 3.2 GHz, Dual-Core, 4 MB L3 Cache
Asus Sabertooth 55i LGA 1156, Intel P55 chipset

[Spikes]

I am not sure where you are located (country wise), but the 1080Ti price depends on which model you get. Different manufacturers have different features (ie clock speeds, OC speeds, cooling systems, etc) so the price can vary quite a bit. The MSRP on the 1080Ti is I believe $699.

The price is still high, but keep in mind this is literally the best video card you can buy (with the exception of the Titan XP I suppose). But, 4K is very strenuous as Bizman said. So to have the best, you gotta fork out the money for the best.

The issue will be that your i3-550 will most likely be a huge bottleneck. Is AH the only game you play?

[Bizman]

Nvidia recommends at least a 600W PSU for the GTX1080 Ti with a 6 and a 8 pin video power connector. Yours is made by Channel Well who are a reputable manufacturer on the cheaper side. That may not be an issue, the reviews looked good. The components looked identical with a Seasonic who also build for Corsair. Confusing...

With the i3 the 650W should be enough but if you plan to upgrade your processor, too, a little more headroom might be good.

[Easyscor]

Black Friday sales are in 32 days. Might be worth waiting for potential bargains.

[jskibo]

Why stop at 4k?  Go 4k surround

[Bizman]

Why stop at 4k?  Go 4k surround

Actually, the guy with the 54" said that his monitor is of the type that can be chained up to umpteen other ones to make one HUGE screen. Start with nine, then go to 25... If 4K is four times a 1080p, wouldn't the 1080p be called 1K? If so, wouldn't they respectively be 9K and 25K? Most likely in those combinations they've used 9 or 25 pixels to draw a single pixel and the viewing distance must have been some 50 yards or more. But imagine a 25K screen of the size of the living room wall, the panels in a radius in front of you... GTX5080Ti, perhaps?

[Warty]

I'm in the US, fwiw.

AH is the only game I play, but the kids have been bugging me to get Star Wars battlefront II. It does *look* pretty cool, but the ships all appear to be mouse driven. blech. But  still cool looking. I'm guessing my CPU would have trouble with that game, even with the uber card? 

Somehow I convinced myself that 4K had been a thing long enough that cards supporting it would be in the $300 range. 1080p is still pretty amazing to me. I started on Amiga Air Warrior, in glorious 640x400 (http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/644834-air-warrior-amiga-screenshot-taka-taka-taka-taka.png). but maybe I'll wait another year.

[Spikes]

I would say for Battlefront it would more than likely struggle. I believe Skuzzy said that AH3 transitioned away from more CPU intensive to more GPU intensive from AH2, so that would be a plus for you.

The CPU/GPU "balance" isn't a necessity, and comes more into play when building a PC from scratch. For example, getting a i7-7700k and say a GTX 970 would be unbalanced (great processor, older video card) just like the i3 and 1080ti would be. From a PC builder's standpoint it ends up being just a waste of money as you'll never see the full performance out of the 1080ti since it'll be so hindered by CPU performance.

In your case, you could look for a 1080 (non-Ti) and save yourself some money, and use that money saved to get a new cpu/mobo/ram combo down the road if the performance doesn't fit your needs. The 1080 is "current-gen" but priced lower, slightly less performance, and it'll last you quite a while still. I have a GTX970 that is about 3ish years old and still tackles any games I throw at it (albeit 1080p).

I'm not sure if it is condoned here, but I've used reddit's /r/hardwareswap quite a bit and you can find some great deals if you don't mind second hand. All sorts of video cards flying about over there, but now is kinda a bad time to buy some of the "lower end" cards like the RX480, 580, 1060, 1070 due to the whole bitcoin mining craze.

Overall, 4K is still pretty new and is more of a TV-marketing thing in that 4K TVs are much cheaper now, even though there isn't a whole lot of 4K content out yet. In the PC realm, it isn't as easy as buying a TV and being ready to go unfortunately.

[Gman]

TillDeer -  A good 4k TV from any of the majors should suffice, and if you can manage at least a 1080, you should be pleased enough with the performance even if you have to adjust some settings.  I've not had a 1060, but I had a 1070 and on the Acer 4k my advice would be a negative, and it'd be probably worse on a larger " 4k TV.

I'll give you my 4k experience.  Right when Acer came out with their 28" Gsync 4k, I bought one.  I've ran it with  980ti, 1080, 1080SLI,1080ti, and a Titan XP, on various modern (within the last 18 month) 6700/7700/Broadwell E CPUs.

4k with AAA graphics intensive titles CAN be ran and be playable, but your expectations should be that with even the fastest GPU/CPU gaming combos out there, maintaining even 60fps might not always happen on high detail levels, and not in just a few games either.  AH3 shouldn't be an issue, and since the 144hz 4k aren't out for another quarter or two, 60fps is about all you can hope for anyway.  Just be prepared, with a 1060, you absolutely will have to decrease detail and AA and other settings, probably a lot, to maintain that 4k res at a playable frame rate.

IF you're buying a 4k TV, at least you'll get the double value of having it AS a TV as well, but purchasing a dedicated PC LCD that's 4k with a 1060 = IMO stick with a good 1080p 144hz+ IPS or even a 1440P monitor for now.  Just my opinion. 

Just be aware that even the so called "gaming" 4k TVs aren't really a big improvement on 4k TV gaming right now.  LinusTechTips here in Canada if you check out his YT channel has recent excellent videos covering 4k TV gaming and some of these new models, so you can better manage decisions and expectations when deciding what direction to go.

IMO in another year, maybe 2, 4k desktop LCDs and the new Volta/whatever will be able to make 4k gaming a much more consistent performer.  IMO soon after VR headset tech will start supplanting 4k, and I have a feeling that the new Asus 144hz 4k 27" LCDs coming out in Q1/Q2 2018 will be the last LCD gaming monitors I ever buy due to VR tech in the next 5 years taking over.

Spikes + others = good advice IMO.  If you're serious about getting into a 4k TV or monitor, do some research (LTT YT again/etc) on what the best 4k TV option is, or pick up an Asus/Acer/etc 4k gaming LCD, and get yourself as an absolute minimum, a 1080 (lots of used ones, i just sold one for 475$ CDN, my final 1080 left), or better yet find a used 1080ti if you can manage it.  4k is usually very playable, again with managing expectations and doing some fiddling with settings, with either of those GPUs in my experience.

I still prefer 1080 or 1440p due to the higher refresh/fps rates available, in addition to target size in this game, and 90% of the gaming in our places is in these resolutions, not the 4k monitor.  Re the 4k tvs, again, be aware of claims of 120hz and various response times, they are mostly fibbish, some good things to check out regarding them below. 

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/pc-monitor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEtU_yewa8o&t=413s

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/668790-best-4k-tv-for-gaming/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNH--2g5Jwc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwS0fftQAFc

[Bizman]

Now that Gman mentioned target size in AH...

Are you aware that if you get a 4K monitor of the same size as your current one, the target size will reduce to a quarter of the current size? On your current monitor a single pixel is roughly 5/256 of an inch high and wide whereas on a 4K screen of the same diameter the pixel is 5/1024 inches. So if you now can see the grid from your viewing distance, a 4K monitor of 84" would suffer from the same issue. Most likely something between your current 42 and 84 inches would give you the best of both worlds, something like 60". For 4K the biggest one where you can't see the pixels at 3 feet distance should show you the distant dot outside icon range in due time.

Considering that the majority plays on 24" or smaller 1080p monitors, anything over 48" should give you an advantage in seeing the distant dot.

[Skuzzy]

That is not exactly right Bizman.  The size of objects do not (better not) change with the screen resolution of the monitor.  The only thing that does change is the single dot size.

For instance, once you get far enough away from a plane it becomes a single pixel, then the pixel size matters, but when we draw the full object, the pixel size is irrelevant.