Crysis 3 Hacked to Run at 8K - But Can Anything Power It?

Subject: General Tech | May 7, 2014 - 11:01 AM |
Tagged: quad crossfire, gpu, dual graphics, Crysis 3, 8k, 4k

We’ve seen what happens when you put two monstrous graphics cards together with Ryan’s look at a R9 295X2 CrossFire setup and now here’s something that would challenge even that: Crysis 3 at 8K resolution!

View Full Size

An enthusiast called "K-putt" has created a hack to allow the 8k setting, and his Flikr gallery has full-res versions of the screenshots. (Be warned - they're HUGE files!) While this likely isn’t practical even with a quadfire setup like we had for those tests (K-putt was only getting 2 FPS with his single-card setup), it’s still very nice to look at!

View Full Size

The original Crysis became famous as the game that would bring any system to its knees, and now any game can really challenge a system just by adding a 4K monitor. With prices coming down to the sub-$700 range already it won’t be long until a multi-4K monitor setup will actually become feasible.

Here's what comes up under "4k monitor" on Amazon today:

View Full Size

Prices are dropping! Just be warned: Before attempting anything like this you’d better have the GPU horsepower or it’ll just be a (very pretty) slideshow!

May 7, 2014 | 12:33 PM - Posted by craig (not verified)

Original crysis never really brought systems to knees it was build around dual core then later on they added quad core support in a patch that didn't do anything at all after patch core utilization was a joke in original crysis.

The game was a big bottleneck.

May 7, 2014 | 12:39 PM - Posted by craig (not verified)

And i dont even get the point of 4k all we get are subpar console ports and even the demanding game dont have texture close to that res so all you are doing is spending large amounts of cash to play games with upscaling textures.

May 7, 2014 | 03:21 PM - Posted by Russell Abbott (not verified)

Is this having any kind of knock on effect on the pricing for 2560x1440 (or 1600) screens?

May 7, 2014 | 04:38 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

8K gaming is so long off it isn't even funny. We'll be lucky if we can get 4K to the point 1080p is 10 years from now. The amount of horsepower needed is just incredible. With silicon in its death throes I don't think we're magically going to poop out something to make this happen any faster.

Of course this is technology and the e-peen just went up a few inches thinking about it. Graphics just don't scale linear and often times are straight exponential, multiple times, from previously.

May 8, 2014 | 01:27 AM - Posted by Aaron (not verified)

Until the 3.8k monitors are changed to be true 4k I'll pass thanks. My 30" 2560/1600 is a nice sweet spot for actual usable performance (gtx 580) and proper desktop 16/10 ratio.

May 8, 2014 | 01:37 AM - Posted by Aaron (not verified)

...of course 'real' DCI native 4k isn't 16/10 either but at least its 4k. 4096 × 2160 (256/135)...and of course I'm being pedantic, 3.8 is going to be far more affordable and provides better compatibility with content designed for TV's. :)
Just can't get away from the fact that actual work is easier with more vertical real estate.

May 8, 2014 | 09:56 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That's the problem with re-using definitions. 4k in this case refers to both the 4096x2160 resolution, and a bunch of screen resolutions at about 8 Megapixels.

So we end up with 3840x2160k being UltraHD, but also "4k", while 4096x2160 is 4k and "4k."

May 12, 2014 | 09:52 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

8K = 4 4K monitors. DO IT!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.