Review Index:
Feedback

Frame Rating: High End GPUs Benchmarked at 4K Resolutions

Author: Ryan Shrout
Manufacturer: Various

Far Cry 3 - $999 Level

Far Cry 3 (DirectX 11)


 

Beyond the reach of civilization lies a lawless island ruled by violence. This is where you find yourself stranded, caught in a bloody conflict between psychotic warlords and indigenous rebels.  Encounter a disturbed and memorable cast of characters as you take a gritty journey to the dark side of humanity. Unravel a deep and emotional story of survival, written by a Writers Guild Award winner.

Our Settings for Far Cry 3

View Full Size

View Full Size

Now that we are up to the $999 cards we are seeing some more impressive performance.  The HD 7990 with the prototype driver is definitely looking the best, though the observed frame rates are lower than the FRAPS frame rates.  The gap is nothing compared to the HD 7990 with the 13.5 beta driver though.

View Full Size

Wow...that is...ugly.  The GTX Titan is the only card that has a reasonable frame time graph; it is very tight, especially in comparison to the other cards in our sets.  The blue line of the GTX 690 is better than either HD 7990 option but the prototype driver sees a big improvement over the currently 13.5 beta.

View Full Size

Even though the average frame rate (50th percentile) of the HD 7990 with the prototype driver is higher than the GTX 690, the frame rate quickly drops down the curve, going below the GTX 690 at the 55th percentile and below the GTX Titan at the 70th. 

View Full Size

The frame time variance shows the problems with multi-GPU options in Far Cry 3, especially at 4K resolutions.  The GTX Titan stays very low while the GTX 690 is adding 20 ms of frame variance for about 10% of the frames rendered.  The HD 7990 with the current driver is adding 20 ms for 75% of frames though!  With the updated prototype driver we see that decrease to 28% of frames.  Obviously the GTX 690 is the best multi-GPU card for Far Cry 3 at this quality level.

 

View Full Size

View Full Size

Our Titans appear to be scaling pretty well with two and three cards - with the exception of the nasty spike down at the end of the test run, seen in both 2-Way and 3-Way result. 

View Full Size

The frame times still show some scaling problems with SLI as we can tell the graphs are not nearly as tight and clean with two or three cards as they are with a single.  Interestingly though, the 3-Way result is a bit LESS variant than 2-Way!

View Full Size

Frame rates scale from 20 FPS to 38 FPS and to 52 FPS as we add in more GTX Titan cards, an impressive scaling rate of 1.9x and 2.6x.

View Full Size

Frame time variance is relatively low for the GTX Titan as we add more GPUs, indicating that the 6GB frame buffer is making a big difference for the GK110 architecture.  Also interesting to see is that the 3-Way configuration is indeed less variant than the 2-Way SLI result.

 

Looking for native 4K captures of our Far Cry 3 gameplay?  Have fun!

Download the MP4 (650MB)

April 30, 2013 | 09:47 PM - Posted by Tom-Seiki (not verified)

Without using the pixel clock patcher, I made a custom resolution for 3840x2160 @ 31Hz and it worked. When I tried 32 Hz, TV either showed a blue screen with message "Not support" or it would skip every other column when drawing pixels, causing the resulting image to be blurry.

April 30, 2013 | 11:02 PM - Posted by Chris Green (not verified)

I'd love to see a photo of this experiment:

Set the desktop to the native 3840x2160 resolution of that TV.

Go into photoshop and draw a checkerboard pattern, and display it zoomed to the "actual pixels" setting.

Get as close to the screen as your digital camera will focus and take a full-res picture of the checkerboard pattern.

That image should both verify that you're getting the full native resolution without scaling, and provide an evaluation of how sharp it would be for normal desktop use.

May 1, 2013 | 12:07 AM - Posted by 63jax

i see no point of such a high res if the PPI i actually low, give me 27-30 inch panel with this res and i'll be happy, it's all about PPI, not the size.

May 1, 2013 | 02:37 AM - Posted by DeadOfKnight

My thoughts exactly. It seems that 1440p would be a better experience.

May 1, 2013 | 08:26 AM - Posted by Randomoneh

Huh?

May 1, 2013 | 08:13 AM - Posted by Randomoneh

It's all about the angle between pixel centers. Further you go, angle is lower (which is good).

If you want such a high [angular] resolution, you can always sit further away, can't you? But if you have a small display with the same resolution, you'd have to sit closer, and you can't keep coming closer forever.

May 1, 2013 | 12:54 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Why did they leave out GTX 690 in SLI?

May 1, 2013 | 04:33 AM - Posted by Mac (not verified)

Does the prototype driver work on Xfire 7970s or is it just for the 7990? Anyone?

May 1, 2013 | 08:41 AM - Posted by Sulu (not verified)

Skyrim at 4k. Mmm. Ryan you are such a tease. What with me not being able to afford it for another few years.
Nice article. Can't wait for you to run it again with the new crop of amd cards coming down the pike this fall.

May 1, 2013 | 09:33 AM - Posted by SirHammerlock (not verified)

Well I tried to download the MP4 but I get a ridiculous message from MEGA.co.nz saying that "your browser is not modern enough to download a file this large" and I can't download it.
Really?!? I can't download a file <700MB in the latest version of Safari for Snow Leopard? How much is Google paying them for that lame (and completely false) advertisement? FYI, Chrome is using the same underpinnings as my browser, WebKit.
I guess all those 1.5GB Combo Updaters and Service Packs etc that I downloaded never really happened, since I can't download files as large as 684MB according to Mega.
I don't trust anybody that withholds information and lies about why they are holding it back from you.

May 1, 2013 | 09:40 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"3840x2160 is exactly four times the resolution of current 1080p" ??

Please do your maths first...

May 1, 2013 | 09:41 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"3840x2160 is exactly four times the resolution of current 1080p" ??

Please do your maths first...

May 1, 2013 | 09:46 AM - Posted by Mac (not verified)

Well you can fit 4 1080p screens in a 3840x2160 space

May 1, 2013 | 01:08 PM - Posted by Randomoneh

When we're dealing with human perspective, resolution is not a pure number of pixels. Pure number of pixels is called "pixel count".

Now, we tend to perceive things this way: 4x4 image is twice as clear / sharp as the same 2x2 image. Therefore, you need to quadruple the pixel count to double "The Resolution". Just like "Retina" iPad looks [up to] twice as sharp as the old one.

May 6, 2013 | 09:54 PM - Posted by w_km (not verified)

Well...

1920 x 1080 x 4 = 8294400

3840 x 2160 = 8294400

Hmm...I guess they're pretty close.

May 6, 2013 | 09:55 PM - Posted by w_km (not verified)

Well...

1920 x 1080 x 4 = 8294400

3840 x 2160 = 8294400

Hmm...I guess they're pretty close.

May 1, 2013 | 10:35 AM - Posted by Fence Man (not verified)

How does the GTX 690 with 2gb ram win the day? When I play sleeping dogs maxed out with high red textures I use over 3gb at 2560x1600, how can 2gb be enough for 4K?

Are you banning people for disagreeing with you??

May 1, 2013 | 10:37 AM - Posted by Mark Rejhon (not verified)

This HDTV supports 120Hz at 1920x1080.

It's been confirmed -- see this post:
http://www.blurbusters.com/4k-tv-for-only-1500-supports-1080p-120hz-and-...

May 1, 2013 | 02:13 PM - Posted by nickbaldwin86 (not verified)

Can I play @ 2560x1600 @ 120hz if I bought this monitor and say a 690 or a Titan or two :P

I just wondering if this monitor/TV is able to run that res and refresh rate?

May 1, 2013 | 02:23 PM - Posted by Mark Rejhon (not verified)

Some tester said this HDTV managed to overclock -- it was able to accept 192Hz at 1280x720 (but that frameskipped). There is no answer about how 2560x1600 120Hz would behave -- someone will need to test that out.

May 1, 2013 | 03:13 PM - Posted by nickbaldwin86 (not verified)

Please do... that would be great! thanks

May 1, 2013 | 11:21 PM - Posted by Mark Rejhon (not verified)

I read a report of 32Hz operation at 4K. I wonder if it can overclock to 48Hz during 4K.

May 1, 2013 | 05:40 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

>>> HDMI 1.4 can support 4K resolutions, but it can do so only at 30 Hz That doesn't mean we are limited to 30 FPS of performance though, far from it.

Uhh of course it does. just becuase your card is rendering 100 frames a second doesnt mean you will actually get to see any more than 30 per second if thats all your screen supports.

May 1, 2013 | 11:22 PM - Posted by Mark Rejhon (not verified)

It does reduce input lag, if we can render 100fps, and send only the most freshly-generated frames to the display.

May 1, 2013 | 11:22 PM - Posted by Mark Rejhon (not verified)

It does reduce input lag, if we can render 100fps, and send only the most freshly-generated frames to the display.

May 1, 2013 | 08:26 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I have a GTX 690 with two dual DVI and one DisplayPort connectors. Will a 4k signal transmit with a DVI to HDMI adapter?

PS Great review. I almost pulled the trigger on a Sony 55" 4k and then a Sharp PN-K321 just this past weekend. Now I may get the Seiki just to settle my 4k lust until the market catches up.

May 5, 2013 | 02:30 PM - Posted by Skye (not verified)

I have the same card X2 running in Quad SLI ..
Ordered 2 of the Tvs ...
Can't get it to run any Higher than 1080p and it looks like Crap ... 8(
Using the factory Adapters DVI < HDMI that came with the cards from ASUS.
No Joy ...
Even tried a Mini DP to Hdmi cable that I had on my other Rig ... No joy .. dosnt work.

Can anyone shed some light on how they did this Review ?

May 3, 2013 | 11:57 AM - Posted by P.Jack Kringle (not verified)

Why do some of your screenshots only show 1920 x 1200 resolution, yet you claim 2160p resolution across all tests?

May 3, 2013 | 12:59 PM - Posted by aparsh335i (not verified)

Sooooooo....If you got 3 of these TVs could you do 11520x2160 Eyefinity or Surround?

May 3, 2013 | 11:20 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Any possibility of uploading one of the captured video files? Maybe not one of these 4K ones, but some of the ones from the other reviews? I'd like to see the video with the color bars on it, and maybe mess around with running the data extraction myself.

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.