Review Index:

Frame Rating: High End GPUs Benchmarked at 4K Resolutions

Author: Ryan Shrout
Manufacturer: Various

How the Current Cards Stack Up in 4K

Our experiment with early testing of high end graphics cards on a 4K display has definitely been interesting.  After using $3000 graphics card configurations on a 50-in 3840x2160 monitor it is going to be a struggle to go back to smaller display and single lowly graphics card.  But alas, that is part of the job!


Single GPU Performance

In our testing we looked at four different single GPU options including the GeForce GTX 680, the GTX Titan and AMD's Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition.  While the GTX 680 and the HD 7970 both cost around $450, the GTX Titan is more than twice that with a $999 price tag, realistically putting it in a different category all together.  That being said, the GeForce GTX Titan is the single best GPU for gaming at 4K resolutions.  It was faster than all of the other single GPU variants by a significant margin and was able to do so without introducing any kind of frame latency issues you might see with dual-GPU options. 

The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition was the second best card and considering you can find it for less than half the price, it makes a compelling case at beating out the GTX Titan for 4K bragging rights.  It performed better than the GTX 680 2GB and GTX 680 4GB in our testing which follows the results we have seen at 2560x1440 previously.

View Full Size

The GK110 GPU was seemingly built for 4K resolutions

Problems creep up for the Radeon HD 7970 if you consider going to the route of SLI or CrossFire.  While the GTX Titan and GTX 680 scale very well in most of our titles at 3840x2160, the Radeon HD 7970s in CrossFire suffer from runt frames and high frame time variance that result in either much lower than expected animation smoothness and/or stutter.  The GTX cards in SLI do not have this behavior resulting in a much better multi-card scaling proposition.  Yes, the prototype driver would help the HD 7970s out quite a bit, but that option is still weeks or months away.


Single Card Performance

If we limit our options to single cards, whether they be single GPU or dual-GPU, the battle is even more interesting.  Because AMD's new Radeon HD 7990 depends on CrossFire technology to perform, the 13.5 beta driver that still has the runt frame and frame time variance problems places it in a very bad light compared to NVIDIA options like the GeForce GTX Titan and the GeForce GTX 690. 

The GTX 690 is comprised of two NVIDIA GK104 GPUs that run in SLI, but NVIDIA's multi-GPU options do not demonstrate the same performance issues that CrossFire does thanks to hardware frame metering technology.  As it stands today, the GTX 690 is clearly the best card for 4K gaming under $1000.  Even better than the GK110 based Titan, the GTX 690 only suffers in a couple of cases with the 2GB frame buffer per GPU despite the 6GB that reside on Titan.  Most of the time the frame metering on the GTX 690 produces nearly as smooth animation with better frame rates.

View Full Size

The GTX 690 sits as the best single card for 4K gaming today

If we take into account the prototype driver for the Radeon HD 7990, it makes a good case to take that spot away from the GTX 690.  With much more even frame distribution, the dual-Tahiti card looks like a better option in several games even though there is still much work to be had for the driver team to produce frame times as evenly as NVIDIA SLI does.  Long story short, even if the prototype driver were available today to consumers in its current form, I still think the GTX 690 would have the advantage.  But AMD is on the right track and with some more development they could make their card the better choice.


Final Thoughts

A single frame of a game at 1920x1080 produces 2.0 million pixels.  A single frame at 3840x2160 produces 8.3 million pixels.  The jump from a 1080p panel to something like the SEIKI 50-in 4K TV we got in last week greatly increases the computing power required for gaming.  Users that bought a single GTX 680 or single HD 7970 will find that newer games like Crysis 3 won't breach the 25 FPS level even with image quality settings dropped off the maximum levels a bit.  Even GTX Titan buyers will find that their card has a bit of a struggle to keep playable frame rates at this resolution.  Gamers that want the ultimate experience on a 4K display or TV will want to own a GTX 690 or better yet, a pair of GTX Titan cards running in SLI.  I guess if you are willing to invest in a 4K TV, you should be willing to invest in high performance graphics hardware as well.

View Full Size

4K puppies!

For the hardware community, this is great news.  For years now we have lamented about the lack of expansion in the world of monitors; that we were seemingly stuck at 1080p as the game resolution going forward.  The advent of the Korean-made 27-in 2560x1440 monitors was one step in the right direction and 4K TVs breaking the $1500 level is yet another.  Despite the rivalry between them, both AMD and NVIDIA want these 3840x2160 displays to be cheaper and more widespread as it will push demand for higher performing graphics cards. 

I know many users will want my opinion on buying this specific TV for gaming at 4K, but I am hesitant to offer up a full recommendation.  I have definitely liked my time with it and found gaming on it be a solid experience, despite the 30 Hz refresh level of the panel itself.  You'll more than likely want to play games with Vsync on to avoid the doubled-up instances of visual tearing and if you do that, I think the quad-HD resolution of 4K is a sight to behold.


April 30, 2013 | 03:56 PM - Posted by ervinshiznit (not verified)

How come you're running these tests with AA enabled? We use AA at standard resolutions because the pixels are "too big" and makes edges look jagged. At 4k I don't think it's necessary. Yes, a 55" screen at 4k has a lower ppi than 2560x1440 at 27". But you're going to be sitting much further back from the TV so you can actually see enough of the screen, making the pixels take up less radians of what you see, reducing the perceived pixel size. If we get a 4k monitor at 27" then I don't see AA being of any use at all.

April 30, 2013 | 03:59 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I could still tell a difference between AA enabled and disabled in terms of quality.

April 30, 2013 | 04:53 PM - Posted by Randomoneh

Anti-aliasing will never become obsolete, no matter how high the [angular] resolution is, because Moiré patterns will appear otherwise.

May 4, 2013 | 09:53 AM - Posted by Wendigo (not verified)

Yes, but only SSAA was capable with this defect (moire pattern), the MSAA doesn´t work with the internal areas of the triangles.

September 8, 2014 | 04:14 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

MSAA does entire fucking screen idiot.

April 30, 2013 | 04:22 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Aliasing(in whatever form it comes, e.g. shader aliasing) is still an issue on any resolution, no matter how high it gets.

Playing without AA is a no-go for me.
First I try if I can enable 4x or 8x SGSSAA and if performance is okay. Works great if you find the right compatibility bits to force it(DX9 games) or if the game offers ingame-MSAA to enhance via driver(mostly DX10 and 11 games).

If that fails, I try to downsample it via custom resolution in the NVControlPanel (3840x2160 or 2880x1620 to 1080p, which is essentially OGSSAA), maybe add post processing-AA too if it doesn't blur the textures too much.

Using post processing-AA(FXAA, MLAA, SMAA, TXAA) alone is the last resort.
Though recently some games (for example Max Payne 3's FXAA, Crysis 3's 4x SMAA mode which includes an MSAA-part) had some good implementations where not much sharpness was lost due to blur.

April 30, 2013 | 04:35 PM - Posted by DeadOfKnight

These "you can't tell the difference" comments gotta go. If you can't tell the difference then just say "I can't tell the difference" so we can all point at you and laugh, and then frown at our empty wallets.

April 30, 2013 | 04:10 PM - Posted by RuffeDK

Great article! I'm excited about the upcoming 4K displays :)

April 30, 2013 | 04:29 PM - Posted by rpdmatt (not verified)

Very awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing results from newer cards based on these resolutions. Are you guys ever going to do a less impromptu review of that TV or is the un-boxing all we get?

April 30, 2013 | 05:08 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Honestly, that's probably going to be it for us.  We are not TV reviewers and I'll leave that to those that can do much better.  Check out HD Nation's information:

April 30, 2013 | 05:00 PM - Posted by w_km (not verified)

Can the current non-$999 GPUs run windows or surf the web smoothly (i.e. upscale 720p or 1080p, display website text smooth while scrolling, etc...)??? If not at 30 or 60fps, when would you expect to see sub-$500 cards capable of running office/non-gaming tasks at 4K?

May 1, 2013 | 08:35 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Office apps etc and other 2D graphics take practically no effort at all for a graphics card. Thats already been true for years. Even a basic graphics card can already do it easily. Maybe movies in full-screen might be a load, but if you're not gaming, thats about the only thing that would be.

April 30, 2013 | 06:42 PM - Posted by SetiroN

Sorry to be that guy, but 3840x2160 is not 4K. Having pointed out both 1080p and 2K in the diagram, you should know the difference; this standards confusion is going to be problematic for the customer and the press isn't helping.

Anyway, 30Hz is absolutely a no-no. Too bad Display Port isn't common on TVs. Or in general.

April 30, 2013 | 07:30 PM - Posted by Randomoneh

If I remember correctly, a number of TV manufacturers changed "4K" to QFHD (Quad Full HD) in fear of possible lawsuits because similar thing happened before: manufacturers were sued for false advertising for size (example: 26.7 in as "27 in and similar).

Anyway, I prefer "2160p".

May 2, 2013 | 06:42 AM - Posted by Ryrynz (not verified)

LOL. SetiroN Why did you say that? If you're not 100% sure don't say anything.. You sir got OWNED.

July 25, 2013 | 11:08 AM - Posted by Dan (not verified)

Your Wikipedia link refers to the 4K UHD marketing term not the display standard. The corresponding standard for that resolution (3840×2160) is QFHD. The 4K standard is (4096×2160).

April 30, 2013 | 07:35 PM - Posted by Nick Ben (not verified)

Excellent article Ryan!

Have you had any success using a "dual mode" displayport to HDMI adaptor to get 4K?

I know there's a new connector type 2 that will allow it in the future, wasn't sure if you had any success with any of these cards getting 4K by conversion from displayport to HDMI?

April 30, 2013 | 08:54 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I have only tried direct HDMI connection right now.  Why would you want a DP connection exactly for this implementation of 4K?  You won't be able to drive more than 30 Hz to any way.

April 30, 2013 | 09:09 PM - Posted by Nick Ben (not verified)

all recent nvidia Kepler Quadro cards and laptops only have displayport on them, so while not for gaming, they would make sense for 4K content creation

April 30, 2013 | 09:12 PM - Posted by Nick Ben (not verified)

the whole reason for displayport was supporting 10 bit color for color grading at 1 billion colors, but HDMI supports it now anyway, so that's why it's useful to convert from type 2 dual mode Displayport to HDMI at 1 billion colors for content creation

April 30, 2013 | 09:00 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

How do crossfire setup perform at 4k resolutions? I have also seen that running at higher resolutions with some configuration can alleviate micro-stuttering, can you test this?

Also why no crossfire tests in Far Cry 3 when you use 3/2-way sli?

April 30, 2013 | 10:48 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

We have HD 7970 CrossFire results for each game...

April 30, 2013 | 09:16 PM - Posted by traumadisaster

"I think the quad-HD resolution of 4K is a sight to behold." This is your last comment, I take that as you LOVE 4k gaming? My friend watched the preview and said he didn't see anybody jumping up and down. The first HD broadcast nfl game I saw, I was shocked. The first time in crisis seeing the jungle, my jaw dropped. The first 1440p game I was like I love this. My first dvd, then Blu-ray, etc.

I interpreted your non-verbal behavior as this was a jaw dropping experience for you guys, but since there was little verbal praise I'm wondering is this awesome. I explained to him that old, crusty, grizzled, seen it all, never give praise vets do love it.

April 30, 2013 | 10:49 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

The first impressions weren't as good as the extended impressions, because the TV had to be tuned a bit.  Turned down sharpness, turned off de-noise, etc.

April 30, 2013 | 09:25 PM - Posted by misschief (not verified)

Now call me daft (or stupid) but if the settings in the game are only showing 1080p (or 1200p) surely that means the game itself is being rendered by the PC at that resolution and the game is then being upscaled by the display? I'm probably missing something by only looking at the pretty pictures but until I see the actual resolution being played as a 1:1 ratio then I won't fully believe that the game is being 'played' at 4K, it's only being displayed at 4k. I'm happy to be corrected though!

April 30, 2013 | 09:32 PM - Posted by traumadisaster

Good question. I also wonder if the tv does automatic upscalling or is there options to pick 1440p or others. I wouldn't mind just using it as a big 1440p monitor since my 580 won't be able to keep up anyway.

April 30, 2013 | 10:47 PM - Posted by Randomoneh

I believe it really is 3840x2160. I've downloaded the video (horribly compressed though)and captured frames for close inspection. You can also take a look at the full-sized images that come with the article. There is AA so I can't be 100% sure but I think it's rendered at 2160p.

April 30, 2013 | 10:50 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

The settings screenshots are just there to show you the image quality settings, not the resolution.  All tests were run at 3840x2160.

April 30, 2013 | 11:16 PM - Posted by Mangix

You guys should try bumping up the refresh rate to something like 48Hz. 60Hz is most likely out of the question but with driver patching, going above 400Hz pixel clock should be possible. See:

I believe EVGA Precision also allows bumping up the pixel clock to get higher refresh rates. Otherwise, using something like CRU(found in the links above) will help with making custom timing parameters which will lower the pixel clock further.

May 1, 2013 | 12:47 AM - 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.

May 1, 2013 | 02:02 AM - 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 | 03:07 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 | 05:37 AM - Posted by DeadOfKnight

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

May 1, 2013 | 11:26 AM - Posted by Randomoneh


May 1, 2013 | 11:13 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 | 03:54 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Why did they leave out GTX 690 in SLI?

May 1, 2013 | 07:33 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 | 11:41 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 | 12:33 PM - Posted by SirHammerlock (not verified)

Well I tried to download the MP4 but I get a ridiculous message from 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 | 12:40 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

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

Please do your maths first...

May 1, 2013 | 12:41 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

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

Please do your maths first...

May 1, 2013 | 12:46 PM - Posted by Mac (not verified)

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

May 1, 2013 | 04:08 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 7, 2013 | 12:54 AM - Posted by w_km (not verified)


1920 x 1080 x 4 = 8294400

3840 x 2160 = 8294400

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

May 7, 2013 | 12:55 AM - Posted by w_km (not verified)


1920 x 1080 x 4 = 8294400

3840 x 2160 = 8294400

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

May 1, 2013 | 01:35 PM - 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 | 01:37 PM - Posted by Mark Rejhon (not verified)

This HDTV supports 120Hz at 1920x1080.

It's been confirmed -- see this post:

May 1, 2013 | 05:13 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 | 05:23 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 | 06:13 PM - Posted by nickbaldwin86 (not verified)

Please do... that would be great! thanks

May 2, 2013 | 02:21 AM - 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 | 08:40 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 2, 2013 | 02:22 AM - 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 2, 2013 | 02:22 AM - 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 | 11:26 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 | 05:30 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 | 02:57 PM - 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 | 03:59 PM - Posted by aparsh335i (not verified)

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

May 4, 2013 | 02:20 AM - 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.

May 5, 2013 | 11:19 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

So as I understand this new 4k tech - for desktop use only - does HDMI 1.4 spec only support 30hz refresh rates? If so, that would mean some very stuttery mouse movements (such as the difference between using 1080i and 1080p on the desktop). Very jittery mouse movement.

I am far less interested in what this new "inexpensive" new Seiki monitor can do for me in gaming and more for what it is capable of as far as desktop productivity. If my mouse if jumping around, or when trying to relocate a window, is terribly jittery and craptacular - then I will be waiting for the next gen of graphics support that will enable smooth desktop useage.

I am inclined to believe that it "should" be smooth, considering that 'eyefinity" can handle 6x1080p monitors smoothly. I would certainly love to replace the need for 6 monitors with 2 of these - which would technically provide more usable space.

Any input on this greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

May 6, 2013 | 08:11 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I found this just now browsing my bookmarks.

May 8, 2013 | 02:54 PM - Posted by BHawthorne (not verified)

It amuses me that the 30hz limitation is unimportant in the review. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding on people's computing needs. Get back with me when we have DisplayPort 1.2 on the thing and some real bandwidth to push practical hz.

May 10, 2013 | 02:23 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I have this display hooked into a WC titan/ OC 3770K rig. Once you get into the service menu and turn off the TV signal processing crap and adjust the lighting, the Seiki works wonderfully as a monitor for anything windows 2D... No mouse lag or skipping whatsoever. So its QED from that perspective... Simply astonishing clarity and real estate.

Gaming? Again, disable all the tV SP crap... You are still limited by 1) signal transmission tech, and 2) this $1100 panel (yes... Search for it) can only do 30Hz refresh at UHD. At lower rez it does much higher refresh. 60Hz UHD will be a year or more before it's "affordable". At 1440p this panel looks amazing when gaming.

May 12, 2013 | 01:54 PM - Posted by Ted G (not verified)

Question for you...
I purchased this TV and have a 4K up-scaling receiver. I would like to try it on my computer but my GTX 550 can't run that resolution. I am not a gamer but do a lot with photoshop & video editing. Is there a less expensive solution for video cards (must have HDMI out)? There isn't a lot on the internet about this subject.

May 12, 2013 | 03:33 PM - Posted by Ted G (not verified)

Question for you...
I purchased this TV and have a 4K up-scaling receiver. I would like to try it on my computer but my GTX 550 can't run that resolution. I am not a gamer but do a lot with photoshop & video editing. Is there a less expensive solution for video cards (must have HDMI out)? There isn't a lot on the internet about this subject.

May 12, 2013 | 04:39 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

For desktop work, any low end 7-series AMD or 6-series NVidia should do it. You really do not need a high end card for windows desktop work.

Seiki just pubed a firmware update that some say addresses occasional (and very panel specific) handshake loos (1sec) BUT it knocks out the audio! Seiki responded that they are working on the problem. Seems like a lot of postprocessing and special EFX pros are buying these. (see forum).

May 12, 2013 | 04:40 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

check forum

May 13, 2013 | 08:32 AM - Posted by Ted G (not verified)


July 9, 2013 | 09:20 PM - Posted by Amtrak (not verified)

Which Radeon 7990 did you use and did it require an adapter to do HDMI?

July 10, 2013 | 01:52 AM - Posted by Mattycee (not verified)

I grabbed on these Seiki TV's and currently am using it as a monitor. I have a GTX680 and am looking at upgrading to a GTX690.
What I wanted to make sure is that the DVI-D to HMDI adapter is enough to run the full resolution of the TV? I am sure that it is as you have tested it as I dont think that GTX690's have HDMI do they?

Hope you can advise?


July 31, 2013 | 05:44 AM - Posted by Anonying (not verified)


August 4, 2013 | 07:47 PM - Posted by Nikos (not verified)

Who would "invest in a 4K TV", taking into consideration that prices will only go down over time?

September 7, 2013 | 10:56 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

My seiki 39" can do 2560x1440 @100hz
1920x1080 @120hz using gtx 680 4gb sli. I have come across this website a lot and watched the lengthy videos without ever finding this important piece of information. (create the resolutions and test them on the NVidia control panel).

September 19, 2013 | 08:08 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

AA is useless in 4K screen, even most of ps3 games don't use aa at 720P.

October 28, 2013 | 01:32 AM - Posted by Rob (not verified)

No point in running 4k? Haha what a joke I run quad sli GTX690's and a 4k panel and there is no way in hell I would ever consider dropping back to a lower resolution. The difference is massive

March 29, 2014 | 03:21 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

LOL try and play at 5760x1080

July 23, 2014 | 12:00 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I got a seiki 4k tv 39in led and with vsync off yes I get screen tearing in some parts but with the 7990 it scales extremely well. It looks fantastic batman arkham origins looks phenomenal and it plays great. Crysis 3 I had to limit to medium settings and it played great as well. As long as you disable vsync you'll get similar fps to playing in 60hz. I got the tv on sale at tigerdirect for 300 bucks! Hell might as well try it! If you have the gpu to push it you will see a difference. All of my friends that came over did they were highly impressed.

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.