Building Your PC for 4K Gaming

Next gen only means 1080 pixel resolution and 60 fps for PS4 and Xbox One owners but for pc gamers, 4K resolution is the next demand. Well, it would be costly to meet the 4K requirements but, it will taste even better in that quality (want to play GTA 5 in 4k quality).

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
hennessey861749d ago

is a long way from being affordable, I'm a PC gamer and I'm happy with 1080p 60fps. You need a Titan to even think about playing at a decent frame rate, 2 or 3 years and 4k will be obsolete and 8k will be the new kid in the block but until gaming tech takes a massive leap forward gaming at these resolutions is a dream most of us will never get to experience.

singh27anmol1749d ago

4k gaming is too costly for now.........yup

kraenk121749d ago (Edited 1749d ago )

It's not only too costly...It doesn't even make much sense considering most assets/textures etc. aren't even produced for 4K yet.

u4one1749d ago (Edited 1749d ago )


i work in cg/motion graphics for broadcast, video game cinematics etc etc... its not any harder to make textures and assets for 4k than it is to do them 1080p or whatever... textures are usually built at a really high rez to begin with and then worked down into lower resolutions when building and optimizing. its way cheaper to start high and work down than to work low and build up high. in fact the textures are irrelevant to the rendered output. obviously the higher res textures you go the better they look close up but generally you do stages of texture resolution to assist LOD (level of detail..textures far away don't need to be as high rez as textures used in foreground). As for geometry etc... pixel resolution is irrelevant. its the polygon resolution that makes a model look more or less detailed. pixel resolution affects geometry in no way. the only thing that comes close to pixels affecting geometry is the aliasing but thats handled post process and those jaggies are produced by the engine itself, not the models. the part that makes 4k hard for video games is rendering those worlds and assets at 2160p, but creating them is no different than anything else.

bunt-custardly1749d ago

You are right that it's still a long ways to being affordable for most but, no you don't need a Titan for "a decent frame rate".

The AMD R9 290X which costs under £300 is quite capable of running a number of games at 60fps in 4K.

Spartacus101749d ago

£300 for a GPU alone isnt worth it to run some old games or indies at 4k.

oIITSBIIo1749d ago (Edited 1749d ago )

1080p is meh, 1440p is the best choice right now and it doesn't cost so much.

bmf73641749d ago

And Nvidia G-Sync monitors are the way to go because G-Sync is when the monitor detects the frame rate and adjusts the refresh rate to match the frame rate.

bmf73641749d ago

It's better having a 970 SLI configuration than a Titan GPU as far as budget goes for 4K gaming. 970 for price is amazing alone but comparison charts show that SLI provides exponential performance

ninsigma1749d ago

Is it worth it going the sli route?? I'm gaming at 1080p on a single 970. I'll eventually get a second monitor so I'm wondering is it worth getting a second 970 and going for a 4k monitor??

traumadisaster1749d ago

Exponential as in 25-45% better in half the games, and the other half sli must be disabled due to artifacts, microstutter and no legit profile?

ninsigma1749d ago

those were exactly my concerns :/

Marked1749d ago

Sorry sweety but, the titan is less powerful than the 290x in many games. Hell the gtx 980 out performs it. take a look

Revolver_X_1749d ago

Titans aren't as popular because of cost. The optimization isn't there. I recently upgraded to the 980 myself.

traumadisaster1749d ago

Please don't use "sweetie" on a tech site dominated by men.

Anyway the titan can be overclocked to a 980, utilize 6GB of VRAM and came out much earlier so is now cheap used.

Marked1749d ago (Edited 1749d ago )


Get a grip ladies....Name one game that would use anything over 4gbs of vram. LOL jeeez 6gbs you say! Don't forget we are talking 4k results here ;-)

Amazing how stupid people fall for the marketing of publicly traded companies, whose intent is to mislead and divert atention away from poor or miss represented expensive products.

Tempest3171749d ago

@Marked - I am fairly certain the OP was referencing the Titan X for 4K resolutions, not speaking of the original Titan...The original Titan is 2 years old and outperformed by a majority of mid-high range GPUs these days so it wouldnt make sense that they were referencing that.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1749d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1749d ago
Phish1749d ago (Edited 1749d ago )

I would build this a bit differently (like one I already own), but in regard to this article a 4K monitor isn't even listed.

My build:

I5-3570K Overclocked (water cooled)
Two GTX 980's in SLI
Corsair 1000W Gold Modular power supply
Two 1TB Samsung 850 Evo SSD drives
Samsung 28" 4K monitor

Most games to date are 50 to 60 FPS on Ultra running at 4K.

--bienio--1749d ago

You got nice Pc:) I have Gtx 970 and also thinking about Sli but later this year. Already spent too much so Im a bit short with money plus to many games coming:)

weirdo1749d ago

i'm happy with 1080p thanks

Khajiit861749d ago

Yeah 1080 and 1440 are perfect at the moment. maybe by the time next gen consoles release or by the end of this gen the PC standard will be 1440 and 4k.

Revolver_X_1749d ago

Yea, i'm fine right now with 1440 at 60fps. My 980 does it just fine with pretty much every game I've played.

Two-Face1749d ago

I'm happy with my Asus VG248QE 144hz 1080p monitor. I'm primarly a Counter-Strike Global Offensive player, and will be for a long time. Other games are fine on it too.

audiophile1011749d ago

Great article but all that money spent and you go with a 60hz monitor? I would reccomendations at least a 120hz or higher.

I have a 60hz monitor and tv and once anything action packed happening that's when the quality falters
Shame that all these new 4k tv's come out and they are only 60hz

Dasteru1749d ago

Why would you spend more money on a 120hz monitor when at 4k you won't be able to play much higher than 60hz anyway? The money is better spent in box atm.

Maybe next year when Pascal launches we might be able to play 4k/120fps but it is a waste of money to try currently.

Show all comments (34)
The story is too old to be commented.