4k support

[.corvon.]

As of getting a 4k monitor for christmas, i've had numerous problems with display. That's fine. I can handle that, as long as my eyes don't bleed.

 

4k support in warframe is pretty atrocious, and kills my fps and makes the screen glitch horribly. The res is just fine, it's that I(a person whom has never got motion sickness or any eye issues of any sort) am writhing and screeching in pain at the stuttering and spasming of the game. I know 4k monitors can be a rare sight, and I am ficklemcgee, but I(and a few select others, as well) would like to be able to actually play, thank you.

^{_{this topic will likely shrivel and slowly die, collecting dust at the bottom of feedback's godforsaken derelict but i have an itching need to complain}}

[SDGDen]

from what i can tell. its just your GPU. maybe get a 1080?

[.corvon.]

7 minutes ago, SupremeDutchGamer said:

from what i can tell. its just your GPU. maybe get a 1080?

my gpu works just fine with a smaller monitor, pretty sure that's not the problem.

[A7xConnor]

Well your fps issue is just because you're using a higher resolution? higher resolution = more taxing and resource intensive for the gpu, as it has to push more data through per frame than lower resolutions, amongst other things. A single frame in 1080p is like... what, 8MB or so? 2160p is probably around 30MB, that's a hell of a lot more bandwidth needed for each frame.

Your vram usage will be way higher because of this too, potentially the stuttering could be related to memory issues. If you have any AA enabled I'd suggest disabling it, as above 1080p it becomes less and less needed most of the time, let alone 2160p

[ShardsSuperior]

16 minutes ago, TheMetrocop said:

my gpu works just fine with a smaller monitor, pretty sure that's not the problem.

The smaller screen would stress the GPU less. Try another game of similar graphics quality and see how your performances compare.

 

EDiT: I also have a 4k monitor, but I still play on 1920x1080 because of this same reason.

Edited January 3, 2017 by ShardsSuperior

[SDGDen]

25 minutes ago, TheMetrocop said:

my gpu works just fine with a smaller monitor, pretty sure that's not the problem.

on a 1920X1080 screen. the GPU has to calculate 124416000 pixels per second.

on a 4K (about 4000X2000) the gpu has to calculate 480000000 pixels per second.

thats about 4 times as much. thus it takes more GPU power to do.

[.corvon.]

12 minutes ago, A7xConnor said:

Well your fps issue is just because you're using a higher resolution? higher resolution = more taxing and resource intensive for the gpu, as it has to push more data through per frame than lower resolutions, amongst other things. A single frame in 1080p is like... what, 8MB or so? 2160p is probably around 30MB, that's a hell of a lot more bandwidth needed for each frame.

Your vram usage will be way higher because of this too, potentially the stuttering could be related to memory issues. If you have any AA enabled I'd suggest disabling it, as above 1080p it becomes less and less needed most of the time, let alone 2160p

the problem with that is that i can't find a lower res that doesn't look horribly fuzzy.

my memory is quite fine(at 16gb ram).

i can run taxing games such as wolfenstein the new order and they run very smoothly. i know they're pretty different games but it works fine.

Edited January 3, 2017 by TheMetrocop

[A7xConnor]

9 minutes ago, TheMetrocop said:

the problem with that is that i can't find a lower res that doesn't look horribly fuzzy.

my memory is quite fine(at 16gb ram).

i can run taxing games such as wolfenstein the new order and they run very smoothly. i know they're pretty different games but it works fine.

It'd affect your gpu memory more so than your ram. But as I said, try turning down your AA (if it's up) it really shouldn't be needed with 4k.

And if you really need to change the resolution 1080p would probably be the best bet as it perfectly scales to 4k. Exactly 4x less pixels.

12 minutes ago, SupremeDutchGamer said:

on a 1920X1080 screen. the GPU has to calculate 124416000 pixels per second.

on a 4K (about 4000X2000) the gpu has to calculate 480000000 pixels per second.

thats about 4 times as much. thus it takes more GPU power to do.

Well that's not quite right. Each pixel has to be rendered individually, more pixels to render, obviously = more work needed from the gpu. If you set it a frame rate target of 60fps, like vsync or a frame lock, then yes it'd need to be able to push 124416000 pixels per second to do that, on 1080p to get 60fps. For 4k it'd need to push/render 497664000 (4k is considered 3840 × 2160 in marketing terms) pixels a second to hit 60fps. But depending on how much it can handle/render/push is what determines your frame rate. 4k is 8294400 pixels per frame etc etc. So if you were getting 200fps you'd be pushing 8294400x200=1658880000 pixels a second.

[MillbrookWest]

34 minutes ago, TheMetrocop said:

the problem with that is that i can't find a lower res that doesn't look horribly fuzzy.

my memory is quite fine(at 16gb ram).

i can run taxing games such as wolfenstein the new order and they run very smoothly. i know they're pretty different games but it works fine.

A GTX 960 isn't going to cut it for 4K gaming.

The framebuffer is going to be too large for the card. The core will either be too slow to fill it, or you'll have no space to store it (if you have the 2GB variant). This is why the game looks odd to you - The hardware can't cope, resulting in dropped frames, stalls, and very uneven frame-pacing. There's nothing DE can really to in this regard.

I would suggest upgrading your hardware, or running at a lower screen res and accepting the up-scaling artefacts.

For a 4K screen, you'll want quite high end hardware like a GTX 980, and above,(or AMD equivalent) if you want to run the game at a native resolution, with decent visuals (this will vary from game to game). I own a GTX 970, i only ever go up to 1440p. I could run select games at 4K, but it would mean sacrifices to visuals - Imho 4K isn't worth that trade-off.

[hatchetman]

Your old monitor was 1920 x 1080.   Your new one is probably 3840 x 2160.  1920 x 1080 vs 3840 x 2160..... that's one hell of performance difference.  You need to understand that 4k gaming isn't something you normally just pull out of a box, people dedicate a lot of time researching hardware and lots of money building a 4k gaming rig.

 

I have 2 970s and run 4k.  A single 970 is selective at which games it can run at 4k.  On a benchmark in Witcher 3 I saw that a 960 on medium settings at 3840x2160 got as low as 14fps and as high as 16fps, at 1920 x 1080 on medium settings it got 48-53.  Looking at other benchmarking of a 970 vs 960(or just a 960 over all) I would say that a 960 can not run Warframe or any "good" game for that matter at 4k (excluding games like Steam Marines, Starbound, Stardew Valley, Terraria and Craft The World). 

Another thing, make sure you don't use a DVI cable, a single DVI supports a maximum 2560 × 1600 at 60 Hz.