Guild Wars 2

i have asus 28" 4k monitor with 295×2.

it seems too much laggy.. and having low fps ..

4k monitor not supported yet?

or anything shhould i can try?

my cpu is 5820k any help will appreciate it..

or should i just using 1080p … with this game..

um, 4k is new and as you know GW2 is very CPU bound. so the higher the res the harder your going to push the game.

also, did you get a 30hz monitor or a 60hz monitor(really expensive!!)….if vsync is enabled that would be why your only getting 30fps lol

60hz asus 287q

vsync disabled.. maybe my cpu cant handle this res

shud i just use 1080p mode for this? or shud i just lower some appearence

stuff disabling ? which is better/..

I have 2600k @ 4.8ghz and crossfire R9 290X
Even on 1080p, I have low FPS (WVW, WB, Farm….Lion Arch….)

arain.5973:

60hz asus 287q

vsync disabled.. maybe my cpu cant handle this res

shud i just use 1080p mode for this? or shud i just lower some appearence

stuff disabling ? which is better/..

Well what ingame settings are you using, and what FPS are you actually getting.

VinceTueuR.2987:

I have 2600k @ 4.8ghz and crossfire R9 290X
Even on 1080p, I have low FPS (WVW, WB, Farm….Lion Arch….)

Don’t high jack threads, this is about the OP’s 4k Monitor and not your 1080p issue. if you have performance issues start a new thread.

sirsquishy.8531:

VinceTueuR.2987:

I have 2600k @ 4.8ghz and crossfire R9 290X
Even on 1080p, I have low FPS (WVW, WB, Farm….Lion Arch….)

Don’t high jack threads, this is about the OP’s 4k Monitor and not your 1080p issue. if you have performance issues start a new thread.

God forbid we have some performance comparisons.

GW2 is basically CPU reliant (like a lot of MMOs) so your GPU can only do so much. My GTX 970 only hits around 55-57%~ GPU usage most of the time, but the fact that the game is 32 bit from what I remember and DirectX 9 (according to Afterburner,) I just chalk it up to RAM limitations and a semi-dated engine.

My PC is running an Intel i7 4970k quad core CPU, running at stock 4.0 GHz that Turbos to 4.4 (while playing) with 12 GB of RAM (I normally use 8GB but another build didn’t require the 12GB I had purchased for it) and at 1080p I get varying degrees of performance depending on what I’m doing. In good or normal scenarios (even with supersampling and everything else maxed) I can get 60~80+ fps (like in Lion’s Arch). World Bosses on the other hand, or any events with a LOT of people doing all their fancy skills, can bring my framerate down to 12 or even 7 frames at times (even running native resolution scaling and shadows on high.) The biggest performance tweak I can see is lowering the amount of people rendered under Character Model limit when I do world bosses and such.

Also, I have not yet experimented with the Effects LOD option.

TL;DR: MMO engine, CPU reliant, but with probably 32 bit client and DX9 limitations. Lower player rendering settings, maybe particle settings if needed.

I have a Samsung UD590 4K monitor ready to roll here, in 5760×1080 with R9 290X crossfire on an i7 4770K that I usually like to clock to 4.1 GHz I get usually around 50-55 fps in lion’s arch at around the mystic forge excluding the halloween content going on. I don’t suspect it’d be too different with the 4K, maybe just a little lower if anything? I’m unsure.

Aside from lowering visible player count, lowering shadows and reflections was a large boost for me.

Knowing you and I have the same general brands, OP, Intel + AMD, I run my Catalyst Control Manager without AA completely and in game I run everything at the highest setting and no FXAA and usually see good frames in most areas I feel that you should see similar if not slightly lower with 4K if arrays if pixels mean anything, IE difference between 4K and 5760×1080.

I hear the i7 5820K can overclock like a sun of a gun and I was even considering jumping to one myself lately but overclocking success depends on quality of hardware used as well as your patience and determination. Too much for me. Too much work for so few frames increase.

I connected my 4K monitor a couple hours ago and put my 4770K to 4.1 GHz and left my graphics cards running at optimal settings and aside from the absolutely gorgeous image quality, I think the game could use a larger option for UI beyond Large.

Avelos.6798:

I connected my 4K monitor a couple hours ago and put my 4770K to 4.1 GHz and left my graphics cards running at optimal settings and aside from the absolutely gorgeous image quality, I think the game could use a larger option for UI beyond Large.

What GPU setup are you running now and what performance are you getting at 4k, also 60hz with vsync or 30hz with out vsync?

4k is my next upgrade :-)

Samsung UD590 on two R9 290Xs via DisplayPort. No performance loss when GPU at regular settings slight fps loss at my low power GPU settings. 60 Hz as always, I play with Vsync.

Highly enjoyable performance, maybe slightly better than three screen mode.

Avelos.6798:

I connected my 4K monitor a couple hours ago and put my 4770K to 4.1 GHz and left my graphics cards running at optimal settings and aside from the absolutely gorgeous image quality, I think the game could use a larger option for UI beyond Large.

Oh yes…, the ui is so tiny… >_<

@Topic:
What connection are you using? Maybe HDMI?
Change to Displayport.
Most of the 4k Monitors use the “old” HMDI 1.4 Version.
This version can not support 4k @60Hz, you only get 30Hz.
30Hz to 60Hz is good noticeable (for me).

I’m pretty sure most 4K monitors are using HDMI 2 while cables aand some graphics cards are still using HDMI 1.2-1.4.

Nope, they dont. Thats the big problem you will have.
But anyways… when the Card dont support HDMI 2.0, you dont get 60Hz out of the card.
Monitor AND Graphic Card have to support HDMI 2.0 to get the full 60Hz.
The GTX 980 use HDMI 2.0, as an example. Most of the older 700 Series dont use the new version.
And there dont exist a HDMI 2.0 cable, every HDMI cable is compatible to the new 2.0 standart.

Simple use the Displayport for gaming.

Oh… and dont use nVidia Cards in the moment for 4K, they send only a limited RGB Signal with HDMI and Displayport. (driver site options dont change this)
They handle monitors as TVs on HDMI and DP and use the video standarts for bluray. >_>
There exist programs to change this but it will not work for all users.
Totaly bull****.
Greyish picture or banding on 4K… yeahh…

Read this:
http://referencehometheater.com/2014/commentary/rgb-full-vs-limited/

Sad that nVidia dont change this in the drivers. -_-
You get only with DVI the right full RGB signal.

Chris Cleary.8017:

I’ve been running on 3840×2160 about a year, and have had no problems @4K. That being said, 4K performance is wildly dependant on your rig. The difference between standard 1920×1080 and 3840×2160 is significant, and even with the beastly right I am currently running, I rarely hold 60 FPS during large WvW fights. My suggestion, don’t go 4K unless your rig can handle it, you aren’t going to be able to appreciate the difference in resolution if your framerate drops.

As far as the game supporting 4K, it does and looks fantastic (however the interface could probably use some scaling work on higher resolutions). I’ll look into it, but I wouldn’t expect anything soon as 4K isn’t exactly mainstream.

I am interested in what FPS you are getting when you are doing WvW at 4k :-)

I can tell you what the community gets, but who knows…maybe you are on some beta client that has a lot performance tweaks (CLI params we dont have access to)

I should also add that my FPS stayed just about the same the entire time I used 4K yesterday. When I turned down my R9 290Xs into a lower running speed because the game didn’t need it, that’s when I noticed very slight frame loss. Other than I think I actually got a bit more frames per second because the game was being focused on one entire monitor instead of three. Just more pixel density. That’s what I experienced anyway, I didn’t do a comparison but it felt much smoother.

Avelos.6798:

I should also add that my FPS stayed just about the same the entire time I used 4K yesterday. When I turned down my R9 290Xs into a lower running speed because the game didn’t need it, that’s when I noticed very slight frame loss. Other than I think I actually got a bit more frames per second because the game was being focused on one entire monitor instead of three. Just more pixel density. That’s what I experienced anyway, I didn’t do a comparison but it felt much smoother.

Makes sense, since Eyefinity forces the GPU to rendor 1 resolution over many outputs. Puts extra work on the GPU to break the display up and send it out to the correct head on the GPU.

But i wonder if its really a break even at 4k vs a res at eyefinity. I run 5040×900 right now, I wonder if dropping from 5k down to 4k and the 900 up to 2.5k would yield close to the same FPS with needing to buy a new GPU.

The GPU doesnt care how the resolution is being setup, but it might care about how it outputs the images to the different displays.

However, I am waiting for the 120hz 4k panels to come out. Even if I can only link at 60hz right now, I need to be able to move up to 120hz when the GPU’s are available with support for it.

@ Chris Cleary , can you list your rig that gets 79 fps in LA THATS SICK !! on that res tooo

Or you could just grab a 4K monitor and resell it when 120 Hz units are available, SirSquishy. The highest FPS that two R9 295X2s on the Tomb Raider benchmark can get is 117.8 fps. $2,200 worth of graphics hardware.

Chris Cleary.8017:

I’ve been running on 3840×2160 about a year, and have had no problems @4K. That being said, 4K performance is wildly dependant on your rig. The difference between standard 1920×1080 and 3840×2160 is significant, and even with the beastly right I am currently running, I rarely hold 60 FPS during large WvW fights. My suggestion, don’t go 4K unless your rig can handle it, you aren’t going to be able to appreciate the difference in resolution if your framerate drops.

As far as the game supporting 4K, it does and looks fantastic (however the interface could probably use some scaling work on higher resolutions). I’ll look into it, but I wouldn’t expect anything soon as 4K isn’t exactly mainstream.

Do you think.. we could get an interface scaling slider? Because… I’d like it a lot if I could make it smaller.

MSI X99S Gaming 9 AC – $549
Intel® Core™ i7-5960X CPU @ 4.10GHz – $1269
32 GB DDR4 @ 2999.3 MHz – $415 (Kingston)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 x2 – ~ $1600, depends on brand and type (I’m assuming he means he has two of this card)
Total: $3833

Note that these prices are in Australian dollars from Australian sources – reckon in the US they’d be about two-thirds to three-quarters the price, in USD. Total of $2555-$2875. Not including case, aftermarket cooler (I see the CPU is overclocked), not to mention the monitor.

Yah, I’m a little envious…

A good 4k screen costs more than that rig.

Malediktus.9250:

A good 4k screen costs more than that rig.

Problem is, there are no ‘good’ 4k displays yet. We are lacking many features on both the GPU end and the 4k displays. Such as 120hz :-)

we are still a year or so out before 4k is really feasible.

imo there are no “good” monitors on the market, only compromises, no matter the resolution.

144hz is only available on TN panels, which sacrifice so much color (depth/accuracy/gamut) and viewing angles.
IPS is limited to 60hz so you sacrifice fps for better colors and angles.

supposedly 144hz ips is coming, but who knows when actually decent panels with good color accuracy will get the tech.

Malediktus.9250:

A good 4k screen costs more than that rig.

Yeah, back when Asus had a monopoly when they had the first one out there. Now you can get a good one for triple digits.

Chris Cleary.8017:

Decrypter.1785:

@ Chris Cleary , can you list your rig that gets 79 fps in LA THATS SICK !! on that res tooo

I recently built a new rig to replace my 4+ year old one, needless to say I went a little nuts, but I built a rig that wouldn’t cry when running @4K

MSI X99S Gaming 9 AC
Intel® Core™ i7-5960X CPU @ 4.10GHz
32 GB DDR4 @ 2999.3 MHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 x2

I went a little nuts with mine on an update. My CPU is half yours XD the RAM count is half as well but I’m packing to R9 290Xs both Asus DirectCU II and my machine handles 4K like a champ at the moment. The sheer thought of owning a 5960X right now is amazing to me.

Chris Cleary.8017:

Decrypter.1785:

@ Chris Cleary , can you list your rig that gets 79 fps in LA THATS SICK !! on that res tooo

I recently built a new rig to replace my 4+ year old one, needless to say I went a little nuts, but I built a rig that wouldn’t cry when running @4K

MSI X99S Gaming 9 AC
Intel® Core™ i7-5960X CPU @ 4.10GHz
32 GB DDR4 @ 2999.3 MHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 x2

wow sweet rig , im jelly lol

sirsquishy.8531:

Malediktus.9250:

A good 4k screen costs more than that rig.

Problem is, there are no ‘good’ 4k displays yet. We are lacking many features on both the GPU end and the 4k displays. Such as 120hz :-)

we are still a year or so out before 4k is really feasible.

I dont need 120Hz, 20fps still looks smooth to me in GW2. I am more concerned about good colors, contrast and dpi

With the new dynamic super resolution on the 900 series, which are selling out left and right, it would be nice to see an addition of a 4k ui scaling. While 4k monitors are far off for the mainstream I would think that this changes that aspect of the issue some of us have.

You dont need a GPU of the 900 series, even the 400 series support the feature with the newest driver update.

Malediktus.9250:

You dont need a GPU of the 900 series, even the 400 series support the feature with the newest driver update.

That only solidifies my point even more. I just used the 900 series as the sales on new cards are a good indicator that this is hardly a niche thing now. The addition of older card support is just icing on the cake and all the more reason to add scaling for the UI at 4k.

I am all for better UI scaling. Playing at 4k on a 23.5" screen is impossible with the current scaling. Everything becomes very hard to read.