Mass Effect Andromeda 4K resolution at 60fps on ultra.

I mentioned it in your thread in the off-topic section yesterday as well, but I'll throw it out here again.

Right now if you're aiming for 60 FPS @ 4k/Ultra there are two cards that can even begin to think about it: the 1080ti and the Titan Xp. The Titan Xp is the more powerful of the two, but it's a very slight increase performance and both tend to be sitting around the 50-55 FPS range in graphically demanding games with spikes down to around ~40 during moments of intense action.

The new Vega cards from AMD look interesting but with a release date of August 14 we wont have proper benchmarks until then. The problem we run into in trying to compare the two is the hardware used in the computer otherwise. We need to see benchmark results from multiple games for the Vega 64(the most powerful card in the Vega series) as well as the 1080ti side by side using the exact same PC hardware other than swapping out the GPU.

Even then if we look at the benchmarks I can find just for the Vega 64, it averaged 55 FPS in Battlefield 1 and since this is marketing material they would naturally have wanted to make it look as good as possible. This suggests that at best you're probably looking at a card that's weaker than the 1080ti in terms of performance.

At this point if you want to hit that sweet 60 FPS mark in 4k and want to maintain it for a decent amount of time I'm still going to advocate waiting to see what Nvidia's Volta based GeForce cards are going to be like, which should be announced in the next couple of months and I imagine a release date in the first half of 2018.

As far as what BioWare is running: I wouldn't be surprised to find SLI 1080ti or Titans on their high end machines that they test the game on. That's not a terribly massive cost to a company making a game with a budget of millions of dollars.

That said they probably have a very wide range of PCs that they run the game on utilizing top end hardware from both Nvidia and AMD, since they need to test the game on more than just 1 setup.

You in the service?

What if you capped the FPS at about 32? I'll do that sometimes to get the higher settings.  Some engines don't like it though.

Every official slide from AMD has been comparing Vega 64 against the Fury X and standard 1080. I think it's safe to say that it won't be able to compete with GP102, but again, we won't know for sure until the 14th. Even then, that's just for the reference design, so figure another 10-15% for aftermarket cards whenever those come out.

I think it will hold up better over time compared to a 1080, as Radeon cards usually do (gotta love the FineWine), but I fully expect Volta to completely crush it.

I wouldn't know. Frostbite is a fickle b****. Also, I can see actual differences of 30fps on 4k compared to 60fps. Why? When you hit Eos or the Nexus and the fps drops. It's only going to be more demanding as they keep refining Frostbite so I'm trying to future proof for about five years. 60 months on a rig is good value and I'm old fashioned like that. If I get even more mileage, I'm a happy camper. However, I'm obsessed with seeing what the developers see. The art is incredible. It needs to be seen in it's full glory... at least for me. The artistry and the coding that go hand in hand is more impressive to me than throwing a perfect slider that starts at the hitter's head at release and rotates sharply and land on the black at the knees. That's beauty in motion and I appreciate what BioWare does in this regard.

Bioware's implementations of Frostbite (Inquisition and Andromeda) have both been pretty badly optimized. Andromeda is more optimized than Inquisition was, but both games still have a number of issues with performance and stability. Other EA subsidiaries like Dice have managed to make it work pretty well, but they are making fundamentally different kinds of games than Bioware, so we don't know if it's a problem with the way Bioware does things, or if the engine just isn't cut out for games like Inquisition and Andromeda.

EA will continue to force it on all their subsidiaries though, regardless of any issues it may have.

A 1080ti is a beast of a card. If you don't have any bottlenecks, which I don't think you do, not handling a game well even at 4k is not acceptable. Like Pearl said, very poor optimization on the studio's part.  EDIT:  Is it installed on a mechanical HD or SSD?

The ever lasting conundrum. I also want to make the jump from 2k to 4k and it is always the same song. 1 card doesn't cut it and 2 cards are costly. As if cost is the only problem! MEA doesn't even run on crossfire properly and I replaced my two cards with a second-hand fury X. A big problem is also the heat AMD cards produce. Also, SLI and Crossfire are in decline support wise.

That fun technology is always just out of reach for PC players unless you actually can afford a Ferrari. So, mainstream is the way to go and then you wonder why you bought that top graphics card for all that money just to almost cut it but not quite!

That's good advice! I wonder what is the optimal load out for 4K?

I can't see the difference between 4K/2K/1080 on monitors 24" or smaller. Between 24-28" you still can't see the difference between 4K or 2k but there is a nice improvement. It's when your in the 30s that you notice a very small difference between 4k and 2k now. Who knows how much will change in three years? I don't want to be in that gulf. Buying now is simple: 2k, 28" 1060/RX560. The future: 4k, 35", f***ing $1600 (right now). Going to wait on Volta and hope this rig can get through this winter.

Thank you Daiyus. That's good to know. 4K is unknown territory for me. I'm still operating at 720p I think on this 20" CRT. (I know... it's okay if you chortle.)