Is 4K 60FPS on High/Ultra settings for modern games even remotely

I'd much rather go for 1440p but proper framerates, desu. I think a smooth experience is more important than 4k.

If you're okay with your current setup maybe relax a bit until more is known about gp100/vega performance?

>>55240803
For high settings? Sure.
Fury X can put Fallout 4 to a custom level close to high across the board (excluding FX/MSAA and godrays) and get 60 while idle, 45 in average and 30 in gunfights @ 4k.

Not a far stretch to start seeing either this or next gen cards managing 60fps.

1440p/144hz is the only way to go
Hopefully we reach the point where modern gpus can handle it on games that arent Overwatch

>>55240898
i'm a complete fucking pleb so have no idea what gp100/vega means, sorry.

>>55240867
yeah. the thing is, i kinda want the 4K for stuff outside of games too. Browsing/working/watching videos in 4K would be so nice. If there was a 100 refresh rate 4K monitor i'd snap it up but i don't think thats a thing for a while.

Something to do with cable or port bandwidth i was told

>>55240919
>4k
>100 fps
>cheap

pick two

when was it ever possible to run the latest pc games at the (near) highest available resolutions at the maximum settings at 60+ fps? (assuming we're only including games that push the limits)

>>55240980
i have money.
>>55240910
so high not ultra is feasible?
i wish i had some comparisons. Not really many computer places showing off 4k or 2k models.

>>55241125
true i guess

so if i want to get the most out of things i should just stick with 2K and high refresh rates?
I have a 980 atm will i need to upgrade to be able to do that?

i figure if i sell the 980, get a 1080 and then i could comfortably do 144 fps 2k on ultra?