Could a 980M play CS GO at 4K with 60FPS?

Basically as i said in the title, im probably gonna get a new gaming laptop when i go to university (around september) and due to budget changes, I'm probably gonna be able to get an Octane 15.6" from PCSpecialist with a GTX 980m and either a i5 4690k or i7 4790k and have a choice of 1080p , 2880x1620 or 4K screen. I will mostly be using the laptop with an external monitor probably at 1080p, but its a fairly cheap upgrade for the actual screen, so I was just wondering what games I could run at 4K, mainly CS GO? All i really need to be able to do is keep a fairly consistent 60 FPS. Is this possible? Doesnt have to be maxed out at settings. Was also wondering what 1080p scaled down on a 4K screen looked like? I assumed it would looke fine since it should just be 4 pixels to one virtual pixel? I would like to have the 4K screen for general use and for media, etc. Not just for gaming. Thanks!

 

Yes. CSGO is about as demanding as a Jamaican after some epic hash

 

You'll be fine.. If you wait till September/October, you should be able to get a similar Clevo with Skylake desktop CPU and hopefully a newer GPU...

 

I personally getaway 45-60fps on my HD 4870m at 1200p maxed settings.

 

I'm not sure how that helps to compare with a 980M and 4K.

 

4870 is nowhere near the power of a 980M. If he's getting that framerate at 1200p... Well, the 980M is over 300% faster (closer to 400% more likely, I'm being conservative) than that card. 4K is definitely in the realm of possibility.

Not that I think buying a 4K machine is wise with this generation. I personally wouldn't do it until Pascal.

 

I was thinking there are too many unknowns there. Why not take the performance of 980M at 1080p and multiply with the rate of 1080p/4k which is what, 30% fps?

 

Yeah i thought that but just wanted to check also any difference between 4GB vram vs 8GB vram for CS GO at 4K? Or in general? I assumed it wouldnt make a big difference.

 

This comparison falls flat because a 980M is likely to run into a CPU limit at 1080p in a Source Engine game like CS:GO but not at 4K. So at 4K it will get more than 25% of its FPS at 1080p.

So for example (and this is just hypothetical), it might get 200 FPS at 1080p with like 50% GPU usage, but at 4K it gets 100 FPS at 99% GPU usage. So definitely not linear scaling of resolution vs. performance.

 

Didn´t think of that, good point. The we need a non-optimus 980M laptop with a custom resolution to extrapolate from or, any 980M laptop running the 353-DSR drivers.
I don´t have CS:GO so I can´t test for you.

 

Thats a good point actually, i didnt think of that! I guess i might see an even better outcome than i was hoping for, then. Woo! Need to find someone who can test/benchmark.

 

You really shouldn't have an issue...

https://m.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffens...gfx_card_does_it_take_to_push_csgo_60fps_at/#

That's a desktop 980 so it should be really easy for a 980M to push 60FPS and beyond.

 

Oh yeah, thanks. They link to this benchmark http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1410143-LI-AMDRADEON29#r-0 where the GTX 770 gets about 105FPS, which people say the 980m is equivalent to.

 

Considering what I get on Portal 2 using DSR [nothing under 70fps/85avg (observed)/up to 130s], probably. The CPU may be a larger factor for online multiplayer.

 

Its better than a 770, its between 5-10% of a 780

 

What do you mean? 5-10% less than a 780?

 

Yeah. Stock 980M is right around a stock 780 in performance. They are seriously powerful cards.

 

What does 4K in CS:GO do? It's a game that looks like it was released in 2004. More detail? Are you sure?

 

360noscoperekt
Well, OP wants to get 4K panel, so naturally he wants to play at native res.

 

Just skip the 4k panel altogether and save your money.

 

I've been considering this, but not sure yet. Seems disappointing to spend so much on a laptop with such a mediocre resolution. Nothing really wrong with 1080p I guess. Still need to decide exactly what laptop I'm gonna get, I've been arguing with myself over whether I should blow my whole budget or be a bit more controlled with my purchasing haha.

Also, the 4K is mainly for general use, windows, web browsing, etc. Not for gaming. Most my gaming will be through an external 1080p monitor, but I wanted to be able to play CS GO when on-the-go (haha), so wanted to play at native res.

 

You're talking about 4K on a tiny 15.6" screen. Too much for a single 980M to drive in games more demanding than CS:GO and completely impractical for general use given that you'll have to use 200% DPI and put up with Windows and app scaling issues anyway.

 

Just for reference, 4K looks absolutely small on my 50 inch TV. I would never dare use native scaling on anything smaller than 50 haha

 

Hm, it's weird windows isn't able to handle running at decent resolutions on screens which arent huge. Is there not any way it's going to be resolved?

Also, i've tried to find a decent answer as to what 1080p looks like on a 4k display, but haven't found a good answer. Doesn't it just look exactly like it would on a 1080p panel? I don't see any reason for it not to. Microsoft should have found some way to adapt the operating system to cope with such large resolutions by now, but oh well. Still undecided

 

Sadly scaling is not done in a way that results in direct pixel translation, so you do lose a bit of quality. That being said, the few monitors and TVs I have seen, do a good job showing 1080p content on a 4K screen. A 1080p native screen can still have the upper hand if its of high quality, when showing native content.

As far as I have heard, windows does not scale properly yet so that things can both look good and bad.

 

Size of screen doesn't matter, it's all about the pixels. 4K is a lot of pixels to push at 60FPS. It's the same as running 1080p with 4xAA.

The issue with scaling in Windows has a vast library of legacy apps that don't scale real well. Windows in itself does a decent job, but the apps that run on it don't. Even recent apps aren't designed to scale so well. So it's not entirely Microsoft's fault, but they could probably do something to help improve it. Even EA Origin game client does not scale. It will have super tiny font on a 4k screen.

And some games also don't do well scaling for some reason. Intel's drivers are notoriously wonky when it comes to scaling 3D apps or games from 4k to some considerably smaller pixel size that the GPU can actually handle.

1080p on a 4k basically would be displaying 4 pixels for every 1 it would at 4k. If the pixel density is high enough, which at 15" 4k is almost 300 ppi, it won't be noticeable though. Depends on how sensitive your eyes are.

 

Yeah I was just referring to scaling, not performance On a side note though, I guess at such high resolutions AA becomes less important/effective? Since running super high resolutions is kind of a form of AA anyway.

That makes sense I guess, it's a shame apps aren't designed to take a fuller advantage of the resolution, since it does look really nice having high resolution fonts and stuff.

That is odd. I assumed it would just translate 1 pixel to 4 pixels. I'll probably have to settle for 1080p in the end then I guess. Not terrible since I'll mainly use an external display so I'll still have the option of buying a 1440p/4K monitor. Thanks for the help guys.

 

I don't have the data at the moment but it was posted on another thread. The is a possibility to make the scaling be 1 pixel being 4 pixels etc but that is not the default way how things are handled, so the result is a very decent picture that will not always be 100% sharp as it should.

 

Right, but the image still has to be upsampled, and by default the Nvidia driver uses bicubic which is where the small amount of blur/haloing comes from