HeavyHemi
 
I just looked at the specs of your TV and it does not list UHD or 4:4:4 chroma at 60hz at 4k. It doesn't even list that the HDMI ports are 2.0 which is an absolute requirement. Secondarily, there's no reason you should be using anything other than RGB, and full unless your panel does not support full range. Ycbcr is a compressed format and is not superior to RGB. It is possible your HDMI cable is limiting you as 4:4:4 4K requires an 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 capable cable.

Thank you for the reply! You're right that Hisense is a bit lacking on the official documentation regarding this TV, but a representative from Hisense did say on the Amazon page that the TV does support 4k@60Hz with 4:4:4 here
 
I was under the impression that HDMI cables didn't really matter, as the standard is more in the hardware and not the actual cabling. I've tried two cables, but I don't know if either one is rated at 18Gbps...
 
Should I try a new cable?

Treytor

HeavyHemi
 
I just looked at the specs of your TV and it does not list UHD or 4:4:4 chroma at 60hz at 4k. It doesn't even list that the HDMI ports are 2.0 which is an absolute requirement. Secondarily, there's no reason you should be using anything other than RGB, and full unless your panel does not support full range. Ycbcr is a compressed format and is not superior to RGB. It is possible your HDMI cable is limiting you as 4:4:4 4K requires an 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 capable cable.

Thank you for the reply! You're right that Hisense is a bit lacking on the official documentation regarding this TV, but a representative from Hisense did say on the Amazon page that the TV does support 4k@60Hz with 4:4:4 here
 
I was under the impression that HDMI cables didn't really matter, as the standard is more in the hardware and not the actual cabling. I've tried two cables, but I don't know if either one is rated at 18Gbps...
 
Should I try a new cable?

Yeah, you NEED a HDMI 2.0 cable to support the format. No, not all HDMI cables are created equal.
 
Amazon basics cable, cheap and good: https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-High-Speed-HDMI-Cable-Standard/dp/B014I8SSD0/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1471053574&sr=8-3&keywords=hdmi+2.0 

Treytor
Okay, ordered. Thanks! Would I be able to get 4k@60hz (chroma 4:2:0) on a non HDMI 2.0 cable?

From what I can see, not 60 Hz (but that's just from 10 minutes of Googling).
 
Does your monitor have any settings, such as a setting to change from HDMI 1.4 to HDMI 2.0, that can be changed?

Gunni101st
Why not use sRGB?

He's talking about what he's setting in the Nvidia control panel. There's no option for sRBG.

Just wanted to give an update, I tried a new HDMI cable (that's rated at 18gbps) and I'm still having this problem so that' wasn't the issue.

Yeah I have. Has anyone successfully gotten 4k @ 60hz RGB on a 970?

btw use the warranty or return policy if the product didn't meet your expectations

Before you choose 4k 30hz, you really might want to reconsider.
 
30hz is essentially meant as a refresh rate "downclock" for accurate 24p movies (yet this is achievable in higher refresh rates obviously)
 
Frames per second - Gameplay
<30 FPS Very limited gameplay
30-40 FPS Average yet very playable
40-60 FPS Good gameplay
>60 FPS Best possible gameplay

 
Even if you're only browsing or watching movies, 60hz would be a minimum.
 
Alot of players have great graphics but have 1080p 60hz monitors, for the same price you could get a decent 1440p.
 
It's really your call and preference, I choose 4k 60hz on a native 120hz refresh (240hz advertised, see 4k all you need to know about refresh rates for further info).
 
Yet the consensus is 120hz or 144hz and recently 185hz monitors have shown up in 1440p with or without gsync.
 
Without even considering side tech as gsync or even multi-monitors, SLI and the whole shebang, achieving stable 60hz is standard for a reason.
 
This is also factoring that you have the setup to run stable 60fps and above. I'm not sure what you're running at 30fps on a 970 but it isn't a card or die size (chip size) designed for such a high resolution.
 
Sure enough, it can stand it but even if you're playing slow paced turn based games, it really looks nice but it's not worth it
 
Speaking from experience, I ran the most heavy (understand unoptimized) game aka Total War Attila as Judea for the lulz (great game and best civ) with tons of mods and so forth, layers of frame perfection and motion
 
yet returning to 60fps slaps you in the face like, what are you doing at 30fps? are you living in a slowmo powerpoint pres, do you like that?
 
As much as 185hz may seem like marketing, 30hz is really a sight to behold especially on a screen
 
You need to consider also the content in terms of blowing up a 1080p picture on a 4k resolution is counter-intuitive because the pixel count is nullified


Even the newest Titan X has some reserves with regard to running 4k stable 60fps on some games due to securing 120hz to fast sync that - basically you need some margin and the horsepower (we've at 2ghz stable coreclock is possible, other discussion)
 
Even if you'd be say, a writer or a coder, any professional staring at a screen for long periods really needs to be careful with their eyesight let alone with what they're looking at can produce, and what it does produce
 
 
 
 
 
It's your choice, nowadays alot of graphic card owners have the horsepower but don't have the display
 
You're going the other way round in pushing 4k for 4k's sake, but don't get bedazzled or overhyped from your purchase.
 
You can get a good 1440p screen I'd assume and even if you still keep this screen, consider the monitor you used to have and multi that using a TV in the background
 
Try using that 4k at 30hz for long periods of time and how you feel, seriously this tech is sometimes so new that it isn't ready yet - having HDR on windows is super bright that its ridiculous for instance
 
same goes for VR in the current state, I wouldn't recommend it for extensive periods of time due to vergence_accomodation_conflict, it's always subjective
 
anyway take care of your eyes and consider getting a 1440p or multimonitoring that, just have caution and be advised on a personal note
 
 

Oh my dear god you people there is no such thing as an HDMI 2.0 cable. Stop telling people to buy them to fix problems as there is no such thing.
 
Educate yourself, it takes 5 seconds of Google searching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Cables

Ok so I got AMH a399u - 39" 4k screen that does 4:4:4 throw DisplayPort - as noted by the reviewers the DP cable it came with is cheap and would only do 30hrz 4K - got a decent DP cable boom: 4k 60hrz 4:4:4 and that was on my GTX 970.   I now have 980ti as the 970 wasn't quite up to the task in some games.
 So yeah... get a good cable and go from there.  

EDIT: missed your post - glad you got it working

HeavyHemi
 
Technically true. However, you do need an HDMI cable rated for 18Gb/sec which is a requirement of the spec. It is a common cause when people cannot get UHD 4:4:4  @ 60hz or have flickering or sync issues. It is one of the first things to check if all of your other items are capable, right?

18 Gb/s (high speed/ category 2) cables have been standard since 2008. I doubt you can even find a category 1 cable for sale these days.
I agree that checking your cable is a cheap check if you've verified everything else, but failed cables are fairly rare in my experience, and regardless then new cable to buy is not an "HDMI 2.0" cable, just a regular old HDMI. Calling it an HDMI 2.0 cable indicated to people not in the know that there is a product that exists with that name and they might upgrade even if not needed.