|
Malloc Voidstar posted:bitcoin: Its been years since I seen that picture.
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
1gnoirents posted:Yeah when the pcie-power-gate or whatever was going down there were a lot more detailed breakdowns of that piece of poo poo cooler than there would ever be otherwise. It's ... special I remember the heatsink on that thing looking like they recycled old Athlon XP CPU coolers. Just a lovely looking hunk of aluminum.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Any chance or risk of buttcoin miners snapping up the Vega cards after they finally release? I don't see why they would, unless you're running literal hundreds of them. You're not going to get ROI on bit coin mining any more with GPUs. I believe any coin system there is, ROI on any GPU mining is already depleted.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
This seems interesting regarding the costs of HBM and production. http://imgur.com/a/PR0xU I have no idea who the guys who did the assessment are or how they got their numbers but they do seem to be a actual legit company at a glance so maybe its not BS. Die costs being the same is certainly weird at a minimum and is tweaking my BS alarm but maybe they're referencing costs on introduction and not on the same calendar date.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
So since the 1080 Ti is out, I'm guessing the regular 1080 is now relegated to the same position the 980 was when the 980 Ti came out? I've got a 970 and don't need to upgrade, but in the event I decide to before the 11-series releases I'd like to know if I should ignore the 1080.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Ignore the 1070 and look to the 1080, especially now that the price has dropped by 200 dollars. The 1070 is proportionally slower than the 980 to 970 drop was and I went for a 1080 when it launched for 700 and it was a very significant upgrade from a 980, not disappointed with it even slightly. I tend to skip all of the TI versions and get the x80 versions when they launch. The 970 was a 56 ROP card while the 980 was 64. The 1070 is a 48 ROP card while the 1080 is 64. They both hit similar clock speeds, both in the case of the 9x0 and 10x0s, but while the 970 is only 12% smaller, the 1070 is 25% smaller.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Variable_H posted:So since the 1080 Ti is out, I'm guessing the regular 1080 is now relegated to the same position the 980 was when the 980 Ti came out? I've got a 970 and don't need to upgrade, but in the event I decide to before the 11-series releases I'd like to know if I should ignore the 1080. Actually right now the 1080 is a super good deal IMO. Prices have really dropped on the 1080 ($420-450) while the 1070 has held pretty close to MSRP ($330-350). And unlike the 970/980 where performance was really close, the 1080 is quite a bit faster than the 1070 (~25%). Right now Newegg has a triple-fan 1080 for $440 after a rebate and after a coupon for using their mobile app (MBLMAY517), and I've seen Newegg list 1080s as low as $420 on their eBay store. Their best deal on a 1070 is a mITX card for $320 or a full-size card for $345 (including the same $20 coupon). It's still not going to get you reliable 4K performance but if you're looking at ultra-settings 1440p (or even fast-refresh 1080p) the 1080 is a pretty solid choice. Just watch your timing here, because we're getting pretty far through the life-cycle of these cards. Volta is still probably another 9 months out, but bear that in mind when you consider the pricing - if you buy in Q3/Q4 make sure you get a good deal because you're going to take a 30%+ drop in resale value the instant the new cards get launched. IMO the most reliable two times to buy a card are either on launch day (maximize the amount of time before the new cards come out and the resale value drops), or just before the new cards get launched (firesale pricing). Not that you can't find good deals that make it worthwhile, but generally those are the best times to buy. But by and large the real question is whether you want to be on the x70/x80 upgrade cycle or on the x80 Ti upgrade cycle. The chip sizes are basically selected so that the new x70 will be roughly the same performance as the old x80 Ti and the x80 will be slightly faster than the old x80 Ti - so basically it's a choice as to whether you want to be 9-12 months ahead of the performance curve, or you want features/power efficiency/lower pricing. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:37 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:But by and large the real question is whether you want to be on the x70/x80 upgrade cycle or on the x80 Ti upgrade cycle. The chip sizes are basically selected so that the new x70 will be roughly the same performance as the old x80 Ti and the x80 will be slightly faster than the old x80 Ti - so basically it's a choice as to whether you want to be 9-12 months ahead of the performance curve, or you want features/power efficiency/lower pricing. I went from a 970 to a 1080 at launch, and I'm going to try to hold out for an 1180ti this next cycle. Willpower is hard.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's still not going to get you reliable 4K performance but if you're looking at 1440p or fast-refresh 1080p the 1080 is a pretty solid choice. I can't roll my eyes hard enough at this. A 1060 will handle 1080p144 and is adequate for 1440p. A 1080 absolutely will perform well at 4k.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
I'm not really interested in 4K right now, but I've been eyeing high refresh 1440 monitors; thanks for the info everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:I went from a 970 to a 1080 at launch, and I'm going to try to hold out for an 1180ti this next cycle. Willpower is hard. Yeah, the trick is not being on the "x70/x80 and x80 Ti" upgrade cycle. Fortunately, power isn't expensive so just keep telling yourself that saving $1 a month in electricity isn't worth upgrading to an x70, and the x80 cards are usually not sufficiently fast to really warrant an immediate upgrade. Overall, unless you can get a x80 at the price of an x70, or some other killer deal it is a waste of money to upgrade twice per generation. metallicaeg posted:I can't roll my eyes hard enough at this. A 1060 will handle 1080p144 and is adequate for 1440p. A 1080 absolutely will perform well at 4k. Maybe in esports titles, not in AAA games with high/ultra settings. As a rule of thumb the 1060 will probably do 60-80 fps at 1080p and 40-60 fps at 1440p depending on title. A 1070 gets you up to a rock solid 60-80fps average at 1440p in most titles and will crush 1080p at 100-144 fps. At 4K, a 1080 gets you 40-60 fps and a 1080 Ti gets you to 60-80 fps depending on title. 1070 still isn't even close to maxing out a 144 Hz or 165 Hz 1440p or 100 Hz UW-1440p though. A 1080 Ti will just about do it. A 1060 is getting 59 fps in Witcher 3 at 1080p ultra with hairworks disabled, and at 1440p it's 44 fps. A 1070 is hitting 80 fps at 1080p and 60 fps at 1440p, same settings. But - I guess it all depends on your tolerance for framerates below 60fps and/or your willingness to lower settings. 45 fps isn't bad with GSync but that's pretty much the lowest framerate I can tolerate on a standard monitor, going below 40fps is immediately noticeable for me. Also, bear in mind that most games have areas that cause framerates to drop pretty hard (Novigrad in W3, Boston in FO4, etc), so if you're only doing 45 fps average you have to ask yourself whether you're going to be OK with 30fps in the more intensive areas and/or some stuttering. You can drop settings to medium and get a decent bump in most games (let's say 30% increase, ballpark) but in others it doesn't have all that much effect, or you're still too slow. And the flip side of the "ultra settings doesn't improve quality much over high settings" thing is that dropping settings to low usually doesn't have much performance improvement over medium either, but the graphical impact is often pretty horrendous. Diminishing returns cut both ways. Basically: 1060 is solid 1080p but janky 1440p. 1070 is solid 1440p or luxury 1080p. 1080 is luxury 1440p or janky 4K. Lower everything one notch if you drop settings to medium. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:05 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Yeah, that's all about correct. My 1080/6770k setup gets me 120-144@1440p avg fps in every game (especially AAA) on max settings. I have no reason to upgrade to the Ti (nor the 1180Ti) since the difference between 120 and 90 isn't noticeable with a Gsync monitor and each generation of games doesn't really render old hardware obsolete. e: Also, I'd rather get 144Hz at 1080 than 30Hz at 4k, no question. I imagine most gamers are the exact same way unless they're streaming for money. jokes fucked around with this message at 17:16 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
My take on it adds these three points: Overclocking gives big gains on these Pascal cards. My own play of W3 at 1440 ultra -hairworks gives me mid-50s consistently on a 6GB 1060. Comparing my FPS on other titles like Shadow of Mordor shows that it comes close to matching stock 980s. Outside of esports titles, do you really need to push 140 frames for an RPG? Is 60+ not perfectly acceptable? Which brings me to the last point, Would anyone in their right mind that has a $3-400+ nVidia GPU and a priority on gaming not have a Gsync display? I guess my main gripe is you seemed to be saying "playing above 1080p? lol better drop a fortune on a 1080Ti" which was absurd to me.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
metallicaeg posted:I can't roll my eyes hard enough at this. A 1060 will handle 1080p144 and is adequate for 1440p. A 1080 absolutely will perform well at 4k. Nah. I have a GTX 1070 for 1080p 144fps and it's not nearly enough. I'm very tempted to get a 1080Ti but common sense dictates that I should wait one or two more gens. Gsync is just a pathetic workaround for cards that can't maintain 144fps 99% of the time. Lolcano Eruption fucked around with this message at 17:26 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
I used a 680 with a 4K monitor and it was "fine" as long as you didn't want to play any games made after 2011. For my daily driver machine I use a 1080 with a 2560x1440 144Hz monitor and I'm seeing enough of a reason to upgrade to a "1180" or whatever when it's released. It's all down to what you want to play. I can't really see the difference between 120 and 144Hz (except in Doom, oddly enough) but 120 to 60 is really obvious and I definitely want to be running as many games as possible at at least 120.
craig588 fucked around with this message at 17:42 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:40
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:This seems interesting regarding the costs of HBM and production. It's not too much of a stretch that per-wafer costs went down a few as the process matured between 290x and fury And is that 'fanout' thing supposed to be using a normal wafer that gets processed? If so, isn't that what intel or whoever it was is doing?
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
metallicaeg posted:Would anyone in their right mind that has a $3-400+ nVidia GPU and a priority on gaming not have a Gsync display? Seriously. If I had a choice between upgrading to GSync and using a 970/980/1060 in the meantime, or immediately upgrading to a 1070 or a 1080 I would choose the former every time. You really have to be insane not to be using GSync/Freesync at this point, it's a one-time purchase that will last 5-10 years and will save you several GPU upgrades during that timeframe. Most people upgrade their CPUs more than their monitors and now that monitors have made a huge leap forward why not just bite the bullet and make this your once-a-decade monitor upgrade? quote:I guess my main gripe is you seemed to be saying "playing above 1080p? lol better drop a fortune on a 1080Ti" which was absurd to me. Nah, but it's really better to keep your framerate above 60 if at all humanly possible since that gives you a little cushion for those areas with below-average fps. Even with GSync, honestly - 45fps is a livable average but you don't have much cushion there. I can still tell when I'm dropping below 30fps with GSync - it doesn't tear or judder, but I can still feel a definite "slideshow effect" when there's just not enough frames getting rendered. 1070/980 Ti is perfectly OK at 1440p, but neither is a 1080 gratuitous overkill either. I'd call it "comfortable overkill": for the next couple years you will have at least 60fps average at ultra-everything settings, even in the next Crysis or Witcher that shits all over people's hardware. But even today you can't max out the refresh rate on a gaming monitor, so it's not like it's wasted either. Given that the 1070 is overpriced at the moment (IMO) this actually makes the 1080 a pretty nice buy right now. And really a 1080 Ti is almost a requirement for 4K right now, and I wouldn't say it's overkill/futureproof for 4K either. It's the first card that actually holds above 60fps average in every title with high/ultra settings (and if you're lowering settings you really should just be using 1440p ultra anyway) but I doubt it will be holding a 60fps average in 2 years time. 1070 really needs to drop at least $50 at this point. Standard retail prices of $350+ is just too much for it at this point, it really hasn't dropped hardly at all since launch. Variable_H posted:I'm not really interested in 4K right now, but I've been eyeing high refresh 1440 monitors; thanks for the info everyone. The hardware really just isn't there yet to push that many pixels, to be honest. It's getting really close though, maybe the 1180 Ti will be a comfortable level of overkill (and then 144 Hz 4K monitors hit the market and we do this all over again). 1440p 144/165 Hz or ultrawide 1440p 100 Hz are the place to be right now. Great quality, can be driven nicely with a single-card setup, not insanely overpriced but you don't feel like you wasted the GSync tax on a lovely monitor either. Enos Cabell posted:I went from a 970 to a 1080 at launch, and I'm going to try to hold out for an 1180ti this next cycle. Willpower is hard. Oh and one more thing, if you're the kind of person who's tempted to be on the "twice-a-generation" upgrade cycle then you're an obvious candidate for the Titan cards. Yes, they are a big up-front expense but they actually hold their value very well. Food for thought: the Titan XP1 has lost roughly the same amount of value since launch as a 1080. Not in percent terms (in percent it's doing better!), in actual dollars. Both cards are going for roughly $300 less than their retail prices at launch. And you could have been enjoying 1080 Ti performance for like 8 months now. (but you absolutely should not buy a Titan midway through the product cycle under any circumstances, otherwise you should just buy a x80 Ti)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
craig588 posted:I used a 680 with a 4K monitor and it was "fine" as long as you didn't want to play any games made after 2011. For my daily driver machine I use a 1080 with a 2560x1440 144Hz monitor and I'm seeing enough of a reason to upgrade to a "1180" or whatever when it's released. It's all down to what you want to play. I can't really see the difference between 120 and 144Hz (except in Doom, oddly enough) but 120 to 60 is really obvious and I definitely want to be running as many games as possible at at least 120. (680 is the same chip as a 770 for anyone who doesn't know) I did the same with a 780 Ti and that's about right. I still have mine (Dell P2715Q), I like it for photo editing, I could do Fallout 4 on medium at ~45 fps (not including Boston) but I had to drop to 1440p or 1080p for a lot of games, even on low settings it just wasn't even close to enough power for 4K in newer games. 1440p with GSync was worlds ahead for gaming. (interestingly enough that monitor looks stellar at 1440p, none of the usual artifacts from running a non-native resolution, and that's usually how I run it since multi-resolution dual-screening doesn't work all that well)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Going all in on a non OLED monitor right now seems really short sighted. I could see doing a Gsync monitor once 120Hz+ OLEDs hit consumer prices, but I'd hate to spend extra on a temporary monitor right now. It's why I specifically didn't get a Gsync monitor when my 4 year old 2560x1440 120Hz monitor died, 500 dollars on a temporary monitor is no fun, but 700 on a temporary monitor is even worse.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
craig588 posted:Going all in on a non OLED monitor right now seems really short sighted. I could see doing a Gsync monitor once 120Hz+ OLEDs hit consumer prices, but I'd hate to spend extra on a temporary monitor right now. It's why I specifically didn't get a Gsync monitor when my 4 year old 2560x1440 120Hz monitor died, 500 dollars on a temporary monitor is no fun, but 700 on a temporary monitor is even worse. I paid $350 for a Dell S2716DG from Amazon Warehouse and then I upgraded to a scratch-and-dent refurb XB270HU bprz that I got from Acer Recertified for $270 and craigslisted the S2716DG for like $320. Also, refurb X34s are finally back under $700.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:$350 for a Dell S2716DG from Amazon Warehouse quote:refurb XB270HU bprz that I got from Acer Recertified for $270 quote:Also, refurb X34s are finally back under $700.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
craig588 posted:Hell no never getting a curved monitor if I can avoid it, especially not paying extra for one and especially not getting something in a weird AR. I lived with 16:10 for too long, never having great support for it, and that's a more common AR than 21:9. I also like taller desktops more than wider ones so at least 16:10 offered that. Whatever you say, but 21:9 is the poo poo. You're not paying a premium for the curve as much as you're paying a premium for "you can't get 21:9 Gsync in any other size/curve format".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Seriously. If I had a choice between upgrading to GSync and using a 970/980/1060 in the meantime, or immediately upgrading to a 1070 or a 1080 I would choose the former every time. So, right now I've got a single EVGA 970 FTW+, would you say it would be better to get a GSync equipped high refresh 1080p monitor or go for 1440? Since I don't really feel like I need to upgrade my GPU (I mostly play FFXIV and titles from around 2011), and newer games still run at acceptable frame rates for me. I know I should have gotten a GSync monitor in the first place, but the one I bought when I built my computer in late 2015 was only meant to be a stopgap in the first place. My initial post was just on the off chance I decided to upgrade to the latest gen stuff because expendable income. My current monitor is an Acer G7 G257HL bmidx for reference.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
craig588 posted:Hell no never getting a curved monitor if I can avoid it, especially not paying extra for one and especially not getting something in a weird AR. I lived with 16:10 for too long, never having great support for it, and that's a more common AR than 21:9. I also like taller desktops more than wider ones so at least 16:10 offered that. In general I agree, the craze over curved monitors has gone way too far. Nobody needs a curve on a 27" 16:9 monitor let alone on a loving laptop. But when you have something big/wide like an ultrawide it's kinda nice. There are flat 34" monitors but the wings go out so far that you're not getting as much angular field of view as you should, you're looking at a pretty acute angle (would be an issue for TN), and your perspective is getting a little warped (not much but it's there). A curve keeps the far edges a little closer to you and makes it seem a little bigger than a flat monitor would, and ensures you're always looking at it relatively straight on. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:49 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Oh and one more thing, if you're the kind of person who's tempted to be on the "twice-a-generation" upgrade cycle then you're an obvious candidate for the Titan cards. Yes, they are a big up-front expense but they actually hold their value very well. Oh, in my situation I meant more that I'll have to resist the temptation to upgrade to the 1180 straight away and hold out for the 1180ti. I doubt I'll ever be a Titan buyer.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Variable_H posted:So, right now I've got a single EVGA 970 FTW+, would you say it would be better to get a GSync equipped high refresh 1080p monitor or go for 1440? Since I don't really feel like I need to upgrade my GPU (I mostly play FFXIV and titles from around 2011), and newer games still run at acceptable frame rates for me. I know I should have gotten a GSync monitor in the first place, but the one I bought when I built my computer in late 2015 was only meant to be a stopgap in the first place. My initial post was just on the off chance I decided to upgrade to the latest gen stuff because expendable income. What size are you looking at? 1080p is good for 24" but after looking at 1440p on 27" I wouldn't go for a lower res in that screen size. If you don't care about FPS games as much, then I'd say go with a 60hz IPS screen. A lot of older titles are hard locked at 60 frames anyway. Or if you do FPSes, the Dell S2716SG/R is a 27" 1440p144 G-sync unit that you can grab for less than $500. If you want to be a wanker over TN panels and/or are willing to drop $750+ on a screen, then you can get the same specs in an IPS panel.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
My current monitor is 25" and I refuse to go lower than that size wise. I get horrible motion sickness from FPS games, so I'm playing RPGs and third-person action games like Dark Souls or the Batman Arkham games. I want to be a wanker about TN vs IPS since I know IPS is the better tech, but it also really wouldn't kill me to have a TN panel. Oddly one of my biggest deals is screen bezel size. I don't like giant glossy plastic bezels, my current monitor is "bezel-less" since it artificially makes it look like the screen goes all the way to the edge even though it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
There's a real nice IPS 144hz 1440p 27" monitor coming out in late may for $500: http://www.nixeus.com/product/nixeus-edg27/ It doesn't have gsync, but it doesn't matter because a new acer with gsync is $800. For that difference you can spring up from 1070 to 1080Ti and still have a few bucks left over.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Variable_H posted:So, right now I've got a single EVGA 970 FTW+, would you say it would be better to get a GSync equipped high refresh 1080p monitor or go for 1440? Since I don't really feel like I need to upgrade my GPU (I mostly play FFXIV and titles from around 2011), and newer games still run at acceptable frame rates for me. I know I should have gotten a GSync monitor in the first place, but the one I bought when I built my computer in late 2015 was only meant to be a stopgap in the first place. My initial post was just on the off chance I decided to upgrade to the latest gen stuff because expendable income. I'd say if you're interested in going to 27" you should think seriously about 1440p. 1080p 24" is fine but 27" is getting a little big for 1080p. It's not the end of the world but you will feel noticeably more "screen real estate" on 1440p and it ends up being fairly close to the same PPI as you'd get at 24" 1080p (it's slightly more but not hi-dpi like you'd get at 4K). The problem is it's just not about what size you want, it's about what features get made in that size. For example there are no 24" IPS 144 Hz monitors. The fast-refresh IPS panels (actually "AHVA" to be more specific) all come from a single company and they only make a couple sizes (the 144/165 Hz 16:9 panels and the 75/100 Hz 21:9s). So if you want 144 Hz IPS you're going to 27" 1440p, there's no other choice. You have a lot more choices with TN, but 27" is getting to be pretty big for a TN panel. With my S2716DG, as I moved my head around a little bit over the course of gameplay I'd notice a little bit of color shift on the edges and it was kinda nice to have the IPS so that didn't happen (not that it was the end of the world or anything). If for some reason you want a 27" TN panel then the S2716DG is the best choice, but IPS is really nice to have. So I would say either 27" 1440p IPS or 24" 1080p TN are both fine but I would specifically look at those combinations. It's really up to you whether you want to shell out for the 1440p or not. I think the 27" 1440p IPS are too expensive at full price (~$700) but if you are OK with refurb the Acer Recertified store (and their ebay storefront) gets the XB270HU in for $430 all the time and there's nothing wrong with refurb monitors. Or you can get a XB241H new for $380 at amazon. AcerRecertified also has the XB241H for $330 at the moment. So basically you'd be in for $330 regardless, an extra $50 for a new unit, or an extra $100 for a bigger monitor with better picture quality (assuming you're in the US). Asus also makes equivalents to some/most of these but they don't sell refurbs for some reason. If you get a XB270HU be careful, there are several models with very similar names. There are two monitors that use the XB270HU model name, one is model XB270HU bprz part number UM.HB0AA.001 with a 4ms response time. That's the one you want, with a 1440p IPS panel. There's also XB270HU abprz, p/n UM.HB0AA.A01, with a 1ms response time. That's a 1440p TN panel. There's also the XB270H (no "U"), p/n UM.HB0SA.A01, that's a 1080p TN panel. I'd say at 1440p a 970 could probably hit low 50s in most titles and maybe a solid 60-65 if you drop some settings, so you should be able to find something that works. A 780 Ti is roughly the same performance and it worked OK on my 1440p panel. It's not overkill and you're probably going to have to choose between ultra settings and 60fps in many titles, but the good news about GSync is that running 45 fps average is not really a big deal, as long as it's not dropping down to like below 30. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:46 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
I went to micro center a couple months ago and did a thing where I bought and compared a G-sync 1440p@144Hz monitor to a non-G-sync 1440p@144Hz monitor with my same computer and it was resoundedly worth the $200 difference; no tearing, less motion blur, it was weirdly effective. If I had a 1080@60 monitor and a 9xx series GPU I'd probably just get a new monitor and make the jump in the 11xx generation, any lower I'd upgrade the GPU first, but probably both anyway. If I had a 10xx GPU and a 1080@60 monitor, absolutely get a new monitor no question. jokes fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Variable_H posted:My current monitor is 25" and I refuse to go lower than that size wise. I get horrible motion sickness from FPS games, so I'm playing RPGs and third-person action games like Dark Souls or the Batman Arkham games. I want to be a wanker about TN vs IPS since I know IPS is the better tech, but it also really wouldn't kill me to have a TN panel. Oddly one of my biggest deals is screen bezel size. I don't like giant glossy plastic bezels, my current monitor is "bezel-less" since it artificially makes it look like the screen goes all the way to the edge even though it doesn't. Third-person games will still benefit somewhat but FPSs are really where you see the most benefit from fast refresh rates and GSync. You can't really pick and choose arbitrary combinations of features though, if you want IPS 27" 1440p with GSync you're getting 144 Hz thrown into the mix too. Acer does make a 27" 4K 60 Hz with GSync though, the GSync helps mitigate the low framerates. A 970 is just nowhere near enough to do that with new games though. Also, there is a "bezel-less" version of both Acer and Asus's gaming panels. For Acer the model is XB271HU, and it usually goes for about $100 more than the earlier version ($525 at the refurb store). The Dell S2716DG is also bezel-less, but again, TN. You also might be a decent candidate for a gaming ultrawide like the Acer X34 if you've got $700 (refurb) burning a hole in your pocket. One of the bigger weaknesses is that "competitive" FPSs like Overwatch and CS:GO don't want you using ultrawide because it's an "unfair advantage", but single-player games and such are usually A-OK. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:04 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
craig588 posted:Hell no never getting a curved monitor if I can avoid it, especially not paying extra for one and especially not getting something in a weird AR. I lived with 16:10 for too long, never having great support for it, and that's a more common AR than 21:9. I also like taller desktops more than wider ones so at least 16:10 offered that. I have an X34. I love the gently caress out of it. The curve is nice, and frankly makes a lot of sense for a 34" monitor. 3440x1440 is baller and works perfectly with everything I've thrown at it. It may not be a great choice for Blizzard eSports because Blizzard is intentionally loving it up, but for everything else it's been wonderful.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
On the "somewhat jealous" note, apparently Dell now has a 27" 1080p 60hz IPS with FreeSync for like under $200 (currently on sale at Newegg for $160). That's the kind of poo poo that's eventually going to kill NVIDIA's Gsync lock-in. Not flashy but pretty solid and cheap as hell. The whole monitor is hardly more than just NVIDIA's gsync tax. I mean it's only 1080p, which is definitely pushing the limit at 27"... but on the other hand I guess that's also a plus since the fastest thing in AMD's current lineup is the RX 480/580  I really don't get why NVIDIA hasn't done a small run of ASICs yet. FPGAs are loving expensive, they could probably drop the GSync tax to like $75 and keep their current margin. Setup cost I guess, but if buttcoin miners can afford it... Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
I gave up and bought a 1080Ti AMP Extreme, it should be getting it by next week. Looking at its benchmarks and comparing them to Strix and Aorus, it pretty much dominates both of them so I've got a really good feeling about this card. After that, I can finally upgrade my rig and throw away my obsolete 750Ti, won't need to look into a new card for years now. 4K gaming all day baby! 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I really don't get why NVIDIA hasn't done a small run of ASICs yet. FPGAs are loving expensive, they could probably drop the GSync tax to like $75 and keep their current margin. Setup cost I guess, but if buttcoin miners can afford it... "Because we don't have to yet." If/when AMD gets competitive again and NVidia doesn't own 70% of the dGPU marketplace, they would probably do just like what you said.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Even if they don't want to pony up for the ~100 wafers/month in 12" 65-28nm that would probably be the best option, they can always bundle their asic up with 5 or so other company's and save even more
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Sanity check: Is a GTX1060-6GB and a 1440p/165Hz G-sync panel an ok combination? I currently have a 9 year old NEC 27" 1080p IPS screen which I use for occasional gaming when I find the time (which isn't much lately). The Dell S2417DG is currently on sale for ~$300 (converted from local EU pricing). 24" TN 1440p 165Hz and G-Sync. My PC does about 100-120 FPS at 1440p in Overwatch. My plan is to upgrade to a GTX1170 when Volta is out and a 4k G-Sync HDR screen when they become mainstream.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Also to the people who say you don't need a curved monitor, in fairness I had a 29" ultrawide before that was flat, and along the left/right edges the the screen at the last millimeter or so it sharply faded to black, I assume as a result of how the IPS layers are laminated... my 34" curved doesn't have that effect so you do see right up to the edge. It's not a dealbreaker or anything but that's a bit of benefit at least.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
eames posted:Sanity check: Is a GTX1060-6GB and a 1440p/165Hz G-sync panel an ok combination? If esports like CS:Go and Overwatch is all you're planning on, that's a nice combo. Don't plan on the 1060 being able to drive optimized stuff like Mass Effect Andromeda or whatever much beyond 60fps.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:01 |
|
eames posted:Sanity check: Is a GTX1060-6GB and a 1440p/165Hz G-sync panel an ok combination? I have an XB271HU(27", IPS, 1440p, 165Hz, G-Sync) and a GTX 970 and while it's not ideal it's perfectly useable, on newer & more demanding games you will need to turn settings down to medium or so but it should still be very playable, especially since the 1060 is a bit faster than a 970. Also Gsync has the greatest effect when your frame rate is lower, so that will help out a lot.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 20:51
|
|
