Gtx 1080 ti + 4k? Or stick to 2.7k/1440p

[dsc106]

Title says it - debating a 27" 2.7k/1440p monitor vs a bit larger 4k screen.

The desktop real estate would be great for work tasks, but I'm worried the 1080 ti won't allow me maxed graphics at a smooth 60fps for the next 3 years or so.

Thoughts/advice?
Thanks!

 

[imported_bman]

I would wait a few months when the 4k@120Hz with gsync monitors come out, that way you will have a monitor good for a decade (or whenever emissive Quantum Dot screens are out). A 1080Ti overclocked will do good job on most games @4k while using gsync and you can probably sell it for a good amount before Nvidia's next gen comes out. Since it is looking like consumer Volta is going to be a long time and Nvidia might have another version Pascal on 12nm for the 20X0 series I would pull the trigger on the 1080Ti soon (maybe wait till August see if Vega puts on any pressure on Nvidia to lower prices and if the mining demand dies out).

 

[alcoholbob]

There's a 4K60 Gsync 32" IPS Acer display if you are worried about drops below 60 fps.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

1080ti is fine for 4k@60fps for 95% of the time, imo I'd rather have 1440p @120+hz though, and for that a 1080 will be fine for 95% of the time. That's the setup I built and I'm happy with it.

Next gen we should see 4k @120hz for the extreme top-end, with a 1180ti/2080ti that will hopefully suffice for that range.

 

[Jackie60]

Title says it - debating a 27" 2.7k/1440p monitor vs a bit larger 4k screen.

The desktop real estate would be great for work tasks, but I'm worried the 1080 ti won't allow me maxed graphics at a smooth 60fps for the next 3 years or so.

Thoughts/advice?
Thanks!

Don't piss about with a puny 2.7k 27" screen go 40 inch 4K e.g. Phillips BDM4065. 1080ti is quite good at that res but no single card can do 60fps all games all ultra including 4x MSAA even with today's most demanding games. My two Titan Xps in SLI couldn't run Ghost Recon Wildlands at 60fps all ultra and the game still looked crap on ultra at 50fps because it's not a pretty nvm well coded game. Going 40 inch 4K has been the biggest gaming immersion and fun improvement I ever had.

 

[wanderica]

Agree with getting a larger 4k screen vs. sub 30 inch. I have a 40" Samsung and as Jackie said, from a pure immersion standpoint it is the single best purchase I've ever made. However, I'm not a FPS gamer. I'm an RPG / Adventure gamer, and tend to place a higher importance on immersion and story than some. My 1080 Ti does just fine by tuning a few settings.

That said, it FAR less smooth and responsive than my 144Hz 1440p Dell with GSync. I figure in a couple years, I'll be able to find a 40" 144Hz 4K with adaptive sync for less than $1000. At the rate of improvement currently, we might even have a single GPU that can handle it. Until then, however, I find the tradeoff acceptable. Either way, I doubt you'll be dissatisfied with a 1440p at a high refresh rate, and that 1080 Ti should be more than adequate for that resolution for a few years if that's your largest concern.

 

[wilds]

4k144hz is coming out in a month or two. Why not get that? I game at 4k60 on a single 1070 just fine at medium-high settings.

4k144hz will be obscenely expensive unfortunately.

 

[dsc106]

Well, I'm also limited per my knowledge on monitors with high refresh rates because I need a reasonably color accurate monitor. It doesn't need to be top end perfect, but it needs to have a good IPS panel that has strong uniformity.

As such, one question becomes: How big of a deal is having a monitor with G-sync and a refresh rate over 60hz? I've never been dissapointed with v-sync enabled steady 60fps capped gameplay, that seems pretty great to me.

Then again, I have never tasted and seen of the G-sync and refresh rates above 60...

 

[dsc106]

Anyone?

Also, one other thought is that 4k 144hz G-sync, besides being hyper-expensive, may be irrelevant until a GTX 2080 ti has arrived. I can't imagine more than a handful of maxed out games getting more than 60fps at 4k. Also, I think the first wave of 4K high refresh monitors, even if IPS, will have lower quality panels. My understanding was that the ASUS pg279q IPS G-Sync monitor has an IPS panel that is a bit lacking in terms of color and luminance uniformity, making it less than ideal for video editing?

 

[ozzy702]

After having a 144hz G-sync 1440p monitor I'll never go back to 60hz. I'd rather game at 100fps+ @1440p than 60fps @4k. I have SLI 1080tis and won't be upgrading my monitor anytime soon since it will probably be 18 months before solid 4k 144hz monitors are out and NVIDIA's stack is where it needs to be for me to upgrade.

 

[dsc106]

What makes it so much better? Does the game actually feel smoother over 60fps in a meaningful way? I'm not competing here, just enjoying games like Dishonored 2, Prey, GTA V, Xcom2, Witcher 3, etc. Though I do play some competitive overwatch.

I wish there were some fast 144hz G-sync panels with *good* IPS displays (the Asus pg279q seems to have the afformentioned poor uniformity/ problems).

 

[2is]

What makes it so much better? Does the game actually feel smoother over 60fps in a meaningful way? I'm not competing here, just enjoying games like Dishonored 2, Prey, GTA V, Xcom2, Witcher 3, etc. Though I do play some competitive overwatch.

I wish there were some fast 144hz G-sync panels with *good* IPS displays (the Asus pg279q seems to have the afformentioned poor uniformity/ problems).

Yes, it makes a meaningful difference. I was skeptical as well, I always played on a standard 60Hz display and always thought "how much smoother can it possibly be" then I went ahead and bought a 144Hz G-Sync display and I will never go back to a slow or non-adaptive sync display.

 

[wanderica]

What makes it so much better? Does the game actually feel smoother over 60fps in a meaningful way? I'm not competing here, just enjoying games like Dishonored 2, Prey, GTA V, Xcom2, Witcher 3, etc. Though I do play some competitive overwatch.

I wish there were some fast 144hz G-sync panels with *good* IPS displays (the Asus pg279q seems to have the afformentioned poor uniformity/ problems).

Yes, it is smoother; objectively so, and for many, like 2is, it is simply a deal-breaker to not have it. It is certainly a tradeoff versus 4k, however. You would be giving up smoothness for higher visual fidelity. The subjective part of that comparison comes into play when you consider monitor size. I don't feel that 4k at anything less than 32" minimum is worth it over 144 Hz 1440p with adaptive sync, but seeing all those beautiful landscapes in Witcher 3 on a 40" 4K screen is amazing. It offers an experience that you simply can't get on a 27" screen no matter how good the monitor is. I say that as someone that currently owns both monitor types. Given your list of games, I would venture a guess that you would appreciate 144Hz w/ adaptive sync more than 4K. That buttery smoothness will be obvious in those games.

 

[dsc106]

So the ultimate setup for video color work + option for 4K in some games would be to simply get these two monitors... perhaps these two?

GAMING 27" G-Sync:
https://www.amazon.com/PG279Q-2560x...ie=UTF8&qid=1500885352&sr=8-1&keywords=pg279q

WORK 32" 4K:
https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-PD3200U...9&sr=8-3&keywords=32"+4k+professional+monitor
OR
https://www.amazon.com/Ultra-ProArt...ns&keywords=32"+4k+professional+monitor&psc=1

That should pretty much be a no compromise solution, yes? And in the meantime, the 27" can serve as part of my multi-monitor work display and I can just swivel it on the work arm when I want to make it my main gaming monitor... I hear for g-sync to work, other displays must be disabled to get the true 144ghz g-sync working?

Thanks for the help here.

 

[ozzy702]

At 100hz and higher everything is much more fluid, smooth and realistic. Every time I go back to playing on a 60hz monitor it bugs me, yet I played 1440p @60hz for years. My next monitor will be gsync, 27-32", 4k, 60hz, IPS (or whatever the greatest screen tech is in two years).

 

[ddogg]

I have a 1080Ti with a 34 1440p ultrawide 100Hz GSync and 4k/60 non Gsync monitor. The 1440p 100hz wins hands down everytime for immersion and smoothness of gameplay. 4k looks great but I prefer gaming at 100fps with Gsync. I would only get a 4k monitor if a 4k/100+ monitor comes out.
The 4k monitor is incredible for productivity tasks though and that's what I mainly use it for.

 

[tential]

I would wait a few months when the 4k@120Hz with gsync monitors come out, that way you will have a monitor good for a decade (or whenever emissive Quantum Dot screens are out). A 1080Ti overclocked will do good job on most games @4k while using gsync and you can probably sell it for a good amount before Nvidia's next gen comes out. Since it is looking like consumer Volta is going to be a long time and Nvidia might have another version Pascal on 12nm for the 20X0 series I would pull the trigger on the 1080Ti soon (maybe wait till August see if Vega puts on any pressure on Nvidia to lower prices and if the mining demand dies out).

No matter what, I would recommend EVERY person at the high end to jump to the 4k 144hz HDR monitors when they release at the end of this year. I mean, that's the holy grail of the latest techs. Throw in OLED one day down the line, and the next best jump will be VR.

So I would purchase a monitor knowing it won't have too long of a shelf life. That's why I spent around ~$400 on mine. The new 4K 144hz HDR Gsync monitors shouldn't be ignored.

 

[ddogg]

No matter what, I would recommend EVERY person at the high end to jump to the 4k 144hz HDR monitors when they release at the end of this year. I mean, that's the holy grail of the latest techs. Throw in OLED one day down the line, and the next best jump will be VR.

So I would purchase a monitor knowing it won't have too long of a shelf life. That's why I spent around ~$400 on mine. The new 4K 144hz HDR Gsync monitors shouldn't be ignored.

Are they ultrawide though? I'm only going to get a gaming 4k/100+ monitor if an ultrawide comes out so it's likely 2 years away.

 

[Carfax83]

Well, I'm also limited per my knowledge on monitors with high refresh rates because I need a reasonably color accurate monitor. It doesn't need to be top end perfect, but it needs to have a good IPS panel that has strong uniformity.

As such, one question becomes: How big of a deal is having a monitor with G-sync and a refresh rate over 60hz? I've never been dissapointed with v-sync enabled steady 60fps capped gameplay, that seems pretty great to me.

Then again, I have never tasted and seen of the G-sync and refresh rates above 60...

I was a G-sync holdout for years as well as I thought 60Hz was more than adequate. Boy was I wrong. I listed some of my impressions after playing Doom on my new Viewsonic XG2703-GS 165Hz monitor here if you want to have a look.

Basically, high refresh rate + variable refresh rate gaming is definitely something to behold and can make a HUGE difference in certain games. Does that mean every game will experience a dramatic change? No. But in the ones that do, it will be a night and day difference. One game like that is Doom. Doom on my previous 1440p 60Hz monitor was great, but on my new one, it's a life changing event

 

[tential]

Are they ultrawide though? I'm only going to get a gaming 4k/100+ monitor if an ultrawide comes out so it's likely 2 years away.

You're probably right.
Most people seem to hold a monitor for a long long time though.
2 years isn't long so pick a monitor that you won't mind getting rid of when the next stuff comes whatever that price may be.

 

[WhiteNoise]

60hz is good enough for me. a year ago I kept running across threads about how much better 4k looks for gaming. I fought it for a long time but eventually caved. I love 4k for PC duties. The only downside is you really need a good PC to play many newer games in 4k and get a decent frame rate. My GTX 1080 does this for the most part with just a few games that cannot be played with ultra settings.

I run a 55" Samsung 4K TV as my monitor and I absolutely love it.

I will admit though that it is frustrating that some games do not perform as well as I was used to at 1080P when using ultra settings. Like BF1 for example runs around 40 fps. But I picked up a GTX 1080 TI (that I have not installed yet) in hopes of improving on this. Most games I play though easily run 4k, 60+ fps with ultra graphic settings but not all.

4k gaming is a love hate relationship for me. I love how much better games look but I hate that I have a great gaming rig that isn't always able to provide the experience I used to have when gaming at 1080p.

1440p is the better option if you are not running a higher end GPU IMO. From my experience to date I wouldn't even run 4k if I had a 1070. I feel a 1080 is the minimum or AMD equivalent (if there is one).

 

[imaheadcase]

I run 1080TI on Acer Predator Z35P 35 inch monitor. Runs everything fine for me. It runs 120Hz no problem.

 

[b-mac]

I am enjoying 1440p/144hz with my 1080ti. I think it is the sweet spot for the 1080ti right now.

 

[Headfoot]

I'd take 144hz 1440 over 4k

 

[wilds]

I'd take 144hz 1440 over 4k

Me too. Except I play many games that can't even break 60 fps due to being CPU limited. That is why I play at 4k60 for many CPU limited titles. When I do play games that support high refresh rates, I go back to my high refresh rate, low resolution monitor.

4k144hz can't come soon enough! Too bad it got delayed