Problem about Monitor

[macbookpro]

I really need some help picking out a monitor guys. I am a gamer and I use my computer A LOT just as an fyi. I currently have a 1080p asus vs series that im giving the wife so she can have a dual monitor setup.

I've got a gtx 980 and 4790k at 4.5ghz.

My thoughts are as follows. I can "upgrade" to an asus 144hz 1080p tn panel or I can upgrade to a 1440p panel or I can upgrade to a 1440p 120hz overclockable panel such as the catleaps etc.

I don't think im going with a 4k panel as my single gtx 980 won't be able to run a lot of games on max settings with it, sooo I don't know. I don't really have a budget but the 1,000 dollar rog swift 1440p 144hz panel is a no go lol.

Thoughts?


spam ads removed

 

[i7Baby]

As an example GTA-V - http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1905-gta-v-pc-fps-benchmark-graphics-cards#

A 980 on 4K at Ultra would only get 30fps - yuck!
A 980 on 4K at High would get 50fps - not bad
A 980 on 1440p at Ultra would get 65fps - very nice

So that's what I'd get - 1440p

See http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/top-best-computer-monitors,3917.html

eg http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benq-xl2730z-27-inch-freesync-monitor,4144.html BenQ XL2730Z

 

[4K_shmoorK]

I would go with a 1440p panel as i7baby suggested. It will be alot easier to suggest a monitor with the approximate dollar amount (GBP/USD?) you are willing to budget.

For example in the states, the ROG Swift/XB270HU can be had for just under $800.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Honestly i7Baby is making the same argument we see a lot on this forum (and elsewhere quite frankly) which I maintain is simply not typical use case.

It's absolutely true that a handful of really powerful games wont run smoothly at ultra in 4k, GTAV is a great example. But for the vast majority of gamers this represents a absolutely minuscule portion of their games, GTAV is an exception and not the rule, 99.9% of existing games will run just fine in 4k maxed out, even a lot of the most recent games.

You made an important point when you said

I don't think im going with a 4k panel as my single gtx 980 won't be able to run a lot of games on max settings with it

How do you define a lot? In another thread I did a breakdown of the top 100 most played games on steam (which steam provide stats for) and it turns out 5 maybe 6 of those games you couldn't reasonably max out.

I'd also argue that with a 980 GTAV doesn't even max out in 1080p, the upper bound of its video settings are very harsh to run, so using this as a metric for what is "playable" is very bad.

Remember that a lot of our performance metrics come from benchmarking the absolute highest demanding games specifically to stress the video card and help remove CPU bottlenecks.

Since I've got my new 4k panel I've played the following titles maxed out in 4k: Wolfenstien Old blood, Bioshock Infinite, Verdun, DoD:S, TF2, Killing Floor 2, Portal 2, The Talos Principle expansion, Fallout New Vegas, Dirty Bomb, One finger Death punch, Receiver, adventure capitalist and tap tap infinity.

This is literally just a list of most recent played from steam, the only 2 things that don't run maxed are GTAV which on my 980 don't run maxed at 2560x1600 or 1080p either, and Ark: Survival Evolved, which again doesn't run maxed at any res because it's so badly optimised. In the case of GTAV i just drop a few settings which is no biggie and Ark I just run in 1080p and upscale to 4k.

So as for "a lot" of games not running maxed at 4k on a 980, nope, sorry unless all you're playing is GTAV on a loop or a handful of its graphical peers then that's just not true at all.

Here is steams top 99 games by popularity for reference - http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ An extremely conservative estimate of games that wont run maxed out is about 10%, probably closer to 5% if you have a more reasonable idea of what is "max". And quite a few of those games would fail this test for maxing in 1440p anyway so...

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Honestly i7Baby is making the same argument we see a lot on this forum (and elsewhere quite frankly) which I maintain is simply not typical use case.

Normally I would agree with you but I have a hard time recommending a 4K monitor to someone with a single GTX 980. At 1440p, a 980 would no have trouble maxing a good number of new games over 60 FPS, with many hovering above 80 FPS. At 4K maxed, that number would likely fall to 40-60, a diminished experience that may force the user to use medium or high settings. The benefits available at 1440p (144Hz IPS) I think outweigh a 4K resolution in this case and offer more options as opposed to 4K.

And the notion of upgrading is to prepare for future games, not existing. Also if one is playing only source games, they wouldn't need a 980 to do it.

 

[MagickMan]

I would go with a 1440p panel as i7baby suggested. It will be alot easier to suggest a monitor with the approximate dollar amount (GBP/USD?) you are willing to budget.

For example in the states, the ROG Swift/XB270HU can be had for just under $800.

Just last week I got mine for $737 shipped from B&H.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Normally I would agree with you but I have a hard time recommending a 4K monitor to someone with a single GTX 980. At 1440p, a 980 would no have trouble maxing a good number of new games over 60 FPS, with many hovering above 80 FPS. At 4K maxed, that number would likely fall to 40-60, a diminished experience that may force the user to use medium or high settings. The benefits available at 1440p (144Hz IPS) I think outweigh a 4K resolution in this case and offer more options as opposed to 4K.

And the notion of upgrading is to prepare for future games, not existing. Also if one is playing only source games, they wouldn't need a 980 to do it.

The problem is that this is vague and based off bias and not data, "good few number of games", what does this mean? Looking at the number of games which are popular and take up the majority of gamers time ones which 4k at max settings is unplayable is in the order of 5%

The argument that games in future will be more demanding is again one which I'm not sure I agree with in todays environment, most of the games for the next 4-5 years are going to target the current gen of consoles primarily, typically we only see 2-3 games a year which really bother to expand past what the consoles are capable of. I'd also argue that future proofing isn't a great idea because graphics hardware increases in speed so fast, buying ahead of the curve to future proof has always been demonstrated to be an expensive and not really worth while decision, it's better to spend 1/2 this generation (for example get a 970/980 instead of a titan) and lose that extra 10-15% performance but save the difference to buy another high end card in 18-24 months.

My experience with a wide variety of games has been extremely positive, even my experience with GTAV where I turn down a few settings is a better experience in my opinion than what I got at 2560x1600 with slightly higher settings.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

I'd also argue that future proofing isn't a great idea because graphics hardware increases in speed so fast, buying ahead of the curve to future proof has always been demonstrated to be an expensive and not really worth while decision, it's better to spend 1/2 this generation (for example get a 970/980 instead of a titan) and lose that extra 10-15% performance but save the difference to buy another high end card in 18-24 months.

My experience with a wide variety of games has been extremely positive, even my experience with GTAV where I turn down a few settings is a better experience in my opinion than what I got at 2560x1600 with slightly higher settings.

I said "a good number of new games", new being the keyword here. If you want to spec a computer for old, less demanding games, why would you buy a card as capable as the 980 to play source and RTS games in the first place? And if you're playing source/FPS/RTS games, you'll want the highest refresh rate combined with the most responsive panel you can buy. Not a 60Hz 4K display.

If you have the GPU horsepower to drive 60 FPS in every game you want to play in 4K at settings you are comfortable with, then yes I would say do it.

Whatever your reasons are, I don't think that you can honestly say that higher FPS (60-144) on a 1440p 144Hz G-SYNC'd monitor with all settings on ultra is going to be a better experience than a 60Hz 4K monitor with some more demanding games at medium or high settings. Not to mention AA results in a pretty big performance hit at 4K. (And yes you can tell the difference with AA off/on. I had the XB280HK)

And your argument for "future proofing isn't a great idea" kind of falls flat when you advocate buying these first gen, 60Hz locked panels at a much higher price than what they will cost a year from now, right?

 

[Braxos]

Use dsr from nvidia to see what fps you get on your games, pick a 2k and a 4k resolution. You can see if you can be satisfied with one or the other. It will not give you the 144hz or the gsync advantages, so just see the fps not the issues that comes with it, since gsync if fps>30 should give a smooth experience.

Gl with it mate.

 

[3DVagabond]

**snip**

Here is steams top 99 games by popularity for reference - http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ An extremely conservative estimate of games that wont run maxed out is about 10%, probably closer to 5% if you have a more reasonable idea of what is "max". And quite a few of those games would fail this test for maxing in 1440p anyway so...

This is so true. You'll now end up with people listing the half dozen or so games that won't run maxed out over and over like they are the only games that matter. 😉



As far as the Swift goes. People need to stop allowing themselves to be ripped off. That monitor isn't and never has been worth $700+ dollars. Then you get to deal with Asus' very questionable CS on top.

Even the BenQ XL2730Z @ $550 shipped is overpriced IMO. Next to the Swift it's a steal though.