Printable View
As thread suggests, I currently have a 1080 TV 32in and need a new monitor to truly show the cards power.
Any suggestions that work alongside. It is an EVGA 980 TI ACX 2.0 card running alongside a I7 5820K
Or perhaps, the monitor is fine? I'm more about FPS than heart defining graphics.
I use an ASUS 28" Professional 4K.
I use it alongside a i7-6700 quad and a 6GB GTX 980 Ti and the quality is amazing! highly recommend it!
Size - 28" Widescreen
Resolution - 3840x2160 at 60Hz (DisplayPort) ,3840x2160 at 30Hz (HDMI)
Dynamic Contrast Ratio - ASUS Smart Contrast Ratio (ASCR) : 100000000:1
Response Time - 1ms (Grey to Grey)
Connections - HDMI , HDMI/MHL, DisplayPort
Colour - Dark Grey/Black
Speakers - Yes
HDCP Compliant
Depends, a lot of people will say, there really isn't anything "overkill" at the moment for 1080p.
A lot of people are fine with a 60hz/60fps experience, others aren't. A lot of people feel 60fps should by what you aim for, while others feel it is a "minimum" to meet for PC gaming. Others prefer higher pixel-density found in 1440p/UHD/4K setups, while others prefer ground-breaking graphics.
Using 1080p as a standard; 1080p @ 120hz is more demanding to run than 1440p @ 60hz on average.
So we have three things we get to choose from, but can really only have 2 (without throwing insane amounts of money around); Resolution | Frame-rate | Graphics
Personally I prefer resolution and frame-rate over graphics to an extent. As I have a BenQ XL2720Z which can output at a maximum of 1080p @ 144hz, I prefer to use the extra headroom I can while gaming to get a higher frame-rate at the "standard" 1080p.
Granted this is all subjective opinion on my part, and might vary from individual to individual. This logic is also mainly formed around single-card gaming, as SLI/Crossfire setups can start to have the best of all 3 categories, depending on how much you're throwing at it.
It really depends if you are going to mostly game or mostly do other things. If your only use of the PC is to game the 144hz monitors are where its at. Although the color reproduction is sub-par on the TN panels. You can get a 1440p monitor with 144+hz and be golden for gaming, or go with a 4k UHD monitor for picture quality. Or one of each.
a 980Ti would work really well with the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q. It has Gsync + 4K + 144hz. Which is every Nvidia gamer's wet dream.
Minus the 4K bit ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AOD_KaosC57
The PG278Q has a max (native) resolution of 2560 x 1440, so that's only 2K capable.
The PG27AQ will do 4K (3840 x 2160 max native resolution) AND is G-Sync capable, but has a max refresh rate of 60hz. 4K maxes out at 60hz on everything, period. It's perfect for high-end TVs since about 99.999% of people never notice anything over 60hz / 60 FPS (with that .001% being us gamers).
Currently, even a GTX Titan would struggle to push 4K at 60hz and maintain 60 FPS for a solid experience. I've seen benchmarks that show GTX Titans in an SLI config still struggling to hit 100 FPS consistently in that type of configuration.
We're a ways out from 4K at 120hz or higher as a solid gaming experience. Granted, yes, 4K at 60hz and a consistent 60 FPS with the PG27AQ and G-Sync would still most likely be a nice gaming experience, but 60hz is what's keeping people away from it. I'm sure we'll see major changes once Pascal launches, however, and I'm betting that's what nVIDIA is going to be using as one of their selling points (and is probably already working with display manufacturers on)..."4K gaming at 120 / 144hz" :)
I have the same card, got this monitor, love it after tweaking the settings
http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Gaming-S2.../dp/B0149QBOF0
^ These type of monitors are highly recommended for the 980tiQuote:
Originally Posted by AOD_KaosC57
So, I had been running with two of these for about the past two months or so...
Attachment 22214
Today, I was able to take one back to Micro Center and exchange for this...
Attachment 22215
Can see the things that are already known with the difference between the IPS panel (FreeSync version) vs. the TN panel (G-Sync version) but the response time and ability to run G-Sync makes an amazing difference.
I would have gone with the PG279Q but they didn't have it in stock. That one is the IPS panel version with 165hz and has gotten some amazing reviews. They said when I wanted to, I could go back in and exchange again, so I may do that :)
My demand is more towards FPS, but obviously to not insult the cards power either.
Well, I think that's an easy demand for anyone with a card like that (I agree...I want my 980 Ti to earn every cent) but the thing to keep in mind is that if you stick with a monitor that only does 1080p or won't go past 60hz, you're severely restricting what it's capable of.
You may be able to push out, say, 150 FPS from a game or what would be reported from a benchmarking tool, but the reality of it is, on a monitor that only supports 1080p and 60hz, you're NEVER seeing any of that benefit for yourself, thus never fully leveraging the cost of your investment. It almost becomes a waste at that point when a video card is capable of so much more, but being bottle-necked by the monitor. No matter how many FPS that little number at the top corner of the screen from Fraps might report, in this case, it would be completely irrelevant after 60 FPS.
You don't have to go ultra high-end with the likes of the 144hz G-Sync monitors that support 1440p, but I would recommend that, at the very least, consider one of the 24" 1080p / 144hz displays or even something that supports at least 120hz.
60hz should be reserved to TVs (like you have now) and consoles. Not for PC gaming :)
I just use my 40 inch flat-screen :) I'm not paying 500 dollars for a smaller screen.
Yea, but that $500 could save your ass by allowing you to react to something faster because of the higher displayed Framerate. Also, you aren't able to see more than 1080p resolution is able to display. So, your "gigantic" screen is able to see the same amount of things as my 24 inch 144 Hz monitor. The difference is, I'm able to display up to 144 FPS, compared to your 60 FPS. Not trying to dog you, just saying that 144hz is going to mean you can, as long as you have a fast enough reaction time, react quicker to a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheckledorf
Actually, if we want to get really technical here (heh...) my 27" 1440p display can see a LOT more of a visible area than the 40" TV. The only thing the 40" TV does is make the visible area expanded out over a larger surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by AOD_KaosC57
A resolution of 2560 x 1440 will see 77% more coverage area than a resolution of 1920 x 1080. The size of the screen doesn't matter, it's about resolution and pixel density.
(Source: http://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG_SWIFT_PG278Q/)
This is also true.Quote:
Originally Posted by AOD_Tymplar
I'm OK with 1080p. I don't need 4K resolution, It is so pointless in my opinion. I feel like I am looking out of a window when I play games like GTA 5 or Crysis 3. 60 FPS is perfectly fine for me, and the .01 millisecond difference between 60 and 144 refresh rates isn't too serious for me to need.
I agree, I am looking at my options soon on my next payday, 1440pQuote:
Originally Posted by AOD_Tymplar
I wanted the card first so I can at least play every game ever and as you set I am technically bottlenecking my capabilities. Hell, I played arma earlier to test and thought to myself I'm attempted to run ultra on a 1080p TV.
I do enjoy my 32in TV and I'm hoping there are monitors around that area that aren't too much $$$
I've heard of the ASUS ROG series, they're highly rated on many review sites but that just makes the cost go up.
In conclusion, I would prefer a sizeable monitor that shows its power + the higher end hz since I am a competitive player.
It actually isn't .01 ms difference. It's actually pretty big. It's a bonus 124 Hz speed. That's a big boost when you are playing twitch aim FPS's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheckledorf