Well, I can't get a 1440p monitor quickly, so in the meanwhile, I'll just go get my 970, install it, and try to run BF4 in my 900p monitor but with high DSR and the game's native downsampling option, that has to eventually give me a clue of the limits of the card, provided everything else is working properly. Might have to lower settings to get reasonable FPS count while maintaining high memory use though.
Yeah, that's how it works. You got to test it. Good thing is most shops provide you with a 14-day range to send the card back, so if you are quick with building it in and can test it within that time you can decide THEN. And if you can not get a 1440p monitor quickly just wait for the successor of the 980 or buy the successor of the 970 together with your new 1440p monitor when they come out.
Also, what 900p monitor? I thought you had an 1980x1090p monitor.....?
---------- Updated at 06:55 PM ----------
OCed, right?
Damn nice rig man.
Since you seem to be more of an expert. Would I switch to a 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 setup, do I need to overclock? (I want to record high-settings footage)
Setup:
Intel Core i5 3,5 Ghz 4690k | 8GB DDR3 | 1x MSI GTX970 Gaming Edition | MSI z97 Gaming 5 MB | 1x HDD WD Blue 1TB (7200rpm, 6GB/s, 64MB Cache) 1xHDD WD Black 1TB (7200rpm, 6GB/s, 64MB Cache) (exclusively for recording)
Cooling:
1x BeQuiet Dark Rock 3 | 2x Thermaltake 200x200x30mm radiators 800 rpm (1xfront, 1xtop), 1x140x140x25mm 1000rpm (back) (1x200x200x30mm and 1x140x140x25mm planned to be added)
I have a budget for a 970 honestly, and the 980 while its more or less in reach, is too expensive for the edge it gives. I'd have to pay around US$1000 for a 980, and only US$600 for a 970.
Combined with me really wanting a new monitor, because i have an 8 years old 20" 900p LCD, I need to save some cash for that, so the 980 or anything more expensive is even less convenient.
I'd wait for a new 970 with more VRAM or whatever, or the new AMD cards, but the problem is that I need a new GPU to play the witcher 3 next tuesday, and so alternatives become kind of impossible in that time frame.
I'll try what I said with BF4 and DSR an depending how it goes, I'll get a 1440p monitor or a 1080p one. By the way I think you confused users along the way during this conversation, I dont game at 1080p
(yet)1080p is already a nice step up from 1440x900 - 63 from 40 MB per frame, and newer monitors (of good quality) are much nicer than older panels (pretty close to good quality CRTs from a decade ago of similar resolutions - I had a 1600x1200, 21" - slightly more restrictive of viewing position but clear, bright and sharp and with okay colours, though I know that the panel I bought isn't the best for that purpose).
The 2560x1440 panel pushes 112MB per frame, and for similar costs you'll sacrifice features... or pay a chunk more for a similar monitor.
I chose a G-Sync 1080, (which also allows using slightly iffy frame rates without V-sync and without tearing... or going up to very high refreshes, again without tearing)... I could have saved a bit by not opting for the G-Sync model (it was a little over 40% more), or *maybe* got a slightly higher res on a less flashy panel... but with a higher likelihood of being at an awkward refresh rate.... The 970 isn't a limitless card, and a 'better' 980 or 980 in SLI aren't things I could even contemplate having.
Monitors, Keyboards, Mice and Joysticks are all things you'll spend a lot of time using, and each person will have very different needs and tolerances. Your choices will be made for different reasons than anyone else's but it is worth getting it right (Mice and KB, in their basic forms are rather more interchangeable/disposable ~ I have no issues with the <cough> 20 year old MS 'natural' keyboard, or my £5 mouse from my local supermarket... it suits small hands better than the 'better' mice, and is cheap enough to just replace when it goes goofy).
The 2560x1440 panel pushes 112MB per frame, and for similar costs you'll sacrifice features... or pay a chunk more for a similar monitor.
I chose a G-Sync 1080, (which also allows using slightly iffy frame rates without V-sync and without tearing... or going up to very high refreshes, again without tearing)... I could have saved a bit by not opting for the G-Sync model (it was a little over 40% more), or *maybe* got a slightly higher res on a less flashy panel... but with a higher likelihood of being at an awkward refresh rate.... The 970 isn't a limitless card, and a 'better' 980 or 980 in SLI aren't things I could even contemplate having.
Monitors, Keyboards, Mice and Joysticks are all things you'll spend a lot of time using, and each person will have very different needs and tolerances. Your choices will be made for different reasons than anyone else's but it is worth getting it right (Mice and KB, in their basic forms are rather more interchangeable/disposable ~ I have no issues with the <cough> 20 year old MS 'natural' keyboard, or my £5 mouse from my local supermarket... it suits small hands better than the 'better' mice, and is cheap enough to just replace when it goes goofy).
No. You really don't need to overclock. Just like I didn't need to overclock my 4790K but I did it anyway.
---------- Updated at 08:06 PM ----------
Watching the new CGI trailer again reminded me why 21:9 is awesome. And the downsides of IPS technology as well if you're sharp-eyed.
I honestly, truly hope this becomes a standard. Not just for monitors but TVs as well.
70" 21:9 OLED TV.
Damn your U.S. prices are expensive as hell....
---------- Updated at 09:44 PM ----------
No. You really don't need to overclock. Just like I didn't need to overclock my 4790K but I did it anyway.
I just don't do it because of the warranty. At least as long as the warranty holds and as long as I do not need to overclock.
Watching the new CGI trailer again reminded me why 21:9 is awesome. And the downsides of IPS technology as well if you're sharp-eyed.
Well, I'd say such monitors CAN be awesome, as long as you do not record for YT (except if you have Shadowplay) and as long as the games have variable FOV. Don't know how often I was enraged about FOV and faulty 16:10 support because the image is just different if the games do not fully support those aspec ratios...
Most do support it, either by default or by forcing it with flawless widescreen/widescreen fixer. For those which don't you can still run them in 16:9 with black bars on the sides with a lovely ca 27" 2560x1440 image. It's not that bad. And definitely better than 3 monitor setup where if multi monitor isn't supported, you lose 2/3 of your available screen space..
I've been thinking about that more or less binary choice from my situation:
1440p 25" IPS panel, which I consider "image quality" focused. Also helps for illustration work.
vs 1080p TN panel 23" or 24" with G-sync, 120/144hz refresh rate and motion blur reduction for CRT good old times, I consider this one the "performance" focused one. Of course though, fluidity and lack of tearing are part of image quality too.
At the end of the day I thought, with a single 970 how much more will I get over 60 fps in modern games with most settings in ultra? doesnt seem like enough to take advantage of a high refresh rate monitor. However, the G-sync really is awesome though cause it works from 30fps and up so it fits perfectly to drop some frames for more image quality.
I don't really play FPSs much, so I don't mind the slower response times of an IPS panel (I think), but resolution and colours are really important to me, I've never seen a non TN screen in person, but for what I read its hard to go back to that from an IPS one, and that makes me very interested in trying to paint and play games like the witcher on it. As an extra note: my current res is 1600 x 900, not 1440 x 900, and I have next to me a 1080p 25" LED monitor/TV, and I have tried a 23" 1080p one, and the difference didnt seem THAT much. I mean its really nice, but if I can afford it I'd like to jump 2 16:9 resolutions.
For the moment I have a 270 dollars Acer G257HU on my eye, of the monitors I might be interested in its the cheapest one. After that I found a Dell U2515H at 380 was it? a bit less than 400 I remember. And for the other club of monitors, I think I saw an AOC with G-sync at around 400.
I MIGHT be able to afford 400 bucks one, but it depends on import fees and all that so its nothing sure.
heh I wish I could buy at US prices, those are Argentinean prices, and the cheapest ones when the products are widely available. I've seen here some assholes charging US$3000 for a 24" 4K dell monitor, thats more than 2 pretty good months of pay for a middle-high class citizen.
Oh and btw if anyone cares, I tried my new 970 to test VRAM and general performance:
BF4 with DSR x 2 = 3200 x 1800 res, all ultra settings with 4XMSAA, + the game's internal resolution multiplier at 150%. MSI Afterburned was constantly at 4012 of VRAM usage, the game was running slowly, like 20 something FPS, but I didnt see any big stuttering issues like when you run out of RAM or VRAM, it was a slow but consistent frame rate.
Reducing AA to off and leaving the game res at 100% of 3200 x 1800 used like 3500 of VRAM i think, and the game was perfectly playable at around 50 fps, and again no stuttering.
This was tried in the game's test/training level however, so no multiplayer action, but if Afterburner registered what I said, the VRAM test should still be valid I guess...
I got a Dell monitor at work which refuses to work at full resolution over HDMI (and in my case I'm limited to DVI-D and HDMI outputs from Nvidia Geforce GT 620 card). I have dual monior setup, and one monitor works OK with DVI-D at 2560x1440. But the second no matter what I do only reaches 2048x1152 over HDMI, while it should be able to reach the same 2560x1440. I already got HDMI 2.0 cable, but that didn't help.
While I'm trying to figure if there is a way to fix it (quite frustrating), and whether it's Nvidia driver or EDID issue, I thought may be I can stop using the discrete Nvidia card and use the integrated GPU (which is Intel HD 2500). However it has its own problem - the motherboard provides one DisplayPort output, and one VGA. I don't want to use the analog one. Is there a way to extend the integrated GPU with more outputs? I.e. some kind of PCIe card which will provide another DisplayPort output for the Intel GPU? Both monitors have DisplayPort input, so that would be ideal. I'm not familiar with such extension cards, and while searching with generic search terms nothing comes up. Is it even possible and how are such cards called?
While I'm trying to figure if there is a way to fix it (quite frustrating), and whether it's Nvidia driver or EDID issue, I thought may be I can stop using the discrete Nvidia card and use the integrated GPU (which is Intel HD 2500). However it has its own problem - the motherboard provides one DisplayPort output, and one VGA. I don't want to use the analog one. Is there a way to extend the integrated GPU with more outputs? I.e. some kind of PCIe card which will provide another DisplayPort output for the Intel GPU? Both monitors have DisplayPort input, so that would be ideal. I'm not familiar with such extension cards, and while searching with generic search terms nothing comes up. Is it even possible and how are such cards called?
Last edited:
If you search for a 1440p IPS monitor on a budget get the Dell Ultrasharp U2515H. Loving mine!
Edit: Necro. Whups.
Edit: Necro. Whups.
Last edited:
No it's not.
But oh well, that's subjective. But personally since the monitor is roughly as tall as a 26" 16:9 monitor, it doesn't "feel" too big or uncomfortable to use. It's pretty much perfect imo.
Last edited:
And... I'm back. Having started this thread nearly two years ago.
I'm now looking for a 24", 16:9 IPS monitor to replace my secondary monitor. Won't be used much for gaming, so I'm more concerned about image quality than anything else.
Can anyone comment on this as a possibility?
ViewSonic VX2573 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/ViewSonic-VX2573-shw-SuperClear-Monitor-Flicker/dp/B016B53Q94
Or about Asus monitors generally? There seem to be a few of those that meet my specs.
I'm now looking for a 24", 16:9 IPS monitor to replace my secondary monitor. Won't be used much for gaming, so I'm more concerned about image quality than anything else.
Can anyone comment on this as a possibility?
ViewSonic VX2573 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/ViewSonic-VX2573-shw-SuperClear-Monitor-Flicker/dp/B016B53Q94
Or about Asus monitors generally? There seem to be a few of those that meet my specs.
Last edited:
ASUS monitors are in general very good. I've used one for a long time.
That ViewSonic is excellent. It has HDMI interfaces, not DVI, so if your cabling matches, fine. Like other IPS monitors, it has good off-angle viewing, but black may have light-bleed issues. Usual badly thought-out menu-based controls, but everybody else is just as bad.
That ViewSonic is excellent. It has HDMI interfaces, not DVI, so if your cabling matches, fine. Like other IPS monitors, it has good off-angle viewing, but black may have light-bleed issues. Usual badly thought-out menu-based controls, but everybody else is just as bad.
I'd prefer DVI (more precisely DVI-D) to HDMI if there is no other option (like DisplayPort which is the best one). I had really hard time with one 2K Dell monitor which didn't want to hold full resolution over HDMI (from low end Nvidia card with dual monitors setup) even though I used HDMI 2 cable, and all kind of possible tweaks with Xrandr. DVI-D connection on the other hand was working just fine. I wish they'd stop producing cards with HDMI altogether and just make all with DisplayPort. Plus it's always possible to convert from DP output to HDMI and DVI input, but there is no way to convert anything to DP input because of the very different nature of DP protocol.
Last edited:
I'd be running it from the integrated graphics, probably, which supports DVI-D and HDMI. I have a general preference for DVI-D, but don't really care that much, as this is only HD.
Question regarding HDMI 2.0 vs Didplayport 1.2
Will there be any difference in image quality (like color depth) between HDMI 2.0 and Displayport 1.2 at 3440x1440 @ 60hz [and my panel supports 10bit color]? HDMI just seems to be a lot more stable. With Displayport I get a momentary black screen from time to time and with my 980Ti I've noticed some flickering issues occasionally. With HDMI everything is just working as it should.
Kind of makes me wonder if I should stick to HDMI if it doesn't degrade image quality..
Will there be any difference in image quality (like color depth) between HDMI 2.0 and Displayport 1.2 at 3440x1440 @ 60hz [and my panel supports 10bit color]? HDMI just seems to be a lot more stable. With Displayport I get a momentary black screen from time to time and with my 980Ti I've noticed some flickering issues occasionally. With HDMI everything is just working as it should.
Kind of makes me wonder if I should stick to HDMI if it doesn't degrade image quality..