Building a gaming PC

[EngryEngineer]

5ms has become pretty average. 1 ms, 144 Hz, G-Sync, >32" would be more competitive. In general, I always find it better to shop based upon what results I want, then balance the specs for that. For me, I primarily do SP games, so 60 Hz with deep, rich color temps is far more appealing than blazing FPS with instant response times.

For latency (5ms, 3ms, etc.) you'll be unlikely to notice any difference unless you're playing at 100+ FPS. So, someone really into Counterstrike or CoD might get some ghosting running at 1080p, on a big, G-Sync screen. You won't see any ghosting at 60-80 FPS, even with 10ms.

So what's your preference? Crisp image and blazing FPS? Or moderate FPS with higher detail, color range...maybe even 4K? No reason to invest in a 144 Hz G-Sync if you're unlikely to use it. No reason to purchase a 4K monitor if you're happy with a smaller screen. A 1080 ti would be a much more balanced purchase than a 2080 ti unless I intend to go for top-of-the-line everything.

Regardless, I can't recommend enough the importance of buying the best of the prior generation of hardware if you're looking for ease of use. (I'm still using a 980 ti, and I've yet to see a game it can't handle. A 1080 ti would be an optimal buy for a GPU right now.)

Yeah that color vs display rate is a tough decision. I decided to go 4k because I couldn't find a 1440p monitor with 10 bit color depth in my price range, but oddly enough I found a 4k with it. Most of the games I play are single player, slower paced, more environmental, more strategy type things so higher than 60 fps isn't as important to me as better color & contrast, which also benefits my work.

 

[SigilFey]

Yeah that color vs display rate is a tough decision. I decided to go 4k because I couldn't find a 1440p monitor with 10 bit color depth in my price range, but oddly enough I found a 4k with it. Most of the games I play are single player, slower paced, more environmental, more strategy type things so higher than 60 fps isn't as important to me as better color & contrast, which also benefits my work.

Definitely sounds like you'll be happier with color depth over performance. I prefer to stick at 60 FPS and keep my hardware alive and healthy for longer. There should be no issue getting a 4K monitor to have it. Some games will work. Movies will work. And you can always scale a game's drawspace, or resize the resolution in worst-case scenarios.

144 Hz with 4K would require a real beast of a GPU, or more like several at once. Given that practically no games use multi-GPU today, it would be quite wasteful probably. So today it's either very high resolution or very high refresh rate, not both yet.

Also, this was mentioned above - better avoid GSync. It's not future proof. Standard Adaptive Sync supported by AMD (and upcoming Intel) is a better option. Nvidia will have no choice but to support it eventually.

Post automatically merged: Nov 1, 2018

https://community.amd.com/thread/231913

I wouldn't say that G-Sync is a bad option, but I wouldn't say it's a must-have. Not sure about the future-proofing. It could go either way, and Nvidia is highly unlikely to ditch it. Since it's a separate processor, I'd put money on it becoming more universal than less. How useful or impactful it'll be in 3 or 4 years...that's a question.

Someday, probably soon, 4K, 144 Hz, at well over 144 FPS is likely to become a reality. 4K will basically mean raw teraflops for a final image. That should let geometry get significantly more complex with far less performance impact. No need for expensive AA or post-processing to get a sharp, final frame. I think we get the best of both worlds, this time.

 

[M4xw0lf]

OK I think I will postpone getting a new GPU for now and instead get a new monitor... and then a GPU. I want to get a larger screen with a higher resolution but I'm not sure what to choose. I'd like at least a 32" screen, possibly bigger (seems good for work and games) and was thinking 2560x1440 but at that size I think the pixel density would be too low, so maybe 4K is better. But then a new, much stronger GPU would probably be necessary.

So... suggestions? I'm willing to spend a few hundred on a decent, large IPS. I don't play competitively so 60 Hz and 5 ms. is probably OK.

BTW I'm still tempted to get one of those 43" 4K screens, they're just so ridiculous I have to have one.

I'm on 4k @27", and I wouldn't want less pixel density than that anymore. Absolutely stay clear of 1440p @32". Even with my humble R9 Nano I can play stuff like The Witcher 3 with ~40 FPS, which is very acceptable with Freesync. Of course, G-Sync is a lot more expensive on comparable monitor models, but a GeForce (which does not support Freesync due to Nvidia's fondness of their proprietary $$$ stuff) is simply the rational choice of gaming GPU at this point.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I wouldn't say that G-Sync is a bad option, but I wouldn't say it's a must-have. Not sure about the future-proofing. It could go either way, and Nvidia is highly unlikely to ditch it.

It could go either way if Nvidia were to open it up to propose it as a common standard. Knowing Nvidia it's unlikely to happen, so there is no chance anyone else will adopt it. And given that Vesa Adaptive Sync (based on FreeSync) is already an open standard and part of DisplayPort 1.2a specification which Intel already plan to support, it's quite clear where the industry is heading.

So if some monitor supports both, good. But I'd avoid Gsync only ones, especially for such prices.

 

[EngryEngineer]

Honestly, future-proofing is a bit of a fool's errand, and display wise we are really just starting a few display transitions (4K, HDR, VR, AR, etc) so if you are buying a monitor and/or GPU within at least the next year (maybe two), it is doubly going to fall short of even normal future proofing expectations. With various display technologies being so immature and just now starting to come together it is like the first wave of HD monitors, a 1080i plasma from 2010 is an entirely different experience than a 1080p quantum dot HDR LED despite being similar resolutions, right now we are buying the 4k version of a plasma.

I'm fine with that, but I know darn well that once the kinks get worked out, prices come down a bit, and hardware can support these features together that I will absolutely want a new monitor, and it is pretty human to want the best/most-featured option. I probably won't upgrade for at least 5 years because I'm stingy, but no matter what I buy now it won't feel future-proofed within a year or two, but if we throw that idea in the trash where it belongs it is easier to be satisfied with not having something that will be great forever.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

You can never make it fully future proof of course. But I was talking about adaptive sync specifically and the fact that getting Gsync one will limit GPU choice not just now but in any foreseeable future, since there is no chance it will be adopted as a common standard.

 

[EngryEngineer]

You can never make it fully future proof of course. But I was talking about adaptive sync specifically and the fact that getting Gsync one will limit GPU choice not just now but in any foreseeable future, since there is no chance it will be adopted as a common standard.

Thanks for clarifying, with there really just being two games in town I really doubt either will become a true standard. As far as Intel goes, I'll wait to see what shakes out in the end, but this isn't the first time they've talked about getting into GPU's. They love talking about what crazy thing they will do tomorrow, but few of them get past showing a prototype at a tech show. I'm all for it if they do, more competition will only improve things for us consumers, I'm just going to ignore anything that isn't an official product release.

 

[volsung]

Hi guys, thanks. Given that I play single player games and primarily RPG, strategy, indies, etc. and only occasionally "fast paced" games (Witcher 3, Shadow Warrior or Doom for instance) I have very little use for "gaming" monitors. I do like the colors on my Dell IPS and would like to maintain that, just get a bigger panel. I am also interested in a FreeSync monitor (like Gilrond said it's gotta be adopted by everyone sooner or later), even if I end up getting another Nvidia card.

So let's say I go with a 4K monitor... what kind of GPU should I pair it with to be able to play comfortably? GTX 1080 and up?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Personally, I'd wait with 4K until next or even one after the next GPU generation for AMD. But I'm curious what experience others have on Linux with it.

 

[M4xw0lf]

I am also interested in a FreeSync monitor (like Gilrond said it's gotta be adopted by everyone sooner or later), even if I end up getting another Nvidia card.

I wouldn't hold my breath, Nvidia is all powerful in the market right now, and even more stubborn.

There is one loophole that allows FreeSync with Geforces right now. However, it requires the use of an AMD APU as processor, and is therefore not applicable for high end gaming, as the Raven Ridge parts (4 cores+SMT and integrated GPU) are notably slower than Summit Ridge and Pinnacle Ridge processors at gaming, let alone Intel's CPUs.
The trick is connecting the integrated GPU to the monitor, but using the Geforce to run the games. This gives you the frame rate of the Geforce and the variable refresh capability of the integrated Radeon. Several gaming hardware sites have tested this and found only minimal increase in input lack and basically no performance penalty at all. It would be a great solution, if those AMD APUs had more powerful CPU parts.

So let's say I go with a 4K monitor... what kind of GPU should I pair it with to be able to play comfortably? GTX 1080 and up?

If you're not averse to some manual fiddling with quality settings (i.e., not setting every last option to maximum), 1080 and up will give you well playable frame rates for nearly every game out there.

 

[volsung]

OK so this is what I found: basically I can get a very nice 32" 4K IPS for around 780 €. Something like a Benq PD3200U. That particular model looks great but is honestly a little expensive. I suppose it is much higher quality than the 43" IPS panels by Acer and LG, that are both below 600 €. I still haven't discarded getting a 43" monitor but I'm thinking the pixel density won't be too good compared to a smaller screen size.

I looked at some 32" 4K VA monitors and found some promising results, like a Samsung and an LG that have nice, ergonomic mounts and even Freesync, for less than 500 €.

I'd rather get another IPS but for some reason all or most 32" 4K IPS monitors are quite expensive (and aimed at graphic designer). Is the difference between a decent IPS and a VA that noticeable?

4K IPS monitors in both 27" and 43" are very reasonably priced, with VA's filling the 32" gap. Maybe I can wait and see if anyone has special deals for Black Friday.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I checked a bunch of reasonably priced Dell monitors with IPS panels with higher resolutions than 1920x1200. They all share response time 8ms (5ms in fast mode). Which is not very promising. I was waiting for technology to improve and drive response time lower. It looks like for IPS it's stuck or Dell just don't push it further.

We need something like OLED or the like to make a difference.

 

[volsung]

Most of the higher-end 4K IPS monitors I've found recently claim a 4 ms. response time (minimum probably), which I think is already quite good. That's what you can find in "gaming" monitors as expensive as the Asus PG27UQ ($2500+).

I recently read this article where they actually tested a series of monitors, gaming and non-gaming, and the results were very interesting. Some of the "gaming" monitors that claimed 1 ms. response times actually had average response times similar to a high quality Dell monitor (with 8 ms / 6 ms. fast mode). Wait... did you guys link it here? I don't remember. Anyway, the point is that companies usually report the lowest, and not the average response times, so in reality many "business" monitors are perfectly good for gaming.

 

[SigilFey]

Anyway, the point is that companies usually report the lowest, and not the average response times, so in reality many "business" monitors are perfectly good for gaming.

Very true for the most part. Advertising is always going to be aggressive. That's why I always suggest people pick a monitor based on seeing it run. My ASUS monitor is not a gaming monitor -- I picked it because of its color range. I get brilliant performance and image quality in games.

Any final results are always going to be a result of hardware plus configuration. High-end hardware is kind of like high-end violins. Anyone can appreciate them, but only very involved players can really take advantage of them. The average player will probably notice that it's a bit smoother, but it won't have any disernable impact on the experience.

 

[M4xw0lf]

OK so this is what I found: basically I can get a very nice 32" 4K IPS for around 780 €. Something like a Benq PD3200U. That particular model looks great but is honestly a little expensive. I suppose it is much higher quality than the 43" IPS panels by Acer and LG, that are both below 600 €. I still haven't discarded getting a 43" monitor but I'm thinking the pixel density won't be too good compared to a smaller screen size.

I looked at some 32" 4K VA monitors and found some promising results, like a Samsung and an LG that have nice, ergonomic mounts and even Freesync, for less than 500 €.

I'd rather get another IPS but for some reason all or most 32" 4K IPS monitors are quite expensive (and aimed at graphic designer). Is the difference between a decent IPS and a VA that noticeable?

4K IPS monitors in both 27" and 43" are very reasonably priced, with VA's filling the 32" gap. Maybe I can wait and see if anyone has special deals for Black Friday.

I can't speak for VA monitors, but my 27" IPS monitor does have 'IPS glow' - backlight diffusely shining through black screen areas - very noticeable at low ambient light. It's way better than with my old TN monitor, but not objectively good. This gets typically worse with viewing angle, i.e., you can expect it to be worse on a larger screen. VA panels are said to give better black levels, but again, I cannot speak about this from personal experience.

 

[volsung]

I can't speak for VA monitors, but my 27" IPS monitor does have 'IPS glow' - backlight diffusely shining through black screen areas - very noticeable at low ambient light. It's way better than with my old TN monitor, but not objectively good. This gets typically worse with viewing angle, i.e., you can expect it to be worse on a larger screen. VA panels are said to give better black levels, but again, I cannot speak about this from personal experience.

Well I like Gilrond really like my Dell IPS and simply want a larger monitor with a higher resolution. I realize now that it won't come cheap. The closest thing is that BenQ, a 32" "professional" 4K IPS with a bunch of other features (no FreeSync though). The only way to go below 700 Euros is to get a VA panel.

I personally don't notice any glow from my IPS, but I agree a black screen is more like a very dark gray. The colors however are amazing, and this matters more for the type of games I like. Movies also look great, as long as they're not very dark. I just want a larger version of this for games and TV.

 

[M4xw0lf]

AMD previewed its 7nm Zen2 processor generation today, with the highlight of a 64 core, 128 thread single socket Rome CPU beating Intel's top dog dual socket server system. They also unveiled their 7nm Vega GPU - only for professional use at first though.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Zen 2 looks promising. Lower power consumption, higher performance and etc. As for GPUs, they'll probably skip 7nm Vega for gaming. We'll have to wait until Navi.

 

[M4xw0lf]

AMD is actually going for a chiplet design with mixed manufacturing for Zen2 - up to 8 8-core clusters in 7nm are coupled with a 14nm IO-Chiplet. Cutting edge stuff, which will have to be adopted by basically everyone to make 7nm and beyond profitable (Intel has announced plans for this approach some time ago already).

 

[volsung]

I am considering the BenQ more seriously even if it is around 700+ € which is a bit more than I wanted to pay originally. It has (almost) everything I wanted: 4K, high quality calibrated IPS panel, good ergonomic stand, good contrast and good features (flicker free, low blue light, HDCP, etc.). It does not have Freesync sadly, but either way most similar monitors seem to have a lame 40-60 Hz range. It does have 4 ms. response time and very low input lag (< 8 ms). It probably is still not good enough for competitive twitch FPS purists, but I think it's perfectly good for non competitive gaming.

Now at that price I could get a 2K 144Hz VA panel, the stuff "gamers" rave about. Now I am used to 60 Hz but way back when I had a CRT and then a VGA LCD I used to play at 75 Hz and when I switched to a bigger 60 Hz monitor I could swear I noticed some jitter and flicker. Is that just the light flicker from that generation of panels? Or does a higher refresh rate + framerate truly make a difference in fluidity? You guys know what kind of games I play. Is 144Hz only relevant for tournament level FPS?