TR Forums

Would it be feasible to run games like Titanfall, Warframe, maybe BF4 and quite possibly ESO on a 270 oc'd to 1050/1500 at 2560x1440?

I know it's a rather specific question, but hopefully someone can give me some sort of assurance or discouragement. A 270X seems to handle it pretty well. I'm hoping the higher clocks will push my 270 it into 1440 territory but I'm justifiably hesitant about dropping $300+ on a monitor that I might not be able to utilize properly. If I have to turn off some nominal settings to get playable frame rates I'm okay with that.

You're not going to get perfectly-fluid performance at maximum detail, but you may be able to get by.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2014 ... 6799%5D=on
Your card stomps on the 17% cheaper GeForce GTX750Ti and is within 10% of the performance of the GeForce GTX760 that costs 42% more.

It depends on your definition of "fluid framerates" and "turning down some details"

Resulution is one of the biggest performance killers. I found the 7850 (basically an R9 265) to be too much of a compromise at 1440p, likewise the 650Ti didn't do a great job either. My definition of "a good job" is a minimum of about 45fps at medium settings or better.

The 7970/280X manages pretty well (closer to 60fps) on a mix of medium/high in those games but we're talking about a card with basically double the throughput now.

So then would it be in my best interests to just get a nice 27" 1080p display? I'm definitely set on that size as my friend has one (1080 run from a 760) that I like playing on more than my 22 incher.

If you can compromise some detail at that high resolution than you should go for it. But BF4 is quite punishing, I'm able to max it out at 1080p with a 280X but at 1440p it's not possible. So your 270 will be short for that resolution in demanding games.

For me as I play online a 60+ fps is a must, below that is not a good experience.

I recently recommended a friend get a Philips 27" 1080p (IPS) because he saw my Korean 1440p screens but he only has an R9 270 (vanilla, not 270X).

He's happy with it because 1080p with AA enabled is okay on his card, and he'd have to disable AA to get 1440p working smoothly. I think I'd prefer 1080p with AA over 1440p without AA anyway.

For what it's worth as a recommendation, it's a cheap model without a fancy stand but I picked it for him on the basis of a great AH-IPS panel from LG and very low input lag as tested by prad.de
Philips 274E5QHAB

For me the higher resolution (and working space) of a 1440p monitor is more important than getting better framerates on my GTX 760, but then I only spend maybe 10-15% of my PC time gaming (your priorities might differ). For the odd game that my GPU isn't man enough to play at 1440p, I'm not too fussed with playing at a non-native res and getting some scaling artefacts. But it depends on your priorities.

A 270X (or 270 at 270X clockspeeds) should be able to play most mainstream games at 1440p with detail levels turned down to High, turning off AA, and/or disabling some special effects.

A decent monitor will last you through several GPU upgrades, so I'd rather get the 1440p monitor now than a 1080p one and regret it later when you upgrade to a more powerful GPU in the future.

Voldenuit wrote:

For me the higher resolution (and working space) of a 1440p monitor is more important than getting better framerates on my GTX 760, but then I only spend maybe 10-15% of my PC time gaming (your priorities might differ). For the odd game that my GPU isn't man enough to play at 1440p, I'm not too fussed with playing at a non-native res and getting some scaling artefacts. But it depends on your priorities.

A 270X (or 270 at 270X clockspeeds) should be able to play most mainstream games at 1440p with detail levels turned down to High, turning off AA, and/or disabling some special effects.

A decent monitor will last you through several GPU upgrades, so I'd rather get the 1440p monitor now than a 1080p one and regret it later when you upgrade to a more powerful GPU in the future.

That's a good point. I didn't really plan on upgrading for two years or so, but that resolution is so tantalizing to me. If I end up not happy with the performance, I can always sell my 270 and replace it with something faster. I got it for relatively cheap anyway.

ALiLPinkMonster wrote:

That's a good point. I didn't really plan on upgrading for two years or so, but that resolution is so tantalizing to me. If I end up not happy with the performance, I can always sell my 270 and replace it with something faster. I got it for relatively cheap anyway.

Yeah, it's a sweet resolution. My current setup is a 27" 2560x1440 Acer K272HULbmiidp (AHVA) and a 22" 1920x1080 AOC (TN) on my main rig. The wife's rig has a 24" 1920x1200 hp Zr2470w (e-IPS) with a 22" 1680x1050 Samsung (TN). So each rig has the same aspect ratio (16:9 on mine and 16:10 on the wife's) and similar dot pitch (~100-108 dpi on mine and 90-94 dpi on the wife's rig).

The two 22" monitors were both dumpster finds, so we were like, "free monitor!". Not great monitors, but can't complain about free.

I'm sort of the opposite. Higher resolutions are nice, but while the game isn't running fluidly it just sort of adds this malaise to everything. It does so in a subtle, insidious kind of way. You can play with a rough framerate, especially if you are used to doing so, but it just constantly detracts from the game and it can also screw you up in the game only leading to even more frustration. Would you read a book without glasses? Listen to music with a jackhammer going outside? I myself have run things higher in the past and taken a framerate hit, but it just ruins everything. You'd have more fun playing at a lower resolution with a solid framerate, but then you do have that lack of a higher res gnawing at you in the back of your mind.

I think in the battle between detail and framerate, you should always pick framerate. And this will force developers to adhere to keep optimization of things, not just the engines, in their mind if they also want to present high detail, less they get slammed on the performance of their game.

I've long felt that the PC needs to gets its stuff together in terms of controlling variance and setting standards or guidelines. Choice is fine but there's good choice and hard choice, and too much of the latter isn't all that fun. I'm actually kind of hopeful for VR. That will probably immediately become the high end and hopefully alleviate some high end pressure on contemporary display gaming, and then hopefully you won't have to pick between res or framerate like you do now sometimes.

I was thinking about 1440p recently. But I don't think I'll bother. I'll probably look at 4K after it's had time to even out a bit.