TR Forums

Since there is no system guide right now for a GPU and monitor pair, maybe you gerbils can come up with some good pairings for the modern world.
May I suggest starting with lower res and working up to the bleeding edge? (Yeah, I know its all about what you play,and at what res, etc - but don't let that slow you down)
I may want to spend some money soon. My 6700K and 970ti are OK for most uses, but what will blow my mind?
Thanks.

ordskiweicz wrote:

What will blow my mind?

Looking at current prices of RTX graphics cards and GSync monitors.

ordskiweicz wrote:

Since there is no system guide right now for a GPU and monitor pair, maybe you gerbils can come up with some good pairings for the modern world.
May I suggest starting with lower res and working up to the bleeding edge? (Yeah, I know its all about what you play,and at what res, etc - but don't let that slow you down)
I may want to spend some money soon. My 6700K and 970ti are OK for most uses, but what will blow my mind?
Thanks.

Opinions vary a lot, but I'd say that for very high quality you need the following:

1080p --> 1050, RX570, RX580, 1060
1440p60 --> Vega56, 1070
1440p144 --> Vega64, 1070Ti, 1080, 2070
4k --> 2070, 1080 Ti, 2080, 2080Ti

There is some flexibility in there. If am playing 1440 with an RX480 but I usually step down the setting a bit and aim for the FreeSync range (max 90Hz), not 120+. Similarly, 2070 can probably play 4k with some adjustments but not in every game.

In my opinion high refresh 4k is extremely expensive (ASUS PG27UQ 4k144Hz, HDR, G-sync is at $2000+) and you absolutely need a 2080Ti to drive it. Even then, true 4k (without DLSS magic) is not going to hit 120+ fps consistently without some image quality adjustements.

Most people are happy with 1440p144, which seems a logical sweet spot. A 1080 or 2070 can drive this very consistently to very high fps and is quite future proof. Given the option between 1440p144 and 4k60, I think most people are happier with the high refresh.

Personally, I'd get a 1080 on sale and a 1440p144 G-Sync but I can't afford to throw away my FreeSync monitor so I'm stuck with the red team for the moment.

ordskiweicz wrote:

My 6700K and 970ti are OK for most uses, but what will blow my mind?
Thanks.

Don't know about you, but a 970ti just blows my mind...

Recently bought a GTX 1080 and it blows me away. EVGA had one on sale yesterday for $399... And the RTX 2080ti blows me away... 20-30% increase for nearly double the cost. Yup, that blows me away...

Pville_Piper wrote:

Recently bought a GTX 1080 and it blows me away. EVGA had one on sale yesterday for $399... And the RTX 2080ti blows me away... 20-30% increase for nearly double the cost. Yup, that blows me away...

I assume you were talking RTX 2080. The Ti is about 100% performance increase for a 200% increase in price against that $400 1080.

So - its clear its easy to blow your minds.

That said, how about what monitor suggestions might you like with these GPUs? What pairs do you find terrific? Not only GPUs are my need.

ordskiweicz wrote:

So - its clear its easy to blow your minds.

That said, how about what monitor suggestions might you like with these GPUs? What pairs do you find terrific? Not only GPUs are my need.

I mean, how much exactly are you willing to spend?

ASUS PG27UQ + 2080 Ti gives you 144Hz, HDR 1000, GSync, 4k. Those two pieces of hardware also cost more than my entire Threadripper 1950x build.

1) There's no such thing as a GTX970Ti, but assuming you meant GTX970, your next upgrade is Vega64 or GTX1080/2070 level of performance (that's about 65% higher than your GTX970)
2)

ptsant wrote:

1080p --> 1050, RX570, RX580, 1060
1440p60 --> Vega56, 1070
1440p144 --> Vega64, 1070Ti, 1080, 2070
4k --> 2070, 1080 Ti, 2080, 2080Ti

I agree with this, but of course there's grey areas between the cutoffs depending on your preferred settings and games.

3) I decided that 32+" 16:9 is too large when sitting at a normal (roughly arms reach) distance.
4) For <24" 1080p is fine. For 25"-32" go for 1440p, for >34" you're getting into 4k territory. The idea is to stay above ~90ppi density. The catch is more pixels = more $$$ for GPU.
5) I have an RX480 driving a 27" Samsung CHG70 for $450. 1440p, 48-144Hz, 1ms GTG, 3000:1 contrast, FreeSync2, HDR600, etc etc. As far as I know, it still sits at the top of the FreeSync pile spec-wise, but there are now other manufacturers using the same Samsung panel (but without QLED) such as this Acer for $350. (basically any 144Hz curved FreeSync VA monitor is using the same Samsung panel) I think that's the sweet spot right now.
6) I don't follow GSync monitors because I'm opposed to it, but I'm sure others can give advice in this regard. However, I do know that when you start getting into 4k HDR GSync the price skyrockets because the GSync module alone inside the monitor costs somewhere around $500.

VR

Martin the Kiteboy wrote:

Pville_Piper wrote:

Recently bought a GTX 1080 and it blows me away. EVGA had one on sale yesterday for $399... And the RTX 2080ti blows me away... 20-30% increase for nearly double the cost. Yup, that blows me away...

I assume you were talking RTX 2080. The Ti is about 100% performance increase for a 200% increase in price against that $400 1080.

I'm talking about a GTX 1080ti, not a plain Jane 1080. At $1200 it's nearly 279% percent higher price for roughly 173% gain over the 1080 so I guess I'll just snap one up when it gets below $750... Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.

End User wrote:

VR

This...

End User wrote:

VR

But, is it worth it? How many games do support VR, not as a gimmick but really well?

A couple of years ago I decided that I did not want to be a paying beta tester for VR but maybe things have changed since then.

The best way to blow your mind would be strobing a first person shooter at 1440P.

I would personally recommend:
144+Hz 1440P IPS (not MVA) with ULMB
1080 or 1080Ti
Doom 2016

Turn on ULMB@120hz, enter the Foundry level, and BLOW YOUR MIND.

Some people will tell you that 4K is king, but those people have apparently never experienced the joy of 100+Hz strobing. They are mad and deserve pity.

That said, I would NOT buy a monitor right now as there are much better displays coming (e.g. the PG35VQ if AUO fixes the VA slow response times).

I'm using a 34" 21:9 3440x1440 120 Hz IPS Alienware AW3418DW with G-Sync with a 1080Ti, and love it for gaming, media consumption and productivity. Only downside is it doesn't have strobing.

They can often be found in the ~$850-950 range during sales and promotions. Acer and ASUS make similar products.

Game support can still be a bit iffy for ultrawide, but when it works, looks amazing. Witcher 3 and Nier:Automata look absolutely stunning at 21:9. You may have to visit http://www.wsgf.org/ to look for patches and .ini file hacks for games that don't support it natively, but there are no guarantees.

Movies look amazing, and more TV shows are being made wider than 16:9 - Star Trek: Discovery is made in 18:9, for instance.

ptsant wrote:

End User wrote:

VR

But, is it worth it? How many games do support VR, not as a gimmick but really well?

A couple of years ago I decided that I did not want to be a paying beta tester for VR but maybe things have changed since then.

The difference is night and day... It's like watching a movie in and Imax theater with the best surround sound and then watching it on your phone... Can you see the difference?

Yes... Now Hook up a HOTAS, rudder pedals and log into Elite Dangerous. You're WOW'ed just sitting in the station. You undock and you're flying a spacecraft not just playing a game. So you head over to a nearby Res zone in a planetary ring and you look below see weapons firing... You roll inverted and head into the fight... You're hooked.

Once you do that, you never want to play it any other way. And before anyone says anything about head/eye tracking... I've done both and they're both great and really add to your immersion. But there not even close.

The again YMMV...

Thanks - the pairing of monitor and GPU is very helpful. I am unsure what I will spend, but want a few years worth of return on investment.

No VR as yet for me. Other GPU and specific monitor pairing would be useful!

ptsant wrote:

End User wrote:

VR

But, is it worth it? How many games do support VR, not as a gimmick but really well?

I play but one VR game. iRacing. It is absolutely outstanding in VR.

Unfortunately iRacing sucks the life out of my Vega 64. I have to scale back the details on many tracks (trees/buildings). I need a RTX 2080 Ti to maintain 90 fps.

ordskiweicz wrote:

Thanks - the pairing of monitor and GPU is very helpful. I am unsure what I will spend, but want a few years worth of return on investment.

No VR as yet for me. Other GPU and specific monitor pairing would be useful!

I may be wrong but I think the sweet spot right now is 2560x1440 @ 144Hz IPS.

FreeSync vs G-SYNC? I own both solutions. Both are good. FreeSync is, generally, cheaper. I prefer Nvidia as they have beefier GPU offerings.

End User wrote:

ptsant wrote:

End User wrote:

VR

But, is it worth it? How many games do support VR, not as a gimmick but really well?

I play but one VR game. iRacing. It is absolutely outstanding in VR.

Unfortunately iRacing sucks the life out of my Vega 64. I have to scale back the details on many tracks (trees/buildings). I need a RTX 2080 Ti to maintain 90 fps.

The same with Elite Dangerous, I run mostly high. Samsung has just announced an update to their Odyssey headset, the Odyssey Plus, this looks intriguing as the WMR are easier on the system the Rift or Vive.
https://www.samsung.com/hk_en/hmd/hmd-plus-xe800zba-hc1/