1080 Ti Build - future capabilities vs current performance

[Zera 2.0]

LTT Forums,

 

Hey guys, Zera here. I'm a big time fan and long time lurker, first time poster. First, a little about me (FYI, if you are just interested in answering the question, skip to the second paragraph), I'm an ex-military member in the United States and currently attending the University of Arkansas for a Bachelor's in IT-Networking. I'm a part time content creator, youtuber, streamer and big time gamer. My current set up is a single 980 Ti, a 4790k air cooled with an aftermarket heat sink from Noctua, all Razer peripherals, Klipsch 2.1 speakers and lastly I run 3 ASUS 1080p monitors. This setup has done me wonders over the past few years, but I'm looking to up the ante when the 1080 Ti comes out and I was hoping to bounce some ideas off you guys. So, without further adieu, let's get right to it!

 

So my next build I'm already starting to piece together. As for the processor, I am waiting to see how Ryzen does; however, I will be honest, I don't expect it to out do Intel. I hope it does, but the techie in me is pretty much convinced Intel's got something up it's sleeve specifically for Ryzen and once AMD releases their new "flagship processor," Intel's going to drop something that'll essentially negate AMD's meager attempt at crawling out of it's 20% hole in market shares. That being said, I'm leaning more towards something similar to the 7700k with fewer cores but with better single core performance than that of it's Broadwell-E cousins.

 

As for the Graphics, you can already guess where I'm leaning. I most likely won't pick up the 1080 Ti when it initially comes out, I'll most likely wait a month or two so other manufacturers can get their hands on these cards and add their own custom heat sinks or OC them to higher base clock speeds. That being said, what I'm looking to get out of it would be 8k Display for viewing video and web browsing, while maintaining 4k resolutions for gaming at roughly 60-70 fps. The monitor I will be utilizing for this build will be none other than that Philips 43" 4k UHD IPS Panel Monitor. All the reviews on this thing say it's glorious and with only a 5 ms response time, it brings everything I need to the table. It doesn't support either G-Sync or Free Sync; however, with the fact that I will only be running a single card at this particular juncture, I don't think I'll be able to get more than 60-70 fps out of 4k gaming experience to begin with (to be honest, at ultra settings on everything I only expect a realistic 35-55 fps at any one point).

 

So, here's my issue, with HDMI 2.1 being confirmed to handle speeds and connections of up to 8k at 60 hertz and the original 1080 being able to handle a maximum resolution of up to 8k (yes I know most games don't support it, but I wouldn't game at 8k anyway due to the sheer loss in frames). Do I simply invest in the 1080 Ti, HDMI 2.1 cables across the board and the Philips 43" UHD monitor and simply wait on an 8k display? Because to be honest, 8k doesn't exist right now for monitors in the commercial market. And I'm not sacrifices tens of thousands of dollars on a TV that's 8k due to the inherit input lag issues from a Television as compared to a dedicated Computer Monitor. Your thoughts gentlemen?

[OddsCrazyStuff]

I would rethink your monitor choice, as you get much more out of a G-Sync monitor. If you dont have the power to force a constant 60fps, so does you benefit from G-Sync. It makes it almost hard to notice that the fps changes as you play.

[cj09beira]

24 minutes ago, Zera 2.0 said:

LTT Forums,

 

Hey guys, Zera here. I'm a big time fan and long time lurker, first time poster. First, a little about me (FYI, if you are just interested in answering the question, skip to the second paragraph), I'm an ex-military member in the United States and currently attending the University of Arkansas for a Bachelor's in IT-Networking. I'm a part time content creator, youtuber, streamer and big time gamer. My current set up is a single 980 Ti, a 4790k air cooled with an aftermarket heat sink from Noctua, all Razer peripherals, Klipsch 2.1 speakers and lastly I run 3 ASUS 1080p monitors. This setup has done me wonders over the past few years, but I'm looking to up the ante when the 1080 Ti comes out and I was hoping to bounce some ideas off you guys. So, without further adieu, let's get right to it!

 

So my next build I'm already starting to piece together. As for the processor, I am waiting to see how Ryzen does; however, I will be honest, I don't expect it to out do Intel. I hope it does, but the techie in me is pretty much convinced Intel's got something up it's sleeve specifically for Ryzen and once AMD releases their new "flagship processor," Intel's going to drop something that'll essentially negate AMD's meager attempt at crawling out of it's 20% hole in market shares. That being said, I'm leaning more towards something similar to the 7700k with fewer cores but with better single core performance than that of it's Broadwell-E cousins.

 

As for the Graphics, you can already guess where I'm leaning. I most likely won't pick up the 1080 Ti when it initially comes out, I'll most likely wait a month or two so other manufacturers can get their hands on these cards and add their own custom heat sinks or OC them to higher base clock speeds. That being said, what I'm looking to get out of it would be 8k Display for viewing video and web browsing, while maintaining 4k resolutions for gaming at roughly 60-70 fps. The monitor I will be utilizing for this build will be none other than that Philips 43" 4k UHD IPS Panel Monitor. All the reviews on this thing say it's glorious and with only a 5 ms response time, it brings everything I need to the table. It doesn't support either G-Sync or Free Sync; however, with the fact that I will only be running a single card at this particular juncture, I don't think I'll be able to get more than 60-70 fps out of 4k gaming experience to begin with (to be honest, at ultra settings on everything I only expect a realistic 35-55 fps at any one point).

 

So, here's my issue, with HDMI 2.1 being confirmed to handle speeds and connections of up to 8k at 60 hertz and the original 1080 being able to handle a maximum resolution of up to 8k (yes I know most games don't support it, but I wouldn't game at 8k anyway due to the sheer loss in frames). Do I simply invest in the 1080 Ti, HDMI 2.1 cables across the board and the Philips 43" UHD monitor and simply wait on an 8k display? Because to be honest, 8k doesn't exist right now for monitors in the commercial market. And I'm not sacrifices tens of thousands of dollars on a TV that's 8k due to the inherit input lag issues from a Television as compared to a dedicated Computer Monitor. Your thoughts gentlemen?

how long do you want to keep the pc, because if its a long time i would advise you to go for more than 4 cores (ryzen / broadwell). why ?- because the next game releases will become more and more threaded and more cores will help to prolong the lifespan of the pc, i see you run 3 1080p monitors witch increases the probability that you multi-task, if you do then more cores help alot, because even if the game only uses say 4 cores you still have 4 (real ones) more to handle your multitasking needs.

probably when going for an 8 core we loose some frequency witch means in very high frame rates we might loose some fps, but unless you are running 1080p or maybe 1440p you wont loose much

[Zera 2.0]

Yes, I see your put about the future of games utilizing more cores. However, I won't be running multiple monitors in this new build. I will only run the single 43" 4K display. However, with windows 10 ability to split screens more easier, that will actually give me more real estate anyway than my current setup. Thanks for the input. But in that case I'm better off waiting for the new Cannon Lake to come in, since it'll be overtaking the Broadwell-E series anyway. Wouldn't you think?

[Zera 2.0]

20 minutes ago, OddsCrazyStuff said:

I would rethink your monitor choice, as you get much more out of a G-Sync monitor. If you dont have the power to force a constant 60fps, so does you benefit from G-Sync. It makes it almost hard to notice that the fps changes as you play.

yea, but the issue here is that G-Sync only is accessible on monitors from roughly low 20's to the mid 30's inches in size. Whereas, just my opinion, I feel having a 4k display with less than 40" is kind of a waste. But I do see your point, but seeing as how monitors are so incredibly expensive with G Sync, in order to make up for the lake of real estate on screen, I'd have to utilize three 4K displays with only one that uses G-Sync for my main display. Not a huge fan of that idea. I just hate the idea of still running multiple monitor setups anymore. With 4K and the future of 8k, it just doesn't seem necessary; however, G-Sync monitors, which I have never owned one, but know they are awesome, those monitors just aren't the size I'd like at this current juncture. Any thoughts on what I might do? I value your thoughts, thanks a million for responding.

[OddsCrazyStuff]

53 minutes ago, Zera 2.0 said:

yea, but the issue here is that G-Sync only is accessible on monitors from roughly low 20's to the mid 30's inches in size. Whereas, just my opinion, I feel having a 4k display with less than 40" is kind of a waste. But I do see your point, but seeing as how monitors are so incredibly expensive with G Sync, in order to make up for the lake of real estate on screen, I'd have to utilize three 4K displays with only one that uses G-Sync for my main display. Not a huge fan of that idea. I just hate the idea of still running multiple monitor setups anymore. With 4K and the future of 8k, it just doesn't seem necessary; however, G-Sync monitors, which I have never owned one, but know they are awesome, those monitors just aren't the size I'd like at this current juncture. Any thoughts on what I might do? I value your thoughts, thanks a million for responding.

The biggest atm G-Sync monitor is 34" 3440x1440 and I'm not sure they will get much bigger, as people are running out of desk space at that point.

But I agree that 4K needs 40" or so do be good, as text is to small otherwise (not everything can be scaled).

So its kind of a hard choice, but I would stick to 1440p atm, as we are just starting to see 4K 144Hz and the tech needs a few years before the monitors are top notch.

 

Or if money is not an issue:

 

[Zera 2.0]

2 hours ago, OddsCrazyStuff said:

The biggest atm G-Sync monitor is 34" 3440x1440 and I'm not sure they will get much bigger, as people are running out of desk space at that point.

But I agree that 4K needs 40" or so do be good, as text is to small otherwise (not everything can be scaled).

So its kind of a hard choice, but I would stick to 1440p atm, as we are just starting to see 4K 144Hz and the tech needs a few years before the monitors are top notch.

 

Or if money is not an issue:

 

Oh I know, believe me I've seen all of Linus' videos lol. This one made me chuckle LOL. Money is an issue, but that's why I'm debating all these things ahead of time. I'm looking to spend about 1,200 on a custom water loop and then maybe another 2k on the setup itself; however, it was just the issue of monitor with 4k capability that was in question. I have never owned a g-sync monitor or even free sync and have zero issues with running at ultra high settings and had no issues with tearing or anything like that. Maybe I'm just not aware of it. Was just curious what ya'lls opinions were on different takes. which, again, I appreciate very much! You guys have some nice takes on what I ought to do!

[OddsCrazyStuff]

1 hour ago, Zera 2.0 said:

Oh I know, believe me I've seen all of Linus' videos lol. This one made me chuckle LOL. Money is an issue, but that's why I'm debating all these things ahead of time. I'm looking to spend about 1,200 on a custom water loop and then maybe another 2k on the setup itself; however, it was just the issue of monitor with 4k capability that was in question. I have never owned a g-sync monitor or even free sync and have zero issues with running at ultra high settings and had no issues with tearing or anything like that. Maybe I'm just not aware of it. Was just curious what ya'lls opinions were on different takes. which, again, I appreciate very much! You guys have some nice takes on what I ought to do!

I would get a 3440x1440 34" G-Sync monitor at this point, as its very close to 4K in resolution, while being bigger then most other G-Sync monitors.

Its the best you can get.

 

As for none Sync monitors, so would I look into TVs instead:

 

[Guest]

i dont thinks u need that much of firepower just get some thing like this:

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/rkPZr7 (~4000)

[Hugh_Mungus]

Hate to Burst your Bubble But Intel is running on empty. There R&D budget is non-exsistant ATM. Intel won't really be able to counter AMD untill 2019 because they are having issues going to 10 nm

 

[Hugh_Mungus]

They have internal sources at Intel and the climate there is currently awful apparently, employees are very discouraged and some feel like "they have nothing left to lose". They are making big profits now by totally screwing up the future. According to the magazine, Intel is "probably in the most delicate situation it has had to face to this day". The CEO is reducing cost so much that he's managing engineers like "supermarket cashiers", he doesn't care about taking the time to train them.
Krzanich is very impatient and eager and keeps changing his mind about projects. If a new architecture isn't created in like a couple weeks, he gives up and cancels the project... he keeps sending contradictory instructions to the teams.
"Fab Hell": Intel is likely going to have a 6 month delay on 10nm. Worse, even Cannon Lake is not expected to feature any significant architectural improvement. Basically Intel was just hoping AMD would keep not competing with them.
Krzanich is apparently a disaster, and he won't be able to stay CEO for long. Apparently some people have heard him yelling from the next building when he was angry. But he seems unaware of him being perceived so negatively. Employees at Intel hope Murthy Renduchintala will replace him ASAP, and he seems much more capable and is slowly refocusing Intel in the right path, but basically R&D is fucked atm and there will be a huge empty space until about 2019. Apparently, Krzanich completely underestimated the possibility of an AMD comeback.
(I didn't really understand that point I'm not expert enough) but apparently x86 is going to disappear sooner than expected, it'll be replaced by ARM and Intel is panicking about that.
Intel is currently working on a "multichip package" (MCM) integrating an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU. So this is confirmed guys.
In the picture before the last picture I posted, it is said that Kaby Lake has exactly the same IPC as Skylake. No improvement as to perf/watt but there seems to be more room for overclocking.