The journey to 1440p: advices

[laminutederire]

Hi there! 

I'm currently looking to invest summer job money ~1100€ to join the 1440p goodness. I currently have a 6600k+ r9 fury nitro combo with a 1080p monitor.

I want to upgrade the monitor to a 25 or 27" inches 1440p IPS panel. I do need the gpu to drive it. I have four option: keep the Fury and buy a gpu in a year or so, buy a 1080, buy a 1080ti, buy Vega.

What are the advices? I'm looking to sell the Fury for 250-300€. That gives an effective budget of 1350€.

Either I get a 350€ 60Hz monitor, and have 1000€ for GPU. I could buy any of the three options.

Or I get a 600ish € 100Hz+ one, and I might have trouble buying a 1080ti as the cheapest deal is limited in time and it's 750€.

Is the Fury enough with the right compromises? Would other choices suffice in your opinion for a 100Hz+ 1440p monitor?

 

Finally, is 250-300€ for an r9 fury nitro acceptable for used ? Since new ones are at 360-400?

[GDRRiley]

I would keep the fury for a while my 970 does just fine at 1440p. grab the nicer monitor and then wait for a gpu upgrade 

[YedZed]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

I would keep the furry

I'll quote you on that.

[CatXice]

use dsr mode in wattman to run games at non rative resolutions then go into the games u want to play and put them into 1440p res and play them and see what happens u will be with in 5 fps of what u would get on a true 1440p monitor (u can look on utube u to see this and i did it my self so i can tell u its fairly accurate)

 

[Guiltyxz]

4 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Finally, is 250-300€ for an r9 fury nitro acceptable for used ? Since new ones are at 360-400?

Yes

4 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Is the Fury enough with the right compromises? Would other choices suffice in your opinion for a 100Hz+ 1440p monitor?

Yes. But if you want better performance then you should get a good 1440p montior for around $500 then you have $850 to get a better gpu or spend $300 on a monitor then you have 700 to spend on a gpu

[GDRRiley]

Just now, YedZed said:

I'll quote you on that.

nothing happened?

[YedZed]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

nothing happened?

I made a joke...

[laminutederire]

25 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I would keep the fury for a while my 970 does just fine at 1440p. grab the nicer monitor and then wait for a gpu upgrade 

To what point can you turn down the settings for it to look still good?

[laminutederire]

24 minutes ago, CatXice said:

use dsr mode in wattman to run games at non rative resolutions then go into the games u want to play and put them into 1440p res and play them and see what happens u will be with in 5 fps of what u would get on a true 1440p monitor (u can look on utube u to see this and i did it my self so i can tell u its fairly accurate)

 

I did that but it's not ultra @100Hz ready, nor was it on high, expect for games like cs go. So investing into something beyond 1440p @60 should be pointless?

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

To what point can you turn down the settings for it to look still good?

I run at high or almost max but with no AA, also would be good to metion that my 970 is at 1460 on the core so a heavy oc(20%+)

[laminutederire]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I run at high or almost max but with no AA, also would be good to metion that my 970 is at 1460 on the core so a heavy oc(20%+)

Is the absence of Antialiasing an issue for image quality?

[Morgan Everett]

45 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Hi there! 

I'm currently looking to invest summer job money ~1100€ to join the 1440p goodness. I currently have a 6600k+ r9 fury nitro combo with a 1080p monitor.

I want to upgrade the monitor to a 25 or 27" inches 1440p IPS panel. I do need the gpu to drive it. I have four option: keep the Fury and buy a gpu in a year or so, buy a 1080, buy a 1080ti, buy Vega.

What are the advices? I'm looking to sell the Fury for 250-300€. That gives an effective budget of 1350€.

Either I get a 350€ 60Hz monitor, and have 1000€ for GPU. I could buy any of the three options.

Or I get a 600ish € 100Hz+ one, and I might have trouble buying a 1080ti as the cheapest deal is limited in time and it's 750€.

Is the Fury enough with the right compromises? Would other choices suffice in your opinion for a 100Hz+ 1440p monitor?

 

Finally, is 250-300€ for an r9 fury nitro acceptable for used ? Since new ones are at 360-400?

I use a 165 Hz 1440p monitor with a 1080Ti, and I'd say they're matched rather well. I'd say save up for this sort of configuration if possible, though make sure the display supports G-Sync.

[GDRRiley]

10 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Is the absence of Antialiasing an issue for image quality?

no not really 

[Curufinwe_wins]

14 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Is the absence of Antialiasing an issue for image quality?

This obviously depends on your standards....

 

When I was running a single 980ti at 1440p I thought it was still kinda underwhelming at ultra settings, and anything lower or without AA was horrific to behold. 

[laminutederire]

44 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

I use a 165 Hz 1440p monitor with a 1080Ti, and I'd say they're matched rather well. I'd say save up for this sort of configuration if possible, though make sure the display supports G-Sync.

I nearly have the budget for that. I hope vega is alright, something like a 100Hz monitor with free sync and a vega card sitting in the middle of a 1080 and a 1080ti would be perfect at the right cost  found a free sync 1440p 144Hz 27" IPS monitor from Acer at 580€, that leaves 500€ if I don't sell my Fury, and 700-800€;if I sell my fury. Cheapest 1080 ti are at 700-750€ (the zotac mini or the aero OC).

I thought 1080 with 100Hz+ otherwise. Since my fury will be borderline 60fps.

40 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

no not really 

From what I tested, that should get 60fps but not that much more, isn't it?

[laminutederire]

23 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

This obviously depends on your standards....

 

When I was running a single 980ti at 1440p I thought it was still kinda underwhelming at ultra settings, and anything lower or without AA was horrific to behold. 

Was it because of the framerate or just 1440p not being that great?

[laminutederire]

Would taking that 1440p 144Hz free sync monitor then wait a week for vega and afterwards make the decision on the gpu make sense?

The g-sync Monitor are just so damn expensive in France compared to freesync ones. 580€ against 700€ for the difference between freesync and g sync and 144Hz to 165hz. It's that one: Link on Newegg

[CatXice]

3 hours ago, laminutederire said:

I did that but it's not ultra @100Hz ready, nor was it on high, expect for games like cs go. So investing into something beyond 1440p @60 should be pointless?

in most games u cant tell between ultra and high and in a lot u can bearly tell between medium and high

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Was it because of the framerate or just 1440p not being that great?

Just definitely wanted more. The few games I was able to DSR up made a huge difference in image quality. Also the move to 100hz 1440p UW was really nice. 

 

1 hour ago, CatXice said:

in most games u cant tell between ultra and high and in a lot u can bearly tell between medium and high

This is literally saying the same thing as you can't tell 60hz from 100hz. Once you get used to one you definitely notice, but until you experience it for a while it doesn't seem like a big deal.

[CatXice]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Just definitely wanted more. The few games I was able to DSR up made a huge difference in image quality. Also the move to 100hz 1440p UW was really nice. 

 

This is literally saying the same thing as you can't tell 60hz from 100hz. Once you get used to one you definitely notice, but until you experience it for a while it doesn't seem like a big deal.

i noticed 60-144 like night and day

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, CatXice said:

i noticed 60-144 like night and day

And some other people say (and blind tests have shown) that they don't notice it... At least off the bat without practice (see even LTT's video about it). 

 

I notice the difference in (at least the games I've played) between high/ultra on almost every setting (although admittedly I do actually check them each because I'm not just going to run max for maxes sake), and medium is a dumpster fire on most games (FO4 being the only one I can think of recently where the settings have basically all been BS past high, not that I think that's a good game to begin with). IMHO. But it does vary ofc.

 

 

 

[CatXice]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

And some other people say (and blind tests have shown) that they don't notice it... At least off the bat without practice (see even LTT's video about it). 

 

I notice the difference in (at least the games I've played) between high/ultra on almost every setting (although admittedly I do actually check them each because I'm not just going to run max for maxes sake), and medium is a dumpster fire on most games. IMHO.

in bf1 i cant tell ultra from high textures but lighting effects and things like that u bearly notice from low to ultra so find a balance but when i went from 60-144hz i could bearly play like at all (rocket league) simply due to the more frames of things u dont normally see was putting me off till i got used to it but now any game i play ie bf1 i had to turn settings down so i could keep the frame rate over 110 at all time no matter what coz other wise it felt unplayable and felt like it was stuttering 

[CatXice]

4 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

And some other people say (and blind tests have shown) that they don't notice it... At least off the bat without practice (see even LTT's video about it). 

 

I notice the difference in (at least the games I've played) between high/ultra on almost every setting (although admittedly I do actually check them each because I'm not just going to run max for maxes sake), and medium is a dumpster fire on most games (FO4 being the only one I can think of recently where the settings have basically all been BS past high, not that I think that's a good game to begin with). IMHO. But it does vary ofc.

 

 

 

this is a good point when yr playing a game and runing around focusing on shooting people and that your not going to notice the small detail from extra to high textures simply coz your not going to be looking at it to notice it like wise in the place on yr screen you are looking at most of the texture will be at some sort of range from u meaning that the small difference will be hard to notice try it jump into a game like bf1 bo3 and that and put in in ultra and put it on high and u will see when yr actually playing the game u wont tell if u look at stills then ye u will tell

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, CatXice said:

this is a good point when yr playing a game and runing around focusing on shooting people and that your not going to notice the small detail from extra to high textures 

I do. **Shrugs** 

 

Even HBAO+ vs HBAO on W3 is a noticeable difference to me at least. But maybe I just pay attention to different things than other people. **shrugs**

 

 

Ironically I tried and quit playing Battlefront on a friend's console not because the framerate, but just because it looked so freaking bad that the redeeming part of the star wars experience no longer made the game worth playing to me. 

[CatXice]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

I do. **Shrugs**

 

Even HBAO+ vs HBAO on W3 is a noticeable difference to me at least. But maybe I just pay attention to different things than other people. **shrugs**

this is the thing a lot of people have said it but some people can bearly notice the difference between 144hz and 60hz but the difference in resolutions is like night and day personally am the other way the 60hz to 144hz to me is night and day like i said i cant play a game if its under 110fps i just cant coz am used to it now put the difference from 1080p and 1440p i can tell yes but its not as big as a difference to me as the high refresh rate