Would a 1080ti Bottleneck a 4790k?

[Synawke]

1 minute ago, Natsoup said:

I'm getting 150-250 frames in csgo 1440p mostly high settings on an i5 and a 1070. Believe me I like muh frames too

thats too low though. I want like 500+

[ATFink]

11 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Nah, it shouldn't. That's because the lowest resolution monitor to pair with a 1080Ti would be 1440p. NOBODY should purchase this GPU for 1080p, it'd be retarded.

Unless you want to practically lock 144 fps in every game, but yes I agree with your sentiment.

[Natsoup]

Just now, Synawke said:

thats too low though. I want like 500+

I can't feel it after 225 or so lol

[Synawke]

Just now, Natsoup said:

I can't feel it after 225 or so lol

ah. I can. below 300 feels bad. 

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, ATFink said:

Unless you want to practically lock 144 fps in every game, but yes I agree with your sentiment.

Yeah, in theory yes, but who in the world would prefer to have 1080p 144fps locked over 1440p 144hz g-sync fluctuating from 80 to 120FPS? It'd be so smooth it wouldn't make any difference in that regard thanks to G-Sync...

[Synawke]

1 minute ago, ATFink said:

Unless you want to practically lock 144 fps in every game, but yes I agree with your sentiment.

Which is what i want.I want to at least be getting close to 144fps in almost all games at least

[Natsoup]

Just now, Synawke said:

ah. I can. below 300 feels bad. 

Are you using vsync or something? I'm MGE, its not like I'm totally unable to aim or play. Maybe I'll try 4:3 stretchand see how many frames I can push and If it feels better.

[Synawke]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

Yeah, in theory yes, but who in the world would prefer to have 1080p 144fps locked over 1440p 144hz g-sync fluctuating from 80 to 120FPS? It'd be so smooth it wouldn't make any difference in that regard thanks to G-Sync...

not 144fps locked. I never have any sort of sync on anything. i just dont limit fps and let it go over 144fps if it wants to lol. I dont like the input lag associated with any sort of "sync". And yeah id rather have a constant 144fps over fluctuating 80-120 even if it looked smooth cuz of g-sync

[tomotomov92]

@Synawke  Too much FPS will actually crush your CPU... You will get stuttering and other shit. It'll be better if you can  lock @ 144fps and keep it there. The 1080 Ti won't be able to dip under this in 1080p.

[Synawke]

1 minute ago, Natsoup said:

Are you using vsync or something? I'm MGE, its not like I'm totally unable to aim or play. Maybe I'll try 4:3 stretchand see how many frames I can push and If it feels better.

noooooo. no vsync ever on anything haha. If you feel 500+ fps you can 100% feel the difference 

[Synawke]

Just now, tomotomov92 said:

@Synawke  Too much FPS will actually crush your CPU... You will get stuttering and other shit. It'll be better if you can  lock @ 144fps and keep it there. The 1080 Ti won't be able to dip under this in 1080p.

I never get any stuttering or anything. very little screen tearing because of the 144hz too. I dont like input lag so i never limit anything. And the more fps = feels more smooth so i like that

[ATFink]

2 minutes ago, Synawke said:

ah. I can. below 300 feels bad. 

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but the highest refresh rate computer monitor in existence is 240 Hz. You literally can't see anything past 240 fps right now. If you have a 144 Hz monitor you literally can't see past 144 fps because the monitor can not physically display it. Maybe the higher fps average increases the fps count of the lowest dip and this makes it feel faster?

[ATFink]

2 minutes ago, tomotomov92 said:

@Synawke  Too much FPS will actually crush your CPU... You will get stuttering and other shit. It'll be better if you can  lock @ 144fps and keep it there. The 1080 Ti won't be able to dip under this in 1080p.

*In most situations*

[Natsoup]

2 minutes ago, Synawke said:

noooooo. no vsync ever on anything haha. If you feel 500+ fps you can 100% feel the difference 

Yeah, I never touch vsync either. I'll give it a shot upon my return to the barracks tonight.

[Synawke]

Just now, ATFink said:

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but the highest refresh rate computer monitor in existence is 240 Hz. You literally can't see anything past 240 fps right now. If you have a 144 Hz monitor you literally can't see past 144 fps because the monitor can not physically display it. Maybe the higher fps average increases the fps count of the lowest dip and this makes it feel faster?

its not a joke. It feels smoother when you have more FPS. even if its higher than the monitor can display

[Natsoup]

1 minute ago, ATFink said:

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but the highest refresh rate computer monitor in existence is 240 Hz. You literally can't see anything past 240 fps right now. If you have a 144 Hz monitor you literally can't see past 144 fps because the monitor can not physically display it. Maybe the higher fps average increases the fps count of the lowest dip and this makes it feel faster?

It changes input delay, by like 10ms per 100 frames or something similar to that

[Synawke]

Just now, Natsoup said:

Yeah, I never touch vsync either. I'll give it a shot upon my return to the barracks tonight.

Yeah try a KZ map or surf. something easy to get higher fps on. Lower the res and play low settings. its feels good 

[Natsoup]

Just now, Synawke said:

Yeah try a KZ map or surf. something easy to get higher fps on. Lower the res and play low settings. its feels good 

Get 400 frames ez on most old surf maps

[ATFink]

Just now, Synawke said:

its not a joke. It feels smoother when you have more FPS. even if its higher than the monitor can display

Can you explain how that is possible to me? It seriously sounds like a placebo effect to me. Displaying >144 fps on a screen that caps at 144 Hz shouldn't be possible unless the screen updates different parts of the panel at different times... but that would induce screen tearing.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, ATFink said:

Can you explain how that is possible to me? It seriously sounds like a placebo effect to me. Displaying >144 fps on a screen that caps at 144 Hz shouldn't be possible unless the screen updates different parts of the panel at different times... but that would induce screen tearing.

It is not about the frames, it is all about reducing mouse input lag, the higher the frames regardless if they are being showed or not the fast the pointer will refresh regardless, making aiming on CS:GO for instance faster, if you v-sync on 60fps you will feel your aiming a tad slower than if 200+ fps even on a 60hz monitor, although for the rest of the moving going on in the screen then yes you are still limited to the 60frames.

[Synawke]

Just now, ATFink said:

Can you explain how that is possible to me? It seriously sounds like a placebo effect to me. Displaying >144 fps on a screen that caps at 144 Hz shouldn't be possible unless the screen updates different parts of the panel at different times... but that would induce screen tearing.

It doesnt actually display more frames. And its not a placebo effect either. Watch this. its explains it fairly well. It really only MATTERS in competitive FPS but i like it in all games

 

[ATFink]

Thanks for the feedback. It is much appreciated.

[ATFink]

The "unless you are Ubisoft" at the end of the video was hysterical!

 

You could measure what's going on if you have a highspeed camera and record your mouse, keyboard, and screen independently. Splice the videos so they line up at the same time and count the frames between delays in both high and low refresh rate scenarios. You could do this with like 2 or 3 cameras at ~1000 fps one for each physical Input/output, sync the frames using an arduino that starts a timer and detects the time in milliseconds between when each camera started so you know how much footage to trim in the beginning of the first 2 cameras recordings. This'll prove what is going on and what is just speculation.

[Alex102323]

Got a 1080ti with an i7-4790k clocked at 5GHz, don’t see a bottleneck