What Resolution do you game at?

[Princess Luna]

13 minutes ago, Thinkfreely said:

Ya I am using a 1080 but swapping for the TI one aftermarket stuff hits.

Honestly 4k gonna need a Volta card to be smooth as 1440p is with Pascal.

[MoonlightSylv]

2560x1080 (Ultrawide 1080p)

[Thinkfreely]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

Honestly 4k gonna need a Vega card to be smooth as 1440p is with Pascal.

The benchmarks coming out show 60FPS 4k most titles with maxed with the 1080ti. Pre numbers for VEGA show comparative performance to the 1080, but nowhere near the 1080ti. My guess is the VEGA will offer an alternative to the 1080 for similar performance (At a lower dollar amount) but the 1080ti and Nividia will still out perform it.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Thinkfreely said:

The benchmarks coming out show 60FPS 4k most titles with maxed with the 1080ti. Pre numbers for VEGA show comparative performance to the 1080, but nowhere near the 1080ti. My guess is the VEGA will offer an alternative to the 1080 for similar performance (At a lower dollar amount) but the 1080ti and Nividia will still out perform it.

I said Volta not Vega, and the 1080ti is the "supreme 1440p" card, games like The Witcher 3 will still make it sweat too much to keep up 60fps on 4k with all max out using a single card, it isn't ideal and it already is on the limit of what it can hand... Take Ubishit's latest titles, you have a hard time running those on ultra even on 1080p.

 

If people really wanna make 4k or ultra wide 1440p their mainstream resolution with a single card solution they gonna need to wait the Titan XV and GTX 2080 next year.

[Thinkfreely]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I said Volta not Vega, and the 1080ti is the "supreme 1440p" card, games like The Witcher 3 will still make it sweat too much to keep up 60fps on 4k with all max out using a single card, it isn't ideal and it already is on the limit of what it can hand... Take Ubishit's latest titles, you have a hard time running those on ultra even on 1080p.

 

If people really wanna make 4k or ultra wide 1440p their mainstream resolution with a single card solution they gonna need to wait the Titan XV and GTX 2080 next year.

  9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Honestly 4k gonna need a Vega card to be smooth as 1440p is with Pascal.

Actually what you said is Vega  but yes I understand your point.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Thinkfreely said:

Honestly 4k gonna need a Vega card to be smooth as 1440p is with Pascal.

Actually what you said is Vega  but yes I understand your point.

Yes my bad it was a typo I meant Volta all along, already edited, also I use night theme your text is invisible to me right now

[Thinkfreely]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

Yes my bad it was a typo I meant Volta all along, already edited, also I use night theme your text is invisible to me right now

You intelligent jerk

[PianoPlayer88Key]

I voted mixed.  My cards are both easily capable of 1080p 30-60fps high-ultra in most AAA games ... but, I run at like 720p or even 480p.  No, it's not to get even more fps (both my displays max out at 60 Hz), it's so I can see other apps on screen simultaneously, as I don't have multi-monitor setups yet.

 

Spoiler

No, I don't mean "my cards are both" as in SLI/CF

 

My laptop has a 6GB GTX 970M, and my desktop has a 3GB EVGA GTX 1060 SC.

 

The desktop card is about 60-80% faster than the laptop card, in my experience.

 

I haven't done much VRAM-bottlenecked testing, except for one interesting one - the starts of benchmark runs in GTA V with everything absolutely maxed out, including scaling, once with the desktop's HD 4600 iGPU, once with the 1060.  The iGPU got about 5-6x the fps as the 1060 in that situation - 1.5-1.8 vs 0.3 or so.  (The settings menu said it was using > 9GB VRAM.)  I think it was because there's less latency swapping between iGPU and system RAM, compared to dGPU VRAM vs system RAM.

 

Someday I'm wanting to get a 4K (or higher res) monitor, but mostly for content creation / productivity.  4K+ultra-capable AAA gaming cards are still too expensive, waiting for them to come down to about $300 (and same for monitors that are currently closer to $1K.)

[Bananasplit_00]

iv been playing at 1080p untill last weekend when i snatched a deal on a 1440p screen  

[DildorTheDecent]

1080p @ 144Hz 

 

Little bit of 125 or 150 DSR if the frames are still 100+

[typographie]

14 hours ago, Thinkfreely said:

Still the largest single chunk, but nowhere near what I thought it would be.

To be fair, it's a tech enthusiast forum, so the results here are going to be biased a little more toward 1440p and 2160p than if you polled the gaming public as a whole. People on this forum tend to have better hardware than the average, and I suspect that even among forum users those with a lot of pride in their hardware (those with better hardware) may be more likely to respond than the rest.

[Praesi]

27" 2560x1440.

[Thinkfreely]

3 hours ago, typographie said:

To be fair, it's a tech enthusiast forum, so the results here are going to be biased a little more toward 1440p and 2160p than if you polled the gaming public as a whole. People on this forum tend to have better hardware than the average, and I suspect that even among forum users those with a lot of pride in their hardware (those with better hardware) may be more likely to respond than the rest.

I think were actually getting a good idea of metrics simply from the standpoint that I think more people have less money then more money, If you look about 1/2 of everyone is 1080p and the rest is mixed which is I think is probably fairly accurate. Taking EVERYONE we could would give a bad representation as far as needing to know those who actually are "Gamers" and those who are not.

[Sakkura]

2160x1200, 90Hz.

[not_Linus]

just recently got a gtx 1080 and a 2560x1440p 144hz gsync monitor.

[Technous285]

I run all my games at (or as close to) 2560x1440p120 as possible on my triple 2560x1440p144 monitors (Freesync, downclocked to 120Hz for easier video editing. G-Sync would have made them cost at least half as much as my whole system did).

[themctipers]

4k monitor, 1440p gaming

[killcomic]

If you ask AMD fanboys *EVERYONE* games at 4K now, so it's pointless to get a 7700K as you wont see the difference against Ryzen.....

[Monte_Carlo]

I try to run at native resolution on my laptop which is 1080p... No problems yet. 

[Praesi]

You see. Even here 4K isnt much of a Deal. I wonder why is everyone talking about it, when no one is actual using it 

[lieder1987]

5 minutes ago, Praesi said:

You see. Even here 4K isnt much of a Deal. I wonder why is everyone talking about it, when no one is actual using it 

Because people WANT to use it, but in order to have a fluid system with 4K the hardware doesn't even really exist yet / doesn't exist for normal folks. 60 FPS at 4k is just kind of possible with the 1080ti and that is brand new, not to mention out of range for a good portion of people (or those people that were dumb enough to buy a 1080 in Nov and then this comes out...).