Ultrawide

[Princess Luna]

36 minutes ago, Schraufabagel said:

The only road bump is the graphics required to run it. 

I know, I am particularly going to wait for Volta to go 1440p [:

[Schraufabagel]

9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I know, I am particularly going to wait for Volta to go 1440p [:

I might just wait for that as well. Or at least Vega since freesync is typically cheaper. 

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Schraufabagel said:

I might just wait for that as well. Or at least Vega since freesync is typically cheaper. 

LG has the best ultrawide FreeSync by the way! and Good luck, I know that waiting sucks [:

[Schraufabagel]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

LG has the best ultrawide FreeSync by the way! and Good luck, I know that waiting sucks [:

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/LrcMnQ/lg-34uc79g-b-340-144hz-monitor-34uc79g-b

Here's the 1080p one I have my eye on if I opt out of 1440p

[Badger906]

19 hours ago, Zyndo said:

bro there are games on the market today (such as ghost recond: wildlands) which even a GTX 1080 struggle for a constant 60 fps at 1080p at ultra settings. Certainly that isn't MOST games today, but assuming he uses this GPU for at least a year, more and more games will fit that criteria, and thats only 1080p! 3440x1440 is much more demanding, and 100hz is a much higher framerate.


@Schraufabagel get the strongest GPU you can afford. period.

what your forgetting is youre basing all of your knowledge on things youve read and seen on the internet... i have an x34... im in a much better position to be giving someone advice on said monitor.. like ive stated clearly several times in this post, bench marks you see online use unrealistic levels of AA to test the game.. they use all advanced features that are avaliable too...

 

op also never stated "I HAZ TO RUN IT ALL AT ULTRA NOOBS... NOTHING ELSE WILL CUT IT AS THATS FOR SCRUBS AND I NEED 64X MFAA!!!!!"

 

rememebr computer games are scalable.. games still run not on altra settings... and if you play a game with 80% of the settings on ultra and the rest on high.. thats still majority ultra...

 

so when i say.. i play most games on my monitor and get around 100hz be it on ultra or high.. i mean exactly what i say.. ask yourslef why i would lie or make up my results.. as i could easily be disproved by someone on the internet with the same setup.. as you dont have the same setup and cant disprove my point.. dont tell me im wrong

[Zyndo]

1 hour ago, Badger906 said:

what your forgetting is youre basing all of your knowledge on things youve read and seen on the internet... i have an x34... im in a much better position to be giving someone advice on said monitor.. like ive stated clearly several times in this post, bench marks you see online use unrealistic levels of AA to test the game.. they use all advanced features that are avaliable too

Very few people use "unrealistic" amounts of AA. in fact most benchmarkers use little-no AA. Its always bothered me when people say "we tested this game at MAX settings"... then you look at their specified settings and they don't have half the extra settings turned on lol, let alone AA. Most of the time when people say "max" when they're benchmarking, what they really mean is "highest preset"... and these graphical presets almost never come with AA options turned on nowadays.

 

1 hour ago, Badger906 said:

rememebr computer games are scalable.. games still run not on altra settings... and if you play a game with 80% of the settings on ultra and the rest on high.. thats still majority ultra.

Yes, I'm aware you can turn settings down. No one is saying you can't

1 hour ago, Badger906 said:

so when i say.. i play most games on my monitor and get around 100hz be it on ultra or high.. i mean exactly what i say.. ask yourslef why i would lie or make up my results.. as i could easily be disproved by someone on the internet with the same setup.. as you dont have the same setup and cant disprove my point.. dont tell me im wrong

sorry bro. you're wrong. I mean if settings don't matter he may as well just buy a 1050ti and run everything on low settings. he could probably still get around his 100fps at that point. Your evidence is... anecdotal at best, and you're seeing it through rose coloured glasses. Not gonna say you're lying, but odds are you're unintentionally fudging the numbers due to your bias.

You're right that I do not have an 1440p ultrawide monitor... i DO, however, have a decently overclocked 980ti (near 1500MHz) with a 6700k. I know the kind of performance I get out of it on a 1080p monitor. There are a lot of games (at 1080p) where I struggle to get even the fps you're delusionally claiming to get at 1440p ultrawide with the same "Ultra" settings. I don't mess around much with AA because I don't really see the jaggies all that much with only FXAA (which barely hits your fps btw) especially since my monitor is so small (21.5"). If nothing else, there are games I play (such as ROTTR) which on max settings (minus AA), at a mere 1080p, eat up all of my available VRAM. VRAM usage goes up considerably more for higher resolutions at similar settings.

I'm not saying you're making up your results. you probably do get 70-90 fps in your games (which will lilkely be different than the ones he wants to play) and you're probably very happy with your purchase. and if that makes you happy then good for you! All the power to you. But you very probably do not play any particularly graphically intensive titles, and your results do not account for any new releases or releases coming out in the near future. If you're already turning down settings for less than current games, then you're going to be left lacking very shortly as well (unless you're willing to turn things down even further)

So I'm not saying he CAN'T get away with something like a mid-range GPU on a monitor like this by adjusting settings... I'm saying if he has the budget to get an X34, he should have the budget to invest in a powerful GPU to go along with it, or its quite possible he will have a lackluster experience. Different people want different things and like different things. If hes willing to give up prettier games in favor of a 21:9 format then good for him (and you). But if he wants the highest levels of performance possible without having to give up his visual experience (which is kind of the entire point of having a high refresh rate curved ultrawide gaming monitor IMO) then hes gotta get the best hardware available.

 

1 hour ago, Badger906 said:

UHD is 8,294,400 pixels, 3440x1440 is 4,953,600 and 1400p is 3,686,400 pixels.

 

so it will only be about 32% more demaning that 1440p and about 40% less than 4k

Literally not at all how it works. By that logic one should expect to get only 1/4 the fps at 4k compared to 1080p, which is obviously not true. So, wrong again.

[FluffyNuggets]

I run it fine on a GTX 1070. Sure it's not uber maxed settings on every game but I honestly don't care. The response times are what matters to me more than how shiny some texture looks.