Gtx 1080ti obsolescence at 4K, and 4K textures

[Tartandy]

On ‎12‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:02 AM, ARikozuM said:

Personally, I would look towards an ultrawide 1440 panel.

LG 3440x1440 user here, I cannot express how much I love untrawidescreen over 4k. Perhaps my personal preference in gaming, but definitely makes  huge difference for productivity

[moidave]

2 hours ago, Tartanskittles said:

LG 3440x1440 user here, I cannot express how much I love untrawidescreen over 4k. Perhaps my personal preference in gaming, but definitely makes  huge difference for productivity

Really envious but for a gsync ultra widescreen, I would need double my budget!

[Tartandy]

1 minute ago, moidave said:

Really envious but for a gsync ultra widescreen, I would need double my budget!

I just opted for one of the freesync ones because G-Sync is extortionate in my opinion... I'm just collecting my final few parts for my 1080ti build, surprisingly my old build with a GTX 660 really struggles to get anywhere close to 60fps..!

[moidave]

59 minutes ago, Tartanskittles said:

I just opted for one of the freesync ones because G-Sync is extortionate in my opinion... I'm just collecting my final few parts for my 1080ti build, surprisingly my old build with a GTX 660 really struggles to get anywhere close to 60fps..!

I agree with you that free sync is much more fair, as it is cheaper, but as your 1080ti is not compatible with free sync, are you ok missing out on this particular benefit?

[moidave]

5 hours ago, IrisCZ said:

I wouldn't buy HDR monitor any time soon. The price isn't the only problem, there are software issues (Linus did video about it this week I think), lack of content and generally it is still not worth it. It will take about 3-5 years until HDR becomes a mainstream thing in monitors and not just in TVs.

Most of the games in my opinion look fantastic in 4K. Titanfall 2 runs great with every setting on max with 1080ti and it's just pretty. As rrubberr has said, Battlefield 1 needs to be set up in the right way to look good, but once you do, it's one of the prettiest games today. On the other hand, Mirror's Edge Catalyst runs on the same engine, has worse framerate and looks worse than Battlefield 1 - it's just about optimization and EA pushing out games before they are ready. There is a similar situation with Rise of the Tomb Raider which on the right settings is one of the most beautiful games today, however you need to try turning on and off a few settings. DOOM is brilliant, the fast pace works great with this monitor and 4K makes it even better (I always recommend checking the FOV settings and putting it to the max, it looks much better in my opinion at 4K). Dark Souls 3 feels extra responsive probably thanks to G-SYNC and Fast-Sync and is just gorgeous at 4K. Fallout 4 on the other hand could be way nicer, but the "consoles first" approach makes it sort of meh. I of-course don't have to mention what is the situation with Witcher 3, it's amazing just to look at while you are standing and doing nothing and while moving it gets even better.
 

Then there are some older games that still look nice - I've tried Guild Wars 2, Life is Strange, couple of older Assassin's Creed games, Dragon Age: Origins, couple of racing games from Dirt to Grid series and Batman Arkham games. They were all clear and pretty to look at despite sometimes smaller textures and unoptimized engines for such a large resolution. From competitive games CSGO isn't the best thing to play on this monitor and in this case, I would opt for higher refresh rate display. Playerunknown's Battlegrounds though is something else and thanks to 4K the game is much more entertaining for me, because you can see everything clearly which can give you a small advantage.

I have dark souls 3, witcher 3, and andromeda waiting for the glorious 4K. I am looking forward to taking my time playing, and just admiring all the details. 

[Tartandy]

5 minutes ago, moidave said:

I agree with you that free sync is much more fair, as it is cheaper, but as your 1080ti is not compatible with free sync, are you ok missing out on this particular benefit?

Honestly yeah, freesync is nice and everything but I can just lock games to 60fps. The monitor came with freesync I didn't buy it for that reason. A 1080ti is hardly going to struggle with anything less than 60fps in pretty much everything I throw at it in 3440x1440 max settings...

[moidave]

11 hours ago, Tartanskittles said:

Honestly yeah, freesync is nice and everything but I can just lock games to 60fps. The monitor came with freesync I didn't buy it for that reason. A 1080ti is hardly going to struggle with anything less than 60fps in pretty much everything I throw at it in 3440x1440 max settings...

True. What Is the name of the monitor?

[Tartandy]

12 hours ago, moidave said:

True. What Is the name of the monitor?

LG - 34UM88C, pretty much everything I could have wanted from a monitor, it's brilliant. As much as I'd love a curved one, paying an extra £150 didn't seem worth it....

[moidave]

58 minutes ago, Tartanskittles said:

LG - 34UM88C, pretty much everything I could have wanted from a monitor, it's brilliant. As much as I'd love a curved one, paying an extra £150 didn't seem worth it....

That monitor is 800$ in Japan, but I can definitely see the appeal. Do many games support the format?

[Tartandy]

Just now, moidave said:

That monitor is 800$ in Japan, but I can definitely see the appeal. Do many games support the format?

Literally everything I have tried so far is not an issue, even games like portal have no issue at all despite being quite a few years older. That isn't to say there won't be games that don't like WQHD, but support for it is getting a lot better. Sometimes you manually have to select the resolution, but that's about it.

[moidave]

I guess I now need to start a new topic to get the pros and cons of gsync 4K vs non gsync WQHD!

[ShoshinUK]

I am really settled on my Asus Rog swift gsync, 16:9, 27, 1440p, 165hz, 1ms, low lag monitors for gaming myself.

But I will give my right arm to get a 32 2160p version!

[moidave]

2 minutes ago, ShoshinUK said:

I am really settled on my Asus Rog swift gsync, 16:9, 27, 1440p, 165hz, 1ms, low lag monitors for gaming myself.

But I will give my right arm to get a 32 2160p version!

Why would you want a 4K? It seems the 144hz people usually don't want to cross over to the other side. 

[ShoshinUK]

42 minutes ago, moidave said:

Why would you want a 4K? It seems the 144hz people usually don't want to cross over to the other side. 

The games I play only push 55-90FPS on my rig, and I play at 1440p 1.5 super sampling.

So I recon native 2160p would be better with little loss of FPS. But it would need to be 144hz capable. 60Hz cant be a thing in my life.

Plus, bragging rights............................all things considered the most important aspect for me is low input lag (at this level of all round monitor quality).

[moidave]

42 minutes ago, ShoshinUK said:

The games I play only push 55-90FPS on my rig, and I play at 1440p 1.5 super sampling.

So I recon native 2160p would be better with little loss of FPS. But it would need to be 144hz capable. 60Hz cant be a thing in my life.

Plus, bragging rights............................all things considered the most important aspect for me is low input lag (at this level of all round monitor quality).

To push more than 80fps on a UHD, you would need some serious GPU...

[ShoshinUK]

23 minutes ago, moidave said:

To push more than 80fps on a UHD, you would need some serious GPU...

Yes im rocking a 1080ti, but interestingly the FPS limit is more CPU based in Squad the main game I play.