NO I DIDN'T

NO

LIES

Tried drawing the us with no template?

New Jersey is wayyyy down lol

Florida is apparently two different states

t!rank

+role

Sorry

It's *

My bad

A true man

NP

Holla

!rank

t!rank

I'm gonna make my way up with higher activity as of lately

t!rank

t!rank

t!rank

Oof going up on da leader broads

t!rank

t!rank

Cumming up

t!rank

t!rank

t!rank

t!rank

*role user

*role User

t!rank

t!rank

YES I HAVE BEATEN THE 200 Marxism

No

If you have a typical ATX or e-ATX mobo, the top two pcie x16 slots should be at least 1 more slot apart than the bottom 2 on a 3-4 x16 lane mobo. Therefore having an acx style cooler is fine.

I have a GTX 1070 Sea Hawk X watercooled aio which stays incredibly cool under full load artificially, but it isn't necessary to have to keep the card that cold, if you max out at under 70C under full load for like 5 mins which is pretty unrealistic scenario, then you're way ahead good temps. Even resting just under 80C at that kind of load is acceptable. Over 80 and you're pushing it, but it still doesn't have much of an effect on the card. My GTX 760's (SLI) with reference blower coolers would max at about 84C under load brand new, and they had no issues the whole time, and still overclock well relative to better cooked versions of the same card. So there is honestly nothing to worry about. Also when it comes to GPU boost and overclocking the 1070, for a typical and stable OC on a well-cooled reference PCB, use about +100 core and no more than +250mem (100-200 is more practical since mem isn't as detrimental for gaming as core). Don't try and squeeze performance because the Pascal GPU lineup isn't really meant for it.

Also it isn't worth SLI for 2x 1070's unless you're upgrading from the first. But either way the best thing to do is get the single fastest card since Nvidia no longer pays for games to have SLI support, and the optimization for it is ass (especially from experience)...

If you haven't bought any cards yet, get the 1080Ti or wait for the Volta cards.

@Bearchoyboi

I know what I'm talking about, I have experience on pretty much any end.

Here's the thing. Playing max on 4K at a higher refresh rate than 60fps is something not worth striving for until after Volta imo. The best thing you can do is run a 1440p (2K) monitor with 120hz+ and Gsync. My monitor (Acer XB271HU) is 2K 165Hz IPS Gsync @27" and once you go to the higher refreshrate (especially with Gsync, it's pretty detrimental), you'll never want to go back and 4K wouldnt likely be as enjoyable. Also considering you can run 2K at higher than 60fps average very comfortably with one 1070 alone, so with a 1080Ti or newer Volta card it'll be a while before you need an upgrade. That's the best route imo and from other people I've discussed this with. Also an ACX 2.0/3.0 cooler card nowadays won't likely run the fan at more than 60% under high loads and will still keep the card under 75C no biggie. As long as you have intake fans in the front and outs on the top/back (or cooler on back), then you should get most of that excess heat trapped in the case out. 1070 SLI again, is less practical than the 1080Ti standalone and will also cost more for less performance on most games and lack of SLI optimization on many. If the game isn't optimized for SLI, you can only use 1 card.

@Bearchoyboi

But 4K 60fps is much less enjoyable than 2K 120fps (especially with Gsync). At least that's what a couple forum polls and other people I've talked to said. From personal experience it's true. Even with Gsync, 60fps is a noticeable drop especially for competitive games. For example, Dark Souls 3 has an engine limit of 60fps. I enjoy the gameplay, but that jump from 60fps to 120+ is important for lots of movement, especially when you're used to it. And with Gsync making the frametimes even, with no stutter or tearing whatsoever, in movement, even not that drastic, I could easily see choppy displaying because of the frame rate. It's especially important for precision in games like that, and it really helps you get more information to your brain when you have all of those filler frames. Makes competitive, action and fast paced gaming much better. So although for visuals 4K is a little bit better, the framerate versatility and performance benefit of 2K is truly "optimal", especially if you have good money.

And Rainbow 6 isn't very well optimized tbh, little bad for comparison. Better to use something like Battlefield, Doom, a newer COD game, crisis 3 (still relevant), PUBG, GTA V, Metro: Last Light, Tomb Raider, and some others I'm not gonna waste time naming.

4K is really only practical for movies and laid-back games. If you're the typical gamer, the faster 2K is the best experience. Sorry if I'm getting repetitive.

t!rank

When the 2080Ti comes out, it should (if at least a 35% performance advantage over the 1080Ti which it almost certainly will be) be more than sufficient for max 4k gaming on current games at 60fps, but even then, 2K 120hz+ with Gsync is still the best way to go for gaming. Games will get more demanding, but also better optimized with new engines and API's. Therefore when games get more demanding and optimized, you can still have to option to play at a sweet spot based on your needs. That's why I still favor 2K 120hz+ Gsync panels for versatility and long term enjoyment.

I'd be willing to say relative to the 1080Ti, the 2080Ti would be in many cases even overpowered for my 165hz Gsync 1440p panel.

Uhm, I think I'd know what my limitations are since I have metro last light, gta v, battlefield 4 and tomb raider. If I downscaled to 1080p and ran those games on max setting (with optimal AA for best picture without getting excessive), I run comfortably over 100FPS consistently... that's just with a GTX 1070 as well, the 1080Ti is over 60% the performance. There's no excuse to say that 1080p nowadays isn't demanding relative to the higher end cards we have. Also, with the 78% resolution jump with 2K over 1080p, the performance loss is not linear, so you don't usually lose more than 40% performance, except AA has a slightly more drastic performance drop (although you don't need more than 4x msaa or 2xSSAA on good 2K monitors anyways). So the 1080Ti is more sufficient for 2K than the 1070 is for 1080p, and that is more than "sufficient" for high refresh rate 1440p. So given the likely 40%+ performance jump with the 2080Ti over the 1080Ti (or likely more, as much as 60% based on history and architectural expectation), 2K @165Hz and Gsync should run without a hitch on the upcoming flagship. Yes a single GPU, and from experience SLI has way too many downsides. Lots of lack of optimization meaning it can't be used in many games, and not good optimization in most games that actually support it. Cost to performance with optimization versus the flagship card is also not worth it, the 2x1070's in SLI on an optimized game will run barely better (if any better) than 1x 1080Ti, this is from experience and benchmarks that you yourself can look up.

I know what I'm talking about.

Also the 600 series GTX graphics cards had predominantly 720p users, I'm talking about arguments based on numbers and speculation, not assumptions and dreams.

t!rank

Going 4 that top 150 soon.

There is no latency difference with 2K, latency (such as GTG) are based on the display type, such as IPS, VA or TN

This proves you don't know what you're talking about

And my Gsync 165Hz monitor has the same latency for frametimes as a 165Hz Gsync 1080p monitor at the same framerate.

Latency on the box? Is that a joke?

I know that

GTG latency is almost completely irrelevant if under 5ms.

I'll bite, gonna find a video or two with same species different res monitors

But from experience, there is such a low latency with my monitor, sub 50ms

That doesn't matter lol

Uhh

Bait

Good job

Those benchmarks are great

The 99th percentile is always over 60fps

And the average is way better

Even for 1440p

The drop from 1080 to 1440 is so minimal

I think it's acceptable to run games as low as 60fps, but you pretty much require more than 75FPS (with Gsync) for any higher movement action/competitive games

As long as my 99th percentile isn't under 50fps with Gsync, and my average is over 90 I'm happy.

Do you even have a Gsync monitor?

Oof

With Gsync the frametimes are even, and screen tearing is inexistent. Having higher fps than refresh rate causes tearing. Vsync and even FastSync cause noticeable latency and fastsync has stuttering issues. Gsync makes the most out of having a higher frame rate than refresh rate as well as lower. So the 99th percentile is irrelevant.

There is no way you don't get tearing just because it's a good monitor

It has to do with the display output

Better monitor helps no doubt, but it isn't eliminated.

I can turn Gsync off and I have noticeable tearing in movement scenes

I think that your lack of Gsync with the higher refresh rate has desensitized you from seeing tearing

If you went to Gsync and back you'd notice it

I have Gsync 165hz 2K IPS

It's more subtle at a higher refresh rate, but with higher resolution it's fuckin everywhere

That's not possible

What are the specs of the other monitor

Thanks, that may help him understand he doesn't have a magic monitor

What were you comparing before

What specs? 60hz TN 1080?

Lol

One is supposedly a 144hz 2K god monitor without Gsync and the other is supposedly 60hz 1080

From my assumption

Me

I'll call the resolution I use whatever I goddamn want lawl

I'll call it 3GAY to make you happy

I have 1x Acer XB271HU

I seriously can't wait for 2080Ti though

Gonna rock my monitor with that thing asap

1x aio watercooled