Message from @Wayne
Discord ID: 423207426687500303
Except for rainbow six siege, gotta use TAA at half res there
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.
nice meme but 4k will never be a thing ona single card
why do ppl always talk as if new gpus will come and games will stop getting more demanding
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.
it wont be sufficient idk why ppl keep repeating that
ppl have been saying that _____ card is overkill for 1080p since 6 series gtx
gl running high refresh rates on ultra even today
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.
which magical system are you using
1080ti cant even run witcher 3 at 1080p with hairworks enabled above 100hz
2k is a nice meme for ppl who have never had high res monitors
1080p has half the latency and can run a *consistent* 144hz
There is no latency difference with 2K, latency (such as GTG) are based on the display type, such as IPS, VA or TN
there is def a latency
look up tests
the bigger the screen + res the more latency
And my Gsync 165Hz monitor has the same latency for frametimes as a 165Hz Gsync 1080p monitor at the same framerate.
youre going by the latency on the box
not actual latency tests
Latency on the box? Is that a joke?
the box numbers are meaningless
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
i mean this is completely irrelevant to the discussion
But from experience, there is such a low latency with my monitor, sub 50ms
even if the latency is identical it still takes far more power to run 1440p
That doesn't matter lol
and a 1080ti can barely run games in 1080p
<:PepeChill:378748692741750794>
Uhh
Bait
Good job