Message from @Autistic Dog
Discord ID: 423207668912619532
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
This proves you don't know what you're talking about
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.
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
the benchmarks dont lie <:GWjiangoPepeFedora:389447036329656323>
Those benchmarks are great