1080 Ti on 1080p@60 Hz and why it makes sense

Oh, it is absolutely worth it. It's a night and day difference.

There's none of those things here. It seems you had bad monitors. I've heard of some monitors having these issues. You need to make sure you're getting a monitor that doesn't have such problems.

No. By default, G-Sync is only active for exclusive fullscreen games. Not for the desktop. You need to explicitly enable it for windowed games.

That is just you. Without G-Sync, there is tearing and stutter. With V-Sync there is stutter and input lag.

 

I have to agree completely with this as it's served me well for decades. How it is achieved however can vary.


P.S. Superman is a (Krytonian slur).

 

I don't mind your reasoning at all actually. And if there's a game that you can crank up maxed 60 FPS 1080p, you could always enable DSR.

But personally I think Gsync is a better way to go. Simply allow for some wiggle room, 57-59 fps with locked 60 Hz Vsync feels horrible, with Gsync it's imperceptible.

Once you stop letting Hz determine your frame rate, letting your game vary from 50-100 FPS using Gsync is amazing IMHO. You just stop thinking about it.

Out of the monitors I've had, TN to IPS, 60 hz to 165 hz, 1080p to 1440p, 24 inch to 27 inch... Gsync has been the best upgrade above all.

 

i agree

 

If you're rendering at a higher resolution while trying to justify the position that 1080Ti is not a waste at 1080p 60Hz then you might as well just get a higher resolution monitor matching your rendering resolution.

By the same logic I could argue that the 1080Ti is a great card for 720p 60FPS since I can just downsample at 9x from 4K. But the obvious clue here is that, instead, I could choose to scale up my display resolution all the way to 4K and still get the same performance but now with much better image quality.

If by next year you have the horsepower to run a higher resolution monitor decently, then by extension, in the present, you definitely have the horsepower to run that higher resolution monitor with today's games. Essentially, other than the money spent on the higher resolution monitor (The 1080Ti is $700 so you're likely in that bracket already), you have a lost opportunity cost of being able to enjoy a higher resolution monitor right now. Given this card is often purchased for its gaming chops at 1440p 100Hz+, you are utilizing around 30-40% of the card's actual gaming potential.

 

Well stated yasa. And lets not forget the other big disadvantage of 1080p and that is you will be stuck on a small size monitor (24"), which detracts from overall visual impact/immersion.

 

No, the logic is that he gets to use his existing monitor and render games at an even higher quality so the card is being utilised at 100%, not 30-40%.

Your assuming he or anyone in his position has the finances to get both right now and not one now and the other next year.
Why buy a 4k monitor/TV now to have to run it at 1080p, when you could wait a year and take advantage of the fact prices are dropping rapidly.

DSR can do wonders for a game, it pretty much fixed the visuals on The Witcher 2 for me, and people thought using 2x970 was overkill for that game and it it's actually not really enough.

alanm, why does screen size matter? I haven't used a monitor outside of work since 2009 as the screen size is too small for me compared to a TV.
Does that mean gaming on a monitor is a disadvantage compared to a TV and anything less than a 50-60inch TV takes away the immersion?

I would say yes, but i don't think is your point.

 

Relative to distance. Monitors assume you are much closer than 50-60" TVs. Also I am recalling from experience every size bump I made since a 15" display 20 years ago. Every couple inches increase put a huge smile on my face. Even my 27" feels too small and am on lookout for 32". But hell yeah, 50-60" 4k TV would be awesome a few feet away. But would be bit of a struggle with GPU.

TV sizes are massively important for content enjoyment, do you not agree? Would you rather watch a movie on 32" or 60"? Of course factor in res + viewing distance, but would think peeps always prefer the larger. Same thing applies to monitors imo.

 

Why run in 1440p when you could run it in 2880x1620, 3200x1800, 3456x1944 or 3584x2016? These resolutions look beautiful and maintain 60fps on ultra. Mass effect Andromeda is the only game I had to run at 2880x1620, everything else runs in at least 3200x1800.

 

Ah, but you see, next year I will have money for new monitor. I simply can't afford to buy both new card and monitor at the same time.

 

Volta is right around the corner. Why not buy the new monitor now and wait for volta? 1080ti is more designed for us 4k display owners that can't wait.

 

I personally agree, but I know people who prefer a smaller screen with a higher ppi.

I don't think the op is suggesting people buy a 1080/60 screen to go with a 1080i, it's more a case of just using your existing screen in the meantime.

 

Right, then it becomes irrelevant whether the 1080Ti is well-suited for 1080p 60Hz or not given the target already is to upgrade the monitor.

In other words, you'd be running the display at 1080p as a matter of fact (since you're short on money) rather than a preference (the 1080Ti is a good 1080p card). The arguments are different.

@Redemption80: I omitted the word "performance" for a reason. I meant to say that using the 1080Ti for a cleaner 1080p 60Hz experience (due to SSAA), relative to the naturally superior (with the exception of shimmering as RealNC mentioned previously) 1440p 100Hz+ one, is effectively using 30-40% of what the card could actually do (in terms of displaying the final image). Granted, 1080p 60Hz with SSAA looks quite better than 1080p 60Hz, but you're pretty much always better off just displaying the resolution you're rendering at (given the resolutions we have in the present).

 

@Terepin: Seems like you want the fastest card as possible and are trying to let us tell you it's a great decision to do it like you do.

To that I say: do what you like. It's your money. Some people might agree, others will not. You go and have fun playing @1080p 60fps for the forseeable future.

 

Maybe it's a bit OT but could you honestly tell me that you get at least 90% scaling in games? E.g. single GPU 50fps --> SLI 90-95fps

After all, you pay double for something and should get double performance out of it, right? I know that there are no games that give you 100% scaling but you would want to be as close to 100% as possible to get your money's worth.

 

Yes most games are using my second gpu allot, gpu useage is between 90% and 99% in metro last light same as witcher 3 and serious sam fusion.

 

I think it depends on the games you play, Gears of War 4 has been the only new game i have saw that truly uses both cards well.

The rest have been non existent or inconsistent.

I missed the Doom comment, and when i test it i got no performance boost with SLI in OGL or Vulkan, and while i have heard that OGL does support it, all it does is split the load between both cards so there is zero performance gain while Vulkan has no support at all.

On topic, it's strange that people are choosing to attack Terepin just because he doesn't have the money to buy a new monitor right away.
It might be hard for some to understand, but many people tend to have one big purchase a year, and some even less often than that.

 

GPU usage is one thing but scaling is another You could have one card pushing 50fps and two cards pushing 70fps even though both cards are at 99% load.

 

I bought my first G-SYNC monitor the weekend before last and I'm absolutely thrilled by it. It's the same resolution as my 25" 2560x1440 Dell U2515H but has a much higher refresh rate of 165 Hz vs. just 60 Hz on the Dell.

I was always of the opinion that a perfect 60 fps framerate was all I needed to enjoy games to the full and that is why I decided to stick with 1440p rather than go for 4K. It meant I could crank up all the eye candy and still have 60 fps in 99.9% of games. The GTX 1080 Ti is an absolute beast and runs pretty much everything at 2560x1440 on maxed out settings, some even at 4K using DSR, and I can now see by how much more with G-SYNC, thanks to being able to use higher framerates with any screen tearing or stuttering.

It's revolutionary IMO and it isn't something you can really show people either; they have to experience it themselves. The Witcher 3 maxed out at 4K with Hairworks on runs at between 45 and 60 fps on my system but it feels smooth at all times. It is a joy to play. Unfortunately, there are games like Ghost Recon: Wildlands which struggle to maintain 60 fps at 2560x1440 on maxed out settings so G-SYNC absolutely helps here with the dips to the low 50s fps such that I no longer notice them.

Personally, I think the GTX 1080 Ti is a bit wasted at 1080p even with a high refresh display. It more ideally suited for 1440p in my experience. If you play games on larger screens then that lower 1080p resolution is going to be more noticeably blocky/jaggy than the same size screen at 1440p. The GTX 1080 Ti has plenty of juice for 1440p and even if that's only going to be the case for another 12-18 months then I am fine with that because I feel I am getting a quality experience in all games even though the rest of PC was built in 2013. I would not be getting that if I had to use a 1080p display (that's a console experience in my view).

 

This is a pretty good analogy. Take heed.