Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by SerotoNiN, Jul 15, 2019.
It really depends on the game. Metro, no way. In BFV on ultra at 2k with explosions and what not I am usually around 120fps on a 165hz monitor.
this is a total disgrace man, i was planning on buying a 2060 rtx and change my monitor to 1440p 144hrz, but now after hearing this im happy to stay the way i am
1060gtx so mostly 1080 some games i could run 1440 and i run my desktop res 4k (dsr) for photoshop and other apps i use and need the real estate.
To be fair, that's because of many games putting useless stuff in their "Ultra" settings with the only effect being tanking the frame rate for an extremely minor visual improvement.
For years. Mostly because I just won't pull the trigger on a massive, wide 3840x1080 @144hz monitor yet. Prime Day tested my patience though. Was 1/3rd off. Damn priorities are annoying.
Yeah I think there's upwards of a 40% performance difference for Assassin's Creed Odyssey and it's volumetric cloud option between V.High and Ultra since it's a very expensive computational effect, other games with similar settings show a not all too dissimilar pattern whether it's the volumetric tessellated sun ray effect in Fallout 4 (Command console allow for fine tuning sample count and such really helps in comparing.) or Quantum Break's volumetric light setting which if you are already using the upscaling option it's going to look almost identical but run 20 - 30% faster just by lowering this one tick down.
Shadows tend to be a similar area although one that can show more of a difference although if players will really notice how smooth or not the transition of shadows are as time passes or the filtering or smoothness effect between multiple objects or self shadowing is well I wouldn't keep it if it's another 20+ percent performance gain for a minimal visual impact outside of direct video or screenshot comparisons.
2560x1440@60hz here as to the topic itself, older Dell monitor though the next upgrade is probably going to be G or Free sync enhanced at 120Hz with some extras. (10+ bit panel instead of 8+2 FRC though I guess banding can't be easily forced away unfortunately.) HDR well probably not but it depends.
Good mid end between 1920x1080 (Or 1920x1200 I kinda liked 16:10 but compatibility wise 16:9 has been welcome and overall 2560x1440 is a expanse in both directions. ) and of course the big one of 3840x2160 though higher can be done via downsampling in older games while still remaining playable.
(Funny how Alien Isolation is still just speeding through at 5120x2880 despite being more recent, linear corridors and all but the visual quality also is quite good but it probably benefits a lot from this compared to ever popular open world games.)
I do miss downsampling up to 3200x1620 (Or 1800 depending on aspect ratio.) as a 50% good but not too demanding since a 25% from 2560x1440 barely shows much improvement although never games still see a dramatic impact on framerate even before hitting "4k" or 3840x2160 so TAA or injected post-process AA with some tweaks is mostly how it's handled, GPU is doing a lot of work but still gets bottlenecked easily at this resolution though RAM has a nice hefty impact as well which is something the next system will alleviate and then there's I/O which a SSD through NVME would be a good solution towards as long as the rest of the system can deal with the higher data throughput without bogging down or stuttering too badly.
(Just shows that the game engines could handle this hardware better but I'm probably missing more of the overall full picture too. Everything kinda has to work together and balance up different areas even if it's heavily GPU and CPU reliant.)
1080p until my RTX 2070 Super arrives.... oh, and my 1440p monitor.
I'm going to keep playing in 1080p until you can run modern games with 144hz at 4K with a mainstream graphics card.
1080p on your deathbed it is then.
It is really giving it a challenge for 1080, 2k at 32%
My main concern guys,can i hit 120 fps at 1440p with rtx 2060 in bf5 using high settings? Or should i get the 2070 to hit that fps range?
What you need is rx 5700xt.
Gaming with 4K monitors, and the fps hit, is what I like about the new Radeon IS. Running the game at 1800p, and upscaling with hardly any noticeable difference is a great achievement. I find DLSS to be fuzzier in comparison. Should be interesting to see the next gen of either feature going forward.
32" QHD (60hz) monitor for me, which feels like just the right fit. I had a 27" previously and it wasn't big enough. I had to sit too close to get the wow factor in games. 32" let's me sit a comfortable distance and still fills my vision.
I demoed a high refresh monitor a while back and didn't get the hype. I'm a single-player gamer though, so I don't need the competitive advantage. I'd rather have more image quality and GPU headroom to keep things running cool and quiet.
I have been using a 28" 4K monitor for a number of years, before that I had a 3 screen Eyefinity setup @ 5760 x 1080. I think the last time I had a "normal" 1080p setup was 2011. I'm so used to higher resolutions now that it's rather jarring to use a standard monitor.
Been on my dual 4K Monitor setup for 2-3 years now <.<
2 x U3011
Really Depends which Monitor and Game I am using some work better on 16:9 or 16:10
the options i this thread are wrong because 1920 x 1080 = 2k
since last november
Fiddle with the settings. You can still have the game look tremendously good and very playable. The 4k res in itself more than makes up for any lowered settings.
SOTR @ 4k and settings