Personally I would wait for a 4K monitor until they get cheaper. By that time games will actually be made for that resolution.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, absolutely. You may want to check out this video too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_2DAs-S5hc
Comment has been collapsed.
Simple but expensive solution - Buy 1440p monitor with IPS, 144hz and G-Sync (if You have nvidia card). Acer XB270HU is what i have and it drastically changed how i look at game now. This monitor is da bitch and i would never trade it for anything else.
Smooth movements, stunning picture quality, high refresh rate...but price is steep. Upgrading monitor gave me 1000% bigger difference than changing GPU even for the most high end model and i cannot recommend it enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really would never suggest something that I think sucks. For example that's why I didn't suggest you a FHD, 144Hz one without G-Sync or Freesync (if you are not running a beast PC). I've got one like this, it sucks and it's probably the only piece of hardware that I am unsatisfied with.
Comment has been collapsed.
1ms makes no sense with 60hz, if You REALLY want 1ms then go with 120-144hz monitor. Also i think 4K is still flawed and some games might give You trouble runing with good FPS, hence 1ms will be pointless anyway.
You could check Asus ROG Swift with 1ms and 144hz. Its a 1440p monitor and this is great upgrade from Full HD which also yields very good performance.
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all the "1ms" you are mentioning is the response time and not the refresh rate. If you are willing to go for a screen with more than 60Hz, choose a G-Sync or Freesync one (based on what graphics card you have). If you decide to go for a 4K monitor you probably won't be able to even reach 60 FPS (unless you own a 980ti).
So in the end. I'd suggest to get a 1440p or a FHD one with G-Sync or Freesync. Don't go for a 4K it's too early (unless you are a content producer).
Comment has been collapsed.
http://wccftech.com/multi-gpu-nvidia-sli-amd-crossfire-performance-value-comparison/2/
This is why. The Titan series is powerful, but with its price tag, it is closer to dickwagging than a good choice for a gamer. It has only one advantage: NVidia SLI is still sketchy for games, Crossfire is slightly more reliable (although there still will be quite a few titles where you more than likely have to use one card only because they cannot really work in multi-GPU setups). And the Titan is just one card, so it won't have this problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think I will ever do a crossfire because AMD is not really my first choise to take.
After last think that occured with the grapchis card, AMD screw up and made a hugh mistake which made me realise even more that Nvidia is the best for me. Never had issues before, and I wish I won't run into some in future.
Comment has been collapsed.
NVidia makes solid cards, but they are also incredibly overpriced (your Titan is the current prime example) and they are pushing the market toward closed solutions where they keep their market share not by innovation and pushing things forward, but just paying engine developers to use their software which purposefully sabotages the performance of the competition. Sooner or later this can result either someone growing over their head (like how they did when they introduced the first GeForce cards) or completely stopping the hardware-level improvement of this segment. Heck, the way things are going, Intel's side project of integrated graphics solutions is catching up to NVidia's lower segments (where AMD's integrated graphics have beaten them already).
Comment has been collapsed.
You're going to need about $1200+ in GPUs to go along with your monitor for 4k and decent settings.
Like others have said, if you have a beefy GPU go with 1440p. Mid-range GPU, go with 1080p. Refresh rate means nothing if your GPU can't keep up.
If you want great color and depth, get an IPS panel (though you'll sacrifice some response time), and if you want response time, get a VA or TN panel (though I dislike TN panels). But once you go IPS, you'll never want to go back to VA or TN panels.
I use a 1440p IPS and it's gorgeous. It sits next to my old 27" VA panel, and the difference is absolutely astounding.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah you won't get 60fps on newer games at 4k with one Titan X unless you're OK with turning down some settings.
For that money, you'd be better off with 2x 980's, Ti's, or 390X's imho (or go with 1440p).
Comment has been collapsed.
From my experiences with a machine I recently got issued to me by my employer I suspect you will be better off with a (relatively) lower resolution screen than a very high resolution screen with less FPS and significantly higher performance issues (whatever you think about your graphics card). But that is just my opinion...
Comment has been collapsed.
That is what I'm saying. I think 4K will be standard before long - but if you are asking me personally then right now it is something that requires a significant performance leap and I'd take advantage of smoother FPS while waiting for PC components to catch up...
Comment has been collapsed.
Then I am pretty sure you are confusing things. Low response time on a monitor only means you will less likely to see blurring, when a pixel transforms into something. If you want to increase gaming performance with your own response time, then you need refresh rate to be able to see more and more precise movement. Therefore, you actually need a 144 Hz monitor with a card and settings that allow for such speed.
Not to mention that you are continuously mentioning Titan X, but do you even have a CPU and RAM fast enough to use it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks, and yes I do.
i7 6700K and 32GB RAM DDR4 is pretty much enough I think.
Just for the record, the main reason I want the 1ms is that I have been told in games you get to see people before they see you. I know it's about milliseconds here which is nearly nothing but it affects as I believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
The best human reaction time is around 100 ms, but usually in the 2-500 ms territory. That 4 ms difference is not enough for the synapses to fire in your brain and reach your fingers.
That CPU is more than enough for a Titan, yes. The GPU will remain the bottleneck for it in the next 2 or so years. RAM may be an interesting question, since most people just buy the one with the highest frequency they find (and wonder why is it slower than one with half the frequency), but in gaming, it should not be noticeable at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure you wont achieve 60+FPS in GTA V or Star Wars Battlefront or any new game. I think they have 60FPS lock. You can use your 144Hz in only few games and it's still not worth it, as I said before, just if you want to be progamer it will be great buy.
So, if you want to play CS:GO or any game like that, buy 144Hz. But Im on 90% sure that 4K 60Hz will be better purchase. 144Hz monitors are huuuge waste of money. As you said it depend on your rig but I hope you have good bcs you want 4K monitor :D.
BTW. FullHD 60Hz are enough for many ppl. I have no idea why you want to upgrade.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see no reason für upgrading as long as monitor supports downsampling ... I recently play on 2.880 x 1.620 on a 27" Full-HD Monitor and this fits all needs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a 4k TV that I use as a monitor and I honestly believe its too early to use this for gaming. I'm sure it works fine for some titles, but your going to need a system with dual graphics cards to even get close to a playable frame rate unless you just want to play solitaire or mahjong.
I have an AMD R9 280 3gb card and I can play most games at high/max at 1080p.... I tried a game of company of heroes at 4k... at the very beginning of the game with nothing going on... 1-2fps. It did look very nice for those 1-2 frames :)
My tv was an xmas present but if It was up to me, I wouldn't have picked it out. Its just too early for this tech.
Instead of spending that kind of money on 4k, I would suggest buying a quality monitor with a high refresh rate... like 120hz+
My brother owns an asus monitor that is 144? hz I think... anyways I got to see it over xmas and his games are so fluid.
Comment has been collapsed.
11 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by Chris76de
1,833 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by FranckCastle
93 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Glas
33 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Axelflox
15 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by vlbastos
386 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by adam1224
207 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by sensualshakti
13 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by 9389998
20 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by eldar4k
10,792 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Cruse
693 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Cruse
192 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by antidaz
2 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by aquatorrent
58 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Lexbya
Hello,
I want to get a new monitor with a response time of 1ms (mine currently has 5ms), but my dilema is that:
At the one hand, I want to get to a new high level of graphics by getting 4K monitor, which will provide me new quality that I have never experienced before, but the refresh rate will remain 60HZ just like my current one.
At the other hand, if I take a monitor with a resolution of FULL HD (just like my current one) I could get myself a monitor with a refresh rate of 144HZ.
So.. If I take 4K I will advance in graphics, but the fps I gain in games is 60 maxed, and I cosider it as a miss to improve that also.
But if I stay with FULL HD, I could advance in FPS which will provide me better and smoother gaming experience.
What should I do?
In both ways my new monitor will be certainly 1ms so that does not worry me
Comment has been collapsed.