PC Building

[IanCH]

Double the 30xx performance and lower power consumption? That would really, truly, be something. Even the 9xx to 10xx didn't pull that off, and Pascal was an absolute beauty. Everything since has been Pascal++ and just jack the wattage, a la Intel's playbook.

Gimme the 1% Lows tbh. My 6800xt can average ~100+ fps in Vanguard but the lows hurt. Gimme something that can hold 200 fps, I'll cap to 144, and the lows should still be buttery smooth at ~100 vs 60.

What did I miss?

The power levels should stay the same since they are kind of at the limit right now (I say this as someone who owned a voltmodded 2900xt back in the day)

I guess take my point another way, anyone needing 144fps is doing so for competetive games, and you already dont run those games at max graphics settings because the max setting impair visual clarity from a competitive standpoint. Basically, through 1440p the current gen of cards is giving folks excess frames or CPU limiting in their practical use case.

Also, you should never cap at FPS at the refresh rate, as this will result in slower frametimes. You always leave FPS uncapped to get the fastest frametimes shown at each monitor refresh.

 

[Saabingti]

The power levels should stay the same since they are kind of at the limit right now (I say this as someone who owned a voltmodded 2900xt back in the day)

I guess take my point another way, anyone needing 144fps is doing so for competetive games, and you already dont run those games at max graphics settings because the max setting impair visual clarity from a competitive standpoint. Basically, through 1440p the current gen of cards is giving folks excess frames or CPU limiting in their practical use case.

Also, you should never cap at FPS at the refresh rate, as this will result in slower frametimes. You always leave FPS uncapped to get the fastest frametimes shown at each monitor refresh.

Destiny and Vanguard are nowhere near "competitive" games a la CSGO, Valorant, Overwatch. 144 hz is just so much smoother, hence why I made the jump. I actually cap at 143 ... something about frametimes or FreeSync or something. Can't remember where I read why that was important. I don't want to go uncapped because that would defeat the purpose of buying a freesync 144hz monitor.

I definitely think there's some room to develop 1440p further - esp the 1% lows - and it's not just in the GPUs. Most of the internet gurus suggested that at 1440p my limiting factor was my 5700xt since it was way outpacing my CPU. Lo and behold, swapped from a 2600 to a 5800 and gained 15fps

 

[IanCH]

I guess you just dont understand at all what I am saying, but you are claiming that I am wrong

So funny man, you have a lot of learning to do. Freesync and other tools are only useful if your computer cant run up to the monitor refresh rate. I have never once even needed to use it because I don't play single player games on max settings. You never ever cap your FPS or even use freesync if you can even approach the monitor refresh rate. It's useful for like 60fps or lower.

First start by realizing that there are far more than 3 games that are played competitively. If you are playing PvP shooters online of any kind you dont run max graphics settings because the "graphical improvements" are just useless noise.

 

[DFWGOAT]

damn i am soo glad i found this here. hello all my fellow computer nerds lol. just figured i would post my setup it's not the latest and greatest out there but its my baby and have put a good amount of time and effort into my gaming / GF streaming setup. it's still a work in progress the desk in the next big thing on the list to upgrade.

Quick specs rundown:
Corsair D5000 air flow case
Lian Li ST120 fans
WD-black 2tb
Samsung 970 evo m.2 1TB
16GB trident Z 3600 DDR4 - have another 16GB just haven't installed yet in these pics
EVGA 850 G3 80+ gold
Kraken X52 AIO
MSI MAG X570 Tomahawk WIFI Motherboard
Powercolor RX6800 Fighter GPU
Ryzen 9 3950X CPU

 

[the]

Zotac's website has some GPUs in stock today. Grabbed a 3060.

 

[Saabingti]

I guess you just dont understand at all what I am saying, but you are claiming that I am wrong

So funny man, you have a lot of learning to do. Freesync and other tools are only useful if your computer cant run up to the monitor refresh rate. I have never once even needed to use it because I don't play single player games on max settings. You never ever cap your FPS or even use freesync if you can even approach the monitor refresh rate. It's useful for like 60fps or lower.

First start by realizing that there are far more than 3 games that are played competitively. If you are playing PvP shooters online of any kind you dont run max graphics settings because the "graphical improvements" are just useless noise.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand input lag and render time, but I'm saying that it does not matter for me nearly as much as it would for someone playing a competitive game. My days of pushing to hit rank 50 in Team Doubles were two decades ago. The last game I played "competitively" was Destiny on console at a totally-esports-worthy FPS of 30. At this point in life I'm having a few beers and chilling after work. I'd much rather cap in game at 143 instead of experiencing frame tear because my GPU is pushing 160hz to a 144hz max monitor. Plus, since I'm not competing, I can run the games at higher-than-low settings so it looks nice - no need for me to play stretched and min settings, after all.

I get the impression you're probably running PS/2 inputs and a CRT monitor, but you may find this post, this post and this post interesting. The discussion on GSync causing higher lag past the monitor refresh rate is new to me, I just hated fps above hz because of screen tearing.

I'd like to 1% lows to get better so that I'm not sitting at 130 fps one moment and 50 fps the next - because that is absolutely noticeable.

 

[SnailPower]

You guys seem to know good hz/fps knowledge. I've only been gaming up to 1920by1080 with my current screen. I also wouldn't dare let my 1070 go higher because I think it will definitely cripple.

With a new build in mind. What would be a good casual gaming resolution to play at with I'd say, perfect FPS and gaming at highest settings? Pretend I have a 3090gtx and the fastest CPU so powering the quality wouldn't be an issue. My concern would basically be, what is a comfortable gaming resolution/monitor (just a single, not going multi) to get the maximum quality out of a game? I've also heard of HDR displays and see those options in some games of mine but they're disabled (Mortal Kombat 11, Horizon New Dawn, Diablo 2 Resurrected...). Is there anything unique to get that option available or just an HDR supported display?

Put it, my technology researching/keeping up with it stopped on my last and current build which happened nearly 7 years ago now.

 

[sterkrazzy]

I would get something like a 32-35" ultrawide curved monitor that's at least capable of 1440p, but with a 3090 you might as well get a 4k monitor so you can actually benefit from the hardware. It should also be 120 or 144hz, or higher. It won't be a cheap monitor, but that's what I'd do.

My lg c1 has a better picture than my alienware 3420dw, so if oled is also an option I'd go with that over an IPS.

I don't pay much attention to HDR since it doesn't seem like most monitors really get that right. They advertise 400 or 600 HDR, but from what I've read that number should be at least 1k in order for it to be real HDR.

 

[IanCH]

So...

1. 1440p (2560x1440) is the sweet spot for gaming right now, good 27in ips 144hz+ displays are reasonable in price
2. Ultrawide has poor support in some games, I still feel that multi monitor is ideal for gaming because you want to see your desktop in most cases.
3. There is a next generation of OLED that finally will make it have no burn, but AFAIK from watching videos on the topic the current gen isn't there yet. Also super expensive compared to IPS
4. Dont get a VA panel.
5. HDR may be a feature of the panel or display, but its not particularly good still unless you have OLED. If you get it as a feature you might use it, but its not ubiquitous yet

 

[sterkrazzy]

I'd disagree about ultrawide support. It's going to be pretty rare where it's not supported, and when it's not its usually a design decision, like Hades for instance. I would never consider a monitor that isn't ultrawide at this point. It's popular enough that something like a 3440x1440 monitor will be supported. Something crazy wide like the odyssey g9 will be able to run resolutions that aren't supported as much, but 3440x1440 is pretty standard now.

If you only want 1 monitor it's absolutely the way to go.

 

[the]

So...

1. 1440p (2560x1440) is the sweet spot for gaming right now, good 27in ips 144hz+ displays are reasonable in price
2. Ultrawide has poor support in some games, I still feel that multi monitor is ideal for gaming because you want to see your desktop in most cases.
3. There is a next generation of OLED that finally will make it have no burn, but AFAIK from watching videos on the topic the current gen isn't there yet. Also super expensive compared to IPS
4. Dont get a VA panel.
5. HDR may be a feature of the panel or display, but its not particularly good still unless you have OLED. If you get it as a feature you might use it, but its not ubiquitous yet

I got this, bundled with a discount at $330. Since it came with a 3070 TI I couldn't get off the hook. At first I was really sad it was only going to be 27", but now that it has arrived it's much larger than my other 27" monitor. I'd say it checks all the boxes, unless you have OLED money.

https://www.newegg.com/black-asus-t...d 165Hz-_-24-281-049-_-Product&quicklink=true

 

[IanCH]

I'd disagree about ultrawide support. It's going to be pretty rare where it's not supported, and when it's not its usually a design decision, like Hades for instance. I would never consider a monitor that isn't ultrawide at this point. It's popular enough that something like a 3440x1440 monitor will be supported. Something crazy wide like the odyssey g9 will be able to run resolutions that aren't supported as much, but 3440x1440 is pretty standard now.

If you only want 1 monitor it's absolutely the way to go.

Playing some games on ultrawide is super weird (i have one at work, I've done it) and the FOV gets very screwy. But still, the major point is that 1 display is not enough and most people dont have room for an ultrawide and another display on their desk.

For productivity, desktop use ultrawide is amazing, but in gaming its just extra pixels unless all you play is racing games.

 

[sterkrazzy]

Playing some games on ultrawide is super weird (i have one at work, I've done it) and the FOV gets very screwy. But still, the major point is that 1 display is not enough and most people dont have room for an ultrawide and another display on their desk.

For productivity, desktop use ultrawide is amazing, but in gaming its just extra pixels unless all you play is racing games.

I'd disagree with pretty much all of that too lol

I love the extra pixels. I don't care if it's a game like Diablo, or Destiny, or Forza. If desk space is that much of an issue they also have desk mounts and wall mounts that can take care of that. I've never noticed FOV being weird or different either.

I've used ultrawide for so long now at both home and work. I'd never go back.

 

[sterkrazzy]

Actually racing games are the one type of game I don't play on my monitor. My 2nd screen is a 55" lg oled tv, so with racing games, which I'm going to be playing with a controller, I'd rather be leaned back in my chair and pushed away from my desk a little. Everything else is played on my ultrawide though.

 

[IanCH]

So what's your solution for being able to see your desktop while gaming? basically just playing in windowed mode is the only way I know of.

Multiple monitors is a must have, I have 3 monitors. 2x 2560x1440 and 1x 2560x1080