Why do people find it acceptable to spend $300-400 on a GPU but find the idea of a $400-700 display outside the realm...

Why do people find it acceptable to spend $300-400 on a GPU but find the idea of a $400-700 display outside the realm of acceptable purchases?

Especially for gaming? FreeSync/G-Sync/1440p/21:9 are GOAT

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=V62mt0U3YPM
techpowerup.com/219588/samsung-readies-144-hz-3440-x-1440-ultra-wide-monitors
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

$300 GPUs can't handle that, for one.

>DOOM isn't even taking up the whole screen

This is why you don't use meme ratios and stick with 16:9.

Because you can get a $300-$400 GPU and the game will run pretty much the same whether you have a $100-$700 display.

The menu isn't made for 21:9 but in gameplay it is completely optimized for 21:9 gameplay

youtube.com/watch?v=V62mt0U3YPM

I can do 40-50FPS 3440x1440 high settings on my AMD 390 in most games, and considering a RX 480 is faster than the 390, a $200 GPU can do this now.

But my point is, why spend $300-500 on a GPU and have a $200 display?

I think the more expensive displays are starting to make sense now that there are things like 40" 2160p computer monitors that can take the place of 2 or 3 smaller less expensive monitors.

I suppose I do actually understand a curved 21:9 monitor. What gets me is those people who buy curved TVs and sit on a couch far away from it. Like, what's the fucking point?

>40 fps
>acceptable
just play on console lmao

I don't disagree on 1440p OP but 21:9 is a meme.

It isn't. I love 21:9 1440p because it's nearly 4K without text scaling issues

I love the curve since it's up in my face but I didn't get a curved 4K because I didn't see any benefit at the demo booth at CES

I took a photo

Yeah, I would much rather have a large format 16:9 display than a typical 21:9 display, but then I like having a tall display.

I'm not running a 390, I'm running a 980ti, a $200 card should be able to do 21:9 1440p @ 50FPS in newer games

Why do people spend more on a GPU than they're willing to spend on a monitor? I spent $500 on my GPU so I was more than willing to spend $500 on a monitor.

id much rather have 144hz than 21:9 tbqh

The benefit of 2160p / 4k is that you can go to a very large display size without dropping below the standard picture quality we've been living with for years, no text scaling problems requried. A 40" 2160p monitor is only a bit sharper than a 24" 1080p monitor or a 28" 1440p monitor.

I'm usually using apps in mine in window mode or split screen mode, showing a browser taking up the whole of the screen just doesn't do it justice. The advantage is being able to have a multiple windows on screen that are each larger than most people's whole display.

Why not both?

techpowerup.com/219588/samsung-readies-144-hz-3440-x-1440-ultra-wide-monitors

Once 40-50 inch 4K monitors become the norm, I'll probably go towards 4K but these 28 inch 4K monitors that are selling right now? Fuck that man.

What makes no sense to me are the guys who post semi regularly on here who have 6 core i7s, and multiple 980s and have a single 24" 1080p@60hz display.

You should be willing to spend at least as much on your monitor as your video card, and in some cases spending more can make sense. You can always turn a 1440p display down to 720p or a 2160p display down to 1080p or 720p for performance. You can't make a bad display better.

I am opposite as you. My monitor can do 80fps (Dell refuses to up the refresh rate so it's normally 60).

I had the tall 2560x1600 30" Dell and a 1920x1200 24" in portrait. Switching to 3440x1440 isn't so bad. I actually like 21:9 more than running a second monitor in portrait.

(I unironically think that 16:10 > 16:9)

Yep. I have friends that do this shit and they have 980s/6700Ks and they refuse to get a decent monitor above 1080p/60hz

I've been considering a new monitor since I'm on a cheaper 27" 60Hz IPS display.

Looking at 27" 144Hz 1440p displays and I can't decide if an IPS display is worth the extra 200-300 dollars. Plus, quality control seems to be pretty shitty for most companies.

Once you get to 40" the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 really isn't that great, and there's no reason to run a second monitor portrait or otherwise because half your screen is still 1920x2160

He's got enough horsepower with SLI 980s to run 4k. This old rig of mine badly needs a new card.

because those monitors will cost a fortune and you'd need double 1080s to run it at 144hz

That's why I didn't get a 2560x1440 144hz monitor, because even that would require SLI.

I just went from never using anything above 60hz to 75hz and I am fucking amazed. Ignorance truly is bliss.

>those monitors will cost a fortune
They're already well below $1000 the economies of scale for large 16:9 panels keeps the prices down unlike odd aspect ratios like 21:9.

>you'd need double 1080s to run it at 144hz
For high end games maybe, but you can drive a 60hz 2160p display even with first gen gcn hardware. Most cards today are just fine for older games and I just set mine to 1080p for newer more demanding games. Even at 1080p the ppi still is about the same as the 1680x1050 monitor I was using not that long ago.

Besides, if you're going to spend $1000+ for a SLI setup, why not spend the money for a good monitor?

I'd argue you need a CPU upgrade as well. Look at some benchmarks, the 2700K is starting to bottleneck performance in recent games. Combined with the DDR4 performance gains, it would be nice for your system.

If you're looking for price to performance, I'd get a RX 480, overclock it and you should be able to get 980ti performance

>Besides, if you're going to spend $1000+ for a SLI setup, why not spend the money for a good monitor?
i wouldn't

thats the point

3840x2160 TVs aren't that expensive now. Samsung 4K with 4:4:4 and 60fps is now under $1000. That's the point in time that I went for a 30" 2560x1600 a couple of years ago.

IF YOU HAD UNLIMITED MONEY

WHY WOULDN'T YOU GET QUAD SLI 1080S WITH DOUBLE 21:9 1440P MONITORS

mfw I have 1440p 144hz but used a r9 290 and now a 980

>require SLI

>tfw all you play is csgo and runescape

Even the monitors aren't that much more, sometimes they're even the same price and the benefit of the monitor is higher end internals and sometimes much less input lag.

My second-gen 40" 4k@60 monitor was $600 off of Amazon a year ago.

Thats not false I only play csgo, wow and KF2

Why would you want to use a 4K TV as your monitor? The ghosting would be awful

kek

But if you don't have unlimited money, why would you get a $300+ part? The 970 is the most popular card, and 1080p is still the most popular resolution by like 85% of the PC userbase

You could easily get by on a 280/380 or a 960

>you started sitting up straighter after seeing this image

Actually the panels used for them are typically the same ones used for the monitors, part of why the monitors have come down in price so quickly. The difference is usually that the TV's hardware is cheap and only really meant for video in 2160p mode so you get bad input lag unless you put it into 1080p or 720p mode for console gaming. For 40" 2160p gaming you'll want to get one of the displays sold as a computer monitor.

the 280 or 380 or 960 can't run new games at max at 60fps moron

Yep. The bottleneck is evident when gaming at 1080p where the GPU is going so fast that it's waiting on CPU. At 1440p and above this issue goes away and fps only differ by 2-3 frames, but frame rate dip on the Sandy Bridge is wider.

I've been thinking of moving to a RX 480 or a GTX 1070. No point to do it right away cause there's only rumors around 480, not enough actual benchmarks.

I thought the same, but I've checked and you can buy TVs with response time at about 8ms with input lag of around 25ms, which aren't that horrible anymore. I am still somewhat apprehensive, but I think that we are getting closer to the point where we can have even 5ms response time on 4k displays at less than $1000 across the board.

It creates a subtle depth effect together with post processing. Looks really good on some movies. Also in my experience the 3d effect works way better.

NDA goes up on the 28th when the card actually releases. I have no fucking idea why AMD did that if they really do have an ace in the hole

Oh shit, I'll look into 4K TVs next time then. Some of those frames are sexy as fuck too.

21:9 is at the point where the distance of eyeball to screen actually differs going edge to edge, and given how close we sit to the screen, we would notice this.

I like the subtle curve. It addresses this effect.

having a screen over 24" right in front of your face is just plain stupid.

also, love the 4k and vr gimmicks and the fact they're boosting GPUs performances through the roof for us 1080p guys.

>not using a 27 inch monitor minimum
Jesus Christ

plain stupid? I can't agree with you. Sim games need as much real estate as you can muster, same for productivity purposes. Strategy games benefit from larger display as well. I would argue against enormous displays for people who play CS:GO, but I don't agree for other genres.

144hz > 1440p
higher FPS > higher graphics settings

all of the day bro

Competitively, yes, with 1080p being the most mature.
Otherwise, aim at 60fps @ 4k or 80fps-100fps at 1440p. The color reproduction on a TN panel sucks.

21:9 1440p/Corsair K70 master race reporting in

The jump from 1080p 60hz to 144hz is bigger than the jump from 1080p to 1440p.

As someone who used both, I'd much rather have the additional resolution, because the higher the resolution is, the less anti-aliasing is needed and overall it look better

Though you can get a 144hz/1440p monitor for $400 if you get a refurb

>doom
casual garbage.

I don't disagree about pushing above 60. I would choose a 144Hz IPS monitor with 2560x1440 though, because I do value color gamut. Those aren't very wallet friendly though.

See, I'd rather have the FPS. For me, the extra smoothness is more important than dealing with jaggies. Stuttering is more of a problem in my mind than a little graphical fidelity would ever be, I'm the kind of person to set everything on lowest in order to get that sweet 144.

Then again, I play a lot of shooters and faster paced games, maybe someone who players slower stuff would want better grafix

As someone who grew up playing games on 312x214 resolution I've never understood why kids today think resolution == quality of graphics.

Hell I'd gladly go lower than 1080p if graphics would improve in other regards. Resolution is one of the least important things for me.

Agreed. MMOs and Todd's games aren't enough to make me want a 144Hz display, but multiplayer FPS would. I use my monitor for productivity desk job purposes where I do fire up Photoshop from time to time, so resolution and real estate matters more.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Devs will have shitty art styles regardless of res but the ones that are up to making something good shouldn't be limited.

I grew up playing games at shit resolutions too, but I don't want to still be playing at those resolutions now.

>21:9 are GOAT
lolno.

I have a 2560 x 1440 monitor with 144hz and G-Sync, and I do not need SLI. Granted, I also have a GTX 1080 so that makes a world of difference.

Also, maybe it is just me, but do other people feel like there is not much difference between 60 FPS and 100 FPS? I do notice a major difference when it is above that (Usually about 110 FPS is when it starts looking more smooth to me), and I definatly can tell the difference on 120FPS and above, but 100 feels the exact same.

21:9 is great if you love movies and giving yourself as much grief possible when it comes to games.

jesus fucking christ you win the lotto or something?

I was playing Quake 2 yesterday and it had native support for 3440x1440, there are very few games that lack 21:9 support and those that do are patched by the developer/community rather quickly

>dat tryhard setup

kek

a 1080 is $600 and a 144hz/1440p G-Sync monitor can be had for under $600 as well

If you don't have $2000 to spend on your hobby, you must be extremely poor.

As far as my equipment? I sold my 980 Ti right before the 1080 announcement and only had to spend like $150 on the 1080, and I got my monitor for $500 used (Sold my old one for about $250).

1440p isn't that different from 1080p and you can get a 1080 144hz for ~$300

...

we grew up playing at resolutions like that because we had to, there was nothing better and if there was, it would be stupidly expensive and not for the general consumer.

or are you going to be a computer amish about it?

you can still spend those 2000 on something that make sense instead of stupid shit.

also, if you use any kind of vertical sync you're a fucking casual, no matter how rich you are, you're a dirty casual.

~two years in.

144hz is the future.

On what? I make 6K a month and I get my games day of release for $20-30, I have a house, a car, a hot girlfriend

While guys are spending $10,000 on golf, quads and boats, I have my PC gaming

...

I'll be your hot girlfriend

Im running the same setup, looking to get a 1080 to replace my 980 for VR and some better settings in shit like the Witcher 3 in 2.5k

nonsense post on both subjects
quake 2 wont even run on a modern system, the game is running in a wrapper through some mod

>mfw stick with a 1920x1080p monitor just fine and am able to run Max FPS since it isn't that much a strain
>game looks perfectly fine

I mean, eventually I'll upgrade but I don't see the point senpai

Have you ever tried a higher res/refresh rate screen?

stop posting this fake

>$1500 monitors from Acer and Asus are assembled by Chinese coal miner children.

I'll wait till some non-shit companies come out with some feature rich monitors without sourcing their panels from a garbage depot.

I dislike how that Dell doesn't release freesync/Gsync Ultrasharps. I have been using their Ultrasharps since the last decade. I really would rather buy Dell instead of Acer/Asus.