I'm going to be getting a new PC in the next couple of months and had a question for you guys. I recently got a very good 27" 1080p monitor that I don't quite feel like parting with it just yet for a higher resolution monitor. I know that in the long run I'll be fine with 1080p, especially when I'm wanting to max out games like the Witcher 3 and whatever else will come this year to put my system to the test.
But anyway, I've pretty much already decided on getting a GTX 980. I've only ever had single-card configurations but am kind of considering going SLI with this one. Do you guys think that two 980's will be overkill if I'm just playing in 1080p or is one 980 going to be enough? Keep in mind that I want to be maxing out The Witcher 3 at 60fps. Same goes for Batman Arkham Knight and future Unreal 4 Engine games. Also wanting to get the best possible performance out of Star Citizen.
A single GTX980 is fine for 1080p. If you want the best bang for your buck and not spend as much, you can get two GTX 970s and SLI them. A single GTX 970 is just fine for 1080p as well. A second one will just make it even better.
On that note, you said you getting a PC in 2 months, so I wouldn't look at current prices and/or selection of GPUs. AMD's new GPUs will be coming in a few months and Nvidia will counter back as well.
Yeah I was just doing some research and it definitely looks like two 970's would be the best option for me. Thanks for the input, looks like that's what I'm gonna do. I've currently got an i7 2600K, 6GB of Ram, and a 660Ti. It's been great up until some recent games like Far Cry 4 (although I know it's horribly optimized) made me crank most of the settings down to medium if I want 60fps and then looking at the Witcher 3's system requirements I realized it was time for an upgrade. Plus, now that developers are leaving last-gen consoles behind it would only be logical that the Witcher's minimum requirements will be what we see more and more of for big budget games, as was the case with Assassin's Creed Unity as well.
@ShadowDeathX Has any information been released on AMD's GPU's yet or when they'll be released? I've kind of been an Nvidia guy for a while now. My last Radeon card was an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. Awesome card back in the day by the way.
@ianhh6: I'm doing a whole new build, I'm not sticking with that old processor or only 6GB of ram, i was just saying what I'm currently working with. I'm definitely getting 16GB of ram and most likely an i7-5820K.
If you got the money go for it. I installed SLI 970's for someone and it runs Crysis 3 like butter. But crappy optimized games like Far Cry 4 have issues, even with single cards.
@ianhh6: I'm doing a whole new build, I'm not sticking with that old processor or only 6GB of ram, i was just saying what I'm currently working with. I'm definitely getting 16GB of ram and most likely an i7-5820K.
@ianhh6: I'm doing a whole new build, I'm not sticking with that old processor or only 6GB of ram, i was just saying what I'm currently working with. I'm definitely getting 16GB of ram and most likely an i7-5820K.
You're wasting your money here unless you plan on editing stuff.
i5 4690K with 8Gb of RAM is all you need for gaming; You want to future proof that 1080p? get yourself 2x 970s or 2x 290s.
@ianhh6: I'm doing a whole new build, I'm not sticking with that old processor or only 6GB of ram, i was just saying what I'm currently working with. I'm definitely getting 16GB of ram and most likely an i7-5820K.
You're wasting your money here unless you plan on editing stuff.
i5 4690K with 8Gb of RAM is all you need for gaming; You want to future proof that 1080p? get yourself 2x 970s or 2x 290s.
2 970's should future proof you for for 1440p to :P
@ianhh6: I'm doing a whole new build, I'm not sticking with that old processor or only 6GB of ram, i was just saying what I'm currently working with. I'm definitely getting 16GB of ram and most likely an i7-5820K.
You're wasting your money here unless you plan on editing stuff.
i5 4690K with 8Gb of RAM is all you need for gaming; You want to future proof that 1080p? get yourself 2x 970s or 2x 290s.
Yeah I'm future-proofing. All editing and graphic design type work is done on my Mac anyway. I've decided on an i7-5820K, 16 gigs of ram, and two 970's. Should be good to go for a while.
@ianhh6: I'm doing a whole new build, I'm not sticking with that old processor or only 6GB of ram, i was just saying what I'm currently working with. I'm definitely getting 16GB of ram and most likely an i7-5820K.
You're wasting your money here unless you plan on editing stuff.
i5 4690K with 8Gb of RAM is all you need for gaming; You want to future proof that 1080p? get yourself 2x 970s or 2x 290s.
Yeah I'm future-proofing. All editing and graphic design type work is done on my Mac anyway. I've decided on an i7-5820K, 16 gigs of ram, and two 970's. Should be good to go for a while.
I'm going for the same type of rig as well, except with 8 GB of DDR4 RAM instead of 16 GB. Better to wait for the tech to mature and prices to drop before putting big bucks down.
And to be honest, for 400$ more (the cost of an extra 970), you get a PC that will last you a very long time. Even if you don't do editing and stuff like that (like me), the advantage of spending a bit more gets you an extra 2 CPU cores, which is valuable to have, since consoles have 6 cores disposed for gaming (2 reserved for OS, which makes 8), and DDR4 RAM capability. That alone should add a bunch of future-proofing to your rig, and for a relatively small price gap (considering that to get a very good Z97 rig for about 1100$). Considering games now are already requiring 4 cores and 8 GB of RAM, you'll be on the safe side once devs start making the switch to more powerful hardware, similar to the 2 core to 4 core transition that occured with the last generation of consoles.
Instead of getting an extra GTX 970 for SLI now (one GTX 970 still maxes out most games at 1080p anyways), you're probably adding a lot of life to the CPU/mobo combo, and thus, your rig as a whole.
Instead of getting an extra GTX 970 for SLI now (one GTX 970 still maxes out most games at 1080p anyways), you're probably adding a lot of life to the CPU/mobo combo, and thus, your rig as a whole.
Instead of getting an extra GTX 970 for SLI now (one GTX 970 still maxes out most games at 1080p anyways), you're probably adding a lot of life to the CPU/mobo combo, and thus, your rig as a whole.
Not if TC is planning on Gsync.
True enough, but considering G-sync monitors still cost as much as some gaming rigs, it might be best to wait a bit until prices drop :)
True enough, but considering G-sync monitors still cost as much as some gaming rigs, it might be best to wait a bit until prices drop :)
To be completely honest, why would you drop $600 towards an SLI or Crossfire and game on some cheap $200 monitor?
Your enjoyment comes from visuals, which is what the monitor does. As such, I have no problem spending $1000 on a monitor which lasts 7 yrs+.
What if you do the SLI or Crossfire with the goal of having more FPS, or having higher graphics settings for games? A bump in texture quality or FPS will show up on screen regardless of whether it's a 200$ screen or a 1000$ screen. Now, the 1000$ screen might display it better in terms of color reproduction and contrast ratio, but is the difference really worth 800$, when you can wait about a year and get those monitors at a more reasonable price? Not to mention that for your average consumer, an 800$ price difference is huge, since for them most people, a 200$ monitor is plenty good for their needs (even most gamers, who are usually more concerned about things like response time, can be found in sub-200$ monitors).
Obviously G-Sync is an interesting technology and I heard it's doing great things to eliminate stutter and tearing, but because it's a new technology, there is a price premium that comes with that, and just like any new technology, it's often better to wait it out and give the tech a chance to mature and drop in price before investing in it. It might be worthwhile for you since you want the best of the best in terms of quality, and it's understandable, because for you the value of having great color reproduction, contrast ratio, less stutter, etc. is worth the extra cost, especially in the long run. But for some people, these are little more than minor annoyances (or don't even bother them at all in some cases) and don't warrant the extra price, at least until they become more reasonable.
My point is that the first reason that people tend to use SLI and Crossfire for is ''I want my games to have higher FPS and texture quality'' rather than ''I now have the ability to support a better monitor'', since an increase of the in-game graphics quality is a lot more noticeable to your average gamer than the millionth shade of a color difference on screen.
A 980 is overkill for 1080, however if you're future proofing a rig you could stick one in an SLI motherboard and get a second later down the line. You'll get a steady 60fps in every game at ultra with a 980, including badly optimised titles like Unity. I think it's pretty sensible upgrading to high-end components one step at a time as and when you feel the need to.
What if you do the SLI or Crossfire with the goal of having more FPS, or having higher graphics settings for games? A bump in texture quality or FPS will show up on screen regardless of whether it's a 200$ screen or a 1000$ screen. Now, the 1000$ screen might display it better in terms of color reproduction and contrast ratio, but is the difference really worth 800$, when you can wait about a year and get those monitors at a more reasonable price? Not to mention that for your average consumer, an 800$ price difference is huge, since for them most people, a 200$ monitor is plenty good for their needs (even most gamers, who are usually more concerned about things like response time, can be found in sub-200$ monitors).
Obviously G-Sync is an interesting technology and I heard it's doing great things to eliminate stutter and tearing, but because it's a new technology, there is a price premium that comes with that, and just like any new technology, it's often better to wait it out and give the tech a chance to mature and drop in price before investing in it. It might be worthwhile for you since you want the best of the best in terms of quality, and it's understandable, because for you the value of having great color reproduction, contrast ratio, less stutter, etc. is worth the extra cost, especially in the long run. But for some people, these are little more than minor annoyances (or don't even bother them at all in some cases) and don't warrant the extra price, at least until they become more reasonable.
My point is that the first reason that people tend to use SLI and Crossfire for is ''I want my games to have higher FPS and texture quality'' rather than ''I now have the ability to support a better monitor'', since an increase of the in-game graphics quality is a lot more noticeable to your average gamer than the millionth shade of a color difference on screen.
Last paragraph makes no sense.
"I want my games to have higher FPS (ok I agree with that) and texture quality (your not going to be able to appreciate the texture difference if the monitor cant reproduce the colours to the highest quality)"
Try play Skyrim with the ENB mod or any other graphics quality mod on the Gsync monitor vs the HP DreamColor LP2480zx and you will see the difference. Its not a gaming monitor or anything, its for photoshop and video editing.
In-game graphics and millionth shade of colour mean the same thing, horror games or any game in a dark environment has lots of shades of black/gray and its a gritty environment.
What if you do the SLI or Crossfire with the goal of having more FPS, or having higher graphics settings for games? A bump in texture quality or FPS will show up on screen regardless of whether it's a 200$ screen or a 1000$ screen. Now, the 1000$ screen might display it better in terms of color reproduction and contrast ratio, but is the difference really worth 800$, when you can wait about a year and get those monitors at a more reasonable price? Not to mention that for your average consumer, an 800$ price difference is huge, since for them most people, a 200$ monitor is plenty good for their needs (even most gamers, who are usually more concerned about things like response time, can be found in sub-200$ monitors).
Obviously G-Sync is an interesting technology and I heard it's doing great things to eliminate stutter and tearing, but because it's a new technology, there is a price premium that comes with that, and just like any new technology, it's often better to wait it out and give the tech a chance to mature and drop in price before investing in it. It might be worthwhile for you since you want the best of the best in terms of quality, and it's understandable, because for you the value of having great color reproduction, contrast ratio, less stutter, etc. is worth the extra cost, especially in the long run. But for some people, these are little more than minor annoyances (or don't even bother them at all in some cases) and don't warrant the extra price, at least until they become more reasonable.
My point is that the first reason that people tend to use SLI and Crossfire for is ''I want my games to have higher FPS and texture quality'' rather than ''I now have the ability to support a better monitor'', since an increase of the in-game graphics quality is a lot more noticeable to your average gamer than the millionth shade of a color difference on screen.
Last paragraph makes no sense.
"I want my games to have higher FPS (ok I agree with that) and texture quality (your not going to be able to appreciate the texture difference if the monitor cant reproduce the colours to the highest quality)"
Try play Skyrim with the ENB mod or any other graphics quality mod on the Gsync monitor vs the HP DreamColor LP2480zx and you will see the difference. Its not a gaming monitor or anything, its for photoshop and video editing.
In-game graphics and millionth shade of colour mean the same thing, horror games or any game in a dark environment has lots of shades of black/gray and its a gritty environment.
When it comes to colors, your description is fair enough. However, you vastly overestimate it's importance.
The bolded part is also illogical. Tell me, does anybody need an 1000$ monitor to appreciate something like this?
Yes, when it comes to stuff like ENB mods, the monitor can make a slight difference. But anyone can and will notice this improvement in textures regardless of what monitor they use. I'm on a 200$ monitor at the moment, and while I can see myself getting a G-Sync monitor once prices go down, you can't really justify spending 1000$ when spending 200$, you get the same picture and the same improvement. Color reproduction and contrast ratio might make a subtle impact, but it comes down to whether that subtle impact is worth 1000$.
The point that I made in my last paragraph is the fact that the pic I posted above is the reason why people upgrade their GPUs: to get better graphics, textures, FPS, etc. An 1000$ monitor and a 200$ monitor will display the exact same improvement in quality in terms of texture. You would be looking at the exact same thing on both monitors. And to be honest, how much better would this picture be had there been better contrast ratio/color reproduction on this pic?
The point is that if getting a GPU is like purchasing a car, getting an 1000$ monitor over a cheaper one is like adding an extra coat of paint to the car to make sure it hits just the right shade, while the important part of the visual, the shape and aesthetic of the car, is determined by textures and FPS. Do people judge the aesthetic of cars based off an extra coat of paint (monitor effect), or based on the cleanliness, smoothness and shaping of the car (texture and FPS effect)? I think the answer is obvious
A 980 is overkill for 1080, however if you're future proofing a rig you could stick one in an SLI motherboard and get a second later down the line. You'll get a steady 60fps in every game at ultra with a 980, including badly optimised titles like Unity. I think it's pretty sensible upgrading to high-end components one step at a time as and when you feel the need to.
It really isn't. It's just enough to run the most demanding games (ex: Far Cry 4, Crysis 3, Ryse) at ultra settings with any amount of AA at a steady 60 FPS. A 970/980 is pretty much the sweet spot for an enthusiast - but far from overkill.
A 980 is overkill for 1080, however if you're future proofing a rig you could stick one in an SLI motherboard and get a second later down the line. You'll get a steady 60fps in every game at ultra with a 980, including badly optimised titles like Unity. I think it's pretty sensible upgrading to high-end components one step at a time as and when you feel the need to.
It really isn't. It's just enough to run the most demanding games (ex: Far Cry 4, Crysis 3, Ryse) at ultra settings with any amount of AA at a steady 60 FPS. A 970/980 is pretty much the sweet spot for an enthusiast - but far from overkill.
Fair enough, perhaps overkill is too strong a term. I have a 970 and can only get 60fps in Far Cry 4 with SMAA (1080). I kind of assumed a 980 could get similar FPS at 2k and the same settings, which would produce a nicer image than 1080 with TXAA or MSAA.
A 980 is overkill for 1080, however if you're future proofing a rig you could stick one in an SLI motherboard and get a second later down the line. You'll get a steady 60fps in every game at ultra with a 980, including badly optimised titles like Unity. I think it's pretty sensible upgrading to high-end components one step at a time as and when you feel the need to.
It really isn't. It's just enough to run the most demanding games (ex: Far Cry 4, Crysis 3, Ryse) at ultra settings with any amount of AA at a steady 60 FPS. A 970/980 is pretty much the sweet spot for an enthusiast - but far from overkill.
Fair enough, perhaps overkill is too strong a term. I have a 970 and can only get 60fps in Far Cry 4 with SMAA (1080). I kind of assumed a 980 could get similar FPS at 2k and the same settings, which would produce a nicer image than 1080 with TXAA or MSAA.
Hmm I think your over estimating how much more powerful the 980 is over the 970.. People have been getting 980 stock performances with overclocked 970s..
A 980 is overkill for 1080, however if you're future proofing a rig you could stick one in an SLI motherboard and get a second later down the line. You'll get a steady 60fps in every game at ultra with a 980, including badly optimised titles like Unity. I think it's pretty sensible upgrading to high-end components one step at a time as and when you feel the need to.
It really isn't. It's just enough to run the most demanding games (ex: Far Cry 4, Crysis 3, Ryse) at ultra settings with any amount of AA at a steady 60 FPS. A 970/980 is pretty much the sweet spot for an enthusiast - but far from overkill.
Fair enough, perhaps overkill is too strong a term. I have a 970 and can only get 60fps in Far Cry 4 with SMAA (1080). I kind of assumed a 980 could get similar FPS at 2k and the same settings, which would produce a nicer image than 1080 with TXAA or MSAA.
Hmm I think your over estimating how much more powerful the 980 is over the 970.. People have been getting 980 stock performances with overclocked 970s..
Pretty much, my 970 came OC'd, and I pushed it even more.
No one pointed out the fact that a 4 core i5 processor is a overall more efficient processor than a 8 core one from a ps4? Assuming you go for a 4th or 5th gen i5 you'll still have a better cpu that will easily handle games for an other 5-8 years as you can increase the life span more as of late sense gaming is primarily reliant on the graphics card anyway.
Log in to comment