980 Ti + which Ultrawide Resolution?

[zigen]

Hello everyone, first post here.

I'm planning on an upgrade soon and I'm thinking of going with a GTX 980 Ti and a 34 Ultrawide Gsync monitor. Budget isn't a concern now as I am still in the process of taking in all opinions.

Currently using a Sapphire 7970 Dual X (mostly use AMD cards) and 3x Dell u2412m monitors for Eyefinity. Although, I usually find myself just gaming with a single monitor since my card is really showing it's age. I run Skyrim fully modded on 35-45 fps average.

The thing that I'm struggling with is whether I should get a 2560x1080 vs a 3440x1440 ultrawide resolution. I mostly play 3rd person RPG games like Skyrim (heavily modded as well), Witcher 3, GTA 5 and I also love eyecandy and taking screenshots so the higher res appeals to me. On the other hand, it would be a tougher resolution to run and I kinda like to experience Skyrim on a 34 Ultrawide with close to constant 60 fps. Surely the 980 Ti is capable and that is where the 1080 has it's advantage.

Do you feel the difference between 1440p vs 1080p is worth it graphics wise and the added Vram needed? Is it really noticeable? Or should I just settle for the lower resolution and run at a higher framerate?

Many thanks for your time and sorry if it's a little long. Cheers!

Edit: Another alternative is going with AMD 390x/Fury and a LG 34um67 Freesync but will still need to see how the new 390x and 4 gig HBM performs. Although the LG is 2560x1080 resolution but will be cheaper as well.

 

[Majcric]

The gta 980ti is really best suited for 1440p on average. Above and you're looking to reduce settings. You have to decide have much settings you want to reduce at resolutions.

 

[raghu78]

Definitely wait for the AMD R9 3xx series launch. Right now nobody knows all the details. Wait till June 16th and then you will have more information. I would advise you to wait for actual reviews and then decide on whether you want to go AMD R9 3xx with Freesync or Nvidia GTX 9xx with Gsync.

 

[Headfoot]

Wait for AMD's line to drop. It is the worst time to buy right now. Prices will stabilize and final performances revealed in a mere few weeks.

That being said, definitely go for the 1440 wide if you're going to go with a wide screen monitor.

Also, Skyrim has serious 2d UI issues with non standard aspect rations. I can't play it on my 3x1080p triple screen set up because it thinks its equally as tall so the word "Save" in the menu literally spans all three monitors its so big.

I'm sure there are mods and config files you can use to get it to work but itll take some time. Just a heads up

 

[Gryz]

You can't get a 3440x1440 G-Sync monitor. At least not a 144Hz one. Because DP1.2's bandwidth is not enough to support that. And the G-Sync module can't deal with it. So if you want an ultra-wide monitor you have to either:
1) get a 2560x1080 @144Hz, or
2) get a 3440x1440 @75Hz.

Some of the 75Hz ones will have G-Sync. But imho G-Sync will be less effective/impressive when the minimum hold-time of pixels will be longer.

My personal preference goes to the upcoming Acer Predator Z35.
Wide-screen 21:9.
2560x1080.
144Hz.
G-Sync.
VA-panel. This should be the killer feature for me.
Expected in August (but unconfirmed).

 

[sxr7171]

The Dell looks good. Curved and all. But I'd personally need to see GSYNC before I take the plunge. I haven't found one that supports it yet.

 

[Headfoot]

You can't get a 3440x1440 G-Sync monitor. At least not a 144Hz one. Because DP1.2's bandwidth is not enough to support that. And the G-Sync module can't deal with it. So if you want an ultra-wide monitor you have to either:
1) get a 2560x1080 @144Hz, or
2) get a 3440x1440 @75Hz.

Some of the 75Hz ones will have G-Sync. But imho G-Sync will be less effective/impressive when the minimum hold-time of pixels will be longer.

My personal preference goes to the upcoming Acer Predator Z35.
Wide-screen 21:9.
2560x1080.
144Hz.
G-Sync.
VA-panel. This should be the killer feature for me.
Expected in August (but unconfirmed).

That seems like a nice unit for sure. Is there going to be a freesync version too?

 

[amenx]

980ti with 2560x1080 sounds horrible. Has anyone seen these monitors in a store? They look kind of small to me. I have a 16:9 (2560x1440) monitor. Yet, its the same width as this "ultra-wide"... just that the ultra-wide is shorter. Pairing that with a 980ti is like picking up an ugly hooker in a Ferrari. 3440x1440 or no go as far as ultra-wides are for me.

 

[Innokentij]

None because todays game devs are lazy / bosses only want max profit so bad support for none 16:9 ratio. I assume this as ex owner of trippelscreen so if this does not apply for ultra wide, just point and laugh at me

 

[xthetenth]

None because todays game devs are lazy / bosses only want max profit so bad support for none 16:9 ratio. I assume this as ex owner of trippelscreen so if this does not apply for ultra wide, just point and laugh at me

I've heard generally good things for most every game outside ~*esports*~ titles.

 

[ImDonly1]

You can't get a 3440x1440 G-Sync monitor. At least not a 144Hz one. Because DP1.2's bandwidth is not enough to support that. And the G-Sync module can't deal with it. So if you want an ultra-wide monitor you have to either:
1) get a 2560x1080 @144Hz, or
2) get a 3440x1440 @75Hz.

Some of the 75Hz ones will have G-Sync. But imho G-Sync will be less effective/impressive when the minimum hold-time of pixels will be longer.

My personal preference goes to the upcoming Acer Predator Z35.
Wide-screen 21:9.
2560x1080.
144Hz.
G-Sync.
VA-panel. This should be the killer feature for me.
Expected in August (but unconfirmed).

Acer XR341CK
3440x1440, 100Hz, G sync
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/acer-releases-g-sync-curved-monitor,28975.html

The listing says 75 Hz, but there was a video with a rep at computex saying they got it up to 100hz. So we will see at release. It will probably cost $1,200+.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sZ2LR0H48#t=050

 

[moonbogg]

Those curved displays are nice. I can see myself with one at some point. If I were getting one now, it would be the higher res option, but with only 75hz I wouldn't be able to go through with it. If it were 100hz, then I could probably live with that but damn 144hz is nice.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

2560x1080
25" - 111.14 ppi
29" - 95.81 ppi
34" - 81.72 ppi

U2412M @ 1920x1200 - 94.34 ppi
34" @ 3440x1440 - 109.68 ppi

From a strictly resolution standpoint I'd go with 3440x1440.

I've got a U3011 (30", 16:10, 2560x1600), 25UM64 (25", 21:9, 2560x1080), 34UM95 (34", 21:9, 3440x1440), and one of the Korean 1440p monitors (27", 16:9). Can snap a few comparison pics if you'd like.

 

[Deders]

I'm running my 2560x1080 Ultrawide on an overclocked 780, and it's just about comfortable framerate-wise at full detail with newer games. (Dragon Age: Inquisition, Witcher 3, GTAV). I expect a 980TI would be about 50% more powerful, maybe more with optimisations, just enough for 60fps@2560x1080 in newer games. I expect I'd want at least 2 for 3440x1440.

Don't listen to the naysayers about utrawide, it is awesome, I won't be able to go back now that I have it.

The only legit reason that might put someone off the 2560x1080 resolution is if they were already used to 2560x1440 or 1600, they would technically be losing some desktop space but if you're more about movies and games, it's brilliant.

 

[3DVagabond]

34" ultrawide will run fine maxed out on 90% of games with 980ti level of performance. The others you can still run at very high IQ with only a couple of settings turned down that don't make a huge impact visually. the 29" 1080 ultrawides are best matched with 980 level of performance.

 

[RussianSensation]

34" ultrawide will run fine maxed out on 90% of games with 980ti level of performance. The others you can still run at very high IQ with only a couple of settings turned down that don't make a huge impact visually. the 29" 1080 ultrawides are best matched with 980 level of performance.

I jumped the gun in this thread because I also assumed the discussion is a 34" 3440x1440 vs. a 29" 1080 Ultrawide but thanks to Gryz's mention that the 2560x1080 is actually a VA panel, I did a bit of googling and sure enough the Acer Z35 is a different Beast. This isn't just a comparison of a 2560x1080 vs. 3440x1440 monitor but entirely different panel types which changes the comparison. That's why one has to be pretty careful before setting up these types of polls that don't mention the Panel Type.

35" AMVA panel = possibly 3000:1 contrast ratio (blows all IPS panels away), also means no IPS glow which can be a big deal for those who play a lot of darker games or in the evening after work in their man cave, better whites, and it's 144Hz.

I'd wait for reviews of both of the monitors in this thread as I bet either will cost $1K+ which means it only makes sense to see professional reviews of both.

 

[Gryz]

That seems like a nice unit for sure. Is there going to be a freesync version too?

Nobody knows. It's not been announced. Not even mentioned. Acer does build FreeSync monitors. So one day they might build one.

Acer XR341CK
3440x1440, 100Hz, G sync
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/acer-releases-g-sync-curved-monitor,28975.html

The listing says 75 Hz, but there was a video with a rep at computex saying they got it up to 100hz. So we will see at release. It will probably cost $1,200+.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sZ2LR0H48#t=050

As RussianSensation mentions, that's a different monitor.
That's the 34" IPS one. 3440x1440. And therefor it can't do 144Hz.
The Z35 is 35" and VA. 2560x1080. And therefor it can do 144Hz.

 

[x3sphere]

For productivity I need the 1440 vertical res, anything less would not be acceptable. That's why I never considered Ultrawides until they came out with the 3440x1440 res models.

 

[Elfear]

Having used a 34" 3440x1440 monitor for a few months, that gets my vote. PPI is just about right, the GPU requirements aren't nearly as bad as 4k, and the immersion is awesome. If someone brings out a Freesync version at 100Hz, "Take my money!!!".

 

[soccerballtux]

ultrawide is so dumb, completely useless IMO, games' FOV don't support the aspect ratio. just get 2560x1440

 

[zigen]

Many thanks for the replies guys. Although, I should have made it clear that the only size that I'm considering is the 34 inch Ultrawide. So the 2560x1080 res that I'm talking about is the LG 34um67 Freesync one.

I've been mulling over this for days now and here are my choices:

LG 34um67 34" 2560x1080 60Hz IPS Freesync (if the new AMD cards are good)
Asus PG34Q 34" 3440x1440 60Hz IPS Gsync
Acer X34 34" 3440x1440 75-100Hz IPS Gsync
Acer Z35 35" 2560x1080 144Hz VA Gsync (never tried VA before though)

Does the image quality of a 1080p really look bad on a 34" ultrawide? Btw, I'm also used to 1920x1200 resolution as I never used a 1920x1080 monitor.

Also, would a 980 Ti be enough for 60fps at 3440x1440 on ultra/high settings? I just don't want to play at around 45ish fps with stutters like what I'm doing now. That is why I'm considering the 1080p 34 inch and want/need Gsync or Freesync.

 

[zigen]

2560x1080
25" - 111.14 ppi
29" - 95.81 ppi
34" - 81.72 ppi

U2412M @ 1920x1200 - 94.34 ppi
34" @ 3440x1440 - 109.68 ppi

From a strictly resolution standpoint I'd go with 3440x1440.

I've got a U3011 (30", 16:10, 2560x1600), 25UM64 (25", 21:9, 2560x1080), 34UM95 (34", 21:9, 3440x1440), and one of the Korean 1440p monitors (27", 16:9). Can snap a few comparison pics if you'd like.

Would you think that the 34" 2560x1080 is a step down coming from 24" 1920x1200 image quality wise? Also, if you can take some comparison shots that would be much appreciated. Many thanks!

 

[3DVagabond]

Would you think that the 34" 2560x1080 is a step down coming from 24" 1920x1200 image quality wise? Also, if you can take some comparison shots that would be much appreciated. Many thanks!

I believe the pixel density is the same. IQ shouldn't differ.

 

[Deders]

ultrawide is so dumb, completely useless IMO, games' FOV don't support the aspect ratio. just get 2560x1440

You still get the extra 33% view at the edges in most games.

 

[xthetenth]

ultrawide is so dumb, completely useless IMO, games' FOV don't support the aspect ratio. just get 2560x1440

Ultrawide is also the best resolution for anything other than gaming by a huge margin.