The main games I am playing at the moment are Starcraft 2, MTG Arena, Thronebreaker and Hearts of Iron 4. All these would play great on a 1050ti. MTG went to beta a few weeks ago. Thronebreaker just came out while Hearts of Iron 4 had an expansion a few months ago. Just had a look at the top sellers on steam https://store.steampowered.com/sale/2018_so_far_top_sellers/ > A 1050ti would be overkill for many of them. Games like Divinity 2, Rocket League, Stellaris and Path of the Exile would run fine on way less.
Please don't tell me I need a 2080ti to play modern games or I am not a gamer just because you like to max settings on Battlefield 27.
I completely disagree. If AMD can come out with a card that can even match the 2070 in traditional gaming at $350 or less they will completely dominate the market for this entire generation. That seems like something within their grasp right now. IMHO AMD would be stupid to put RT cores on their GPUs until the market is already there, which means that the market may never materialize.
That's what I read your post as. You thought you had something w/ an logical fallacy attack the messenger argument but I am indeed an avid gamer who likely logs more hours than you. One whose been gaming and building spec'd computers likely longer than you... So, there goes that non-argument.Blah blah blah,
I game at 15fps @1440p with the lowest settings possible and it's fantastic. I've used both a 750TI and 1050TI @ 1440p and they are essentially not serviceable in any remotely modern game even at 60hz which is why I called you out on your absurd claim that they are. If you're playing CSGO then yeah, they're great.
And this concludes your remarks...I agree with you, the RTX cards have extremely poor value and by the time games are optimized for them the 3000 series will be out and much more capable of actually implementing the RTX feature set, I've never claimed any different. Hopefully by that time AMD has solid offerings so the consumer can have a choice again.
I just recommended a 1070TI for my brother, because it was on sale, came with Monster Hunter and he wants to pickup a 1440p 144hz monitor so 1070TI will get him down the road until 2020 when better options are available. The 2060 will be the same speed and the same price and won't be released until 2019 so I see no sense in waiting.
That's what I read your post as. You thought you had something w/ an logical fallacy attack the messenger argument but I am indeed an avid gamer who likely logs more hours than you. One whose been gaming and building spec'd computers likely longer than you... So, there goes that non-argument.
Appeal to extremes and false conjectures based on unsupported data. Here's the data :
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
Several games I play run @or closely near 60fps @ high/ultimate graphics settings.. At 1440p.
It's what occurs when you aren't playing an inefficient bloated mess that serves as eye candy for the masses. It's what happens when you know how to spec a computer and know how to balance all of the components for max performance efficiency.
And this concludes your remarks...
You agree with everything I said.
Outside of that, you have no basis or facts.
Funny that.. The sensible thing is right.
But can it run Crysis @ 1440p 60fps... or 1080p 60fps...
If you limit your gaming choices, yes a 750 Ti is plenty but what if you want to play the latest Battlefield, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, CoD etc (all popular series I think you'd agree), you have to drop settings, resolutions etc and suddenly you are outside your performance efficiency curve. I am not saying everyone should have a 2070, 80 or 80 Ti. A typical gamer would have a 1050 Ti/1060 or their Maxwell/Radeon equivalents.
I would like to say thanks for not using the term "meme" all over that post.
The irony ...But can it run Crysis @ 1440p 60fps... or 1080p 60fps...
...
I would like to say thanks for not using the term "meme" all over that post.
I've never intentionally limited myself on titles.If you limit your gaming choices, yes a 750 Ti is plenty but what if you want to play the latest Battlefield, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, CoD etc (all popular series I think you'd agree), you have to drop settings, resolutions etc and suddenly you are outside your performance efficiency curve. I am not saying everyone should have a 2070, 80 or 80 Ti. A typical gamer would have a 1050 Ti/1060 or their Maxwell/Radeon equivalents.
I would like to say thanks for not using the term "meme" all over that post.
Don't you guys have phones?
On a more serious note, it looks like we're entering an age of complete disconnect between business leaders and consumers. The opportunities will be golden.
Exactly. A 1060/580 is the lowest level of performance needed to run popular modern titles without serious compromises in gameplay, even at 1080p, let alone 1440p. If I wanted to play with sad visuals @ 30fps I'd console game.
I like to play multiplayer. I play very competitively.
Fundamentally "bad" in this context is a subjective term, largely because what is considered expensive can differ significantly between people of different incomes. A 2080Ti is expensive for most people but it's not expensive to some other people.
Really? coming from the guy who just repeats BS like 750Ti is enough for gaming! Apparently you hate graphics and prefer to run your games at the washed low texture settings. How do you even handle such horrid visuals?And this concludes your remarks...
You agree with everything I said.
Outside of that, you have no basis or facts.
Funny that.. The sensible thing is right.
In lala land. The whole industry is moving toward RT, we have DXR, game engines, game developers, and RTX hardware. No one is going to kill off that much investment. Intel is also hopping on the RT bandwagon. AMD will be left in the dust if they don't come up with an RT solution now.
And NVIDIA is way ahead of AMD even when comparing 7nm to 12nm. Imagine what NVIDIA will do on 7nm, they will completely obliterate AMD unless AMD dumbs GCN and start doing something better.
what kind baseless info is that? All rtx demos ran 1080p60 at the least with no optimizations. More will be done with optimizations.Plus, its looking like even a 2080Ti can only manage 30fps at 1080P with RT enabled. Which means its useless, and will be for years.
VR is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, users dont want a heavy google on their heads to play games. they enjoy it on their 2d screen just fine.Way more money has been dumped into VR than RT,
Yeah right, have u watched an rt vs raster video lately? because it really seems you just didn't watch any. difference is clear as night and day.Side by side images of Raster vs Ray Tracing results in only minor detail differences.
I bought one.. An HP Omen and others. I eval'd Gysnc/Freesync w/ an RX Vega 56 and a 1080... 1080p/1440p. Things appeared more fluid but the monitor picture quality was horrible to achieve the higher refresh rate so I returned it. It's the reason I refer to it as a meme. I won't bother wasting my time posting research papers regarding how many frames your brain dumps when your eyes are jumping around (saccades). Suffice to say, the tech isn't ready yet and your brain drops frames when your eyes move. Computer hardware might be ready and reasonably priced in the years to come... Your biology will never change.Since you play competitively I would very much recommend 144Hz or higher displays. It's not a meme, it's a massive upgrade that helps you compete with much more fluid gameplay and lower input lag.
Data speaks for itself which is why i include it.Really? coming from the guy who just repeats BS like 750Ti is enough for gaming! Apparently you hate graphics and prefer to run your games at the washed low texture settings. How do you even handle such horrid visuals?
Most people here are done reading you walls of nonsensical text.
I won't bother wasting my time posting research papers regarding how many frames your brain dumps when your eyes are jumping around (saccades). Suffice to say, the tech isn't ready yet and your brain drops frames when your eyes move. Computer hardware might be ready and reasonably priced in the years to come... Your biology will never change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking
That's a big 'fair' if you ask me.If you don't like the look of a TN panel that's fair enough I guess,
I
but I think the quoted part here is a really weird argument.
When you're playing for instance a competitive fps your eyes are not constantly darting around, they're focused on the screen. You're moving your crosshair with your hand to change where you're looking, and using your peripheral vision to help detect targets coming into view. Even if it were the case it's a weird argument, because when you need that smoothness you have it, whilst on a 60Hz panel you'll never have it. That's before you even start to factor in things like increased input lag of non-gaming monitors and the inherently shorter time for something to be displayed when you're getting frame updates twice as often (60hz vs 120hz).
I've never heard a competitive gamer speak ill about high refresh monitors before, I find it puzzling.
I suggest you do some reading on how the human vision system works... because you're 100% wrong. Your eyes are constantly moving especially in an FPS. I posted a youtube video demonstrating this for a reason. there's are 100s and clinical papers to match confirming it.
Almost every-time I elaborate in detail I end up proving naysayers wrong only to be rebuffed with here-say. I'm done here.
Way more money has been dumped into VR than RT, and we all know how thats going
I have a 165hz ips gsync and the image quality is amazing. The TN version I had wasn't far behind either with minor shift but it's a trade off for response time.I bought one.. An HP Omen and others. I eval'd Gysnc/Freesync w/ an RX Vega 56 and a 1080... 1080p/1440p. Things appeared more fluid but the monitor picture quality was horrible to achieve the higher refresh rate so I returned it. It's the reason I refer to it as a meme. I won't bother wasting my time posting research papers regarding how many frames your brain dumps when your eyes are jumping around (saccades). Suffice to say, the tech isn't ready yet and your brain drops frames when your eyes move. Computer hardware might be ready and reasonably priced in the years to come... Your biology will never change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking
Data speaks for itself which is why i include it.
4x the gamers have 750tis as those w/ 1080tis and up.
You're the minority speaking as if the majority of gamers run high end cards.
I don't hate graphics nor do I maintain many of the other traits you refer to when you've lost the argument. How do people handle a game @1440p on high graphics settings. I can imagine the same as everyone else.
Dropped in to see where the discussion had gone and its circling the same comrade drain.
Off I go again.
I've never heard a competitive gamer speak ill about high refresh monitors before, I find it puzzling.
edit: There are IPS panels that run up to 165Hz at 2560x1440 too, for better colours.
I have an Asus 165hz but I run it at 144hz which is default clock. I have also owned the TN version both with gsync.High refresh rates require fast pixel response times, without a sufficiently high enough pixel response your colours just blur into one another. Fast pixel response on the order of providing 120hz+ on monitors means you're limited to TN panels which come with a trade off in terms of colour accuracy and viewing angles. Typically TN panels are 6bit + 2bit dithering and so have awful colours vs a native 10bit IPS panels. The viewing angles are so bad that simply shifting your vision a few degrees vertically shows clear visible changes in screen brightness and colour accuracy, that's why there's no really large TN panels either, because the don't have good enough viewing angles to maintain even colour reproduction across the panel, as the angle between the panel and your eye increases, at the extremes (most notably the corners) it looks awful.
Sadly there's no real monitor type that is good at everything it's a case of picking your poison. Higher refresh is nice and necessary in some cases, I got my 120hz panel for Nvidia sterescopic and that requires high frame rate. But I much prefer my IPS panels for just about everything else.
Often known as meme panels. You can drive an IPS panel at 165hz but it doesn't have the pixel response time to keep up. The very best you can get from IPS that I'm aware of is about 4ms g2g but typically most IPS panels are closer to 6ms or above if it's an older panel.
165hz/1000 = 6.06ms which is the time in ms each refresh is displayed for. Which means an IPS panel with a 6ms response time would spend 100% of it's time swapping colours (on average) which means it's literally never displaying the right colour, just as the pixels were about to reach the right colour they'd be swapping again. You need the pixels to swap colours to the intended value and stay that way for an appreciable amount of the refresh time for the appearance of the colours to appear accurate.
A TN panel switching in 1ms would spend 1ms switching and then 5ms static at the right colour before then switching again and so visibly you have accurate colours. This is why IPS panels above 60hz tend to be sold only by kinda dodgy korean screen manufacturers, it's one of those cases where consumers thing bigger numbers are better when in fact they're just destroying colour accuracy.
I'm hopeful IPS could get down to 1ms one day, my 10+ year old WFP-HC3007 IPS I think was 12ms and ghosted pretty badly, my newer BenQ IPS is 4ms, so maybe in another decade, but right now if you want high refresh rate you sacrifice colour, bottom line.
I have an Asus 165hz but I run it at 144hz which is default clock. I have also owned the TN version both with gsync.
Maybe you should spend less time reading about them and actually go and buy one.
Both were excellent at what they do. If you favour response get the TN. If you want the viewing angle and colours then get the Ips.
Either way its night and day difference than playing at 60hz and it's the gsync which is important as pixel response is linked to your mouse so it feels amazing to play on.
For competition I'd say the TN wins as the pixel response has zero blur but for overall enjoyment the Ips wins as the image quality is top notch and everything else good enough.
Do you have a link to a source where the color accuracy of an IPS panel would go down if you ran it at 120Hz vs at 60Hz. That seems quite counter intuitive to me.I have seen/used and in many cases own these panels. I've used a lot of high end monitors over the last 2 decades and IPS should not be driven at those speeds you ruin the color reproduction which is one of the main reasons to get an IPS in the first place. As I said, there's a reason that IPS are not typically driven at those speeds by all reputable manufacturers because they know it's not appropriate.
I'm not denying that high refresh rate is a benefit to gamers but right now it comes at a trade off with colour accuracy, I'm sorry if you personally fell for a meme panel, you could have got a TN with equally inaccurate colours but saved yourself a load of cash as good IPS panels are expensive.
I assume it's something like the ROG gamer meme panel with it's super turbo button for the fast mega hertz, pew pew lasers and go faster stripe. 4ms g2g response time. So at 165 hz your panel spends 2/3rds of every second at the wrong colour, so gg with that one. And that's just on average g2g, response time b2w will be worse, so worst case pixels are never at the right colour.
That's rubbish - 1080p @ medium or even high for most modern games does not take a 1060, and most games look really good even at medium settings. There's plenty of older cards you can use.Exactly. A 1060/580 is the lowest level of performance needed to run popular modern titles without serious compromises in gameplay, even at 1080p, let alone 1440p. If I wanted to play with sad visuals @ 30fps I'd console game.
I don't know why you are going on about colours, the colours look great on the high refresh rate IPS monitors, significantly better then TN screens, which is why we use them. Remember it's not like the colours completely change for a pixel 165 times a second - it's mostly displaying the same colour or something very close too it.I assume it's something like the ROG gamer meme panel with it's super turbo button for the fast mega hertz, pew pew lasers and go faster stripe. 4ms g2g response time. So at 165 hz your panel spends 2/3rds of every second at the wrong colour, so gg with that one. And that's just on average g2g, response time b2w will be worse, so worst case pixels are never at the right colour.