Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[xthetenth]

Let's just stick to gaming here shall we? There is a thing called field of view which has a big impact on immersion. A 25" screen will let you cover more of your field of view with the screen compared to a 50" screen. Why do you think VR is considered so immersive despite the tiny screen?

I didn't move my screen away from me when I went from a 23" to a 34". So all those pixels go into maintaining pixel density across a much bigger FoV.

And going from 1080 to 3440x1440 is huge, especially getting *sync. That's another point in favor of the 480 vs the 1070, that there's a much better selection of non-top monitors for them.

 

[Avalon]

So I see a lot of mention about 1080p vs 1440p gaming, but what about the few folk with 1200p monitors?

Curious if something between a 980 and 1070 performance might be a good match for 1200p gaming.

 

[RussianSensation]

So I see a lot of mention about 1080p vs 1440p gaming, but what about the few folk with 1200p monitors?

Curious if something between a 980 and 1070 performance might be a good match for 1200p gaming.

1200p is only 11% more pixels. For a videocard of 1070/980Ti class level, the performance difference between 1080p and 1200p should be negligible. I am also not aware of high end 1920x1200 monitors that are a match for 27-32" 2560x1440 60-144Hz ones.

There are some excellent 120Hz 1080p VA panels for examples for which a 1070/1080 level card makes sense for competitive PC gamers.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2014/07/21/gaming-monitor-roundup-2014/11

Anyone who plays CS:GO or BF4 or Overwatch would benefit from a faster motion and less blur on a 120-144Hz panel over a 60Hz one. But that only nails the coffin for 22-25" 1080p 60Hz panels even more.

It is possible to bring nearly every GPU to its knees on a 1080p/1200p panel by enabling 4xSSAA in modern games.

Answer this, if you had the $$ to buy a 32-40" 4K 120Hz OLED or a 3440x1440 120Hz G-Sync/FreeSync monitor, would you still be gaming on a 1080p/1200p 60Hz panel? V

People become comfortable using the same headphones/speakers and monitor they have because they view it as a sunk cost. It works for them and they keep using it without questioning it. The biggest system upgrades I've ever been happy with were the SSD and my monitors, not CPUs, videocards, RAM, mobo features, etc.

If I could afford a 40-43" 120Hz OLED HDR for PC gaming, I would buy one tomorrow. Notice how almost no one on this forum who had a Titan X/980Ti/Fury X/295X2, etc. was using them for 1080/1200p 22-25" gaming? There is a reason why that is. It's because it doesn't make sense to pair high end graphics cards (that require high end resolutions to fully take advantage of them) with a $100-200 monitor.

Some people love the feeling that their game runs at 70-100 FPS on a 1080p 60Hz monitor since they feel good about "reserve performance in case they need it". My view is that by the time it's needed the person who bought a $229 480 8GB will just sell it and buy a much faster $350 videocard anyway.

If you read my posts, I don't agree with buying a $400-700 card and keeping it for 5+ years. Over that period, the extra performance of the 1070 over 480 won't mean squat. Would you say a $399 GTX670 "outlasted" the $249 HD7850? Both are slow now and it's only been 4 years since those cards launched. In fact, even in 2015, 670/7850 were already too slow. That's why future-proofing with a 1070 for 4-5 years doesn't make any sense for someone who doesn't mind buying/reselling once every 2-2.5 years.

 

[Mopetar]

And going from 1080 to 3440x1440 is huge, especially getting *sync. That's another point in favor of the 480 vs the 1070, that there's a much better selection of non-top monitors for them.

I don't know if it's consumers in general, but I'm really waiting on HDR monitors before making the next major upgrade. Even though Nvidia doesn't have as much selection, if they push for HDR gsynch availability early, they've got my vote.

 

[Avalon]

1200p is only 11% more pixels. For a videocard of 1070/980Ti class level, the performance difference between 1080p and 1200p should be negligible. I am also not aware of high end 1920x1200 monitors that are a match for 27-32" 2560x1440 60-144Hz ones.

There are some excellent 120Hz 1080p VA panels for examples for which a 1070/1080 level card makes sense for competitive PC gamers.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2014/07/21/gaming-monitor-roundup-2014/11

Anyone who plays CS:GO or BF4 or Overwatch would benefit from a faster motion and less blur on a 120-144Hz panel over a 60Hz one. But that only nails the coffin for 22-25" 1080p 60Hz panels even more.

It is possible to bring nearly every GPU to its knees on a 1080p/1200p panel by enabling 4xSSAA in modern games.

Answer this, if you had the $$ to buy a 32-40" 4K 120Hz OLED or a 3440x1440 120Hz G-Sync/FreeSync monitor, would you still be gaming on a 1080p/1200p 60Hz panel? V

People become comfortable using the same headphones/speakers and monitor they have because they view it as a sunk cost. It works for them and they keep using it without questioning it. The biggest system upgrades I've ever been happy with were the SSD and my monitors, not CPUs, videocards, RAM, mobo features, etc.

If I could afford a 40-43" 120Hz OLED HDR for PC gaming, I would buy one tomorrow. Notice how almost no one on this forum who had a Titan X/980Ti/Fury X/295X2, etc. was using them for 1080/1200p 22-25" gaming? There is a reason why that is. It's because it doesn't make sense to pair high end graphics cards (that require high end resolutions to fully take advantage of them) with a $100-200 monitor.

Some people love the feeling that their game runs at 70-100 FPS on a 1080p 60Hz monitor since they feel good about "reserve performance in case they need it". My view is that by the time it's needed the person who bought a $229 480 8GB will just sell it and buy a much faster $350 videocard anyway.

If you read my posts, I don't agree with buying a $400-700 card and keeping it for 5+ years. Over that period, the extra performance of the 1070 over 480 won't mean squat. Would you say a $399 GTX670 "outlasted" the $249 HD7850? Both are slow now and it's only been 4 years since those cards launched. In fact, even in 2015, 670/7850 were already too slow. That's why future-proofing with a 1070 for 4-5 years doesn't make any sense for someone who doesn't mind buying/reselling once every 2-2.5 years.

Thanks for the detailed response RS, always appreciate reading your insight.

My monitor is a Dell Ultrasharp U2412M. At the time of purchase, it was a high mid-end 24" IPS 60hz IPS panel, and I would not be looking to replace it just yet, not because I think it is a sunk cost but because I feel that it's still a great performer, for me, at this time.

I do have the money to purchase a 32" 4K OLED monitor, but I'd like the cost on OLED to come down a bit more, so at this time I cannot justify a new purchase. I also will not purchase a TN monitor, as I do much more than gaming. I do like the Eizo (VA 120hz panel) in your link, but if I'm going to replace my monitor, ideally I'd like to go 27" and a higher resolution.

Perhaps you misunderstood me a bit, or were just speaking in general terms (and if so, I completely agree with you), but I'm not looking to buy a high end GPU for a 1200p monitor. I was looking to replace my Radeon 7950 with a Polaris 10 (or maybe GTX 1060 Ti) since it seems it will fall under a 1070 in performance, as I'm finding newer games struggle a bit with max settings now.

 

[Thinker_145]

The single biggest reason why I am not looking into upgrading my monitor is actually that I am desperately hoping for consumer level OLED screens soon enough. It would suck to put too much money towards an IPS LCD as I truly despise the contrast and screen uniformity. And guess what? These super expensive IPS screens that people boast about are not using the ATW polariser and suffer from MORE IPS glow. The reason why I say more is because without an ATW polariser the bigger the screen the more glow there will be. Give me an IPS screen without the glow and I am again willing to go big since I can live with bad contrast if it's atleast consistent.

I actually find it funny that people spend so much money on the Hz, resolution, G-Sync etc etc while not having any problem with downright horrible contrast and terrible corner uniformity. The only reason why I am still sticking to IPS is because I find it's shortcomings more acceptable than TN and VA. Or perhaps you can say I am used to these limitations and would rather not want to adjust myself to other limitations.

Talking about a 120hz VA panel well it is still going to ghost unless I have missed some recent breakthrough in that tech. Not to mention all sub $500 VA screens suffer from black crush which kinda undermines the contrast advantage a little bit.

I still miss the image quality of my CRT monitor. Only OLED would truly obliterate CRT in terms of IQ.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[sirmo]

The single biggest reason why I am not looking into upgrading my monitor is actually that I am desperately hoping for consumer level OLED screens soon enough.

I would not hold my breath. OLED is fine for temporary on battery powered devices, but for a display which stays on for extended periods of time the burn in and color shift over time would be pretty significant.

Quality IPS can be quite good though.

 

[Thinker_145]

I would not hold my breath. OLED is fine for temporary on battery powered devices, but for a display which stays on for extended periods of time the burn in and color shift over time would be pretty significant.

Quality IPS can be quite good though.

I wouldn't mind a shorter life if priced reasonably. And I am sure they will figure out something as technology improves.

And agree with the last part but they just don't make an IPS without the glow anymore. Corner glow should not exist on $500+ screens but it does just as much as on cheaper ones.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[selni]

The single biggest reason why I am not looking into upgrading my monitor is actually that I am desperately hoping for consumer level OLED screens soon enough. It would suck to put too much money towards an IPS LCD as I truly despise the contrast and screen uniformity. And guess what? These super expensive IPS screens that people boast about are not using the ATW polariser and suffer from MORE IPS glow. The reason why I say more is because without an ATW polariser the bigger the screen the more glow there will be. Give me an IPS screen without the glow and I am again willing to go big since I can live with bad contrast if it's atleast consistent.

I actually find it funny that people spend so much money on the Hz, resolution, G-Sync etc etc while not having any problem with downright horrible contrast and terrible corner uniformity. The only reason why I am still sticking to IPS is because I find it's shortcomings more acceptable than TN and VA. Or perhaps you can say I am used to these limitations and would rather not want to adjust myself to other limitations.

Talking about a 120hz VA panel well it is still going to ghost unless I have missed some recent breakthrough in that tech. Not to mention all sub $500 VA screens suffer from black crush which kinda undermines the contrast advantage a little bit.

I still miss the image quality of my CRT monitor. Only OLED would truly obliterate CRT in terms of IQ.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

Backlight strobing on some high refresh rate panels more or less eliminates ghosting (lightboost and now ulmb on newer gsync monitors for the nvidia names, I presume there's an AMD equivalent). It's been around for a bit but was initially aimed at 3D.

 

[Thinker_145]

So what's the best 1080p 120Hz VA monitor? If there is no ghosting I would definitely consider something like that after I am done with my GPU upgrade.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[JDG1980]

I would not hold my breath. OLED is fine for temporary on battery powered devices, but for a display which stays on for extended periods of time the burn in and color shift over time would be pretty significant.

Most people use their phones and tablets more than their PCs these days.

 

[sirmo]

Most people use their phones and tablets more than their PCs these days.

Most people don't have their smartphone screen on for more than 4-5 hours a day. And most smartphones aren't in use for longer than 3 years.

But that's irrelevant, all OLED screens suffer from burn in and color shift.

 

[iiiankiii]

So what's the best 1080p 120Hz VA monitor? If there is no ghosting I would definitely consider sometjing like that after I don't with my GPU upgrade.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

I have a VA monitor. The ghosting is real. I wouldn't call the monitor I have a pure gaming monitor. To me, though, it's good enough. It's noticeable if you compare it side by side. But, it's not bad at all when you use it on its own for awhile. You kinda get used to it.

But, the tradeoff is worth it. The contrast is much, much, much better than IPS. It's a lot closer to OLED than IPS. The real estate is great. I don't want to go back to anything the size of 24 inches again. Plus, at 40 inch 4k, the dpi is at a sweet spot where everything is the right size. It's like the 27" 1440p but scaled to 40". If you haven't tried a 1440p monitor @ 27 inches, I suggest you take a look at them. They're a huge upgrade from the 24" 1080p monitors.

 

[Thinker_145]

I can't afford 1440p gaming. I'll much rather get a 1080p 120hz display. And yes I know once you get used to things its hard to go back hence why I don't want to jump resolution until I can afford it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Avalon]

I can't afford 1440p gaming. I'll much rather get a 1080p 120hz display. And yes I know once you get used to things its hard to go back hence why I don't want to jump resolution until I can afford it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

There's an Eizo monitor that I found in a link RS posted earlier. It's an Eizo 24" 1080p VA 120hz monitor. Not sure if that's what you're looking for, or if it's available for you, but here's the link I found it in:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2014/07/21/gaming-monitor-roundup-2014/11

 

[Thinker_145]

Eizo monitors are not available. I could import one but then I would have to take responsibility for dead pixels and backlight bleeding. I am very picky in this regard so hence that's not an option.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[MajinCry]

Monitor talk?

Call me when they start making square monitors bigger than 21". Gimme a 35" 1600 x 1280 monitor dangnammit.

 

[EightySix Four]

Monitor talk?

Call me when they start making square monitors bigger than 21". Gimme a 35" 1600 x 1280 monitor dangnammit.

Gross. Give me a 17 inch with 5120x2880.

 

[littleg]

I don't think 1600 x 1280 is square....

 

[coercitiv]

I don't think 1600 x 1280 is square....

But what do you think a square monitor actually is?

 

[littleg]

But what do you think a square monitor actually is?

A monitor that doesn't like to party.

 

[Jacky60]

Let's just stick to gaming here shall we? There is a thing called field of view which has a big impact on immersion. A 25" screen will let you cover more of your field of view with the screen compared to a 50" screen. Why do you think VR is considered so immersive despite the tiny screen?

Since when have there been VA monitors that don't have visible ghosting? I have read reviews on all the new BenQ VA panel screens and all suffer from it. My main reason why I am still using an IPS screen.

Er hello?? The idea that somehow a 40 inch monitor
Is no more immersive than a 24-27 inch one is honestly
one of the most bizarre things I've seen written on this
forum. Your VR argument ignores the fact the smaller
screens are very close to your eyes. For me having
your field of view filled is what constitutes immersion
and my 40 inch monitor is nearly if not as close as
previous smaller monitors so more FOV filled=more
immersion.

 

[Thinker_145]

Er hello?? The idea that somehow a 40 inch monitor
Is no more immersive than a 24-27 inch one is honestly
one of the most bizarre things I've seen written on this
forum. Your VR argument ignores the fact the smaller
screens are very close to your eyes. For me having
your field of view filled is what constitutes immersion
and my 40 inch monitor is nearly if not as close as
previous smaller monitors so more FOV filled=more
immersion.

You are right my initial argument was a bit outdated when 1080p was the maximum resolution available on big screens. On a 42" 1080p screen you have to maintain a certain distance otherwise it becomes a pixelated mess if you sit as close to it as your FOV allows.

 

[topmounter]

I can't afford 1440p gaming. I'll much rather get a 1080p 120hz display. And yes I know once you get used to things its hard to go back hence why I don't want to jump resolution until I can afford it.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

If Free/G-Sync isn't important to you: ASUS VG248QE

 

[Thinker_145]

If Free/G-Sync isn't important to you: ASUS VG248QE

That's a TN monitor. I would only buy IPS or VA.