Thinking of getting myself a 1440p monitor.

[Tweak155]

Exactly. But it would be safe to assume that its not going to be soon.

Why? Do you know what the OP's acceptable level of performance is? You can only base this on your own opinion.

Point was that your original argument was flawed.

You said " If games never progressed then you wouldn't need 2x680's to begin with". But the fact is we already have them, so we might as well utilise them.

I'm sure the OP didn't buy 2x680s so he could wait a couple years for a game to come out which would fully use them in 1080 mode.

It indicates games DO progress, and that you cannot assume how frequently or how soon 2x680's will no longer appeal to the OP at 2560x1440. You can however reason that the same level of performance can be achieved on a 1080p (regardless of what his standard is) for longer. I remove assumptions & conjecture from my equation, and leave only that which can be proven.

So you agreed that 2x680 will likely surpass 1x780?

Weird I thought you were trying to argue the opposite way judging by the rest of your post.

I wouldn't waste my time arguing that point either way. It is still assumptions, but you could probably make that argument favorably based on historical data. And in either event has no progress on the point to be made.

Your right that was an unnecessary remark. My apologies.

Why ty.

The OP doesn't have a single 670.

Bravo good sir, bravo.

Point out where I suggested there would be no loss in performance? Way to look ignorant on your Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Seventh post.

The very first quote in this post for one? You're putting a stipulation on it of "not soon". Define soon from the OP's standpoint. You can't because it was not stated. Thus this is again your own conjecture. And thus, you're ignorant again in the statement of calling me ignorant. While I clearly state I don't know when, you're clearly stating not soon. Again, you have no proof. Furthermore you can't argue the point as 'soon' is not defined from a usable standpoint (the OP's).

There WILL be a loss of performance, it will be hardly noticeable unless you play crisis 3 on FULL but there will be a difference. I guess that is when you make a choice between more pixels, more AA or more FPS and with 2x680 your options are WIDE open to more pixels if you are willing to sacrifice a bit of performance or quality. Ill leave that to the OP to decide.

You focus on Crysis 3 but unless you can provide me a date of the release of the next game the OP will play that will possibly cripple his system, this point is.... pointless.

Thank you for your warm welcome sir.

Sir.

 

[Ravynmagi]

I love my Korean 27 inch monitor I got last year. The screen is perfect, only negative is the stand is cheap, but holds it up fine. Though I finally bought a Monoprice desktop mount for it, $15 well spent.

Speaking of Monoprice. They will be selling their own 27 inch imported monitors soon. So if you don't want to take a gamble with buying one from Korea, this will probably be safer.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=9579

 

[darckhart]

a 1440p monitor is an increase of about 1.7MP over at 1080p monitor. But it's clear from your sig that you have enough processing power.

My primary reason for upgrading was to scratch the itch of the 120Hz goodness, so I went from a dell u2410 to the yamakasi catleap. Unfortunately, even a GTX680 cannot handle all the eyecandy settings AND deliver 120fps, so I am a bit disappointed.

I had always though that a 24" monitor was more than enough screen real estate, but over the last year, I have realized how much extra space I got from moving up to 27" screen. For me, it was a fantastic upgrade. Since both are IPS screens, I was able to calibrate and carry on without much thought. Every now and again I bemoan the lack of inputs, but in the end, I find it doesn't really matter that much me.

HTH

 

[Klunt Bumskrint]

Woah, a heated debate.

My views are that I do prefer 60fps minimum with eye candy all over the placeif I can get it but the lure of a higher res is there.

 

[KingFatty]

It would be neat to see a side-by-side camera shot, like very close-up, of a 1080p 27" monitor and also a 1440p 27" monitor being driven at 1080p.

Would the native 1080p look so much better than the 1440p running at a non-native 1080p resolution? I tend to think the exciting IPS color benefits of the 1440p would offset any potential fuzzies of the pixels themselves, perhaps even lending a bit of a cinematic effect to it? But the performance should be the same, so I'd favor the 1440p.

You can always use a lower resolution to improve performance on the 1440p, but you can not improve the color and contrast of a 1080p monitor (unless you also get an IPS 1080p).

 

[Ravynmagi]

It would be neat to see a side-by-side camera shot, like very close-up, of a 1080p 27" monitor and also a 1440p 27" monitor being driven at 1080p.

Would the native 1080p look so much better than the 1440p running at a non-native 1080p resolution? I tend to think the exciting IPS color benefits of the 1440p would offset any potential fuzzies of the pixels themselves, perhaps even lending a bit of a cinematic effect to it? But the performance should be the same, so I'd favor the 1440p.

You can always use a lower resolution to improve performance on the 1440p, but you can not improve the color and contrast of a 1080p monitor (unless you also get an IPS 1080p).

These cheap 27 inch 1440p monitors have no internal scaler, it's done by the graphics card. And it doesn't look very good. I'd rather turn off some eye candy than reduce the resolution.

 

[KingFatty]

I wonder how bad it is in a side-by-side comparison with a native 1080p display? Maybe I could play around at Microcenter and try to set this up before the salesmen kick me out...

 

[leonorath]

Why? Do you know what the OP's acceptable level of performance is? You can only base this on your own opinion.

My views are that I do prefer 60fps minimum with eye candy all over the placeif I can get it but the lure of a higher res is there.

There you go, my own opinion aligns with the OP that eye candy + 60 FPS is considered ideal. By no means a stretch for 2x680s.

It indicates games DO progress

Your powers of observation serve you well.

You can however reason that the same level of performance can be achieved on a 1080p (regardless of what his standard is) for longer. I remove assumptions & conjecture from my equation, and leave only that which can be proven.

You can however reason that the same level of performance can be achieved on 640x480 (regardless of what his standard is) for longer. I remove assumptions & conjecture from my equation, and leave only that which can be proven.

Same logic right?

The very first quote in this post for one? You're putting a stipulation on it of "not soon". Define soon from the OP's standpoint. You can't because it was not stated. Thus this is again your own conjecture. And thus, you're ignorant again in the statement of calling me ignorant. While I clearly state I don't know when, you're clearly stating not soon. Again, you have no proof. Furthermore you can't argue the point as 'soon' is not defined from a usable standpoint (the OP's).

"But it would be safe to assume that its not going to be soon" = "you're clearly stating not soon"

Nice logic thur hurr durr

I beginning to question your worthiness of my responses. Not once did I say there wouldn't be a loss in performance, hell I even acknowledged your frivolous point that 1080 would require a GPU upgrade later than 1440.

He only wants to run 60FPS, 2x680s are overqualified for this task at 1080 and would probably not need upgrading until the next build. However there is every chance that running 1440 would also last until the next build, even if it doesn't last there is always the option to turn eye candy down to maintain 60FPS. And tbh eye candy isn't as essential with 1440 so its not a big loss like your trying to make out.

You focus on Crysis 3 but unless you can provide me a date of the release of the next game the OP will play that will possibly cripple his system,

Now you are making assumptions that the next games to come out will be crippling. When I was using crisis 3 as an example I was removing conjuncture and assumptions from my equation and leaving only that which can be proven.

Not exactly sure what you expect here. Do you want me to look at a bench from the future and suggest a future GPU for him to buy now so he can future proof his system from potential system crippling games that he might play in the future.

this point is.... pointless.

You said it my friend.

 

[Tweak155]

There you go, my own opinion aligns with the OP that eye candy + 60 FPS is considered ideal. By no means a stretch for 2x680s.

Timing is everything. I never said they would or wouldn't line up, but until then it is your personal opinion.

Your powers of observation serve you well.

And yours seem to be failing you.

You can however reason that the same level of performance can be achieved on 640x480 (regardless of what his standard is) for longer. I remove assumptions & conjecture from my equation, and leave only that which can be proven.

Same logic right?

Yes... ?

"But it would be safe to assume that its not going to be soon" = "you're clearly stating not soon"

Nice logic thur hurr durr

YOU asked me to point it out....... a hurr durr?

I beginning to question your worthiness of my responses. Not once did I say there wouldn't be a loss in performance, hell I even acknowledged your frivolous point that 1080 would require a GPU upgrade later than 1440.

He only wants to run 60FPS, 2x680s are overqualified for this task at 1080 and would probably not need upgrading until the next build. However there is every chance that running 1440 would also last until the next build, even if it doesn't last there is always the option to turn eye candy down to maintain 60FPS. And tbh eye candy isn't as essential with 1440 so its not a big loss like your trying to make out.

While you have something to base these statements on now, previously they were unfounded other than your own opinion. Although here you've added more. I see you won't be able to grasp this concept, though.

Now you are making assumptions that the next games to come out will be crippling.

Where? Hopefully you catch on to how I do things, because as it sits you can't win this argument (actually I'm not even sure what is going on anymore).

When I was using crisis 3 as an example I was removing conjuncture and assumptions from my equation and leaving only that which can be proven.

Actually you were adding to it. Do you know the next game that will be more demanding than Crysis 3? Further, when it will be released?

Not exactly sure what you expect here. Do you want me to look at a bench from the future and suggest a future GPU for him to buy now so he can future proof his system from potential system crippling games that he might play in the future.

Haha, the way you talk, you DO know. Thus my point.

You said it my friend.

Thanks, friend.

 

[Klunt Bumskrint]

This is moot as I've pulled the trigger on a crossover 27q.

I very exite.

 

[Tweak155]

This is moot as I've pulled the trigger on a crossover 27q.

I very exite.

Grats!