• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Building a Gaming PC

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
If you play full screen without black bars at a 16:9 field of view is when you get the fisheye effect.

I think you misunderstand me. You absolutely would be playing with black bars. You're running at 2560x1440 but not full-screen. So there is no stretching; it's 1:1 pixel ratio.

Yeah, no way would I recommend anyone play with a stretched display. That'd be awful.

But my point is that at 2560x1440 on a 34" ultra-wide monitor -- it's still a solid solution for the handful of games that might not work at 21:9. You have a fairly good amount of screen real estate physically, and with 2K resolution, and typically higher pixel density than average. For example, if you're playing an FPS that, for some reason, can't work at 21:9, just play it 16:9. It's equivalent to playing on a 27" 1440p display, which is STILL better than playing on a 29" or 32" 1080p screen IMHO.

I know in csgo the tab menu to display scores has never been fixed. My lady plays on an ultra wide, but it’s main use is for production.

I'm aware of this particular issue, and it's pretty gross that Valve has yet to fix something so simple. But in this instance, one could just run at 2560x1440 when playing csgo..

Now, if we're talking about a pro player or someone who specifically needed a monitor for that particular game; then I would understand. I was like that with Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, Halo 2, and Marvel vs Capcom 2. So I get it. But for a gamer that plays a lot of different games even if they're serious about those games but not professional, then I dunno -- to me, I'd take an ultrawide everyday all day hands down. The pros just outweigh the cons.
 
I think you misunderstand me. You absolutely would be playing with black bars. You're running at 2560x1440 but not full-screen. So there is no stretching; it's 1:1 pixel ratio.

Yeah, no way would I recommend anyone play with a stretched display. That'd be awful.

But my point is that at 2560x1440 on a 34" ultra-wide monitor -- it's still a solid solution for the handful of games that might not work at 21:9. You have a fairly good amount of screen real estate physically, and with 2K resolution, and typically higher pixel density than average. For example, if you're playing an FPS that, for some reason, can't work at 21:9, just play it 16:9. It's equivalent to playing on a 27" 1440p display, which is STILL better than playing on a 29" or 32" 1080p screen IMHO.



I'm aware of this particular issue, and it's pretty gross that Valve has yet to fix something so simple. But in this instance, one could just run at 2560x1440 when playing csgo..

Now, if we're talking about a pro player or someone who specifically needed a monitor for that particular game; then I would understand. I was like that with Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, Halo 2, and Marvel vs Capcom 2. So I get it. But for a gamer that plays a lot of different games even if they're serious about those games but not professional, then I dunno -- to me, I'd take an ultrawide everyday all day hands down. The pros just outweigh the cons.
That's a good point... One other caveat though. Typically on an ultra wide they don't have as high of a refresh rate. I can't seem to find any 144 hz ultra wide 1440 p gsync monitors. The best i'm seeing is 100 hz.

So that means you're running games at 98 FPS max to keep it in gsync range. That's obviously doable for a lot of people. I myself shoot for 90 minimum on single player games. Multiplayer shooters however you're going to want as many frames as possible.

Now being able to push 3440 x 1440 at high framerates is another thing altogether.
 
That's a good point... One other caveat though. Typically on an ultra wide they don't have as high of a refresh rate. I can't seem to find any 144 hz ultra wide 1440 p gsync monitors. The best i'm seeing is 100 hz.

So that means you're running games at 98 FPS max to keep it in gsync range. That's obviously doable for a lot of people. I myself shoot for 90 minimum on single player games. Multiplayer shooters however you're going to want as many frames as possible.

Now being able to push 3440 x 1440 at high framerates is another thing altogether.

There's quite a few coming this year actually... The PG35VQ for instance is 200 Hz VA panel (if you're not in development, this works). You can get 120 Hz IPS with the X34P if you need color reproduction and 100% Adobe sRGB.

I'm still using my ROG Swift PG348Q and given a GTX 1080 Ti isn't going to get me anywhere near 144-200 FPS at 3440x1440 or 4K, then I've decided that I'd prefer resolution and field of view over the extra 44 Hz. So I drive the display at 100 Hz which works out well.

Now, when the next-gen cards hit the market; then I think 144 Hz - 200 Hz will make more sense for high-resolution gaming above 2K. This was also the primary reason I shy away from 4K gaming at a desk (but love it when playing casual on a couch).
 
There's quite a few coming this year actually... The PG35VQ for instance is 200 Hz VA panel (if you're not in development, this works). You can get 120 Hz IPS with the X34P if you need color reproduction and 100% Adobe sRGB.

I'm still using my ROG Swift PG348Q and given a GTX 1080 Ti isn't going to get me anywhere near 144-200 FPS at 3440x1440 or 4K, then I've decided that I'd prefer resolution and field of view over the extra 44 Hz. So I drive the display at 100 Hz which works out well.

Now, when the next-gen cards hit the market; then I think 144 Hz - 200 Hz will make more sense for high-resolution gaming above 2K. This was also the primary reason I shy away from 4K gaming at a desk (but love it when playing casual on a couch).
Yeah, they have been delayed until q4 and unfortunately according to nvidia we aren't to expect a new graphics card anytime soon. Nivida themselves just announced their own televisions that are 4k 144 hz gsync. I'm bot sure what they expect us to drive it with.
 
Enjoy it man! The 10 series of cards was a great one. My 1080 is still nothing short of a dream.

Fuck yeah.. still rocking the 1080... But not gonna lie, that RTX ray tracing looks sick... Miight be time to upgrade, lol... :chuckle:

Cool thing is that the resale value on the 1080 is still really good.
 
Thanks dudes, really looking forward to maxing out some settings :cool7:

Ray tracing looks so sick, I really hope it takes off
 
Fuck yeah.. still rocking the 1080... But not gonna lie, that RTX ray tracing looks sick... Miight be time to upgrade, lol... :chuckle:

Cool thing is that the resale value on the 1080 is still really good.

From what I hear the RTX series has different power cables. Buddy of mine is getting 2 2080ti to run SLI. Dudes nuts. :)
 
I'm waiting till Black Friday then I'm gonna upgrade my 970GTX to a 1080 ti. Hope the price drops a couple hundred $$.
 
From what I hear the RTX series has different power cables. Buddy of mine is getting 2 2080ti to run SLI. Dudes nuts. :0

Different power cables, eh? Hmm..

Well, FWIW, you should tell him NOT to run Ti's in SLI unless he's going to be using it for computation. The Pascal-series cards were notoriously bad at SLI. It's why I never SLI'd mine even though I wanted to... But the gains were minimal (avg. 25-35%) and introduced a shit ton of problems from micro-stutter to crashes to just being completely unsupported.
 
Different power cables, eh? Hmm..

Well, FWIW, you should tell him NOT to run Ti's in SLI unless he's going to be using it for computation. The Pascal-series cards were notoriously bad at SLI. It's why I never SLI'd mine even though I wanted to... But the gains were minimal (avg. 25-35%) and introduced a shit ton of problems from micro-stutter to crashes to just being completely unsupported.

Yea he knows...…..he's just obsessed. He's getting the new I9 also. $ to burn...…….LOL
 
I'm waiting till Black Friday then I'm gonna upgrade my 970GTX to a 1080 ti. Hope the price drops a couple hundred $$.

I'm doing the exact same thing.. :chuckle:

Going to buy the wife a purse or something beforehand so she doesn't kill me over getting a $1,000 graphics card... :chuckle:
 
Yea he knows...…..he's just obsessed. He's getting the new I9 also. $ to burn...…….LOL

Those 9th gen i9's look filthy.. 5ghz? Count me in...

I'm rocking a 5960X clocked at 4.7ghz ... I wanna see the clock-for-clock IPC architectural gains from Haswell-E to these 9th-gen Coffee Lake Refresh chips.. So far, testing my 8750H at 4.0 ghz, I'm only seeing a 5%-7.5% difference.

But with these new 9th gens having built in Meltdown mitigation (in hardware), that should actually speed them up significantly compared to patched kernels. So while, hardware wise the avg difference is only 6.25%, considering all kernels running will be patched against vulnerabilities, the real-world difference could be much higher, like 10-15% in various workloads.
 
So Gouri, whats you favorite brand of GPU? I normally buy EVGA. Had pretty good luck so far with them. But I know other companies like MSI, Gigabyte and Asus make good quality. Never tried Zotac. Thoughts?
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top