Building a Gaming PC

[RuanuLaw]

It is...

I have a 4K 65" TV myself, I love the damn thing.. but.. for gaming, my ASUS ROG SWIFT PG348Q literally SHITS on anything else I've seen.. The 100hz display makes gaming look like butter, and the GTX 1080 can drive most games at/near 100fps.

By comparison, using my PC on my TV looks great but.. I'd much rather get the ultra-wide aspect ratio and 100hz display.

Also, while 4k is much better than 1440p; you've gotta understand that I'm talking specifically about ULTRAWIDE 1440p..

By comparison:
720p = 0.92Mpx
1080p = 2.07Mpx
16:9 1440p = 3.69Mpx
UltraWide 1440p = 4.95Mpx
UHD (4k) = 8.29Mpx

So while UltraWide 1440p is only 60% of the pixel resolution, the screen is pushing out 100 hertz / frames per second. So if you compare that to 4k over DP that's 66% more complete frames and that doesn't even get into the fact that most TVs don't actually refresh at their rated speed. And if you're doing 4k over HDMI and not using HDMI 2.0, that's 100hz/fps vs 30hz/fps so now you're at 3.3x more frames per second (max refresh).

So the point here is that there are tradeoffs.. Do you go for maximum pixel resolution (4k UHD), or do you go for maximum refresh rate (1080p/1440p @ 16:9 w/144hz+?)? Personally, I chose the happy medium between the two with the added bonus of being ultrawide 21:9.

I honestly would never go back to using another kind of monitor for home use. I'm far more productive with one wider monitor vs two discrete monitors, and gaming is a fucking joy on this thing..

Just my two cents.

p.s.
Keep in mind, everything I just said is only about COMPUTER USE; i.e., gaming and productivity (like writing code, working with excel docs, etc).

I would never want to watch a movie on this monitor rather than using my TV. Some people do, but, IMHO, TVs are far better suited for such a purpose.

Thank you for the info.

I would use it only for gaming and VR stuff. that would be the extent of it.

BTW, this is my TV, https://www.vizio.com/m65c1.html.
Under the Specs sheet, it lists the "Effective Refresh Rate" as 240hz.

Is that bs, or irrelevant to this topic?

Im sure u can tell that I have limited knowledge on this stuff, but from my understandin:
240hz > 144hz
4K > 1440p.

What am I missing?

 

[Jack Brickman]

Finally got my Steam Link set up, as I just moved into a new apartment that is slightly better suited to run a cable. It was basically unplayable over wireless in my old place (I knew this going in, which is why I only just bought it two weeks before I was moving), but it runs pretty flawlessly over a wired connection. The controller is what is going to take some getting used to. I may just end up buying a wireless adapter for one of my 360 controllers, as I believe those are compatible with the Link, although I am at least going to give the Steam Controller a chance. It obviously has a learning curve.

 

[Ren]

Thank you for the info.

I would use it only for gaming and VR stuff. that would be the extent of it.

BTW, this is my TV, https://www.vizio.com/m65c1.html.
Under the Specs sheet, it lists the "Effective Refresh Rate" as 240hz.

Is that bs, or irrelevant to this topic?

Im sure u can tell that I have limited knowledge on this stuff, but from my understandin:
240hz > 144hz
4K > 1440p.

What am I missing?

The problem with TV's isn't typically the refresh rate, it's the response time. Because TV's are generally much larger than your average monitor, they suffer badly in the response time category. The TV you listed, while it boasts 240hz refresh rate, it's really 120hz, which isn't bad, but it also has a 10.4ms response time. By comparison, most gaming monitors are 2 or 4ms in response times. The response time is the time it takes for the pixels to go from the old frame color to the new frame color. When sitting at 60fps, a 10ms response time is more than satisfactory, but if you want to see true 144hz(or 120hz in this case), you won't see it on the TV.

That being said, unless you're buying a $1500+ desktop or $2000+ laptop, you won't get 144fps on a new game at that resolution. I've personally never gamed on a TV, I've always purchased monitors.

 

[RuanuLaw]

The problem with TV's isn't typically the refresh rate, it's the response time. Because TV's are generally much larger than your average monitor, they suffer badly in the response time category. The TV you listed, while it boasts 240hz refresh rate, it's really 120hz, which isn't bad, but it also has a 10.4ms response time. By comparison, most gaming monitors are 2 or 4ms in response times. The response time is the time it takes for the pixels to go from the old frame color to the new frame color. When sitting at 60fps, a 10ms response time is more than satisfactory, but if you want to see true 144hz(or 120hz in this case), you won't see it on the TV.

That being said, unless you're buying a $1500+ desktop or $2000+ laptop, you won't get 144fps on a new game at that resolution. I've personally never gamed on a TV, I've always purchased monitors.

I was thinking of building a PC around $1000....or whatever it will take for a GTX 1050+.

 

[gourimoko]

I was thinking of building a PC around $1000....or whatever it will take for a GTX 1050+.

Get a GTX 1070 at the minimum.. There is literally NO REASON to buy something less expensive if you're budgeting a $1000 machine that you plan to game on.

 

[Ren]

Get a GTX 1070 at the minimum.. There is literally NO REASON to buy something less expensive if you're budgeting a $1000 machine that you plan to game on.

This is dead on. I've installed three of these lately and they're fantastic cards. Everyone who I've helped build a PC can't say enough about them.

 

[gourimoko]

This is dead on. I've installed three of these lately and they're fantastic cards. Everyone who I've helped build a PC can't say enough about them.

Agreed 100%.. I use the 1080, but the 1070 is just such a great deal...

 

[Cassity14]

I've told myself for months now that I'm building a new pc later this year around a 1080, yet somehow I know I'm going to cheap out and go with the 1070 because it's such a great value.

 

[Jack Brickman]

I've told myself for months now that I'm building a new pc later this year around a 1080, yet somehow I know I'm going to cheap out and go with the 1070 because it's such a great value.

Given how often newer, better cards come out, I'd just go with the 1070 for the price anyway, as you'll be able to max out most games for the next two or three years at that price point. You'd do the same with the 1080, but it'll cost you about three hundred more.

 

[gourimoko]

So.. it looks like AMD is back in Q1.. Ryzen looks like the fucking truth..

 

[Jack Brickman]

So.. it looks like AMD is back in Q1.. Ryzen looks like the fucking truth..

I usually buy their processors because of how insanely cheap they are compared to Intel. The eight core processor I've got right now was like 200 bucks. Hard to beat that. I bought this PC almost four years ago and the only real bottleneck on my gaming performance is my video card (which I've upgraded once in those four years).

 

[Cassity14]

Given how often newer, better cards come out, I'd just go with the 1070 for the price anyway, as you'll be able to max out most games for the next two or three years at that price point. You'd do the same with the 1080, but it'll cost you about three hundred more.

Yeah that's where my head is leaning so we'll see. I've gotten really into streaming the last couple years so whatever I build will be able to effortlessly stream stuff at 1080p and around 60fps.

 

[RuanuLaw]

Given how often newer, better cards come out, I'd just go with the 1070 for the price anyway, as you'll be able to max out most games for the next two or three years at that price point. You'd do the same with the 1080, but it'll cost you about three hundred more.

so whats the point of the 1080 then, especially for $300 more, or whatever the price is?

 

[Jack Brickman]

so whats the point of the 1080 then, especially for $300 more, or whatever the price is?

Well, it's a better card. So if you want the newest, best tech available, that's the one you'll want to go with. If you're willing to take a hit in quality for a card that's significantly cheaper and will still probably last you a couple of years, the 1070 is an excellent choice.

And the point of the 1080 is that there are plenty of people out there with a ton of disposable income who always want the best new thing and are willing to pay for it, so why not offer them an option while also releasing a more budget-conscious card for customers who can't afford or would rather not pay the premium for the top of the line card? Most companies that have premium products also have cheaper alternatives that are still good.

 

[gourimoko]

so whats the point of the 1080 then, especially for $300 more, or whatever the price is?

I have the 1080... I have it because I wanted a no compromise system. It's a great card. Runs colder than most; it's ultra-quiet (you don't hear it), and it's the fastest graphics card on the planet other than the new Titans. I have mine overclocked to 2.1 ghz and +500Mhz mem-clock (can't remember the base clock). The fucking thing screams.

To give you an idea as to why I got a 1080, its because I'm running at 3440x1440 @ 100hz with GSync. You can only do that on high settings with a 1080 or 2x980ti's in SLI or again, the new Titans.