Originally Posted by geggeg
Hey Kenji! Good to see another POTNer here.
I'm surprised im still remembered
Nice to see you too
Originally Posted by Amperial
Never implied, i know.
Need to type abit more clear. I just think most people have the fear going below 60 FPS. Any guy who got a decent card wants to push games atleast over 60 while G-Sync is just right for that range..
Ofc going higher than 60 is nice indeed.. while many people think it's some barrier to break through without knowing it's more or less monitor hz related.
Of course we all want to push over 60, its just really hard, Theres a kind of wall in this stuff where you start paying a lot more for smaller and smaller increments of performance. IE, You could Quad SLI Titan Zs for $6k if you wanted to, That might just let you run Crysis 3 at 1440p 120hz
Originally Posted by Mand12
Because it's the only 1440p G-Sync monitor available, mostly. At 40 FPS, this will still be a way, way better experience than just about any other monitor out there. The only other one even close will be the other ASUS that was able to take the G-Sync mod kit.
Now, could you take your current rig running at 40 FPS and get better performance by dumping that 800 bucks into a new GPU or two? Sure. But it's at least reasonable to take advantage of the rather significant upgrade this monitor provides even to weaker systems, knowing that you will have a LOT of headroom to grow up into as you improve your GPU over time.
This is a fair point. and if i think about my largest annoyance when I moved to my 2410 its definitely SCREEN TEARING.... it was something I NEVER encountered till I got the 2410... No clue why in all honesty as I had been gaming on LCDs for years up to that point...
As for upgrades, Im seeing my system as "mid life" at the moment, 3 years down and Im hoping for another 2 out of the motherboard/CPU, Seems my 2600k has held up very well...
Originally Posted by Amperial
Honestly after checking recent stuff.. who knows whats future proof.
Just looking at nVidia or Smartphones (for example Sony plans to release a new flagship phone every 6 months, lol).
Very true, I'd say 1440p is going to be getting cheaper fast because its lifespan is short at this time, Samsung already has a 4k 60hz panel at the $800 point and 4k for PC gaming is certainly the future, 4k also has an advantage in the fact that a 4k monitor panel can be used using the same techniques as 4k TVs, 1440p panels do not share that luxury...
Now thats not to say you shouldnt buy 1440p, 1440p still has a good sweet spot in terms of hardware requirements, resolution and size ATM, but I would expect in the next 2 years 1440p is going to get very rare as 4k gets cheaper and GPUs get to the point of pushing 4k, and when they're pushing 4k, 1440p 120hz will be very easy to hit.
Originally Posted by littledonny
It's a symptom of increasing resolution in games, which increases immersion and fidelity. 1080p is a cakewalk for even mid-range GPUs. 10 years ago, 1600x1200 was high resolution gaming, with a lot of people still on resolutions like 1280x1024. 1440p is 80% more pixels than 1080p. If you were to step back down to a 17" 1280xz1024 monitor, it would be obvious why current gaming setups require more expensive hardware to run at the same frame rates.
Keep in mind the Xbox 360 and the PS3 rarely if ever even hit 720p, This is the thing I always have to point out to people when they ask why gaming PCs cant "keep up" with a 7 year old console... Lots of games were rendered at 540p and upscaled if i remember right...