19 ms·

Quite far away. Even the Titan X Pascal is having some trouble maintaining a consistent 60 fps in all games. http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2659-nvidia-g

Quite far away. Even the Titan X Pascal is having some trouble maintaining a consistent 60 fps in all games. http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2659-nvidia-gtx-titan-x-pascal-review-and-benchmark/page-4 http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2659-nvidia-gtx-titan-x... See the Mirror's Edge and The Division benchmarks. Averages are (just) over 60, but there are dips below. Personally, I think the best resolution for current-gen cards is 3440x1440. Should be rock solid 60+ fps in all games, and gives the benefit of being ultrawide.

yoodenvranx 10y ago
I haven't owned a gaming PC in close to 10 years and todays performance numbers look completely crazy to me. The last time I played a game I was happy that I could get 1024x768 smoothly with high framerates. Seeing that you can play 3440x1440 with 60fps feels like magic.
- Warp__ 10y ago
  It's Amazing. Battlefield 1 on Ultra/Headphones/3440x1440 at 60fps is Incredibly Immersive.
  - Foxhuls 10y ago
    Have you gotten to see the ultrawides that run at 100hz? They're pretty incredible.
    - braveo 10y ago
      Do you have a link to one of these?
      - bcrescimanno 10y ago
        There are two and they use the same panel: * ASUS PG348Q (I own this one and I love it) * Acer Predator X34 (My colleague 4 seats down has this one and she loves it).
    - Warp__ 10y ago
      No, but I'd like one :D
lprd 10y ago
Correct. 1440 @ 144hz is the sweet spot right now.
- Foxhuls 10y ago
  I personally prefer 1440p ultra wide at 100hz over 16:9 at 144hz.
  - softawre 10y ago
    Do you run into games that don't do well past 16:9?
ClassyJacket 10y ago
I strongly disagree that being ultrawide is an advantage. 16:9 is already wider than optimal for gaming. The human field of view is actually about 4:3. While there is admittedly usually more interesting content to the sides than the vertical edges, I've found 16:10 to be preferable for immersion and would never dream of going wider. If anything, I'd go closer to a square if they still made them. I'd rather have 2560x1600 than 3440x1440, even though it's less pixels. IMAX film format has a more immersive aspect ratio too, which is taller still at about 16:11.
- devonkim 10y ago
  I have an ultrawide not necessarily to be able to perceive all my content at once but that I don't need to have dual monitors anymore for putting two documents next to each other without compromising the width of each too much. Even still, I came from a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and the edges are still of value to me in peripheral vision in games. Add in that most 34" ultrawide screens now seem to have a curve to them and it makes visibility at the edges easier as well. Not having to setup an extra monitor and suffer the bezel in the middle is very much worth the troubles for me because otherwise I'd need 3x monitors and at that point it gets insane with multiple monitors in portrait and such.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    But you are describing an office use case in gaming-related topic. I have dual screens at work and it's actually better than single screen - clear distinction wht is left and what is right. I am still waiting for a single person to state that for casual gaming, going ultra-wide over traditional monitors with similar surface (+ added extra width) was really worth the hassle and massive costs on hardware side. And I mean true added value well after the initial wow-effect. so far, i have nto been persuaded.
  - digler999 10y ago
    Try a 4K TV. I bought a card with 4K HDMI2.0 (for 60 fps) out, plugged it into my 46" TV and never looked back. The only drawback is needing to use the remote to turn it on/off. The monitor shuts off with DPMS but when the machine is off it still searches for signal. Doesn't bother me at all

yoodenvranx 10y ago

I haven't owned a gaming PC in close to 10 years and todays performance numbers look completely crazy to me. The last time I played a game I was happy that I could get 1024x768 smoothly with high framerates. Seeing that you can play 3440x1440 with 60fps feels like magic.

Warp__ 10y ago
It's Amazing. Battlefield 1 on Ultra/Headphones/3440x1440 at 60fps is Incredibly Immersive.
- Foxhuls 10y ago
  Have you gotten to see the ultrawides that run at 100hz? They're pretty incredible.
  - braveo 10y ago
    Do you have a link to one of these?
    - bcrescimanno 10y ago
      There are two and they use the same panel: * ASUS PG348Q (I own this one and I love it) * Acer Predator X34 (My colleague 4 seats down has this one and she loves it).
  - Warp__ 10y ago
    No, but I'd like one :D

lprd 10y ago

Correct. 1440 @ 144hz is the sweet spot right now.

Foxhuls 10y ago
I personally prefer 1440p ultra wide at 100hz over 16:9 at 144hz.
- softawre 10y ago
  Do you run into games that don't do well past 16:9?

ClassyJacket 10y ago

I strongly disagree that being ultrawide is an advantage. 16:9 is already wider than optimal for gaming. The human field of view is actually about 4:3. While there is admittedly usually more interesting content to the sides than the vertical edges, I've found 16:10 to be preferable for immersion and would never dream of going wider. If anything, I'd go closer to a square if they still made them. I'd rather have 2560x1600 than 3440x1440, even though it's less pixels. IMAX film format has a more immersive aspect ratio too, which is taller still at about 16:11.

devonkim 10y ago
I have an ultrawide not necessarily to be able to perceive all my content at once but that I don't need to have dual monitors anymore for putting two documents next to each other without compromising the width of each too much. Even still, I came from a 27" 2560x1440 monitor and the edges are still of value to me in peripheral vision in games. Add in that most 34" ultrawide screens now seem to have a curve to them and it makes visibility at the edges easier as well. Not having to setup an extra monitor and suffer the bezel in the middle is very much worth the troubles for me because otherwise I'd need 3x monitors and at that point it gets insane with multiple monitors in portrait and such.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  But you are describing an office use case in gaming-related topic. I have dual screens at work and it's actually better than single screen - clear distinction wht is left and what is right. I am still waiting for a single person to state that for casual gaming, going ultra-wide over traditional monitors with similar surface (+ added extra width) was really worth the hassle and massive costs on hardware side. And I mean true added value well after the initial wow-effect. so far, i have nto been persuaded.
- digler999 10y ago
  Try a 4K TV. I bought a card with 4K HDMI2.0 (for 60 fps) out, plugged it into my 46" TV and never looked back. The only drawback is needing to use the remote to turn it on/off. The monitor shuts off with DPMS but when the machine is off it still searches for signal. Doesn't bother me at all