LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.And do you feel a real urge to add more pixels, or are other features more important?
Read more.And do you feel a real urge to add more pixels, or are other features more important?
4k. Maybe not the wisest of choices but cant turn back now, just cant.
1080p. More pixels *per second*!
2560x1440
Lovely.
3440x1440 @ 75 hertz, nice step up from 1080p @ 60 hertz but pushing my pair of 7970 ghz editions to the limit of what they are capable of.
At 2k I have started to play without anti aliasing as it becoming more redundant at higher resolutions.
1680x1050 on a Samsung SM2233BW
bought the monitor back in march 2009. it still works, 750ti gets 18fps in ultra in witcher 3. whats the point in upgrading?
everything that I own is playable to me at that res and speed. why spend £1500 or so upgrading when everything still works?
sure you get a few more pixels, and its a bit smoother looking. meh, is what I say.
although I am about to spend £500 upgrading the surround sound to Atmos DTS-HD compatible*, NAD amp gave up recently, it doesn't output audio anymore
*getting the denon avrx2200w and some ONKYO SKH410, to add to the B&W 603, 601, CC6 ASW600, all S2's for anyone interested
1080p or seeing as we are on a tech board 1920x1080
My system runs everything on high details and smooth going
My FuryX only works at 640x480 so 640x480 :|
1920 X 1080 ; 3D vision though so thats what 1920 x 1080 rendered twice on the same panel overlayed for 3D
Yeah... I'm one of the few that use 3D vision and actually like it & use it on a regular basis
Last edited by Lee H; 18-03-2016 at 06:28 PM.
2560x1440. It's good but sometimes I find that games can neglect the resolution. For example one game will stretch certain items. I also question some optimisation.
2560x1440, which I consider optimal at this time. I've no interest in running more than one card and 2560x1440 is the limit of what my 980 Ti can handle in the games I play when all the eye candy is turned to max. Once a single card is available which can handle 4K equally well I'll start thinking of upgrading, but I certainly have no interest in upping the pixel count only to have to turn down the settings.
G-Sync might let me have a decent 4K experience right now I guess, but the really good G-Sync screens are still too expensive in my opinion. In any case I'd like my next screen to be 21:9, rather than the current 16:9 4K offerings.
I am at 21/9 running at 2560 x 1080
Just got a 48" Tosh 4k tv yesterday, was 1080p on 37" LG before that tho.
Can't believe I am first to say 1920x1200.
It's on my 9 year old Dell 2407wfp-HC, which I thought was quite expensive back then (+£400), but considering it's lasted 9 years and had a range of inputs (good for my PS3 and Xbox 360 back then), it's actually bit of a bargin.
Looking at 2560x1440 for my next monitor with some sort of Free/G-Sync, as a balance between extra resolution and still being able to play at respectable settings.
3440 x 1440 @ 100Hz on Asus PG348Q.
Four Titans mainly for production rendering, but also great for gaming in SLI. The only title that struggles at this resolution is Witcher 3. All other titles at Ultra settings usually keep above the 100fps. A few titles still don't have support for 3440 x 1440, and some do but don't work correctly, like Assassins Creed: black Flag. Selecting 3440 x 1440 gives an effect like having 3x 3440 x 1440 on one screen.
1440p now, thanks to Hexus
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
