|
I am looking at Freesync monitors on the cheap that may work with a gtx 1070. One thing I have seen come up is something called LFC. What is it, and do I want it?
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Has anyone playing with that Q2VKPT thing figured out how to enable in-game FPS readings? Does it support them? I'm googling like the best of 'em and apparently there's just not a FPS counter in quake 2 per-se?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
so just so i can properly internalize things... that version of quake 2 is too advanced for my GTX 1080ti?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Statutory Ape posted:so just so i can properly internalize things... that version of quake 2 is too advanced for my GTX 1080ti? it requires the vulkan raytracing extension so yeah it's not gonna work on pascal like dxr it's up to the driver devs to implement it, and so far only nvidia have done so, and only for volta and turing
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
literally lol'ing irl right now, partially because my video card that cant play quake 2, but also because somebody clicking on this thread for the first time and seeing a bunch of people in 2019 lauding quake 2 for its graphical achievements/ lamenting the high system requirements
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Sniep posted:Has anyone playing with that Q2VKPT thing figured out how to enable in-game FPS readings? It doesn't have that feature. You'll have to use a utility of some sort. I used RTSS and HWinfo together which worked fine. You can try adding it to Steam as a non-steam game and using the Steam FPS counter, but for me doing so made the mouse input extremely juddery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Unlucky7 posted:I am looking at Freesync monitors on the cheap that may work with a gtx 1070. One thing I have seen come up is something called LFC. What is it, and do I want it? It stands for Low Framerate Compensation. You want it if you expect low minimum framerates (like if you're running 4K with a GTX1080, like I am). All LCD monitors must refresh at a certain minimum interval, usually somewhere in the 30-40 Hz range. If your GPU can't render at that rate and you don't have LFC, you get stuttering. If you do have LFC, the GPU just starts duplicating frames so you still get at least, say, 40 refreshes of the monitor per second, but some of them will be the same rendered frame, and so you won't get stuttering even at very low framerates (well, sorta - at some point it still turns into a slideshow). This is also how G-sync gets the "1 Hz to max refresh rate" range thing. Freesync monitors have LFC automatically enabled by the driver if the max refresh rate is at least 2x or 2.5x the min refresh rate (can't remember which), so it's not something you need to specifically look for support for on the monitor end. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Riflen posted:It doesn't have that feature. You'll have to use a utility of some sort. I used RTSS and HWinfo together which worked fine. Figures. Thanks. Statutory Ape posted:literally lol'ing irl right now, partially because my video card that cant play quake 2, but also because somebody clicking on this thread for the first time and seeing a bunch of people in 2019 lauding quake 2 for its graphical achievements/ lamenting the high system requirements It's... neat. But very underwhelming. (I'm demoing it on a 2070 so i'm sure i'm not getting the greatest results, buuuuuut, this is some alpha release 0.0001a tier poo poo.) Wake me up in 2-3 generations. Edit: After a couple hours in game, and then going back to stock, OK. I get it. It's way, way way better. But still needs a couple generations before this is going to really hit home, like everything else. But the future is good if this keeps growing. Sniep fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Tugboat Willy posted:https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16814131740 Finding reviews on Red Dragon models is impossible since they're the budget line, launch well after the Devils and no one gets free review models, so it's hard to say what the noise levels are like under load. It looks decent enough, especially if you did the AMD undervolting & slight underclock dance. If at least one of the games speaks to you, go for it man. I got a cheap Polaris with last holidays' Odyssey/Star Control bundle, no regrets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Sniep posted:Has anyone playing with that Q2VKPT thing figured out how to enable in-game FPS readings? No fps counter, but you can run the benchmark. At least the last official version of Quake 2 you open up the console (~) type in: timedemo 1 map demo2.dm2 Now whatever version they used to fork this thing might have a different demo than demo2.dm2 and you can't tell from looking at the files as these demos are located in the games data archives but if it works you'll get an average fps readout in the console after it runs the demo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
Statutory Ape posted:literally lol'ing irl right now, partially because my video card that cant play quake 2, but also because somebody clicking on this thread for the first time and seeing a bunch of people in 2019 lauding quake 2 for its graphical achievements/ lamenting the high system requirements you joke, but many contemporary games still can't handle more than 1 dynamic light properly while it worked out just fine in quake 2. even in the software renderer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
Tugboat Willy posted:https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16814131740 I actually just bought that and will be sending back the RTX 2080. The RTX was delayed during shipping and I won't get it until this coming Saturday, so I went to microcenter and purchased this. It comes with 3 unreleased games compared to the RTX's 1. Plus it was 330 vs 680. I say do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
I am planning to upgrade to a new pc this year, but given what I have gathered from reading here and elsewhere, should I wait until 2020 to get a new GPU? My initial plan was to update somewhere along Q3/4 to get the new Ryzen gen with a RTX 2060 or perhaps even a 2070, but I am feeling that waiting for whatever comes next is actually the better move. I am on a GTX 970 right now and I game on a 23'' benq at 1080p, and is holding rather well, but I want to be able to sell this PC whole at a decent value and I feel that waiting a lot more might devalue it too much. (Might as well mention that I am planning to get a new monitor: I plan to get a 24'' screen, but at that size, I feel that it isn't necessary to go to 1440p)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
The next generation of CPUs and GPUs are likely to be big steps forward, while the current generation was a baby step at a huge price premium, so while it is likely that your system will lose quite a bit of its remaining resale value, it's likely you will get far more performance delta/$ on the whole if you wait. Since you're fine with the way your system performs right now, I would just sit tight. Also, I wholeheartedly disagree with buying a new 1080p gaming monitor at this point. It's a dead resolution, unless you're a really competitive one-game csgo or ow player who wants to stick with a 240hz 1080 TN. We're definitely in the era of 27" monitors being the standard, your options for gaming monitors at smaller sizes are just not great anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:The next generation of CPUs and GPUs are likely to be big steps forward, while the current generation was a baby step at a huge price premium, so while it is likely that your system will lose quite a bit of its remaining resale value, it's likely you will get far more performance delta/$ on the whole if you wait. Since you're fine with the way your system performs right now, I would just sit tight. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam 60% of Steam Survey users are on 1080p while only about 6% are higher than that. Calling 1080 a "Dead Resolution" is really wrong right now, you have major selection bias based on who you talk to about games. There's nothing wrong with a 24", 1080p monitor, he can definitely go higher if he's looking at a 2060/2070 but he'd be fine either way. As for when to buy, the next generation is always going to be better you can wait forever with that mentality. A 970 is a pretty good card for 1080p still though and you'd definitely end up better financially waiting, but it's up to you if that is worthwhile or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Would love to see Doom 3 ray traced. All those shadows 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
1080p is definitely still the "majority resolution." One of the reasons you don't see too many recommendations for 1080p monitors in the Monitor Megathread is because there aren't any 1080p IPS >100Hz monitors for whatever reason, so people willing to pay a pretty penny for a really nice monitor are more or less forced into 27" 1440p on up. But if you're fine with 1080p@60, you can get a pretty nice IPS monitor that'll work well for 60Hz gaming for <$200, whereas for the larger ones you're looking at $500 on up. I'll actually disagree with K8.0 on the value of your current system: 970's are already teetering in the sub-$100 range on eBay, so while they're not gonna get any more expensive, you've already lost the vast majority of their original value, and it probably won't go down a whole lot further--GF 770's are still selling in the ~$75 range, after all. The rest of what K8.0 said is right, though: the 21xx-series (or whatever they want to call it) is likely to have much better price:perf ratios than the more or less proof-of-concept 20xx-series has. Whether that'll actually drop in early 2020 is a different question, but it seems more likely than not that this 20-series will be fairly short. So, if you can live with the 970's performance for another year and jump to a 2170, you'll get a better deal all the way around than you would upgrading to a 2070. But that's also almost always the case in the sense that waiting gets you better ratios--and you'll have lived another year with the 970.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies! K8.0 posted:We're definitely in the era of 27" monitors being the standard, your options for gaming monitors at smaller sizes are just not great anymore. DrDork posted:One of the reasons you don't see too many recommendations for 1080p monitors in the Monitor Megathread is because there aren't any 1080p IPS >100Hz monitors for whatever reason, so people willing to pay a pretty penny for a really nice monitor are more or less forced into 27" 1440p on up. If it isn't too much of a derail, could you guys elaborate on that? I do want a monitor with a high refresh rate (144hz is what I use), but I thought that a 144hz 27" screen could be a problem considering how much more firepower you have to bring with the GPU when that is the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
You just lower the details, accept the frame loss, or upscale, or any combination of these. xsync technology is also a pretty big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
LRADIKAL posted:You just lower the details, accept the frame loss, or upscale, or any combination of these. xsync technology is also a pretty big deal. Pretty much this. A 970 won't be enough to do locked 144Hz at 1440p on modern AAA games with everything on ULTRAMAXXXX, but it'll be enough to do like 40-50FPS or so. If you turn down the graphics to, say, medium, you can probably hit north of 80 in a lot of games still, and the visual loss isn't much in most cases. GSync (if you get a monitor that supports it) will help make lower framerates feel a lot smoother, so you may actually be fine playing at 50FPS in many cases. But if you're already used to 144Hz monitors, a 1440p@144Hz is roughly 44% more pixels to push than 1080p@144Hz, so you can base your expectations off that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Lockback posted:https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam It's a dead resolution because there's no new hardware for years, all the advances are at 1440/ultrawide/4k. 1080 is great if you need a $100 monitor for grandma to use facebook, or if you want a 240hz TN. Aside from that, there's really nothing worth the money. Also, see next quote. As sort of an aside, Steam hardware survey is a pretty terrible metric for mainstream western consumers because it's global and steam accounts are free, meaning any poor person with a computer good enough to scrape by in csgo, Dota 2 or whatever is in there since that's great, cheap entertainment for them. It's a good resource if you're a developer looking for global hardware targets, not a good resource for deciding what hardware provides a good experience in new games. dead comedy forums posted:If it isn't too much of a derail, could you guys elaborate on that? I do want a monitor with a high refresh rate (144hz is what I use), but I thought that a 144hz 27" screen could be a problem considering how much more firepower you have to bring with the GPU when that is the case. Progress over time changes what resolution you can viably drive with a mainstream GPU. 1440 is doable even with budget GPUs now, you just won't be playing the newest games at max detail and high framerates. Once you get above the budget categories, even in demanding games the performance difference between 1080 and 1440 becomes really small because the GPUs are just such overkill for 1080 at this point. The 2170 will probably be borderline overkill for 1440 even. K8.0 fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
The easiest way to describe Gsync/Good FreeSync Implementations is to say that odd rear end framerates feel fine and big swings are much lesser felt, and barring some extreme numbers you just play whatever is comfy and be happy. There is no golden target FPS like "I must hit 60" or "I must hit 120" or whatever. If you're only hitting 93 FPS on a 144hz monitor, you aren't being punished and even if you're not running at the monitor's capabilities it's still a better experience than the 60hz panel you came from. Like I turned down two shadow and foilage settings on Destiny from Highest to High and got 10 more FPS because I was feeling a bit lost keeping track of all the poo poo going on among the graphical effects. I didn't say "eew this framerate sucks" just "hmm I think I could play a little better if I adjusted the details:refresh balance a little." It helps that for most major games Nvidia makes really super detailed guides on how each step of each setting affects framerates and improves the pictures. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:It's a dead resolution because there's no new hardware for years, all the advances are at 1440/ultrawide/4k. 1080 is great if you need a $100 monitor for grandma to use facebook, or if you want a 240hz TN. Aside from that, there's really nothing worth the money. Also, see next quote. You're not wrong, but because new advances typically run >$200 USD, many people will balk out of sticker shock at a device they didn't think before would make as much of a difference for video games as it actually does. At higher than $200, people start considering gaming consoles instead, because those at least work with the old 1080p@60 monitors/TVs they might have. At least then they could still call it the "latest and greatest" in gaming, even if that's not what it objectively is. It gets worse when consumers who would prefer to have the full upgrade in experience *right now* (high refresh+gpu) realize they would need double or even triple the budget they were originally thinking of. That turns single-job hourly-paid possibly-with-family people right off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Also if you want to do it right this poo poo has been segregating people's future video card options year over year, and with the cards most people buy regardless it kind of wasn't an option until now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Like Statutory Ape put it in the monitor thread the other day, any halfway decent TFT monitor will work just fine for so long that you start to resent the fact that it still works. So they don't tend to get replaced a lot, and while you can get a very no-frills IPS 1080p for around $100 or even under that, a decent one is usually closer to $200, and they've been around that price for like close to a decade at this point. A decade ago there wasn't really much of an upgrade path from there, except high refresh rate TN panels. Then 27" 1440p high refresh rate IPS started to become a thing around three or four years ago, but it was stupidly expensive for a long time (like $700-$800 or more), way outside of most people's budgets. Now it's starting to creep down under $500, making it an actually reasonable upgrade path for people who build systems on the higher end of things with a total budget in the $1500-$1700 range. Especially if the 2060 actually costs $350-ish like they say it will. Still, those buyers are definitely a minority and most people will still run at 1080p/60Hz for a long time yet. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:Thanks for the replies! Screen door effect. The larger your panel while maintaining the same resolution, means your pixels MUST necessarily be larger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Yeah I used a 40" TV as a monitor for some five years. It was a gamble that future resolutions weren't going anywhere but also I never wanted to have different displays for console and PC ever again. I've spent way too much money on screens exclusively used by my computer and if I was going to keep my PC up to date something had to be cut. It was also sort of based on that very 1990s idea (remember the giant 32" CRTs on Macintosh IIs?) that huge screens are good. Like Weird Al sang, "I got a flat-screen monitor, 40 inches wide." And thus so did I. It was a well made TV that did decently as a display in game mode; I mean, I'm still using the PC I was able to build by saving that money, but my eyes hurt to look at my screen starting around 2016 as phones and tablets started taking PPI in new directions. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
DrDork posted:But if you're already used to 144Hz monitors, a 1440p@144Hz is roughly 44% more pixels to push than 1080p@144Hz, so you can base your expectations off that. 78% more pixels (gotta square it because it’s an area). The advice is still sound, though - a 970 is adequate for lower settings/refresh rates, which is smoother with gsync/GSync-compatible. That said, 1070 Tis and probably 1160s are a good bump up, and used prices are going down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
DrDork posted:But if you're fine with 1080p@60, you can get a pretty nice IPS monitor that'll work well for 60Hz gaming for <$200 Used Dell Ultrasharps are great in this range if you can shop for a few weeks and find a good price. My most recent one was 45 dollars and even though it's only 1920x1200 @ 60 Hz and has a noticeable bezel (actual complaint I've seen) for the price it's hard to argue. They're my default for 1080 monitors now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
Anyone in Socal want a gsync monitor for $100 local pickup pasadena? I figured I would offer it here before some random on craigslist gets a deal. Its an Acer XB240H Specs here https://www.acer.com/ac/en/GB/content/model/UM.FB0EE.001 24in, 144hz, 1080p, gsync, 1ms response, all the stuff a wannabe esports gamer needs. Nothing is wrong with it, no dead pixels, im just upgrading. I purchased it new from the Acer ebay store about 2 years ago for around $400 If anyone is interested let me know and ill make the SA-mart thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
As much as people like to diss 1080p monitors, I have one of those 24" 1080p @ 240 Hz monitors and its loving awesome, even though I don't play esports games. Granted, supposedly later this year or early 2020 there should be 1440p/240 Hz monitors on the market, just its going to take a lot more GPU just to break even on FPS compared to 1080p, and hitting 240 Hz on 1080p is already a huge pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
1080p is a perfectly serviceable, perfectly reasonable resolution. There is nothing inherently *wrong* with it. It is just that the limit of 1080p is now visible to the mainstream consumer, as opposed to the enthusiast. If this 1080p 21:9 monitor worked the way I wanted it to, that is, to let me run a 1080p panel on one input, and the remaining 600x1080 as its own other input, it would be the perfect compliment to the 1060 I'm on now. One side runs my games at 1080p fullscreen, the other, Discord, Chromium, whatever. Basically, what I was doing with a pair of 1080p panels before, but with 33% fewer pixels to drive, that I could turn into increased settings. Unfortunately, nobody in the monitor industry has such a fine-grained scalar in their monitors, so I'm looking for 21:9 1440p so I can run games 1080p windowed instead, which requires a commensurate hardware bump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
24-27" 1080p 144hz is the gold standard for esports. Anything more is just adding money for marginal gains. With how close they have their face to the screen any larger wouldnt be helpful, and im not sure many companies are stupid enough to try selling a 24" 1440p monitor although im sure certain hardcore gamers would buy them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:24-27" 1080p 144hz is the gold standard for esports. Anything more is just adding money for marginal gains. With how close they have their face to the screen any larger wouldnt be helpful, and im not sure many companies are stupid enough to try selling a 24" 1440p monitor although im sure certain hardcore gamers would buy them. The Dell S2417DG is exactly that. A 24" 144hz 1440p gaming monitor. It is fabulous. I've had mine for 2 or 3 years now I believe and I absolutely love it. https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-24-gaming-monitor-s2417dg/apd/210-aizs/monitors-monitor-accessories
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 05:34
|
|
to give you this shitty icon and give Lowtax his cyborg spine parts
|
hell yeah, for someone who is being realistic about how it going to be used and how close they actually sit that sounds pretty ideal
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Well this is Quake II for RTX right now as sort of a benchmark, but I can remember during the 2000's that Quake 3 and it's engine was around for ages as a benchmark of all the new GPU tech coming out at the time (T&L, Curved Surfaces, AA, etc) so I can see that happening again if someone (id) port Quake 3 into a RTX engine. Also, all these other games sound great, but I would replay the crap out of Half-Life full RTX'ed. Real Time Headcrab shadows would be spooky all over again. That and the clingers. Really, using old games to make Ray Tracing have a sort of Proof of Concept is a good start, but Indie Devs could easily get away with making accurate Ray Traced games using simple geometry but also, using the Ray Tracing to maybe push some gameplay ideas a bit (Pretty much make a new Thief using it). Also VR really would benefit a lot, but it would have to be done in a more BF5 method and not full Ray Tracing until GPU performance can bring consistent 90FPS to it which I doubt even Quake II can run at currently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
HL
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
That would be baller. On second thought, just mash on all the quake engine derived stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
Source RTX
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Now I want quake live rtx. I didn't know I wanted this. And it probably won't get made. Thanks jerks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 10:11
|
|
