|
There's a PCB minimum they need to hit in order to stay Nvidia partners. The only thing they can go cheap on is the heatsink and fans. If you don't care about noise or overclocking it'll be fine.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:59 |
|
NihilCredo posted:I've been thinking of upgrading for a while at the first chance, and I have a tempting Black Friday deal on a Zotac GTX 1080Ti Mini, a little over 10% off. And the mini form factor is especially interesting to me because I already have a small case (Core V1, which does fit most but not all full-sized GPUs) and I might switch to an even smaller one next year. Avoid Zotac, they use the loudest fans and use badly engineered VRMs for power delivery. On a mini card both of those negatives are over emphasized so you are essentially getting the worst of all worlds. Oh, and their warranty and customer service is substandard to boot. Nvidia's next gen of cards will be released in the first quarter of 2018 at the earliest and perhaps as late as the fourth quarter roughly a year from now. How much faster this new generation will be is a subject of much speculation but only Nvidia really knows and they have been keeping their cards close to their chest. I say go for a high refresh 1440p monitor with gsync, a 1080Ti will really be able to push one of those up into the 100-140 FPS area at ultra settings.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Sniep posted:Well, that's what the hybrid part is, water cooling up to the remote radiator+fan, right? No, I think it’s “hybrid” because it’s liquid cooling for the GPU die and memory, but air for the VRMs. All liquid cooling runs to a rad with fan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
future ghost posted:You sure about that? I have a passive 210 in my HTPC, so I almost impulse bought one of these for my new TV but then I saw this in the description: Yeah as long as your machine has Display Port 1.2 you are golden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:3) My current screen is a 1080p (which is currently stressing my old GTX 750 Ti pretty hard), so obviously I'd be looking to upgrade shortly after this purchase. I understand the 1080 Ti can push 4k @ 60fps, but that's with current-gen games. If I want to keep this card for at least two years, would it be wiser to get something a little smaller, like a 3440 x 1440? Just make sure the monitor supports GSync and you won't have to worry about it. That said, I still prefer 1440p in a desktop monitor. 4k seems overkill for anything 27" and smaller.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Avoid Zotac, they use the loudest fans and use badly engineered VRMs for power delivery. On a mini card both of those negatives are over emphasized so you are essentially getting the worst of all worlds. Oh, and their warranty and customer service is substandard to boot. I find the Zotac Mini cards to be adequate for noise, but yeah they don't have much space for power phases and are all heinous with the coil whine they generate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:21
|
|
Zero VGS posted:I find the Zotac Mini cards to be adequate for noise, but yeah they don't have much space for power phases and are all heinous with the coil whine they generate. It's not just the number of phases, Zotac's top of the line card has like 16 phases but the parts quality is so bad that the 6 phase VRM on the stock cards from Nvidia is better than the design from Zotac.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:3) My current screen is a 1080p (which is currently stressing my old GTX 750 Ti pretty hard), so obviously I'd be looking to upgrade shortly after this purchase. I understand the 1080 Ti can push 4k @ 60fps, but that's with current-gen games. If I want to keep this card for at least two years, would it be wiser to get something a little smaller, like a 3440 x 1440? You’re falling into the trap of thinking the game needs to be run at the very highest settings profile. People have been getting this performance at 4K for a while on other hardware, they just turn graphical details down. Most games have a just-below-highest setting that looks nearly indistinguishable but performs better. In addition, you can sacrifice resolution on a 4K monitor if you really have to. Cut back to 1440 (often called 2K) and the display should scale it nicely. Yes, every game’s GPU Nightmare setting will be more demanding than the last, but High or Very High looks nice, too. Highest sometimes just looks like 5% softer shadows for half your FPS. It isn’t always worth it. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:1440 (often called 2K) Please don't do this
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
I hear 1440 referred to as 2K pretty often? x1080 = "Full HD", x1440 = "2K", x2160 = "4K", at least in common vernacular, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
i think its more that '4k' is a dumb marketing term to make it sound more impressive, and '2k' is just piggybacking off of that. The 'real' way of doing it is the vertical space, ie 1080, 1440, and 2160 is what 4k should be called.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
yea it's not like an official term, just a convenient (fast) way to refer to the different resolution tiers
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:It's not just the number of phases, Zotac's top of the line card has like 16 phases but the parts quality is so bad that the 6 phase VRM on the stock cards from Nvidia is better than the design from Zotac. Is Zotac the main 1080 Ti manufacturer to avoid? I'm looking to get an ASUS STRIX 011G 1080 Ti sometime soon, mostly getting Asus to match with my Asus mobo. I remember with the 970s that Asus was recommended for awhile because of MSI coil (or fan?) whine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
2k has other actual definitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution callin 1440p "2K' is just a thing that gets nerds WELL ACTUALLY juices flowing, rightfully so imo ChubbyPitbull posted:Is Zotac the main 1080 Ti manufacturer to avoid? I'm looking to get an ASUS STRIX 011G 1080 Ti sometime soon, mostly getting Asus to match with my Asus mobo. I remember with the 970s that Asus was recommended for awhile because of MSI coil (or fan?) whine. According to that GamersNexus heatsink impedance testing, the STRIX cooler is one of the best in the biz. Asus has a solid reputation and generally doesnt cheap out on parts, so you will prolly pay a price premium for that. To me though, its up there with the big EVGA's in the recommended category. Cygni fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:42
|
|
ChubbyPitbull posted:Is Zotac the main 1080 Ti manufacturer to avoid? I'm looking to get an ASUS STRIX 011G 1080 Ti sometime soon, mostly getting Asus to match with my Asus mobo. I remember with the 970s that Asus was recommended for awhile because of MSI coil (or fan?) whine. Asus, MSI & EVGA are in the top tier, the Asus card you are looking at is one of the best, I like EVGA a bit more because of their customer service and warranty but there is nothing wrong with that Asus card.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
In this house we say "1440", not "2k". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:In this house we say "1440", not "2k". Yeah but if I say I have 21:9 1440, it doesn't sound as impressive as it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Yeah but if I say I have 21:9 1440, it doesn't sound as impressive as it actually is. Let's just start calling every panel in MegaPixels like digital cameras in the early 2000s 21:9 1440 would be 5MP standard 1440 would be 4MP 4K would be 8MP...
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Let's refer to things by both vertical and horizontal resolution and also color depth and refresh rate, as God intended
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
I can't believe people have suddenly decided that 2000 is the same as 2560. It's already a bit stupid with 4000 = 3840, but at least that's something that would round to 4000. If we were rounding, 2560 would be 2.5K or, if you really must have one number, 3K. 2K for 2560x1440 makes no goddamn sense and pretty much the only places I've seen it has been when people don't know anything about resolutions and go "uuhhh it's somewhere between 1080p and 4K, so uhh 2K?" I've also seen people refer to 1920x1080 as 2K. So at this point, whenever people say 2K you have to guess if they mean 1920x1080 or 2560x1440. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
kujeger posted:I've also seen people refer to 1920x1080 as 2K. So at this point, whenever people say 2K you have to guess if they mean 1920x1080 or 2560x1440. Christ. well, sure, i mean technically 2K IS 1920x1080, since a K is supposed to be the horizontal... but 1080 is already "Full HD" so 2K just sloppily means 2560x1440. I mean, I also think it's incredibly stupid, but, it's pretty universal at this point despite being wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
The only reason I said 2K is because some people don’t realize that 4K monitors can display certain lower resolutions as well as lower resolution monitors can. They think everything will get blurry and bad like my 1080 TV does if the resolution is anything less than native. If that’s all you’ve ever owned, it’s easy to think you need one pixel of video data for every one pixel on the display or else it looks like poo poo, but you can have a 4K screen and turn the resolution down and it won’t look as sharp but it’s another tool you can use to get the performance you want, especially in this interim where 4K performance is expensive and limited. It’s not a technical term, but if it helps people understand that they can run a 1440 picture on a 4K display without formatting problems then it’s doing its job. Now stop being pedantic bitches or I will use it again. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
It's called WQHD, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
metallicaeg posted:It's called WQHD, thanks. Amending extra poo poo onto “HD” is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Amending extra poo poo onto “HD” is even worse. I had to look up a Wikipedia article to find what letters were for the resolution and had no idea that there are nearly a billion of them: code:metallicaeg fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
I swear this poo poo has been going on since monitors moved passed TV resolution. Just list the loving resolution thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Does the "n" in nHD stand for "not"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
You guys haven't seen laptop marketing materials, I see. They're always the stupid letter abbreviations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Does the "n" in nHD stand for "not"? Ninth, as in nine of those images can fit on a single "Full HD" (1920x1080) screen. Good for low-budget security cameras and cloning the Brady Bunch intro. Also apparently at one point some pirate groups started distributing "nHD" re-encodes intended to be viewed on older mobile devices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
metallicaeg posted:I had to look up a Wikipedia article to find what letters were for the resolution and had no idea that there are nearly a billion of them: There is a point at which we needed to stop tacking letters onto XGA, and at this point we have clearly passed it, but gently caress it's let's keep going and see where seven total letters takes us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 00:32
|
|
QWHUVGA: 30720 x 19200 
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
metallicaeg posted:7.5 HUXGA (6400×4800) Can't wait to watch old reruns of the Cosby Show in HUXTABLEGA
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:There are some benefits from cs 1.6 textures though. At very low I find enemies don't blend into the terrain as well, making them easier to spot. r_picmip 8 or go home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
kujeger posted:I can't believe people have suddenly decided that 2000 is the same as 2560. I thought it was called 4k because it's 4 times the resolution of 1080p. This is where 2k came from, because it's twice the resolution of 1080p. I don't use the terms myself, I've always personally referred to it as 3840x2160
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:I thought it was called 4k because it's 4 times the resolution of 1080p. This is where 2k came from, because it's twice the resolution of 1080p. 3840 X 2160 is commonly called 4K, it's supposed to be the equivalent of four 1920 X 1080 screens placed in a 2 X 2 format. However, I don't know for sure if it's called 4K specifically for that reason. From what I understand, most conventional usage if you're not specifically referring to the resolution, when it's 2K or 4K, it refers to the amount of horizontal pixels. When it's 1080p, 1440p, or 2160p, that refers to the vertical pixels. In the example below I took from metallicaeg's wikipedia quote, you can see there are two 4K's, even though one is actually less than 4,000 pixels, and one is slightly more. 4K UHD (3840×2160) DCI 4K (4096×2160) To put it simply, it's better to simply list the horizontal by vertical pixels, along with color gamut, and refresh rate, along with possibly panel type to avoid most confusion. This doesn't even go into the really confusing HDR marketing that's currently going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
2K and 4K refer to horizontal resolutions (2048 and 4096) because they originate in film scanning: it makes more sense to standardize scanning resolutions by the width of the film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
For a while I thought that 1920x1080 was 1 k, so putting four of those together was 4k.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Maxwell Adams posted:For a while I thought that 1920x1080 was 1 k, so putting four of those together was 4k. Well, your math is wrong but you actually arrived at the right conclusion nevertheless. 4K is exactly 4x1080p resolution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
ausgoonz: shopping express has 6gb 1060s for a bit cheaper - grabbed an MSI model for under 400 shipped. nothing fancy but it's a 1060 so who cares?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Well, your math is wrong but you actually arrived at the right conclusion nevertheless. 4K is exactly 4x1080p resolution. Well, see, I was trying to figure out some honest math on that one. Calling a resolution 4k when it doesn't measure 4,000 didn't work. Taking the 1080p moniker and rounding it down to 1k just seemed like a marketing move to make it sound cool. Then you could use a k as a sort of megapixel to measure resolution. If that were the case, you couldn't claim that they were lying about the resolution, because they were actually rounding down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 14:56
|
|