1440p or 4k?

Thanks for the imput guys,
I do apologize for not responding faster, last time I checked, this thread was dead!

I do overall think it would be better (for my wallet) to go with a 1440p ultrawide display, and after reading all the comments I do see the pros and cons of both choices.

OH and to whomever asked right now I'm on a 1080p Asus 23" 1ms response time monitor, the basic ones you find on amazon for $150ish

This would be a big upgrade but imo it's one of those upgrades that make your system look "great" over "good"

I really do appreciate all the imput from everyone. I will try to stay more active with my post, :)
 
I think either upgrade cost would you roughly the same amount of money. the LG 34x14 non curved is around $750 plus a single GTX 970 $300 so $1050 to go the 1440p route. If you get the cheapest Korean branded 4k monitor that'll cost you around $500 but you do not want to be running 4k off a single GTX 970 as that is not going to give you a great experience at all so a 4k display $500 plus two GTX 970s $300 each $1100 for the 4k route.
 
I would too, just trying to keep the comparisons more apples to apples by keeping the gpus the same for each set up.
 
If I was starting over, I'd get a Samsung 32UE850 monitor with a pair of R9 Furys. Currently stuck with a pair of Titan X cards. When framerate drops below 60 it gets ugly. So freesync starting at 40fps is much easier to sync with if you have at least r9 fury CF.
 
Yes, G-Sync monitors is severely lacking in general at 4k resolution. The only decent choices are focused on the 1440p resolution (EG XB270HU or the upcoming PG279Q, if you discount the other TN choices), while 4k is badly neglected.
 
I really do appreciate the imput.
The 980ti does make more sense now that I think of it, I was just figuring I could get two 970's for decently cheap off the forum here.

I'll keep looking around on this post.
 
I highly recommend a 980 Ti for 34x14 60Hz it'll perform very well. At 4k a single 980 Ti just isn't enough power, not without making a good amount of compromise to either image quality or frame rate. To really enjoy 4k at high details and 60 fps you would need a minimum of two 980 Ti's and that alone is going to break the bank without even factoring in the cost of the 4k display.
 
i beg to differ on the 980ti vs 970 SLI matter. 970 SLI is a better solution for 4k gaming than a single 980 ti and the same is even more truth for 34x14 gaming.
 
geok1ng said:
i beg to differ on the 980ti vs 970 SLI matter. 970 SLI is a better solution for 4k gaming than a single 980 ti and the same is even more truth for 34x14 gaming.
Click to expand...

980 TI OC vs 980 SLI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXesr7G3fxY&feature=youtu.be

980 TI stock vs 970 SLI:
RcWszSwF6g6Q.878x0.Z-Z96KYq.jpg
 
My opinion would be get a 1440p 144hz monitor now, and then get a 4k TV as well in the future when a single GPU can actually run games at 4k 60fps.
 
This benchmark is dubious. GTX 970 is GTX 980 with couple of rendering pipelines disabled. The performance differences between them (in single card configuration) is 12% or so. I can't believe when you assemble them into SLI the difference in performance suddenly grow to 100% (24.5 frames vs. 12).

To put it another way, GTX 980ti is 28% faster than GTX 970 on low res, and in UHD is 50% faster tops. GTX 980ti gets 20 min fps in single card mode. A single GTX 970 should get more than these puny 12 fps in SLI mode.

Make no mistake, GTX 970 gives you much better performance per $ compared to eiother GTX 980 or GTX 980ti; anything between 128% overclocked and 150% reference according to

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_980_Ti_Super_JetStream/32.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top