Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
If you've ever tried a 120-144hz monitor, then you will never use 60hz again.
And, chances are you will buy one sooner or later, since it's the way all monitors are going to go.
Low fps is not running at max settings in anyone's eyes but yours, running at max settings suggests a good and playable frame rate.
8k for a monitor is pointless.
If you aren't trolling, just go for a 2080, you'll get the same performance on your system.
Id love to see evidence to back up your claim, as every review and personal experience says otherwise.
As for upgrading to a 2080 Ti, I wouldn’t bother. It’s not a value for money GPU. A 1070 Ti would be a nice upgrade over a 970.
atm I would go AMD just because Nvidia and Intel are becoming like Apple.
RT is only supported in one game atm, and believe me, 144 fps at 1440p maxed out is better than 60 fps 1440p with RT. While playing you'll barely notice cause anybody focuses on ponds while playing a FPS. it's and it's just a marketing thing.