Upgrading from 1080p to 1440p- Viotek GFT27DB

[Ch33zyDischarg3]

Running a Ryzen 5 2600 OC'd to 4.1 ghz, MSI Armor 2070 (vanilla) with a core clock OC of +200mhz, and a 16 gigs of DDR4 at 3200mhz.

I impulse bought a Viotek GFT27DB after seeing the glowing reviews it had both on Amazon user reviews, Hardware Unboxed, and IGN.

I'm going from a 1080p 144hz ASUS and am curious about what kind of performance dip I'm going to see. I've read that the big factor the higher you go in resolution is your GPU, and I'm assuming that the weaker component in my build is the Ryzen 5 2600. If I'm getting 135 fps average on CoD Modern Warfare with all settings on max, what kind of dip can I expect with the new monitor?

Anybody have the Viotek GFT27DB and have an opinion on it?

[mimizukari]

for 1440p gaming I'd recommend at least a 2070 SUPER minimum, and that's not for newer games like Borderlands 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2, 2080 Ti/TITAN RTX can still struggle on Red Dead Redemption 2 on 1440p.

[Ch33zyDischarg3]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

for 1440p gaming I'd recommend at least a 2070 SUPER minimum, and that's not for newer games like Borderlands 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2, 2080 Ti/TITAN RTX can still struggle on Red Dead Redemption 2 on 1440p.

Really? I've been reading that a base level 2060 can handle 1440p, so long as you don't expect to set everything at ultra, which I'm willing to do (I'm noticing that the difference between high/ultra is not noticeable unless you're not moving, and sometimes medium is even a hardly noticeable difference from high).

If I decide to lower the resolution to 1080p, will it have any sort of weird effect?

[r.linder]

Ch33zyDischarg3님이 먼저 게시:

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

for 1440p gaming I'd recommend at least a 2070 SUPER minimum, and that's not for newer games like Borderlands 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2, 2080 Ti/TITAN RTX can still struggle on Red Dead Redemption 2 on 1440p.

Really? I've been reading that a base level 2060 can handle 1440p, so long as you don't expect to set everything at ultra, which I'm willing to do (I'm noticing that the difference between high/ultra is not noticeable unless you're not moving, and sometimes medium is even a hardly noticeable difference from high).

If I decide to lower the resolution to 1080p, will it have any sort of weird effect?

It'll look worse than 1080p normally does if you drop resolution.

2070 will be fine, if you OC the card it'll be at 2070S performance. Super cards are effectively just overclocked non-Super cards, performance wise.

[Ch33zyDischarg3]

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Ch33zyDischarg3님이 먼저 게시:

Really? I've been reading that a base level 2060 can handle 1440p, so long as you don't expect to set everything at ultra, which I'm willing to do (I'm noticing that the difference between high/ultra is not noticeable unless you're not moving, and sometimes medium is even a hardly noticeable difference from high).

If I decide to lower the resolution to 1080p, will it have any sort of weird effect?

It'll look worse than 1080p normally does if you drop resolution.

2070 will be fine, if you OC the card it'll be at 2070S performance. Super cards are effectively just overclocked non-Super cards, performance wise.

OK, thanks. I've got a +200mhz OC on the core clock and a +400mhz OC on the memory; it seems to be stable.

[mimizukari]

I don't understand the purpose of increasing resolution but decreasing other stuff... You just make the game look worse than it would even on the lower resolution.

[Ch33zyDischarg3]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

I don't understand the purpose of increasing resolution but decreasing other stuff... You just make the game look worse than it would even on the lower resolution.

When I played games on PC 10-15 years ago, I remember the jump from medium to high settings in regards to things like textures, shadows, particle effects, etc., was very noticeable. I just got back into PC gaming about 1 year ago, and it seems that settings beyond low, don't make as big of a difference as they used to.

One of the first games I started playing, was Battlefield 5. I had all setting on Ultra, and was getting an average of 110-115 fps. When I lowered the settings to high, I was averaging about 135-140 fps without any noticeable loss of visual quality (standing still and switching from one to the other). Even certain medium settings on modern games, don't seem to be a big difference from high/ultra. So I'm willing to lower a few things if I can get a higher resolution and have a slightly larger screen.

[mimizukari]

Ch33zyDischarg3님이 먼저 게시:

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

I don't understand the purpose of increasing resolution but decreasing other stuff... You just make the game look worse than it would even on the lower resolution.

When I played games on PC 10-15 years ago, I remember the jump from medium to high settings in regards to things like textures, shadows, particle effects, etc., was very noticeable. I just got back into PC gaming about 1 year ago, and it seems that settings beyond low, don't make as big of a difference as they used to.

One of the first games I started playing, was Battlefield 5. I had all setting on Ultra, and was getting an average of 110-115 fps. When I lowered the settings to high, I was averaging about 135-140 fps without any noticeable loss of visual quality (standing still and switching from one to the other). Even certain medium settings on modern games, don't seem to be a big difference from high/ultra. So I'm willing to lower a few things if I can get a higher resolution and have a slightly larger screen.

it REALLY makes a difference on some games, such as RDR2, the jump from low-med-high etc ... Low looks like a Nintendo 64 game, no joke. Only some games scale well, like Fallout 76.

[r.linder]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

I don't understand the purpose of increasing resolution but decreasing other stuff... You just make the game look worse than it would even on the lower resolution.

Some would argue that 1440p medium looks better than 1080p high on some games. All depends on the display quality.

[mimizukari]

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

I don't understand the purpose of increasing resolution but decreasing other stuff... You just make the game look worse than it would even on the lower resolution.

Some would argue that 1440p medium looks better than 1080p high on some games. All depends on the display quality.

27 inch is still good for a 1080p display at the very least, it's when you start going beyond that 1080p becomes fuzzy/etc.

[Autumn_]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Some would argue that 1440p medium looks better than 1080p high on some games. All depends on the display quality.

27 inch is still good for a 1080p display at the very least, it's when you start going beyond that 1080p becomes fuzzy/etc.

No, 27 inch isn't good for 1080p, as a person with a 24 and 27 inch 1080p and 24 and 27 inch 1440p monitor, I can tell you now, 1080p at 27 inches looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dirt.
Pixel density is important, for example, 1080p@27 inches is 81 PPI, and 1080p@24 inches is 91 PPI, and, 1440p @ 27 is 108 PPI. It may not sound like much, but it does make a BIG impact.
Otherwise, why would phone screens keep increasing in size? We're in the area of 450+PPI for phone screens. If it didn't matter, we would still be at ~100 PPI.

The only, ONLY time 1080p @ 27 inches would be useable is if you're sitting WAY back from it.
But if you're sitting at a normal distance, I wouldn't go any larger than 24 inches.

Though, my personal opinion is that even 1080p @ 24 inches looks fuzzy. 1080p is better suited to laptops (<18 inches), or phones (<7 inches.)

[mimizukari]

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

27 inch is still good for a 1080p display at the very least, it's when you start going beyond that 1080p becomes fuzzy/etc.

No, 27 inch isn't good for 1080p, as a person with a 24 and 27 inch 1080p and 24 and 27 inch 1440p monitor, I can tell you now, 1080p at 27 inches looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dirt.
Pixel density is important, for example, 1080p@27 inches is 81 PPI, and 1080p@24 inches is 91 PPI, and, 1440p @ 27 is 108 PPI. It may not sound like much, but it does make a BIG impact.
Otherwise, why would phone screens keep increasing in size? We're in the area of 450+PPI for phone screens. If it didn't matter, we would still be at ~100 PPI.

The only, ONLY time 1080p @ 27 inches would be useable is if you're sitting WAY back from it.
But if you're sitting at a normal distance, I wouldn't go any larger than 24 inches.

Though, my personal opinion is that even 1080p @ 24 inches looks fuzzy. 1080p is better suited to laptops (<18 inches), or phones (<7 inches.)

you should be sitting like 6~ feet away or more from the monitor to begin with, you'll damage your eyes if you don't.

[r.linder]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

No, 27 inch isn't good for 1080p, as a person with a 24 and 27 inch 1080p and 24 and 27 inch 1440p monitor, I can tell you now, 1080p at 27 inches looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dirt.
Pixel density is important, for example, 1080p@27 inches is 81 PPI, and 1080p@24 inches is 91 PPI, and, 1440p @ 27 is 108 PPI. It may not sound like much, but it does make a BIG impact.
Otherwise, why would phone screens keep increasing in size? We're in the area of 450+PPI for phone screens. If it didn't matter, we would still be at ~100 PPI.

The only, ONLY time 1080p @ 27 inches would be useable is if you're sitting WAY back from it.
But if you're sitting at a normal distance, I wouldn't go any larger than 24 inches.

Though, my personal opinion is that even 1080p @ 24 inches looks fuzzy. 1080p is better suited to laptops (<18 inches), or phones (<7 inches.)

you should be sitting like 6~ feet away or more from the monitor to begin with, you'll damage your eyes if you don't.

Lmao, what.
6 feet is a bit excessive.

[Autumn_]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

Autumn님이 먼저 게시:

No, 27 inch isn't good for 1080p, as a person with a 24 and 27 inch 1080p and 24 and 27 inch 1440p monitor, I can tell you now, 1080p at 27 inches looks like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dirt.
Pixel density is important, for example, 1080p@27 inches is 81 PPI, and 1080p@24 inches is 91 PPI, and, 1440p @ 27 is 108 PPI. It may not sound like much, but it does make a BIG impact.
Otherwise, why would phone screens keep increasing in size? We're in the area of 450+PPI for phone screens. If it didn't matter, we would still be at ~100 PPI.

The only, ONLY time 1080p @ 27 inches would be useable is if you're sitting WAY back from it.
But if you're sitting at a normal distance, I wouldn't go any larger than 24 inches.

Though, my personal opinion is that even 1080p @ 24 inches looks fuzzy. 1080p is better suited to laptops (<18 inches), or phones (<7 inches.)

you should be sitting like 6~ feet away or more from the monitor to begin with, you'll damage your eyes if you don't.

You want me to sit ALMOST TWO METERS from my monitor? The ♥♥♥♥....

I mean, if you want to argue that you should be sitting a little further away, that's fine, but 6 FEET is WAY too far for normal (laptop sizes to 30 inch) monitors.

I would do half that, 3-4 feet, at most.


Also, long past the damaged eyes part. Can't see further than my arm, past that it's just blobs of colour, without my glasses.

[mimizukari]

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

you should be sitting like 6~ feet away or more from the monitor to begin with, you'll damage your eyes if you don't.

Lmao, what.
6 feet is a bit excessive.

40 inches is the norm, but for people who game all day long, 6 feet is absolutely not excessive to protect your eyes.

[Autumn_]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Lmao, what.
6 feet is a bit excessive.

40 inches is the norm, but for people who game all day long, 6 feet is absolutely not excessive to protect your eyes.

Could you provide a source on that?
Every place I've ever seen anyone use a monitor has been less than their arms distance away, which is <half their height, and the average male height is 5'9, so that makes <3 feet the distance they view the monitor at.
Though, that is anecdotal evidence, it's some evidence, which is more than you provided.