安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
My main display is an XG248Q; 1080p 240Hz TN, and I enjoy it. If color isn't an issue for you, there's no problems with it.
That would be a waste, 144-165hz however would be fine for 1440p.
A waste? he owns the fastest gaming gpu you can currently buy. Not getting the most out of it would be a waste.
I think the 240 hz (I have seen very few) for 1440p is bad quality on other aspects, thus the 144/165 ratio is better and 4k can be a thing as well.. but if he only cares about "competitive FPS games" then the entire system is overkill and pointless, so I reckon that is not the issue.
1080 is a utterly waste for him as well.... 1440p should be minimum.
only way i'd look at 1440p in current gen is if I NVlinked.
Yeah, but whats the point in having the fastest gpu but running 1080p? Just get a 240hz monitor for esports games like csgo and siege but have the higher resolution for more singleplayer games which are all about graphics. its the mix between the two. Your gpu and cpu will be under utilised due to the lower resolution.
Doesn't make sense to me - if you're constantly above refresh rate, you can't utilise G-sync, so it's wasted money.
You can get G-sync 240hz panels, and have the benefits in those few games you get <144fps in, and the ones you get >144fps in.
It literally is a win win.
Unless money was an issue for you, I don't see why you would get a 1080p144hz panel over 1440p144hz or 1080p240hz.
Edit ;
CPU, underutilised....what?
If you're pushing higher FPS (like that caused by low resoluions like 720p and 1080p), you're going to increase CPU load.
Sorta true but not in his situation; his cpu will be under-utilisied in most games. Do remember the only games he will get high fps which exceeds 150fps or 240fps would be games such as csgo, siege minecraft or whatever and those games will only use 20-30% of his cpu at most due them not using majority of his cores (10c 20t).
Like pubg uses 22-25% cpu at 180+ fps
Witcher 3 uses around 35% at 100 fps.
Also do look at GPU usage and in games like Hitman 2 its under 60%, Witcher 3 its around 70% and thats with a 2080 ti not RTX titan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BT5AhzKYYE
Granted it gives him leeway for streaming and whatever else he plans on doing with his rig but his gpu will certainly be underused at that resolution due to being 'bottlenecked' by his cpu. Most titles will use 4-6 cores, some using even less such as in CSGO causing his GPU usage to be far less than 100%. If he ran 1440p he would get similar framerate, maybe a little less but still have the added benefit of higher resolution.
OP if I were you, id get 1440p 240hz. Its a no brainer, It will be far smoother than 1440p 144hz and you dont get a performance penalty over 1440p 144hz so I dont see why youd get that over 240hz unless the cost is the issue.
1080p is dying anyway and its becoming much easier to run 1440p and in your case you own literally the fastest gaming gpu on the market, most people with a 2080 ti run 1440p 144hz or even 4k 144hz.
Well if you have a 2080 Super or Ti, yea 1080p would be waste. 1440p at around 165hz would be a much better way to go.
Just let him make dumb choices, he has no problem wasting money
It's pretty much guaranteed that if you drop useless settings like MSAA that have little to no real visual change for a massive FPS hit, your frames get a huge increase. Just by disabling MSAA I can get more frames with a 5700 XT, but go ahead and waste thousands more because you want maxed out settings.