nope, I doubt it very much.
Your FOV increases -> more objects, more textures, more shaders -> more then 4K resolution or 1440p. 1070 SLI when scaling well never comes close to 100 fps except maybe games that are rather lightweight.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Evaluation Thoughts
- Thread starter Brent_Justice
- Start date
Your FOV increases -> more objects, more textures, more shaders -> more then 4K resolution or 1440p. 1070 SLI when scaling well never comes close to 100 fps except maybe games that are rather lightweight.
Whach
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,244
1600p !!! ......'crickets chirping'
Supercharged_Z06
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,475
True as to 4K TV's becoming more mainstream, but most still suffer from input lag, don't support monitor like refresh rates (60hz+) and many don't support the full 4:4:4 chroma key. It'll probably take another year or so before we start seeing the majority of 4K TV's start actually acting like monitors, and I can't wait!
Still, I agree that 4K TV's and monitors are on a collision course - but in a good way!True as to 4K TV's becoming more mainstream, but most still suffer from input lag, don't support monitor like refresh rates (60hz+) and many don't support the full 4:4:4 chroma key. It'll probably take another year or so before we start seeing the majority of 4K TV's start actually acting like monitors, and I can't wait!
While the majority of 4K TVs don't meet the requirements you list, more and more are meeting them, and in many cases you don't pay a premium.
Thanks to the PS4Pro and Scorpio, even more models will become "PC friendly"
no tvs come anywhere close to monitor response times or input lag numbers, which are two of the most important things for games.
KickAssCop
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 8,328
So what's the final decision on this review?
I do believe a Fury X should be there as well just to remind everyone how far is AMD in DX12 games
I do believe a Fury X should be there as well just to remind everyone how far is AMD in DX12 games
wigglywaffles
n00b
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 48
That is simply untrue. My Samsung JS9500 gets input lag times below 25 ms. That is sufficiently low enough for every genre of game.
Anyways, it seems to me like testing the GTX 1080 Ti's performance against the performance of a 980 Ti and two 980 Ti's in SLI is a no brainer. Most Ti buyers don't upgrade to standard GTX series GPUs since it tends to be more of a sidegrade than an upgrade so there's probably a ton of 980 Ti SLI setup owners out there thirsty for an upgrade now that the successor Ti line is coming out, since a 980 Ti SLI setup is really starting to struggle when it comes to powering the latest games at 4K. It would also be nice to see some GTX 1080 Ti SLI tests as I'm not confident that going from 980 Ti SLI to a single GPU setup is going to be enough to drive 4K @ 60 Hz; I don't anticipate a single GTX 1080 Ti performing that much better than two 980 Ti's... so for games with SLI support, dropping to a single GPU setup is likely going to be a sidegrade or even a slight downgrade unfortunately. GTX 1080 Ti should end up being a sizeable upgrade over a 980 Ti SLI setup for the increasing number of titles coming out lacking SLI support though (Microsoft's first-party titles are the worst offenders these days it would seem)
And obviously 4K should be the primary resolution for all these tests; it's 2017, people. 4K has been affordable for two years now. So who gives a shit if 4K isn't "mainstream" ? This isn't a mainstream card, and this website is [H]ardOCP, not some console gaming website. If you want articles covering "mainstream" things then go to your nearest console website, because if you're part of the "mainstream" then a $700 graphics card is not meant for you.
Watch Dogs 2 is a game that I would highly recommend testing as that game has a lot of high-end graphics options that can really put the stress on a GTX 1080 Ti and it has SLI support. I know that with all the graphics settings maxed out (except MSAA), on my SLI 980 Ti setup I get a paltry 18-24 FPS at 4K. I'd be interested to see how two 1080 Ti's handle this game.
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
Would not mind a 980. It's what nVidia compares it to in their graphs! It's like they're speaking to me!
A review without 1440p would be worthless to me for at least the next 3 years. Still plenty of games out there that can't hit 144fps at 1440p with a 1080 so it's not like a 1080ti will blow through 1440p with a CPU bottleneck in modern games.
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
Still will not fully support DX12/Vulkan cause well, it cannot (that comes with Volta, maybe) nice specs on it, the ramping or at least better available GDDR5x for previous models up to the maker(Asus, MSI et al) if they will use it I suppose isa good thing, but seems more about the upselling what they could have used all along more than anything else.
They should have done a name change so it is easier for consumer/seller alike to see at a glance is using the "new" memory like I dont know GTX 1075, GTX 1085, 1085Ti etc. instead of the current way is done by them in many cases same name, may actually be differing specs, what is point of naming a model number if the actual specs can be willy nilly all over the place?
Not that it matters, I am likely to never own another Ngreedia product ever again, after what I (and numerous good friends) have went through with them over the years, unless someone buys or gives me one, which I do not see happening. Just remember "It is the way you got played" (tm)
They should have done a name change so it is easier for consumer/seller alike to see at a glance is using the "new" memory like I dont know GTX 1075, GTX 1085, 1085Ti etc. instead of the current way is done by them in many cases same name, may actually be differing specs, what is point of naming a model number if the actual specs can be willy nilly all over the place?
Not that it matters, I am likely to never own another Ngreedia product ever again, after what I (and numerous good friends) have went through with them over the years, unless someone buys or gives me one, which I do not see happening. Just remember "It is the way you got played" (tm)
no, it isn't, and that's not even 4:4:4. 4:4:4 is 56.6 ms on that tv. i'm not playing anything competitive on a screen with 6x the input lag of my monitor (which isn't even the fastest you can buy), not to mention that's 60 Hz. furthermore, that screen's average response time is 15.6 ms with some incredibly slow transitions mixed in there. no thanks, friend. i prefer my games to be as responsive and clear as possible. this is why 4K is a joke right now; neither display tech nor GPU power is there. looking forward to the PG27UQ, should be the first proper LCD monitor ever, and arrive somewhere around the time GPU tech is catching up.
Last edited:
wigglywaffles
n00b
- Joined
- May 10, 2016
- Messages
- 48
I know you like to be that 'l33t hardcore PC gamer who don't game on no peasant television, pffft!!' but you really should refrain from talking shit about things that you have no clue about. The amount of chroma sampling in usage at the time has no bearing on this particular display's latency in 'Game Mode'. It has a ~20 ms input lag at all times. Latencies below a certain threshold go from noticeable to not perceivable real fast and unless you possess superhuman capabilities, your biology is going to come into play long before high latency does on many television displays. Television displays often get a bad rap because technologically incompetent people will go and buy some crappy display from Walmart, plug everything in with stock settings, and never turn on its game mode functionality when they start playing video games on it. Of course input lag will be at noticeable levels with game mode off!
I'm literally typing this post on my 65JS9500 right now, so I think that as someone who actually owns the product, I have a better grasp of its capabilities than you do.
Anyways, 4K is not a joke to the >99% of the gaming population that doesn't hunch over a monitor in a Counter-Strike game trying to be the next Fatal1ty. Super high-end competitive gaming input lag levels are irrelevant to all but a fringe minority. The rest of us would rather be able to kick back in a recliner and play some games on an enormous, relaxing 4K screen and monitors are incompatible with any behavior other than hovering over a desk. That's hardly something I want to do in what's supposed to be my leisure time.
I could not be happier from playing PC games for the last couple of years at 4K60 resolution on my huge, curved television display with stereoscopic 3D, HDR, 10 bit, and 4:4:4 support.
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/ue65js9500-201502234012.htm
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1435060358
Last edited:
Yeah I got to agree with wigglywaffles to a point. I have a 4K Samsung KS7005 (Nordic KS8000) and compared to my ASUS PG278Q (144Hz G-Sync) which has super fast response time and practically no input lag, I don't really notice any issues playing on the Samsung with an input lag of 22 (SDR) or 37 (HDR) ms. I thought I would especially in HDR but it has been a non-issue. While I would of course prefer if there was such a thing as a "gaming TV" with G-Sync, high refresh rate at under 4K resolutions, super low input lag etc I really do enjoy playing on what I've got.
To say that anything that isn't 144 Hz 0ms G-Sync is a crappy blurry mess is just elitist.
To say that anything that isn't 144 Hz 0ms G-Sync is a crappy blurry mess is just elitist.
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,659
Lol. 4K at 60Hz is a blur fest. You don't have to be a competitive gamer to be sickened by 60 FPS motion after you have spent time gaming at 120+. I'll never go back to a 60Hz panel no matter what the resolution, and I'm not trying to be the next Fatal1ty, either.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
I didn't think it would be so, but that's where I stand too. Very hard to convince me to buy a panel I might game on that isn't 120Hz+. Even low-end games benefit from this and I'm generally happy to have a more responsive experience than have the detail settings turn up.
N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,947
Lol TN is a washed out shitfest. You don't have to be a professional graphics artist to be sickened by TN colour reproduction on most high speed panels after you have spent time on IPS or OLED. I'll never go back to a TN no matter how fast or high res, I'm not trying to be the next Saatchi and Saatchi, either.
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,659
Agreed, but now this thread is getting way off topic.
Last edited:
N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,947
I think it boils down to two main gaming camps. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to do both (high Hz, res and colour!).
Some like slower paced games with amazing colour and detail where you can take it all in(4k60/10bit etc etc), whilst others prefer faster paced games where competitiveness is key and speed of screen and responsiveness gives you an advantage.
I also find that colour accuracy and greyscale in particular can also give a very good advantage in more static portions of the faster games, (e.g. dark segments or snipering in a very foggy map), which you may not be able to take advantage of with TN. I'm more strategic usually, even in the faster games, so this is a tradeoff I play with to use my monitor strengths to my advantage.
Bring on OLED or whatever, but without the blues being 30% of the efficiency and 2x the size and half the lifetime please...
And with that in mind to bring this OT: If 1440p 144Hz can push them on some titles, chuck it in. If not, then leave it out. 4K60 the rest. 1080Ti vs Pitan vs Fury X would be interesting to see.
Last edited:
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,659
You are aware that there are several high refresh, VRR, IPS monitors, right? Nobody said you have to compromise vibrant colors and viewing angles to get a high refresh experience. IPS glow does suck, I'll give you that.
Nebell
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 2,382
I never played on anything more than 60hz. But I have seen others play. And honestly, 27" 1440p screen doesn't compare to 48" 4k. There is simply no comparison when it comes to picture quality.
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,659
Maybe no comparison when it comes to still picture quality. Obviously, 4K has QHD beat in that regard. However, a pretty blur is still a blur as soon as you move that picture, which for me destroys immersion and ruins the experience. We are talking about PC gaming here, not wallpapers.
We can argue this all day and my initial post was in response to the guy saying anyone who prefers smooth motion in gaming is somehow trying to be the next Fatal1ty. I have no quarrel with anyone who prefers 4k60Hz, I just don't think it's in any way the superior gaming solution.
We can argue this all day and my initial post was in response to the guy saying anyone who prefers smooth motion in gaming is somehow trying to be the next Fatal1ty. I have no quarrel with anyone who prefers 4k60Hz, I just don't think it's in any way the superior gaming solution.
Last edited:
N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,947
Sure, they're getting there and I was actually impressed by some of them colour wise (compared to usual TN) - I check out the main new monitors every half a year in the flesh but what I have seen overall is still leaving a little to be desired, e.g. to pull the trigger at the current cost vs big 4k panels for immersion and productivity. After seeing them all side by side especially the two main ones mentioned here (1440 144Hz vs 40"+ 4k60), I much prefer the 4k 40"+ stuff for my uses. It makes the 1440p look like a toy monitor and not very immersive, nor vision filling at all and frankly a big waste of money for someone who occasionally plays fast games and mostly slower stuff. But that's each to their own.
The latest OLED TVs are magnificent for movies too, seeing a star field reproduced on them makes everything else look primitive..
IPS glow is minimised with light AG I find but some are more sensitive to it than others. VA I guess was a better comparison.
What I'm looking for is 4K 10bit 40"+ with active sync and a local warranty.Anything more than 60Hz is a bonus but I'd gladly take it if colours are not impacted. Unfortunately, that doesn't exist yet
It seems everything has either: IPS Glow, burn in, artifacts, low Hz, no active sync, average colour, poor value, pick two...
Elory Besus
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 34
Although this card may not be able to output more than 60 frames per second on 4K, it is interesting that Nvidia is now going to crush 4K in the near future. If either AMD or Nvidia can release GPUs that are powerful enough, we might see 120+ Hz Refresh rate 4K monitors in, say, 5 years' time.
144 Hz displays are already coming Q4 this year. Unfortunately in rather small 27" sizes and with big price tags due to FALD backlights. I'd prefer something in the 30-32" range for that resolution.
As for TN panels, the 8-bit ones are nothing like the 6-bit ones most are familiar with. I moved from an IPS to 8-Bit TN and I've been very happy with it. Main difference visually is tiny bit of vertical color shift at the top of the screen and color space is limited to full sRGB (which is what all games and most content on the web is).
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,299
Motion clairty (appreciable blur reduction), and Motion definition increase are very aesthetic qualities. Parroting that it is just for twitch gaming is a falsehood.
There are 21:9 3440 x 1400 and 4k 144hz monitors due out this year since monitors will finally start being made with dp 1.4
There are 21:9 3440 x 1400 and 4k 144hz monitors due out this year since monitors will finally start being made with dp 1.4
I use a 2560 x 1440 144hz g-sync monitor but I understand why others use smearing blur and greatly inferior motion definition monitors scraping to get much lower frame rates, often at 60fps-hz avg at best whose avg is down into 30 - 60 half the time.. (or do I?)
Even on a 4k screen I'd consider dropping to 1440p at very high+ settings on the most demanding games of a generation to get 100fps average if I had to - on a 144hz 4k that is.
I refuse to buy a 60hz gaming monitor ever since my first 120hz samsung 1080p.
Requirements for me have been for a long time now: 120hz+ , at least 1440p, g-sync, low input lag, and a good modern gaming overdrive implementation.
Going forward requirements are dp 1.4 ,1440p to 4k at 144hz , g-sync , low input lag, modern gaming overdrive, FALD (no EDGE LIT HDR crap), HDR (w/ p3 color of course).
I'd really like to stick to a contrast and black depth requirement like HDR premium label's 1000nit peak and .05 black depth standard, but I'll have to see what the asus 4k 144hz 1000nit FALD HDR can do with the 384 zone fald. It being IPS rather than VA might limit it a lot in that facet.
Last edited:
I'd like to see 4K numbers. I'm currently running 4K on a 980ti and would like to see how much of an improvement the 1080ti will be at that res. I don't think the review needs to be 4K exclusive, and while the number of us running 4K monitors is still relatively small, I'd guess that the number of us running 4K monitors that are seriously looking at the 1080ti is a bit more significant.
What I'm looking for is 4K 10bit 40"+ with active sync and a local warranty. Anything more than 60Hz is a bonus but I'd gladly take it if colours are not impacted. Unfortunately, that doesn't exist yet
I'm in the same boat. Put active sync on my 40" 4K60 and I'm golden. (I've been using 1600p for over a decade. Trying to play on a 1440 screen feels like something I'd see on my phone.)
D
Deleted member 89018
Guest
Well, 980ti would be interesting to see the generational improvement from top-end to top-end. There's nothing else that's going to approach it for overall performance though.
I too would be interested in 1440p numbers.
I too would be interested in 1440p numbers.
For the people interested in 3440x1440, here is a link to 1080vsTitanX at that res (also 2k + 4k) if you're looking for info to extrapolate- http://www.babeltechreviews.com/titan-x-vs-gtx-1080-25-games-tested-4k-2k-1440p/3/
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 20,927
"The TITAN X wins every game benchmark by a significant margin of at least 19% at 4K over the world’s second fastest card, the GTX 1080. Generally the difference is at least 20% to 30% and more!"
The 1080ti is supposed to be 35% faster than the 1080, so does this mean the 1080ti is faster than the Titan X?
Yes. This was established days ago. It's a monster of a card.
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
Please don't make 1440p part aim at 40-60 fps.
The [H]ard way should be 1440p@144 and 4K@60
And please put 980ti in it to compare how much benefit we can expect from it's direct predecessor
This gets my vote too... I'd love to see how much I'll gain when switching from 980 Ti to 1080 Ti in 1440pPlease don't make 1440p part aim at 40-60 fps.
The [H]ard way should be 1440p@144 and 4K@60
And please put 980ti in it to compare how much benefit we can expect from it's direct predecessor
N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,947
You know what I'm wondering...
There are enough people on [H] and other sites in the same boat. I should investigate crowd funding a damn monitor. Either modify suitable existing model or build from scratch (more costly). Gsync/Freesync 40"+ IPS with no bad pixels and at least 60Hz (see what can be done), I think quite a few would be keen for dual use set ups (game + WS).
I have experience and access to resources for mass producing almost any finished electronic part of this other than clamped internal LCD module. Working with other members here would significantly simplify this. If there is enough interest I could be keen to develop a prototype in future.
But this is getting OT.
What this thread seems to agree is 144Hz 1440p where it is not running solid 144hz would be cool to see. 4k60+ all else.
Araxie
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,463
Yes, in fact Nvidia said it was going to be somewhere about ~5% faster than Titan XP and was going to overclock more stable than Titan XP.