New PC options: QuadHD with Gsynch or full UHD without

tinythinker · November 2016

I rarely buy new PCs so when I do I try to get something that will last that is the best I can get for my price range at the time.

Right now I am looking at displays. Some Nvidia cards have GSynch, but not all monitors are compatible. One configuration I am looking at has the following options:

QuadHD or QHD, resolution (2560x1440), that is GSynch compatible
UltraHD or UHD, resolution (3840x2160), that is not GSynch compatible

with either a GEForece GTX 1060 or 1070 graphics card.

I usually can't afford to go high end except with Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales, so I want to make a good choice. Would I even need to care about the smooth performance feature GSynch offers if I was running a GTX 1060/1070 on a 3840x2160 screen with a high end CPU and 16GB of RAM? Either will be way more than enough for ESO I'm sure but again I'm looking ahead and not just at what games/versions are out now. I don't want to overbuy (like the people who are getting 64GB of RAM to play Civ 6) but I don't want to kick myself later, either.

Rohamad_Ali · November 2016

I bought the ASUS ROG with the GeForce card . It runs really well and the display is very crisp . Maxed out particle effects don't even slow it down .

JasonSilverSpring · November 2016

I would get the 1440p with g sync. I have a 2160p g sync monitor with a Titan X Pascal and it can struggle at times with max settings (EDIT: I don't mean ESO but other AAA games). 1440p will do well with the cards you are considering. Also in crowded areas ESO will drop below 60 fps and the g sync will make that drop less obvious.

Pallmor · November 2016

QuadHD or QHD, resolution (2560x1440), that is GSynch compatible

For some reason, I just got a funny image in my head of Don Cheadle in Boogie Nights explaining that this stereo is better because it's *QUADRAPHONIC*. That's FOUR speakers!

tinythinker · November 2016

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

I bought the ASUS ROG with the GeForce card . It runs really well and the display is very crisp . Maxed out particle effects don't even slow it down .

Yeah I am looking at an ASUS ROG model, an MSI model, and an Alienware model. Good deals on all, one is little better here on these features over here, one is a little better on those features over there, and so on, so it's a matter of deciding which of those differences count the most.

tinythinker · November 2016

Pallmor wrote: »

QuadHD or QHD, resolution (2560x1440), that is GSynch compatible

For some reason, I just got a funny image in my head of Don Cheadle in Boogie Nights explaining that this stereo is better because it's *QUADRAPHONIC*. That's FOUR speakers!

Haha!

Yeah, there's a lot of shady stuff going on with people trying to call this or that "4K" while trying to hide the actual differences in resolution and how much those differences actually make to the eyes of the person looking at the screen. I've never gotten into anything other than the lowest level of HD screens, so I have no idea if the differences are really that significant. That's why I'm asking. I hate overbuying when the actual improvement you get is so low.

And don't get me started on "deals" where the supposedly great components won't matter because the related parts are low end junk. It's like a relay team with one really fast runner and three people who can only half jog a few feet before passing out from exhaustion.

Rune_Relic · November 2016

Why dont they just call it 2160p ?
Is it not as sexy as 1080p.

Are you buying an IPS Panel or a TN panel ?
What screen size are you going to be using ?

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

tinythinker · November 2016

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Why dont they just call it 2160p ?
Is it not as sexy as 1080p.

Are you buying an IPS Panel or a TN panel ?
What screen size are you going to be using ?

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Oh cool. Thanks for the graph.

It will be a 17" laptop screen, and I might eventually use a second monitor but not in the immediate future. Looks like until then it won't make a huge difference.

Since you asked, the 1440 would be a TN and the 2160 an IPS (both Alienware). I guess the TN has an advantage of having the faster refresh as well. '

Some of the other contenders for purchase... well... such details are often missing or hard to find/decipher. One of the other options is 1080 FHD with IPS + Gsynch (MSI), and let's see... the fourth model (Asus) just says 1080FHD + Gsynch, no idea about the panel.

JasonSilverSpring · November 2016

If you are going for a laptop I would stick with 1080p. Mobile GPUs have really improved but for a 17 inch screen on a laptop 1080p should be more than satisfactory.

tinythinker · November 2016

JasonSilverSpring wrote: »

If you are going for a laptop I would stick with 1080p. Mobile GPUs have really improved but for a 17 inch screen on a laptop 1080p should be more than satisfactory.

Thanks. That's what the info I've been finding here and in some other places suggests. If I do hook up a separate monitor/screen the better GPUs might be worthwhile, but otherwise not so much.

JasonSilverSpring · November 2016

tinythinker wrote: »

JasonSilverSpring wrote: »

If you are going for a laptop I would stick with 1080p. Mobile GPUs have really improved but for a 17 inch screen on a laptop 1080p should be more than satisfactory.

Thanks. That's what the info I've been finding here and in some other places suggests. If I do hook up a separate monitor/screen the better GPUs might be worthwhile, but otherwise not so much.

It is not cheap but Razer has a unit you can get to power a desktop GPU when not going mobile.

I think most laptops with a 1070 or 1080 are probably not that portable. There are 14 inch laptops with the 1060.

Rune_Relic · November 2016

^^ I'd agree.
Anything more than 1080p on a 17" screen is a waste IMHO.
Why have a higher resolution and lower FPS...that you arent really going to see any real difference with ?
I'd stick at 1080p and take the extra FPS.

TN panels are more responsive...but also more erratic with colour variation and instability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel
Many modern IPS panels are more than capable of keeping up with 60fps
So if you have g-sync for frame tearing + stable colour and stable response times.
I dont think you can go far wrong.
Your eyes will thank you too if youre on screen all day.

tinythinker · November 2016

JasonSilverSpring wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

JasonSilverSpring wrote: »

If you are going for a laptop I would stick with 1080p. Mobile GPUs have really improved but for a 17 inch screen on a laptop 1080p should be more than satisfactory.

Thanks. That's what the info I've been finding here and in some other places suggests. If I do hook up a separate monitor/screen the better GPUs might be worthwhile, but otherwise not so much.

It is not cheap but Razer has a unit you can get to power a desktop GPU when not going mobile.

I think most laptops with a 1070 or 1080 are probably not that portable. There are 14 inch laptops with the 1060.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

^^ I'd agree.
Anything more than 1080p on a 17" screen is a waste IMHO.
Why have a higher resolution and lower FPS...that you arent really going to see any real difference with ?
I'd stick at 1080p and take the extra FPS.

TN panels are more responsive...but also more erratic with colour variation and instability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel
Many modern IPS panels are more than capable of keeping up with 60fps
So if you have g-sync for frame tearing + stable colour and stable response times.
I dont think you can go far wrong.
Your eyes will thank you too if youre on screen all day.

Thanks for the insights. I was worried I might be over-buying for little return.

It's a weird situation. The laptop I currently game on travels a meter per day most of the time, from a coffee table to my lap and back to the coffee table.

I used to game mostly on a desktop before it got too old/beyond upgrading and then by wireless on this laptop as well, but had to move the modem & router to the other end of a long hallway because the signal was getting weak and we can't fix that. There is not enough room to set up a desktop in that new location so essentially I use an ethernet cable to my laptop. That's why I'm looking into a suped up gaming laptop rather than just getting a nice new desktop with easier maintenance/upgrades. Bulky isn't too much of a problem

Darethran · November 2016

Go 470 8GB, and nab a Freesync monitor. Or go 480 8GB, since you'll not have the GSync tax, with money to spare.

That being said, Vega will be launching real soon in "Early 2017". If you're going to be spending big bucks, you'll want ta buy from the company that won't drop support for your card; those 580, 680, 780 ti owners got burned real hard by NVidia.

LegacyDM · November 2016

tinythinker wrote: »

Either will be way more than enough for ESO I'm sure but again I'm looking ahead and not just at what games/versions are out now. I don't want to overbuy (like the people who are getting 64GB of RAM to play Civ 6) but I don't want to kick myself later, either.

Don't count on it being more than enough. I've got the 1070 running on a 1440p using an i3770k overclocked to 4.7g with 16 gigs overclocked to 2.4 on an evo 850 ssd. On max settings During large siege battles my fps drops to 20. The game is more processor heavy than gpu. Which means you can have the best gpu in the world but if the processor gets bottlenecked your fps will drop.

tinythinker · November 2016

LegacyDM wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

Either will be way more than enough for ESO I'm sure but again I'm looking ahead and not just at what games/versions are out now. I don't want to overbuy (like the people who are getting 64GB of RAM to play Civ 6) but I don't want to kick myself later, either.

Don't count on it being more than enough. I've got the 1070 running on a 1440p using an i3770k overclocked to 4.7g with 16 gigs overclocked to 2.4 on an evo 850 ssd. On max settings During large siege battles my fps drops to 20. The game is more processor heavy than gpu. Which means you can have the best gpu in the world but if the processor gets bottlenecked your fps will drop.

Yeah but Ultra in a zergy last-fast is a performance hell from which none escape. I agree as per a previous post that you need a well-balanced machine, which is why overbuying in one area at the expense of another is what I want to avoid.

tinythinker · November 2016

Anyway, the early contenders were cheaper with UHD but had other flaws...

HP Omen 17.3 (customized up to the 1070 card, great value for what it offers assuming it doesn't melt itself and you need a super bargain deal)

GIGABYTE 17.3" 4K/UHD P37Xv6-PC4K4D Intel Core i7 6700HQ (2.60 GHz) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 16 GB Memory 512 GB SSD 1 TB HDD Windows 10 Home 64-Bit Gaming Laptop

Currently considering:

ASUS ROG G752VS-XB72K OC Edition Gaming Laptop 6th Generation Intel Core i7 6820HK (2.70 GHz) 32 GB Memory 1 TB HDD 256 GB SSD NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8 GB GDDR5 17.3" Full HD 1920 x 1080 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit

Cons: stupid speaker placement, lots of reported issues with over-heating, no quick battery replacement, complaints about cusomter service

MSI 17.3" GT72VR Tobii-031 Intel Core i7 6700HQ (2.60 GHz) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 32 GB Memory 512 GB SSD (PCIE Gen3x4)1 TB HDD Windows 10 Home 64-Bit G-Sync Gaming Laptop VR Ready

Cons: Issue with display which is either a faulty component or an issue that can be reset in the GPU controls, depending on who you believe, reports of overheating, complaints about customer service

Other options examined and not all rejected just yet included various specs on the new Alienware 17 laptop, various specs on an Origin EON (that got too expensive), some consideration of a Fangbook 4 SK-X17 VR Xtreme Gaming Laptop specced like the others, and a wistful visit to things well beyond my budget like Digital Storm.

No clear winner.

Cazic · November 2016

1440p with gsync for sure!

I've been running the Asus PG278Q for a while now and it's amazing.

You'll lose too many FPS with 4k and gsync really is worth it.