I am thinking of buy a new monitor and decided that I am not ready for a 4k screen mainly because I like to play my games maxed out and there is no gpu that can push games maxed out on 4k. However I would like to get a 2k monitor, I am not sure weather to go with a 30 inch or 27 inch. What would you guys suggest either from experience or from what you have heard about on the subject.
This is more of a personal preference question.
You still could go with a 4k monitor if you wanted regardless if games can't reach the 4k mark.
you could still play them @ a high resolution which would still look amazing on 4k.
and when the time rolls around that GPU's are 4k standard you wouldn't have to upgrade.
However if you want to just stick with 2k I would say go 27 inch only because if you wanted to go to have a multiple monitor setup later to have 2 or more 30 inch is overkill and the neck spread would be ridiculous.
I hope this helps
I were to go multimonitor I would not play on multiple I would only play on the main 30 inch and the others would be for other things.
I like American way of thinking
bigger = better.
LOL I think I might stick to that piece of advice
but as far as the ppi goes will it be noticeably worse than a 27 inch on 2k or not
I've got a 30 inch monitor running 2560 by 1600 resolution (u3014). Never actually encountered the term 2K, but I think this is what's meant.
Sitting a meter away from the screen, I'm not sure I would've really noticed and appreciated much more resolution. If anything, it took my eyes quite a while to adjust to all the standard fonts looking much smaller.
I don't think 30 inches would suffer from significant quality loss over 27 inches. Given the layout of the internet, you'd probably be better making out the finer detail.
10 inch 4K displays seriously confuse me. Is a magnifying glass included?
I should have put more question into one post sorry, but as far as being able to drive a 2560x1600 monitor will 2 gtx 660ti superclocked editions with 3 gb of ram be able to handle games on high and maxed out setttings running at 50 fps and up, the reason I say 50 fps is because that is the lowest amount of fps I like to play at. This next question is getting a bit off topic but do you think it would be smarter to do a gpu upgrade and adding a couple of ssd to my system instead of getting the new monitor?
I've got a 770gtx and I can't run Last light or Witcher 2 entirely maxed out at a playable framerate. Most games like Bioshock Infinite or Alan Wake are fine, but I may have had to drop a setting or two in Batman Origins. Deus Ex, Devil May Cry and Blood Dragon were maxed out.
I think monitors lose value slower than GPUs. Do you feel you'd benefit from a GPU upgrade? Not sure what you'd need more than one SSD for.
Wierd, I can run my GTX 770 on my back up on a pb278q @ 1440p on max settings on any game I have..including crysis 3, witcher 2, metro last light etc but mine is Oc 100/450 mhz
The reason I want to get 2 ssds is so I can put them in raid, I dont really think I need a gpu upgrade I am just trying to chunk my pc upgrades so it is not such a huge cost upfront. If I get the 2560x1600 monitor do you guys think my gpu setup( sli gtx 660ti 3b superclocked) will be able to drive games on high to maxed out settings running at 50 fps and higher or not. I play games like bf4, war thunder, sim city, dayz, lots of indie/early access games.
I'm running it at: 2560 x 1600, Very High Quality, 4x SSAA, AF16X Texture Filtering, Normal Motion Blur and Very High Tesselation. VSync on. Getting 12 FPS on the settings menu. PhysX doesn't actually seem to make a difference. Witcher runs at around 20.
Not sure how much your overclock is getting you, but would love to find out. My specific card is Gigabyte Windforce with 4 gigs and I'm running it with a Prolimatech MK-26 radiator and two 140mm Noctua fans at a cool 30C and under 20db, so there's room for some overclocking.