Dell 30" monitor or two GTX 780's

Jed Shields · 6 Oct 2013 at 19:06

I've just picked up a Dell 3014 and it's amazing. I've changed my 570 for a 7950 and so far it's running everything I throw at it: Skyrim with mods, Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider etc, all on top settings, although not everything maxed out. I'll wait until my bank balance is a bit healthier and then get another 7950, especially with Watch Dogs and BF4 on the horizon

Diagro · 6 Oct 2013 at 19:12

Monitor and a 7990 would be my pick.

the 7990 can power it no problems

Speed · 6 Oct 2013 at 19:16

almighty15 said:
Monitor and a 7990?

That would be the ONLY card I'd recommend buying at this time as Gibbo confirmed the prices would actually be going up post R9 290X release. Unless you get a bargain 2nd hand, all new cards would be a bad buy at the moment as we have no idea what the true performance of the R9 290X will be and what it will do to the current card prices. Although I'm sure you can guess most of it logically.

Jed Shields said:
I've just picked up a Dell 3014 and it's amazing. I've changed my 570 for a 7950 and so far it's running everything I throw at it: Skyrim with mods, Far Cry 3, Tomb Raider etc, all on top settings, although not everything maxed out. I'll wait until my bank balance is a bit healthier and then get another 7950, especially with Watch Dogs and BF4 on the horizon

Really? Do you monitor FPS at all or just go on the smoothness of the game? I found that any single GPU struggled to provide what I'd class as acceptable frame rates at 1600p with most modern titles.

I've had a U3011 and currently have a U3014 and I have to say they are truly excellent screens. That being said, I do regret making the jump up to 1600p when I did, mainly as I just didn't have the hardware to cope with the games I was playing. If you don't mind a bit less eye candy then it is a excellent buy, especially as the current U3014 prices are a lot less than what I paid for the U3011 at the time. You can pick one up with 3 years of warranty for less than £800.

Bluelion · 6 Oct 2013 at 19:43

Running a Dell 3008 here - I'd go for the monitor above the graphics cards every day of the week - but I don't just use the PC for games. While people will say that 2560x1600 is too high to run on a single card, I'm running on a 680GTX/2600K and its generally fine - no I might not be able to hit 60fps vsync in all games, but its certainly adequate, and you don't *have* to play with full AA.

old gamer · 6 Oct 2013 at 19:50

Monitor would also be my choice, worry about the gpu later

flinco · 6 Oct 2013 at 21:05

Neither. Wait for the 20nm cards and buy one of those. 27 inch Dell to 30 inch Dell is not worth the upgrade IMO.

almighty15 · 6 Oct 2013 at 22:02

You're looking at a 10% increase in screen size, 14% more pixels to render and a 8% drop in pixel density.

Personally I don't think its worth it.

AgedIdiot · 6 Oct 2013 at 22:11

Overall I would leave it for a bit.

New Gpu's due shortly and 4k thereafter (possibly) .

If you decide you want to change then to me it has to be the monitor first , second wait for the new amd gpu's and third - dependant upon quality of second and the effect on prices on 'old' (780) tech -buy new gpu(s)

Rusty0611 · 6 Oct 2013 at 22:24

Tonester0011 said:
Is going from 27" 1440 - 30" 1600 that big an upgrade?

Nope.

ricky1981 · 7 Oct 2013 at 00:19

I went to 30" and moved back after about 6 months. Currently running 3 27" screens (generally only game on one). I found 30" actually too large for everyday usage and find having multiple monitors much more useful/flexible.

If you are primarily gaming then 30" could be worth it but if you use your PC a lot for other things then I wouldn't bother.

Kaapstad · 7 Oct 2013 at 08:36

I use a Dell 3011 monitor and as the guys have said above it was a fantastic purchase.

JediFragger · 7 Oct 2013 at 08:38

I love my ZR30w but it is BIG! Personally I don't think it'd be much of an upgrade from a decent 27" 1440p screen...

Glanza · 7 Oct 2013 at 08:47

780gtx sli is where it's at

krooton · 7 Oct 2013 at 09:02

A 27" 1440p monitor is pretty much perfect, the outlay for a few more inches/pixels, and an actual reduction in PPI, seems silly.

Hold out and get new graphics (from whichever manufacturer you choose) after the AMD launch this month.

Jed Shields · 7 Oct 2013 at 09:06

I went from a 24" to a 30". I looked at the 27" but noticed it was 16:9 ratio. I prefer the 24" and 30" 16:10 as the extra height is great for work. Going from the 24" 16:10 to the 27 16:9 didn't seem like much of an increase in real estate. Similarly, going from 27" to 30" probably insn't a big jump either, although you will get the extra height. I guess it depends on what you need it for.

krooton · 7 Oct 2013 at 11:00

Jed Shields said:
Going from the 24" 16:10 to the 27 16:9 didn't seem like much of an increase in real estate.

How does a 33% horizontal increase and 20% vertical increase not equate much of a real estate gain?

This is what a 1920x1200 to 2560x1440 change equals.

Going from 16:10 1200p to 1600p is the same horizontal increase, and only 13% more vertical gain over 1440p.

Cheapest 27" 1440p at OCUK is £350 (£335 TWO)
Cheapest 30" 1600p is £630

So pay an additional 80% in price for 11% more diagonal inches and 13% more vertical pixels. Value for money it aint.

MooMoo444 · 7 Oct 2013 at 11:20

krooton said:
How does a 33% horizontal increase and 20% vertical increase not equate much of a real estate gain?

This is what a 1920x1200 to 2560x1440 change equals.

Going from 16:10 1200p to 1600p is the same horizontal increase, and only 13% more vertical gain over 1440p.

Cheapest 27" 1440p at OCUK is £350 (£335 TWO)
Cheapest 30" 1600p is £630

So pay an additional 80% in price for 11% more diagonal inches and 13% more vertical pixels. Value for money it aint.

BREAKING NEWS: Top of the range enthusiast hardware costs a premium. Coming up later: Leading research team discovers Oxygen is transparent.

krooton · 7 Oct 2013 at 12:06

MooMoo444 said:
BREAKING NEWS: Top of the range enthusiast hardware costs a premium. Coming up later: Leading research team discovers Oxygen is transparent.

What I am getting at, is that SLI 780s will be significantly more of an increase over his SLI 580s than a 1600p monitor will over his 1440p.

Just because one has moolah to spend, that doesn't mean one shouldn't spend it wisely.

chaparral · 7 Oct 2013 at 16:56

krooton said:
What I am getting at, is that SLI 780s will be significantly more of an increase over his SLI 580s than a 1600p monitor will over his 1440p.

Just because one has moolah to spend, that doesn't mean one shouldn't spend it wisely.

yes I think I get more enjoyment and value for money by going for the SLI GTX 780 option...
As I will also use my left over two GTX 580's to upgrade the other to pc's in my house that only have an old 285 GTX each of them...

So I be upgrading three PC system's for price of upgrading one....

Jed Shields · 7 Oct 2013 at 19:21

krooton said:
How does a 33% horizontal increase and 20% vertical increase not equate much of a real estate gain?

This is what a 1920x1200 to 2560x1440 change equals.

Going from 16:10 1200p to 1600p is the same horizontal increase, and only 13% more vertical gain over 1440p.

Cheapest 27" 1440p at OCUK is £350 (£335 TWO)
Cheapest 30" 1600p is £630

So pay an additional 80% in price for 11% more diagonal inches and 13% more vertical pixels. Value for money it aint.

http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x10-vs-27-inch-16x9

http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x10-vs-30-inch-16x10

20% larger area compared to 50% larger area. Therefore, much more real estate going from 24 to 30 compared to 24 to 27.