** PRE-ORDER SPECIAL: GIGABYTE GTX 1080Ti OC BLACK ONLY £639 !! **

[opethdisciple]

Crazily still open to just going the whole hog and getting a 1080ti.

My thoughts are if a 1080 is already £520 (The one I'm looking at) might as well spend the extra on a 1080ti for those next gen games on the horizon.

Wasteful at 2560x1440p - 144hz?

 

[Ayahuasca]

Not wasteful at all, still plenty of games that will drop below 60fps at 1440 with a 1080ti.

 

[opethdisciple]

850w PSU (It's 9 years old but quality and still going strong) and a big case but with average cooling.

I would be OK?

 

[opethdisciple]

@Gibbo - Whats the ETA on these cards?

 

[ubersonic]

I don't understand why this is so difficult

It isn't, myself and others have tried explaining it to you, I even included screenshots taken on my 21:9 screen and one of the 16:9 screens that flank it to show the exact difference in gaming space.

Look here's another image, I didn't even take these it's from a guide for explaining the 21:9/16:9 difference:

See! No difference in vertical gaming space!

You look at those quotes of mine and you say, "They are all wrong!" because you are thinking about specific resolutions.

No, because they are wrong, as demonstrated. Ultrawide does NOT show less of the vertical gaming area than 16:9 it shows the exact same amount plus additional horizontal gaming area, this is why so many RTS players claim it's an unfair advantage lol (like 16:9 wasn't an advantage over 4:3 lol).

See you say that 2560x1080 is the 21:9 "equivalent" of 1920x1080.

Yes, because it was/is designed and marketed as such. Similar to how 1920x1080 was designed and marketed as the 16:9 version of the 16:10 resolution 1920x1200.

But then why could I not say that 2560x1440 is the 16:9 "equivalent" of 2560x1080?

Because it doesn't work that way, 21:9 was based on 16:9, not vice versa. The 21:9 equivelent of 2560x1440 is 3440x1440.

Ugh. I can't go round in circles any more. You stick with what you know

Okay, but I must admit it is quite disappointing you couldn't grasp it. Hopefully when 21:9 becomes the standard you will end up experiencing the difference for yourself and it will click like "oh that's what they meant, I get it now"

 

[FoxEye]

2560x1080 is a bigger screen than 1920x1080. It is much more expensive as a result.

Shock horror that a bigger screen with more pixels is better than a smaller screen with fewer.

Unless you keep the pixel budget or the price constant, you are not debating the merits of aspect ratios, you are debating the merits of having a bigger screen.

Which is also why 2560x1440 is a better screen than 2560x1080.

Lastly, it is true that *any* 21:9 screen will show more width than *any* 16:9 screen, due to the way vertical FOV is fixed in 99% of games. However, if the vertical resolution is smaller on the 21:9 screen, then you lose detail. As already demonstrated, if the vertical resolution is the same on the 21:9 screen, then it is simply a bigger screen than the 16:9, and hence not a fair comparison.

TL;DR:

1920x1080 (16:9) -> 2560x1080 (21:9) = bigger screen, more expensive, more pixels, same vertical res, bigger horiz res.

2560x1080 (21:9) -> 2560x1440 (16:9) = bigger screen, more expensive, more pixels, bigger vertical res, same horz res.

In both cases you are not focusing on the merits of one aspect ratio vs another. You are debating the merits of having a bigger screen vs a smaller screen.

Because it doesn't work that way, 21:9 was based on 16:9, not vice versa. The 21:9 equivelent of 2560x1440 is 3440x1440.

Lastly 21:9 is not "based on" 16:9.

That's exactly the same as saying the number 3 is "based on" the number 2.

As an abstract mathematical concept, 21:9 is simply different to 16:9, and one is not derived from the other. Ask any mathematician.

 

[ubersonic]

it is true that *any* 21:9 screen will show more width than *any* 16:9 screen, due to the way vertical FOV is fixed in 99% of games.

Finally he gets it, Hallelujah.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Crazily still open to just going the whole hog and getting a 1080ti.

My thoughts are if a 1080 is already £520 (The one I'm looking at) might as well spend the extra on a 1080ti for those next gen games on the horizon.

Wasteful at 2560x1440p - 144hz?

Barely able for 1440p these days for that 144Hz if you want to max settings on modern games.

It's a great GPU though.

 

[FoxEye]

Finally he gets it, Hallelujah.

I never disputed that. We both know that vertical FOV is locked in most FPS, 3rd person and racing games. That is not central to my argument, if you go back and look at my first post on the subject.

My original point was that an ultra-widescreen aspect ratio doesn't benefit many genres of game. Eg RTS if the map is square. Or RPG. Or turn-based strategy. Or....

It was your assertion, I believe, that ultra-widescreen must be better for all types of game.

Well what about games that don't have a concept of FOV? Like top-down/isometric games. Like 2d platformers with a lot of vertical movement (Metroidvanias, etc).

If people prioritise FPS, 3rd person, or racing games, then I can see ultra-widescreen being advantageous for peripheral vision. I said that in post #1

I don't personally want ultra-wide because I'm not a racer, and FPS is just one of the genres I like to play. For strategy games, etc, there is no benefit to being able to see more in one dimension than in the other dimension. A wide, short screen is no better than a tall, thin screen. Better to have a screen that gives you a decent amount of information in both axis.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I can't think of a single rts or tbs that I've played on my ultra wide monitor that restricts the player to a square map?

 

[N19h7m4r3]

I can't think of a single rts or tbs that I've played on my ultra wide monitor that restricts the player to a square map?

Knights and Merchants does

 

[southernorth]

850w PSU (It's 9 years old but quality and still going strong) and a big case but with average cooling.

I would be OK?

If you're spending this sort of money on a 1080ti, I wouldn't use a 9 year old psu with it. It might last for many more years, or it might break and take out your 1080ti. Who knows, best be on the safe side imo

 

[ubersonic]

I never disputed that.

You're kidding right? That's what we were arguing about, you said 21:9 made the vertical gaming space smaller than 16:9 and it wans't any use for RTS/etc, myself and others corrected you.

My original point was that an ultra-widescreen aspect ratio doesn't benefit many genres of game. Eg RTS if the map is square.

Yes it does, hence why many SC2 players have campaigned against adding 21:9 support to that game because they consider it an unfair advantage. Other RTS players are just happy to have a better gaming experience than they did in the 16:9 days.

It was your assertion, I believe, that ultra-widescreen must be better for all types of game.

Not every game, just every game that supports it, if a game is old and so locked to 4:3 or 16:9 then it will look stretched (unless it adds black bars to the sides like SC2). However if the game supports 21:9 then pretty much every one looks/plays better in 21:9, FPS, Racing, RTS, MMORPG, MOBA, etc.

Well what about games that don't have a concept of FOV? Like top-down/isometric games. Like 2d platformers with a lot of vertical movement (Metroidvanias, etc).

They look better, especially 2D sidescrollers/Metroidvanias because you can see further to the sides.

For strategy games, etc, there is no benefit to being able to see more in one dimension than in the other dimension.

Wrong again.

A wide, short screen is no better than a tall, thin screen.

Except playing a game on a 9:21 screen would be really wierd and bad (excluding maybe Tetris or Space Invaders).

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Knights and Merchants does

Well yeah, but so do a lot of my Amiga games!

 

[Deleted member 66701]

FoxEye said: ↑
For strategy games, etc, there is no benefit to being able to see more in one dimension than in the other dimension.

Give Foxhole a try

 

[opethdisciple]

If you're spending this sort of money on a 1080ti, I wouldn't use a 9 year old psu with it. It might last for many more years, or it might break and take out your 1080ti. Who knows, best be on the safe side imo

It's a Thermaltake Toughpower 850Watt PSU. Bought 2008.

What sort of PSU do you think I should by then if I do replace it?

I'm basically gonna buy a 1080, 1080ti or a Vega.

I've got a Ryzen 1700 system and a single SSD.

 

[southernorth]

It's a Thermaltake Toughpower 850Watt PSU. Bought 2008.

What sort of PSU do you think I should by then if I do replace it?

I don't know your budget, but I would aim for a 650-750w Gold+ rated PSU made by EVGA/Superflower/Seasonic/Corsair/Silverstone. A 750w would give more OC headroom.

The power supply sub-forum on here are usually very knowledgeable and helpful.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/supe...us-platinum-power-supply-black-ca-041-sf.html

Could be an option.


http://www.jonnyguru.com/ - an excellent site full of power supply reviews.

 

[passifid]

It's a Thermaltake Toughpower 850Watt PSU. Bought 2008.

What sort of PSU do you think I should by then if I do replace it?

I'm basically gonna buy a 1080, 1080ti or a Vega.

I've got a Ryzen 1700 system and a single SSD.

650w plus make it an 70£ or more though possibly evga for the warranty

 

[opethdisciple]

I don't know your budget, but I would aim for a 650-750w Gold+ rated PSU made by EVGA/Superflower/Seasonic/Corsair/Silverstone. A 750w would give more OC headroom.

The power supply sub-forum on here are usually very knowledgeable and helpful.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/supe...us-platinum-power-supply-black-ca-041-sf.html

Could be an option.


http://www.jonnyguru.com/ - an excellent site full of power supply reviews.

Thing is mate I think it needs to be 850Watt minimum. Vega has high power requirements and future gpu's?

I'll ask OcUK to spec me a PSU when it comes to buying time.

 

[southernorth]

Thing is mate I think it needs to be 850Watt minimum. Vega has high power requirements and future gpu's?

I'll ask OcUK to spec me a PSU when it comes to buying time.

If you're getting one 1080ti, you wouldn't need 850w.

For VEGA maybe 850w is needed, but we are in the 1080ti thread and so assumed you were going to get a 1080ti instead of VEGA. Also, GPU's generally get more power efficient over-time. Look at Pascal as a prime example of excellent power efficiency for the performance.



Manufacturers often put PSU wattage requirements higher than needed just to cover themselves:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11180/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review/16

Shows the total system power draw of a 1080ti FE to be under 460w when under load. So that's potentially 400 Watts of headroom on a 850w PSU - a bit excessive in my view.


Ofcourse, when going for SLI/Crossfire with the 1080ti/VEGA then 850w could easily be justified. In the case of VEGA, 850w might not be enough for Crossfire.