Monitor for GTX Titan

[Steve237]

Hi, I'm in the middle of getting my parts together to build a gaming pc. I already have a single GTX Titan and I plan on getting a i7-3770k or I might wait for the Haswell i7-4770k. I was initially interested in a 2560X1440 monitor, but I've read that with a single Titan it may have problems running some games on Max settings. I don't plan on getting a second Titan anytime soon so do you guys think I would be better off getting a 1080p monitor so I can run games on Max settings and not have to worry about upgrading for a while? Here are a list of monitors that I was looking at:
- ASUS PB278Q
- ASUS VS24AH-P
- ASUS MX279H
- ASUS VG248QE
- BenQ XL2420T

I'd be using this monitor for gaming, web browsing, and watching movies. The games I would be playing would mostly be FPS. Bioshock Infinite would definitely be the first game I would get...then maybe Crysis 3. I'm not the biggest gamer in the world, but I do enjoy playing them. So let me know what you guys think! Please feel free to list any monitors that are not mentioned above. Also, maybe advice for going IPS vs TN or TN vs IPS. Thanks!

 

[Hakumisoso Terror]

Asus pb278q. is the best. it is pls which is better than ips which is better than tn. It is also not that slow of a monitor compared to other ips and pls monitors. it is 1440p and the titan should have no problem running it although i would wait a bit since the 700 series is right around the corner.

 

[lt_dan_zsu]

Definitely go with 1440p! If you wasted money on a titan, you might as well put that money to the best looking display you can get. You will be able to max out almost any game in 1440p. Check out the review
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-titan-performance-review,3442-5.html
The higher res benchmarks are in 1600p, so you should get a little higher frame rates than that. Also,, if you MUST get 60fps in every game, there are resolutions in between 1080p and 1440p. Also, wouldn't you rather play all games in the 45-60 region than get 100+ in most games? Those ultra high framerates are pointless besides making you feel cool.

 

[turdi5]

Honestly, right now, I would run with 2560x1600 right now. It gives you more vertical space (16:10 compared to 16:9). You shouldn't have any problems because if a 2x 560ti can run bf3 on ultra with no aa at that resolution, the titan should be able to power it with anti-aliasing. Honestly, I would buy a quality 1920x1200p monitor, render the games at 1600p, then downsample it back to 1200p, then apply anti-aliasing for maximum graphics quality at 1200p. Also, with this setup, the desktop isn't made for ants.

 

[cookybiscuit]

Go 1440p. The Titan has enough power to not be significantly faster in 1080p than other comparable cards, it takes a clear lead above that. Get your moneys worth.

 

[Steve237]

Cool! Thanks for the input so far guys! Just joined this site and first time I've posted anything. It's great to get some honest feedback about this. I'm leaning toward 1440p again. You guys are right...I already spent a lot on that Titan...might as well get a monitor that will take advantage of it. I have a little time though...going to do more research!

 

[sam_p_lay]

Huge +1 to Terror re PLS. PLS > IPS > TN, depending on your priorities I'd place PVA above all of those. PLS is a really good choice though - PVA are less commonly used now.

There's two sides to the resolution argument because the most demanding games out now (like Crysis 3) won't deliver high framerates at max settings and 1440p, even on a Titan. It'll do 99% of games flawlessly at those settings, but doesn't bode well for the future if a current game is pushing the card to its limits beyond 1080p. I'd personally prefer max settings at 1080p a year or 18 months from now rather than moderately high settings and 1440p.

It all depends on your priorities though - how demanding you are interms of the framerates you want and on how you feel about gaming at non-native resolutions. I'd generally want to avoid gaming below native, but 1680x1050 on a 1920x1080 display doesn't actually look that bad (at least not on my setup) so there's that to consider too. Maybe dropping to 1080p on a 1440p display to maintain framerates at ultra settings looks OK.

 

[Steve237]

Huge +1 to Terror re PLS. PLS > IPS > TN, depending on your priorities I'd place PVA above all of those. PLS is a really good choice though - PVA are less commonly used now.

There's two sides to the resolution argument because the most demanding games out now (like Crysis 3) won't deliver high framerates at max settings and 1440p, even on a Titan. It'll do 99% of games flawlessly at those settings, but doesn't bode well for the future if a current game is pushing the card to its limits beyond 1080p. I'd personally prefer max settings at 1080p a year or 18 months from now rather than moderately high settings and 1440p.

It all depends on your priorities though - how demanding you are interms of the framerates you want and on how you feel about gaming at non-native resolutions. I'd generally want to avoid gaming below native, but 1680x1050 on a 1920x1080 display doesn't actually look that bad (at least not on my setup) so there's that to consider too. Maybe dropping to 1080p on a 1440p display to maintain framerates at ultra settings looks OK.

I did a search for playing Crysis 3 on 1440p with a single GTX Titan. It looks like it was just barely playable on Max Settings. Some people said it plays fine, others say it's a little choppy and doesn't play smooth. This is probably fine for people who upgrade all the time, but I'm looking at playing Max Settings for a while without having to worry about upgrading. That's not a bad idea of getting the 1440p display and dropping it to 1080p for those high demanding games like Crysis 3. Or maybe just adjust the setting a tad to get it playable at 1440p. Several options to think about.

 

[sam_p_lay]

That's about what I'd expect. It handles 1080p with ease, but 1440p is double the number of pixels to render (4MP vs 2MP). That certainly doesn't mean half the framerate, but it definitely means a major performance hit. Pixelwise, dropping from 2560x1440 to 1920x1080 is a much bigger drop though than 1920x1080 down to 1680x1050 so maybe ask around people who have tried 1080p on a 1440p display and what they think of it. If you end up blurry/pixelated you probably would be better dropping quality options like you say.

 

[Turboman750]

I just purchased the catleap q270 SE edition from this ebay seller and It's by far one of the best investments I've made. He also offers an overclockable (perfect pixel) model that can reach 120hz easily at max resolutions. Take a look.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-Catleap-Q270-2B-Extreme-OC-IPS-1440p-120Hz-Monitor-Perfect-Pixel-/140919957473?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item20cf7be7e1

 

[sam_p_lay]

I just purchased the catleap q270 SE edition from this ebay seller and It's by far one of the best investments I've made. He also offers an overclockable (perfect pixel) model that can reach 120hz easily at max resolutions. Take a look.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-Catleap-Q270-2B-Extreme-OC-IPS-1440p-120Hz-Monitor-Perfect-Pixel-/140919957473?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item20cf7be7e1

He's got "perpect pixel" on the image...

What does perfect pixel actually mean anyway? Zero dead pixel guarantee?

 

[techbaddie]

I have the Auria 27 inch LED/IPS 1440p monitor I run on a 680 GTX SC and its absolutely phenomenal. The monitor was $399 plus shipping from an online computer store. I would highly recommend this for the price as well as performance.

 

[Paul Raver]

A iiyama is also very good, http://www.iiyama.com/gb_en/products/prolite-g2773hs-1/

 

[nikoli707]

a titan will handle a single 1440p no problem, like said above, that card is for triple or 1440+ monitors, not for single 1080p monitors. find a generic 1440p and be happy.

 

[cookybiscuit]

Huge +1 to Terror re PLS. PLS > IPS > TN, depending on your priorities I'd place PVA above all of those. PLS is a really good choice though - PVA are less commonly used now.

There's two sides to the resolution argument because the most demanding games out now (like Crysis 3) won't deliver high framerates at max settings and 1440p, even on a Titan. It'll do 99% of games flawlessly at those settings, but doesn't bode well for the future if a current game is pushing the card to its limits beyond 1080p. I'd personally prefer max settings at 1080p a year or 18 months from now rather than moderately high settings and 1440p.

It all depends on your priorities though - how demanding you are interms of the framerates you want and on how you feel about gaming at non-native resolutions. I'd generally want to avoid gaming below native, but 1680x1050 on a 1920x1080 display doesn't actually look that bad (at least not on my setup) so there's that to consider too. Maybe dropping to 1080p on a 1440p display to maintain framerates at ultra settings looks OK.

I did a search for playing Crysis 3 on 1440p with a single GTX Titan. It looks like it was just barely playable on Max Settings. Some people said it plays fine, others say it's a little choppy and doesn't play smooth. This is probably fine for people who upgrade all the time, but I'm looking at playing Max Settings for a while without having to worry about upgrading. That's not a bad idea of getting the 1440p display and dropping it to 1080p for those high demanding games like Crysis 3. Or maybe just adjust the setting a tad to get it playable at 1440p. Several options to think about.

You'd want to do it the other way around. Resolution is more important than settings, if you had a 1080p monitor and couldn't max a game you wouldn't drop to 720p.

 

[sam_p_lay]

That's a good point actually - you think of 1440p as just one notch above 1080p (well I do anyway) but it's actually close to 4MP vs 2MP with 1080p, and 720p is half as many pixels again. I'd be willing to drop from 1920x1080 to 1680x1050 (I'd never even have tried except I replayed an old game that only went that high) but I sure as hell wouldn't play at 720p.

 

[Paul Raver]

Pardon my noobish ways but the whole point of a monitor is watch the spectacle.
lower settings lower res, i rather buy a slightly smaller monitor and enjoy that.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Pardon my noobish ways but the whole point of a monitor is watch the spectacle.
lower settings lower res, i rather buy a slightly smaller monitor and enjoy that.

+1 to that. That's benefits to both options, but looking to the future I'd go with 1080p so you can enjoy increased quality instead of increased quantity. Thing is with huge displays anyway that the bigger the display, the farther away your eyes are gonna be from it. You have only so much field of vision, so what do you really gain by increasing screen size to move it back on your desk in order that you don't have to be turning your head constantly to look across the screen?

 

[Paul Raver]

Pardon my noobish ways but the whole point of a monitor is watch the spectacle.
lower settings lower res, i rather buy a slightly smaller monitor and enjoy that.

+1 to that. That's benefits to both options, but looking to the future I'd go with 1080p so you can enjoy increased quality instead of increased quantity. Thing is with huge displays anyway that the bigger the display, the farther away your eyes are gonna be from it. You have only so much field of vision, so what do you really gain by increasing screen size to move it back on your desk in order that you don't have to be turning your head constantly to look across the screen?

Got a 24inch main screen(gaming/work space) and a 19inch for browsing/tools/adobe bridge etc.
Really could not find any other application for a 27inch other then work space in a graphics editing program.
So gaming at 1080p with everything to max would beat 1440p and having to lower the settings.

 

[Steve237]

Some great points! I know some people have been saying go with 1440p because I spent soo much on a Titan that I should have the best and that it would be a waste to play on 1080p. After some research I don't think it would be a waste at all playing on 1080p. I'd be able to max everything out and not have to worry about upgrading for a while. 1440p would be awesome...but games like Crysis 3 are already pushing the envelope for a single Titan. I'm sure games coming out soon will do the same...although Crysis has always set the bar very very high for graphics cards. I'll tell you what though...it's driving me nuts having that Titan just sitting there in my desk while I wait to hear more about the new Haswell CPU's and deciding on what monitor to get! I'm soo ready to build this computer!!

 

[sam_p_lay]

Smart choice And I can imagine! I'm waiting for GTX770 and really looking forward to getting my hands on one, but it's looking very much like it'll just be a re-badged GTX680 (either slightly overclocked or closer to GTX670 clocks depending on who you talk to) and still 2GB.

Which means it'll handle Crysis 3 maxed at 1080p with ease, but I'm looking at no future-proofing for max/1080p - as soon as something more demanding than Crysis 3 comes out, I'll have to drop settings. And I'm not happy about that at all. It's always good to have some overhead for future titles, and that's what you'll have at 1080p (which is still an awesome resolution - nobody is saying Blu-ray or next-gen consoles aren't hi-res enough!).

 

[Steve237]

(which is still an awesome resolution - nobody is saying Blu-ray or next-gen consoles aren't hi-res enough!).

Very true!

 

[Paul Raver]

\o/ a winner! enjoy the max settings!

 

[nikoli707]

crysis 3 medium/high settings on a 1440p monitor is far and away better looking than ultra settings on a 1080p monitor, its not even a contest... this test has been thoroughly tested by many reviews and benchmarks.

 

[sam_p_lay]

crysis 3 medium/high settings on a 1440p monitor is far and away better looking than ultra settings on a 1080p monitor, its not even a contest... this test has been thoroughly tested by many reviews and benchmarks.

How can you thoroughly test something that's totally subjective? Some people will prefer more quality in fewer pixels, while others prefer more pixels onscreen but less detail interms of texture res, model geometry, lighting, shadows etc. I've never heard of any review testing high res/med quality against med res/high quality in any game, but apparently there are many of these for this one game! Care to post a few links?