The bandwidth on PCIE is huge, I'm pretty sure even a Titan X can't fill the bandwidth on PCIEx8, let alone x16
Edit : https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...x8-vs-x16-851/
Cool, will do this as soon as possible.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16824009969
I guess it might not be good for games, but 27" 2560x1440 for $199 with code would be a nice 2nd monitor I think.
Monitor newb, why isn't it good for games? I see 1440p and 1ms delay and I feel like I'm good to go...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
TN vs IPS would lead such an accusation but it still ends with their own tastes
Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk
TN panel so colors can looked washed out and viewing angles will be bad. I tested an Acer 4k 28" TN panel side by side to my previous QNIX Q2710 1440p GTG panel and the QNIX was overwhelmingly better looking. My current monitor is PLS panel I believe (not for sale anymore) and I'm satisfied with how it looks for the price I paid in late 2015. If you can afford it and aren't a heavy competitive gamer I'd look into IPS. I loved my AOC 24" 1080p I had and my wife loves her 24" Asus.
I have two 24" IPS 1080p, they're beautiful but with this 1700x I really want to jump to 1440p and get things offloaded to my 1070 for gaming. On that note, can I run two monitors at different resolutions? Does that cause many issues?
@Salodin https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0163JLIWU..._0vR1ybMZ5CSXP
$200 for 4k 28" 1ms GTG (screen I believe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong) HDMI 2.0 and it's Freesync if you ever go over to AMD. Seems like a really good buy if you're looking to stay around 28".
Oh man that's tempting...any one try running games at 1440p on a 4k? I'd jump on that, but idk if one 1070 is enough to game at 4k and stay over 50fps, and running a game at not native resolution makes it a bit blurry right?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
I can speak directly to that. As I said, my main monitor is the AMH A399U 4K PLS (I believe). I recently got a XFX R9 295x2 running today and recently ran benchmarks for Ghost Recon Wildlands. While this is strictly the in game benchmarks, if I run 4K at High textures and medium depth of field, I got around 40fps. I reran it at 2560x1440 on Ultra textures and Ultra DoP and I received around 49fps. During the benchmark I did not see any ridiculous screen tearing or other issues. Now, gameplay may be massively different. But, for $200.....that AOC could be a show stealer. If you have Prime you could probably order it and if it's not up to par you most likely could return it with a prepaid return label.
Yeah I think I'm gonna jump on it and sell one of my 1080p IPS. 1440p on a 4k monitor should look better than 1080p native. Maybe someone will jump on it in buy/sale/trade.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Like you, I recently got a 1070 so I'm still looking for things to get the most out of it. Let us buy this and laugh at the plebs while they play at Full HD lul.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
More often than not playing a game at 1080p on a 1440p screen looks blurring and grainy and if you run multiple displays then getting 1440p to run properly next to your other 1080p display can cause some major headaches. I've had a lot of trouble setting my 1440 to be primary and then after shutting down for the day it thinks that its max resolution is 640x480 at next reboot x_X.
This depends on the motherboard and your configuration.
Most motherboards will allow you to have monitors (usually just one) plugged in to the iGPU as long as it is enabled (usually automatically disabled once you've got a dGPU installed so you'll have to reenable it in BIOS with all of the relevant motherboard-specific settings and make sure to install your intel/amd drivers) and as long as there is no software preventing it from happening.
Multiple GPUs will depend on the setup. For SLI/Xfire, once you plug in and link more than one dGPU the OS will only accept signals from the primary card (usually the highest populated PCIE slot, or on some motherboards only the top one). This is due to the fact that the drivers will order the cards in a master/slave format with 1 card performing as the master and the other card(s) performing as the slave(s). The primary display will be afforded the power of all of your connected dGPUs, while the auxiliary displays will be driven only by the master dGPU. The only times this is not true is if you run in Surround/whatever AMD's version is called in which case you're effectively stretching your window resolution across all 3 screens and treating them as one enormous screen, or if you're using one of the few applications (usually old ones) that support in-app multidisplay which is the only time you'll actually see SLI/Xfire applied to more than one independent screen simultaneously (used to be locked to only 2 screens at a time, dunno if they ever added on to this since it's largely obsolete). If you have two noncongruent dGPUs (like a 1070 and a 970, or something) they are independent and can both be used to connect monitors and such despite only the primary one being used in any real capacity; this is largely useless and a waste of electricity in modern systems.
tl;dr There's not really any reason to do this at all and it isn't worth trying to get it to work, but it can be done.
Today, Newegg has a 1TB Seagate Barracuda hard drive for $42.49, one day only, with promo code EMCRDCK22.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...tem=22-179-010