Nvidia GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 Discussion
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 171 comments
- 11,085 views
- 9,046
- United Kingdom
- neema_t
The thing is my 1080p monitor has a dead pixel now and I've been bitten by the upgrade bug for the first time since getting a semi-decent paying job, so while ~£500 is still a lot of money for a monitor I feel I could save for a couple of months and it wouldn't be completely unaffordable. Also I've done 12 hours of overtime this month so far, so that's guilt-free money for toys!
I mean I should be saving for a deposit on a house, but...
Oh and it's my girlfriend's birthday next month, but...
- 9,295
- Duisburg
A dead pixel is a dead pixel. Can't have that. That's like staring into the ugly visage of death every time you sit in front of your computer.
So, we basically established that you need a new monitor no matter what. Doesn't make sense to go with nearly obsolete hardware now - going with the more expensive, yet future proof item is the only logical course of action. This obviously makes a GPU with considerably more computing power a necessity. You'd be wasting the cash for the new monitor, otherwise. Therefore, you really can't not upgrade to a better GPU and a better monitor. That'd be illogical. You can't possibly trust yourself with a house if you're not proving to yourself that you make logical decisions, so you obviously have to get the monitor and GPU sorted out first. As for the girlfriend, let's be honest, you being happy ought to be the best gift possible.
See, that's how you talk yourself into feeling good about stuff like that.
- 830
- Australia
- Soulfresh-ACV
Just checked Amazon and the EVGA GTX 1080 Foundation Edition is unaffordable. 
- 11,687
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
Yay for Australia Tax.
$1,299 for the founders card.
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/...tter&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter&nl=weekly
$1,299 for the founders card.
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/...tter&utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter&nl=weekly
EVGA 1080 FTW preordered. only running 2560x1080 for now, i'm ok paying a bit more if I can literally just put everything on max and not worry about it. Was thinking about the larger 21:9 screens, games would run near maxed for now but not for long. Last had a gtx770, and when I got this 2560x1080 screen after, the performance went stale fast so i'll try not to make the same mistake again
The ASUS does look good, the highest stock boost clock I've seen and some funky fan headers on the GPU, which can control other fans and run them at the same speed as the GPU's fan speedAll the different designs are quite interesting. I quite like the ASUS offering.
And look at Zotac's PGF card... Designed by Pagani?
Mr Latte
Premium
- 5,011
- N Ireland
- 9,046
- United Kingdom
- neema_t
I'm starting to lean towards a 1070 again... Same power consumption as a 960 (my current card), and, well, I wanted a 1440p 144Hz monitor but it looks like it'll cost a lot of money for that and a 1080, I don't think I can justify that! So I'm looking at other monitor options, either a 21:9 with 1080 pixels vertical resolution or a 27" 60Hz 1440p, I think. I doubt the 1070 would make good use of a 144Hz model.
- 6,794
- United Kingdom
Mr Latte
Premium
- 5,011
- N Ireland
The 1070 seems a bit overkill for 1080p maxed out @60|Hz but it will manage 120Hz/144Hz in some titles. It may be an ideal card for 21:9 gaming at 60Hz. Similar issue it seems for GTX1080 card regards 4k and it just about but missing out on being a true 4k 60Hz level card for all titles. It would however perhaps better suit the 1440p resolution.
- 2,936
- Geneva
- Kimky
- Kimky
I got a 21/9 2560x1080 screen and it's pretty awesome, I will have a lots of trouble to go back to a normal screen. I plan to get a 3440x1560 once the price settle a bit on the monitor and on the 1080.
I also have an Asus 28' 1440p 144hz gsync and while on mp fps it's better, for anything that isnt mp or sports game (nba or the likes) I prefer to play on the 21/9 screen. You gain so much space left and right it really make a difference and since I dont have space for 3 screen setup, I'm really happy atm.
- 9,046
- United Kingdom
- neema_t
Cool, thanks for the insight. I don't really do multiplayer or sports games (except racing) but I'm a little concerned about compatibility issues with either display; a few games are locked to 60Hz and a few games will only display at 16:9, what's your experience of 16:9 games on the 21:9? Do the monitors detect the aspect ratio automatically and adjust themselves or do they just try to fill the screen?
Anyway, I'm going to see what 60Hz ultrawides I can afford. And I'll have to make sure it fits in my flat!
- 2,936
- Geneva
- Kimky
- Kimky
Well for example on ff14, you get game in 21/9 and cs in 16/9. Same for older game. It's not zoomed so it takes the space a 16/9 screen would use and put black bar on both side. Some others annoyingly are zoomed so it's crap. Cod modern warfare comes in mind. Most recent game support 21/9 now tho and even Sportsgame start to have that res. listed.
Ibonibo
Premium
- 5,440
- Luxemburg
- Already paying my Isp 4 Access
Im seriously interested in the upcoming 32:9 wide screens, but the above problems make me think it might be annoying in some cases.
Guess it comes down to the black levels of the screen.... and if those black bars are black or greyish.
But as previously said, those screens probably are so expensive that I just will wait for it either become more mainstream, or die off.
I jumped the gun on 3D, wasn't worth it, won't do the same with VR, and need to resist the urge with wide screens.
Guess it comes down to the black levels of the screen.... and if those black bars are black or greyish.
But as previously said, those screens probably are so expensive that I just will wait for it either become more mainstream, or die off.
I jumped the gun on 3D, wasn't worth it, won't do the same with VR, and need to resist the urge with wide screens.
- 2,936
- Geneva
- Kimky
- Kimky
Well it's the same bars that you get on movie when they arent fit for 16/9 but the far left/right of the screen instead of beeing up/down.
I dont think ultra wide screen is for everybody but people should try it because it really bring something into gaming. Game like the Witcher III or FF14 benefit a tons from the wider angle and keep in mind that my screen is a cheap one because I wanted to try it before I commit to it. Now idealy I would like the asus 34' with g-sync but the price is putting me off atm, it's a shame because it would be awesome paired with a 1080.
I dont think ultra wide screen is for everybody but people should try it because it really bring something into gaming. Game like the Witcher III or FF14 benefit a tons from the wider angle and keep in mind that my screen is a cheap one because I wanted to try it before I commit to it. Now idealy I would like the asus 34' with g-sync but the price is putting me off atm, it's a shame because it would be awesome paired with a 1080.
Mr Latte
Premium
- 5,011
- N Ireland
Okay so running on a (decent) new system build with HD530 kinda sucks but I have a dilemma with a few questions to ask guys. I think it is relevant to the 16:9 / 21:9 but would like some clarification....
Firstly I really enjoy having "ambilight" for gaming. My Phillips HDTV is a recent year old model with superb blacks (no greyness to borders) and excellent image quality. It is perhaps let down a bit with the response time but I can live with that. I find 60Hz fine even though I have experienced and enjoyed 120Hz before. I can also make do without gsync/freesync etc. Basically I want the aspect ratio ability/benefits nothing more.
I like the idea of a 21:9 but really the 34" screen size is perhaps a little small for cockpit usage.
The problem is I kinda want both aspect ratios and a 16:9 image on a 21:9 Ultrawide display sucks.
I recently tested a setting with custom resolution of 1920x810 which is about 38" diagonal on my 40" HDTV to represent a 21:9 ratio. Can someone explain why I should not use this for gaming on my 16:9 display if I wanted a 21:9 ratio?
Sure it may only be 810p vertical compared to 1080p but it is 4" bigger than the biggest current 21:9 display and not costing me an extra penny.
What if I was to upgrade to a 4K HDTV why would I not then opt to run the following A/B/C depending on how taxing the game may be but maintaining all graphical effects to max:
A) 4k Ultrawide: 3840x1620
Not only could this give a bigger screen size but also even greater ppi than a 2560x1080 ultrawide display.
Yes at a greater pixel draw but also identical pixel count to triple 1080p monitors and well within the GTX 1070 capabilities for some titles.
B) 1440p Ultrawide: 2560x1080
C) 1080p Ultrawide: 1920x810
Interest anyone, or can somebody highlight drawbacks of this.
Firstly I really enjoy having "ambilight" for gaming. My Phillips HDTV is a recent year old model with superb blacks (no greyness to borders) and excellent image quality. It is perhaps let down a bit with the response time but I can live with that. I find 60Hz fine even though I have experienced and enjoyed 120Hz before. I can also make do without gsync/freesync etc. Basically I want the aspect ratio ability/benefits nothing more.
I like the idea of a 21:9 but really the 34" screen size is perhaps a little small for cockpit usage.
The problem is I kinda want both aspect ratios and a 16:9 image on a 21:9 Ultrawide display sucks.
I recently tested a setting with custom resolution of 1920x810 which is about 38" diagonal on my 40" HDTV to represent a 21:9 ratio. Can someone explain why I should not use this for gaming on my 16:9 display if I wanted a 21:9 ratio?
Sure it may only be 810p vertical compared to 1080p but it is 4" bigger than the biggest current 21:9 display and not costing me an extra penny.
What if I was to upgrade to a 4K HDTV why would I not then opt to run the following A/B/C depending on how taxing the game may be but maintaining all graphical effects to max:
A) 4k Ultrawide: 3840x1620
Not only could this give a bigger screen size but also even greater ppi than a 2560x1080 ultrawide display.
Yes at a greater pixel draw but also identical pixel count to triple 1080p monitors and well within the GTX 1070 capabilities for some titles.
B) 1440p Ultrawide: 2560x1080
C) 1080p Ultrawide: 1920x810
Interest anyone, or can somebody highlight drawbacks of this.
Last edited:
- 2,936
- Geneva
- Kimky
- Kimky
There's no reason not to use it, I just dont like to play with bands ingame. I dont mind them during cs but ingame I like to have a visual that takes the whole screen. There's no reason you can't do it tho if it doesnt bother you. Unless your HDTV have some sort of auto zoom fonction you can't turn off. I'm not sure a 1080p tv with a 1920x1080 resolution can play a 1920x810 mode correctly. If you tried and it worked than perfect.
A) No way a 1070 can run 3840 x1620. Maybe and It's a big maybe, a 1080 could depending on game. But not on the latest heaviest game like the Division or The Witcher.
B) 1440p That's what my screen resolution is at atm and 2x gtx970 struggle to output all game at ultra.
C) Can't really comment on that one.
Usually good 34'-35' screen will have a 3440x1560 resolution. And dont underestimate g-sync/freesync it could give you the additional power so that you dont have to go sli depending on what solution you choose.
Granting everything works, your solution could be interesting to play at 21/9, now you need to check how your tv will react to that.
A) No way a 1070 can run 3840 x1620. Maybe and It's a big maybe, a 1080 could depending on game. But not on the latest heaviest game like the Division or The Witcher.
B) 1440p That's what my screen resolution is at atm and 2x gtx970 struggle to output all game at ultra.
C) Can't really comment on that one.
Usually good 34'-35' screen will have a 3440x1560 resolution. And dont underestimate g-sync/freesync it could give you the additional power so that you dont have to go sli depending on what solution you choose.
Granting everything works, your solution could be interesting to play at 21/9, now you need to check how your tv will react to that.
Mr Latte
Premium
- 5,011
- N Ireland
Easy to take the thread off topic so will make this my last...
Perhaps worthy of more discussion sometime with further investigation.
Maybe I am fortunate that their is no back-light type bleed for the borders on my set. They are as black as blacks on my display from what I can tell so not annoying to me really, the simple matter is it is no different to me watching cinema-scope movies. Even with the HD530 standard display software I am running a 1920x810 desktop no problems. Not sure if this is common on many newish models but my TV also has quite an advanced scale/zoom mode.
I can set the 1920x810 which seems to be displaying fine and actually use the TVs own manual stretch feature to make it look taller or indeed full screen 21:9 within the 16:9 ratio if I wanted. Not ideal of course and I guess similar in principle to how some 21:9 monitors will do the opposite using their internal scaling to stretch a 16:9 source horizontally to fill the 21:9 screen.
I understand their are specific apps for advanced screen resolutions and even panel over-clocking that may force games to use a set mode. Yet I wonder why more people with say 50"+ HDTV do not try such and have effectively a 21:9 ratio display format that is much larger than current 21:9 displays offer. Sure you are right about other benefits true 21:9 monitors bring but like I said from my own perspective if I want to gain a 21:9 cockpit view it is a FREE working solution.
A) As for a 1070 and the equivalent pixel count of triple 1080p monitors or a 3840x1620 not being possible? It obviously depends on the game being played, I am from my perspective referring to various racing games and plenty of people play such in triples with cards with less grunt than a 1070. Perhaps yes not with all the highest settings but certainly doable for 60fps and still looking good. Obviously if referring to the most taxing and latest titles this is not the case.
B) Your 2560x1440 = 3686,400 Vs using a 4K HDTV with 2560x1080 = 2764,800
The point being with 2560x1080 the GTX 1070 should perform rather well. If a user has a 4K TV with no back-light issues or is not annoyed with black bars (assuming they watch lots of movies with such anyways) then they could potentially buy a 50" or even larger 4K TV have the benefit of that and also potentially a much larger sized 21:9 ratio display working on it. I make reference here to sofa or racing cockpit type playing scenario not a traditional desk based one.
Will it have g-sync/freesync and offer similar response times as a gaming specific monitor, certainly not.
Perhaps worthy of more discussion sometime with further investigation.
Maybe I am fortunate that their is no back-light type bleed for the borders on my set. They are as black as blacks on my display from what I can tell so not annoying to me really, the simple matter is it is no different to me watching cinema-scope movies. Even with the HD530 standard display software I am running a 1920x810 desktop no problems. Not sure if this is common on many newish models but my TV also has quite an advanced scale/zoom mode.
I can set the 1920x810 which seems to be displaying fine and actually use the TVs own manual stretch feature to make it look taller or indeed full screen 21:9 within the 16:9 ratio if I wanted. Not ideal of course and I guess similar in principle to how some 21:9 monitors will do the opposite using their internal scaling to stretch a 16:9 source horizontally to fill the 21:9 screen.
I understand their are specific apps for advanced screen resolutions and even panel over-clocking that may force games to use a set mode. Yet I wonder why more people with say 50"+ HDTV do not try such and have effectively a 21:9 ratio display format that is much larger than current 21:9 displays offer. Sure you are right about other benefits true 21:9 monitors bring but like I said from my own perspective if I want to gain a 21:9 cockpit view it is a FREE working solution.
A) As for a 1070 and the equivalent pixel count of triple 1080p monitors or a 3840x1620 not being possible? It obviously depends on the game being played, I am from my perspective referring to various racing games and plenty of people play such in triples with cards with less grunt than a 1070. Perhaps yes not with all the highest settings but certainly doable for 60fps and still looking good. Obviously if referring to the most taxing and latest titles this is not the case.
B) Your 2560x1440 = 3686,400 Vs using a 4K HDTV with 2560x1080 = 2764,800
The point being with 2560x1080 the GTX 1070 should perform rather well. If a user has a 4K TV with no back-light issues or is not annoyed with black bars (assuming they watch lots of movies with such anyways) then they could potentially buy a 50" or even larger 4K TV have the benefit of that and also potentially a much larger sized 21:9 ratio display working on it. I make reference here to sofa or racing cockpit type playing scenario not a traditional desk based one.
Will it have g-sync/freesync and offer similar response times as a gaming specific monitor, certainly not.
Last edited:
- 9,046
- United Kingdom
- neema_t
I spent my lunchbreak calculating monitor dimensions and looking at PC Part Picker to try and find my next purchase. Basically, I've come to the conclusion that I only really have two choices:
1. A 29" 2560x1080 21:9 at 95.81 pixels per inch (about the same as what I have now), or
2. A 27" 2560x1440 16:9 at 108.something ppi.
Everything else is either too small or too expensive, so I think the shortlist is now down to:
- LG 29UM68: 21:9, 2560x1080, 75Hz, IPS panel, £242
- Asus MX299Q: 21:9, 2560x1080, 60Hz, IPS panel, £320
- Dell S2716DG: 16:9, 2560x1440, 144Hz, TN panel, £390
- Asus MG279Q: 16:9, 2560x1440, 144Hz, IPS panel, £450
I should probably point out that I'm much more drawn to the 16:9 options because they won't have any aspect ratio issues, the higher refresh rates are really tempting and they've got a higher pixel density. Also they're bigger than what I have now in both dimensions, not just the horizontal... But the Ultrawides would be good for racing games and they're a fair bit cheaper.
Are there any other size/aspect ratio/resolution/refresh rate/panel type combinations to consider? I'm kind of rejecting 4K completely at this point because a 1070 wouldn't do 60Hz reliably. I mean I'm sure it'd do the games I play now (like MGS V, Duck Game, various racing games and Mad Max) at 4K 60Hz, but I'd want it to last a few years and I doubt it would.
1. A 29" 2560x1080 21:9 at 95.81 pixels per inch (about the same as what I have now), or
2. A 27" 2560x1440 16:9 at 108.something ppi.
Everything else is either too small or too expensive, so I think the shortlist is now down to:
- LG 29UM68: 21:9, 2560x1080, 75Hz, IPS panel, £242
- Asus MX299Q: 21:9, 2560x1080, 60Hz, IPS panel, £320
- Dell S2716DG: 16:9, 2560x1440, 144Hz, TN panel, £390
- Asus MG279Q: 16:9, 2560x1440, 144Hz, IPS panel, £450
I should probably point out that I'm much more drawn to the 16:9 options because they won't have any aspect ratio issues, the higher refresh rates are really tempting and they've got a higher pixel density. Also they're bigger than what I have now in both dimensions, not just the horizontal... But the Ultrawides would be good for racing games and they're a fair bit cheaper.
Are there any other size/aspect ratio/resolution/refresh rate/panel type combinations to consider? I'm kind of rejecting 4K completely at this point because a 1070 wouldn't do 60Hz reliably. I mean I'm sure it'd do the games I play now (like MGS V, Duck Game, various racing games and Mad Max) at 4K 60Hz, but I'd want it to last a few years and I doubt it would.
- 28,198
- Brooklyn, NY
- KR_Viper
- I Renown I
