I am looking to upgrade from a Dell 2407 at 1980x1200 on a GTX 760 to a 970 and a monitor in the 27-28 inch range.

 

4k is overkill for me. Is there a maximum recommended resolution above which a 970 will struggle? Any particular Dell 27 that I should look at?

 

Thanks!

Hi, if you're looking at increasing the size of the monitor but retaining the same viewing distance then you need to effectively think about increasing the amount of pixels. IMO if you start going beyond 27" with a distance of less than about 2ft, then you need to be looking at a monitor resolution of 2560x1600. I have been using a Dell 30" Ultrasharp monitor (2560x1600) for the past four years and it is mind blowingly good. There is a slight hit on frames of about 10%, which frankly is nothing you can't claw back by tweaking the odd bit with the scenery sliders. IMO it is pointless in going to a large monitor while still retaining the same resolution (1920x1200) as a 24" desktop monitor, unless of course the viewing distance is further away. I agree 4K is overkill and it won't matter what PC you use, or card you use to drive it, the performance will be completely in the doldrums when compared with a monitor with 75% fewer pixels!

Wow, thanks Howard! I definitely would go with the monitor's native resolution, which looks to be 2560 x 1440 for the 27 inch ultrasharp series. Does that sound doable with a 970?

Wow, thanks Howard! I definitely would go with the monitor's native resolution, which looks to be 2560 x 1440 for the 27 inch ultrasharp series. Does that sound doable with a 970?

Of course, no problem whatsoever. I run with the GTX 770. I would REALLY recommend, if you are going with a 2560x1600 resolution, that you try and stretch to the 30" rather than the 27". It is very much worth the extra cost. But if cost is an issue, and when isn't it, then think of a refurbished or used monitor. I found mine on Ebay for about £300 ($420) and it has been excellent. 

I am looking to upgrade from a Dell 2407 at 1980x1200 on a GTX 760 to a 970 and a monitor in the 27-28 inch range.

 

4k is overkill for me. Is there a maximum recommended resolution above which a 970 will struggle? Any particular Dell 27 that I should look at?

 

Thanks!

 

I recently upgraded to a GTX 970 and decided to also get a new monitor. I looked at a lot of 27" models and came to the following conclusions:

 

1.   27", 1920x1080 - the image generally looked too pixelated for me.

 

2.   27", 2560x1440 - fantastic image quality but text in the FSX alt menu, amongst other things, was too small for me (and it's not adjustable). Same problem with some other games and Windows programs.

 

In the end, I went for a 32", 2560x1440 monitor. Excellent image, sensible text size and the GTX 970 has no problems at all running at this resolution. I sit at about 27" from the screen. I know you said you wanted something in the 27-28" range, but a 32" monitor is only about 4.5" wider than a 27" (depending on the model). It seemed big when I first started using it but now I can't imagine going back to something smaller.

Just to complicate matters, I too am looking to change my monitor from 1920x1040 to a 27" or bigger with a gtx 970. Been looking at a 2560x1440 predator. Is g-sync and 144mhz necessary.

 

Thanks

 

S

Just to complicate matters, I too am looking to change my monitor from 1920x1040 to a 27" or bigger with a gtx 970. Been looking at a 2560x1440 predator. Is g-sync and 144mhz necessary.

 

Thanks

 

S

 

My monitor is just the standard 60Hz so I can't comment from experience. However, reading around the games forums it looks like you'd be pushing the 970 near its limit with a 2660x1440, 144Hz monitor.

My monitor is just the standard 60Hz so I can't comment from experience. However, reading around the games forums it looks like you'd be pushing the 970 near its limit with a 2660x1440, 144Hz monitor.

 

Games forums perhaps, but not flightsim with a 32bit simulator. Blimey the 970 will eat both FSX and P3D. Although it will take more of a battering in P3D for the simple fact that P3D is more GPU bound where FSX relies more on the CPU.

 

Games forums perhaps, but not flightsim with a 32bit simulator. Blimey the 970 will eat both FSX and P3D. Although it will take more of a battering in P3D for the simple fact that P3D is more GPU bound where FSX relies more on the CPU.

 

Hello Rockliffe and all ---- well, I am onboard with looking for the next step up in monitors and have been studying a bit on the g-sync information since I have a GTX970 which appears to be the required brand for the benefits of g-sync. While I understand the basics of what g-sync does, have a question about its use with FSX.

 

Normally in FSX, the program and GPU are generating frames in the area of 20 - 30 fps. This is relatively slow compared to what the new g-sync monitors are capable of. My understanding is that g-sync in the monitor synchronizes the monitor with the rate at which frames are being sent to the monitor -- which can vary as well. I am wondering if the g-sync system can do its magic on synchronizing frames at that "slow" rate that FSX (and GPU) produces them ???

 

Possibly I have missed something about how g-sync works but this seems to be the essence of it. All comments welcome please. Trying to make a decision as to whether g-sync and a nice hi res monitor will really provide me some upside.

 

Many Thanks ---- Bob

Hello Rockliffe and all ---- well, I am onboard with looking for the next step up in monitors and have been studying a bit on the g-sync information since I have a GTX970 which appears to be the required brand for the benefits of g-sync. While I understand the basics of what g-sync does, have a question about its use with FSX.

 

Normally in FSX, the program and GPU are generating frames in the area of 20 - 30 fps. This is relatively slow compared to what the new g-sync monitors are capable of. My understanding is that g-sync in the monitor synchronizes the monitor with the rate at which frames are being sent to the monitor -- which can vary as well. I am wondering if the g-sync system can do its magic on synchronizing frames at that "slow" rate that FSX (and GPU) produces them ???

 

Possibly I have missed something about how g-sync works but this seems to be the essence of it. All comments welcome please. Trying to make a decision as to whether g-sync and a nice hi res monitor will really provide me some upside.

 

Many Thanks ---- Bob

 

It looks like the higher the frame rates, the better g-sync works. Take a look here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review/2. Part way down the page it says:

 

"At a high level the sweet spot for G-Sync is going to be a situation where you have a frame rate that regularly varies between 30 and 60 fps. Game/hardware/settings combinations that result in frame rates below 30 fps will exhibit stuttering since the G-Sync display will be forced to repeat frames, and similarly if your frame rate is equal to your refresh rate (60, 120 or 144 fps in this case) then you won’t really see any advantages over plain old v-sync."

 

If you look further down the page at the section about Sleeping Dogs, it goes into a little more detail about FPS below 30.

 

If you only used the monitor for FSX you may be better-off (and save a lot of money) with a standard 60Hz monitor and set vertical sync to "1/2 refresh rate" in NVIDIA Inspector. If you also play other games, where the higher frame rates would justify g-sync, you could probably just disable it for FSX.

Hello Vortex ---- yes this is what I have been able to realize about where G-Sync monitors have their usefulness. The frame rates in FSX are just too slow for it to function as it should. Since FSX is my main use, looks like I will just stick with my present setup which does a good job but it is always fun to seek something a bit better.

 

Thanks for the post and the link. Much appreciated.

Cheers,

 

Bob