1080 or Vega 64 for WQHD freesync monitor?

[eflam]

I am upgrading to a 34" 3440x1440 100hz freesync monitor and want something that can take it preferably 80-100 fps on recent games with maxed or near maxed settings. Destiny 2 would be my current example.

I have done a lot of research on the two cards and it seems like they are nearly blow for blow with the 1080 coming out slightly ahead and being largely more power efficient. Is it worth it to stick with AMD to make use of the freesync? The monitor I am going to be using is the pixio 34" which has a freesync range of 80-100hz, will I even get to that with a Vega 64? Any help would be appreciated.

Current Build:

Ryzen 7 1700x
XFX RX 580
8gb MSI X370 Pro gaming carbon
16gb 2666 ddr4 ram
EVGA 750w PSU

Right now I have 3 27" monitors side by side, all 1080p. The new set up would be 1 3440x1440 34" and 2 27" on either side.

 

[jankerson]

The GTX 1080 will be faster in general, that depends on the game however.

I say flip a coin.

But the Vega is a real power hog.

 

[eflam]

The GTX 1080 will be faster in general, that depends on the game however.

I say flip a coin.

But the Vega is a real power hog.

i am rapidly nearing flip a coin levels of indecision.

 

[jankerson]

The GTX 1080 will be faster in general, that depends on the game however.

I say flip a coin.

But the Vega is a real power hog.

i am rapidly nearing flip a coin levels of indecision.

I would say the GTX 1080.

Price them out compared to the Vega 64.

The GTX 1080 will be cheaper, faster and quieter and use less power in general.

Just don't get a blower card....

 

[samer.forums]

you have a freesync monitor ... your choice is obvious. AMD.

once you use freeSync (AMD) or Gsync (Nvidia) monitors you will never look back. it makes alot of difference.

 

[eflam]

The GTX 1080 will be faster in general, that depends on the game however.

I say flip a coin.

But the Vega is a real power hog.

i am rapidly nearing flip a coin levels of indecision.

I would say the GTX 1080.

Price them out compared to the Vega 64.

The GTX 1080 will be cheaper, faster and quieter and use less power in general.

Just don't get a blower card....

They are actually really similar price wise. And yea I would either get a dual fan or liquid cooled.

 

[eflam]

you have a freesync monitor ... your choice is obvious. AMD.

once you use freeSync (AMD) or Gsync (Nvidia) monitors you will never look back. it makes alot of difference.

Part of my concern here is that I am not even positive a Vega 64 would make it to 80-100 fps which is the freesync range for the monitor.

 

[samer.forums]

you have a freesync monitor ... your choice is obvious. AMD.

once you use freeSync (AMD) or Gsync (Nvidia) monitors you will never look back. it makes alot of difference.

Part of my concern here is that I am not even positive a Vega 64 would make it to 80-100 fps which is the freesync range for the monitor.

Monitor link ? 80 is too high starting point for freesync

 

[eflam]

you have a freesync monitor ... your choice is obvious. AMD.

once you use freeSync (AMD) or Gsync (Nvidia) monitors you will never look back. it makes alot of difference.

Part of my concern here is that I am not even positive a Vega 64 would make it to 80-100 fps which is the freesync range for the monitor.

Monitor link ? 80 is too high starting point for freesync

https://www.amazon.com/Pixio-PX347c-Adaptive-Widescreen-Professional/dp/B074BCSCKZ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509392712&sr=8-1&keywords=PIXIO+34&dpID=51Kgrnd-57L&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Its the pixio 34. The 80-100 freesync range is pretty terrible but it has a lot of other good features and low price point.

 

[samer.forums]

you have a freesync monitor ... your choice is obvious. AMD.

once you use freeSync (AMD) or Gsync (Nvidia) monitors you will never look back. it makes alot of difference.

Part of my concern here is that I am not even positive a Vega 64 would make it to 80-100 fps which is the freesync range for the monitor.

Monitor link ? 80 is too high starting point for freesync

https://www.amazon.com/Pixio-PX347c-Adaptive-Widescreen-Professional/dp/B074BCSCKZ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1509392712&sr=8-1&keywords=PIXIO+34&dpID=51Kgrnd-57L&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Its the pixio 34. The 80-100 freesync range is pretty terrible but it has a lot of other good features and low price point.

I dont like these cheap monitors ...

Are you sure you want 3440x1440 ?

you can game on 34 inch ultra wide with 2560x1080 @ 144Hz and ips screen with 1ms from LG

and it has freesync range from 50-144 hz

and the Vega will deliver on that resolution very well.

this one

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UC79G-B-ultrawide-monitor

tomshardware review :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lg-34uc79g-34-inch-ultra-wide-freesync-monitor,4891-6.html

price

https://www.amazon.com/LG-34UC79G-B-34-Inch-21-UltraWide/dp/B01LW5CGIS

 

[Satan-IR]

Under other circumstances I'd incline towards the GTX 1080.

But, FreeSync? AMD of course!

Then again can cards keep up with at least 80fps at very high/ultra settings at that resolution in 2-3 years? Don't know!

I mean if one would somehow end up lowering settings to keep the FPS above 80 why bother with a 1440 in the first place?

If you can't for some reason use the FreeSync feature in good standing what's the point?

 

[eflam]

I am pretty sure. 1440p is pretty rapidly becoming the base format for gaming and I want to upgrade my graphics card anyways so I might as well get one that takes advantage of the hardware. I have looked into this monitor and it seems to be pretty solid. Additionally I want something curved and with pip or side by side features for my ps4 which will be hooked up via hdmi.

 

[eflam]

Under other circumstances I'd incline towards the GTX 1080.

But, FreeSync? AMD of course!

Then again can cards keep up with at least 80fps at very high/ultra settings at that resolution in 2-3 years? Don't know!

I mean if one would somehow end up lowering settings to keep the FPS above 80 why bother with a 1440 in the first place?

If you can't for some reason use the FreeSync feature in good standing what's the point?

This is pretty much what I am thinking right now. If I have to worry about tuning down the settings to hit free sync range there is no point in 1440p in the first place.

 

[samer.forums]

Under other circumstances I'd incline towards the GTX 1080.

But, FreeSync? AMD of course!

Then again can cards keep up with at least 80fps at very high/ultra settings at that resolution in 2-3 years? Don't know!

I mean if one would somehow end up lowering settings to keep the FPS above 80 why bother with a 1440 in the first place?

If you can't for some reason use the FreeSync feature in good standing what's the point?

This is pretty much what I am thinking right now. If I have to worry about tuning down the settings to hit free sync range there is no point in 1440p in the first place.

IF you insist on that monitor , Get GTX 1080 ...80 fps on that resolution is not easy to reach , and the freesync range is just 20 fps range (80-100)

but I am worried about the monitor itself , ghosting , input lag , color gamut , 8 bit or 6 bit panel ... there are many important thing you will not find in a cheap monitor .. try looking for reviews and people who tried it.

hz is not everything.

 

[Satan-IR]

Under other circumstances I'd incline towards the GTX 1080.

But, FreeSync? AMD of course!

Then again can cards keep up with at least 80fps at very high/ultra settings at that resolution in 2-3 years? Don't know!

I mean if one would somehow end up lowering settings to keep the FPS above 80 why bother with a 1440 in the first place?

If you can't for some reason use the FreeSync feature in good standing what's the point?

This is pretty much what I am thinking right now. If I have to worry about tuning down the settings to hit free sync range there is no point in 1440p in the first place.

IF you insist on that monitor , Get GTX 1080 ...80 fps on that resolution is not easy to reach , and the freesync range is just 20 fps range (80-100)

but I am worried about the monitor itself , ghosting , input lag , color gamut , 8 bit or 6 bit panel ... there are many important thing you will not find in a cheap monitor .. try looking for reviews and people who tried it.

hz is not everything.

Exactly, Not trying to devalue the monitor or anything but there's a reason some things are cheap. Very good point, when it comes to monitors refresh/frame rates is not everything.

 

[eflam]

Under other circumstances I'd incline towards the GTX 1080.

But, FreeSync? AMD of course!

Then again can cards keep up with at least 80fps at very high/ultra settings at that resolution in 2-3 years? Don't know!

I mean if one would somehow end up lowering settings to keep the FPS above 80 why bother with a 1440 in the first place?

If you can't for some reason use the FreeSync feature in good standing what's the point?

This is pretty much what I am thinking right now. If I have to worry about tuning down the settings to hit free sync range there is no point in 1440p in the first place.

IF you insist on that monitor , Get GTX 1080 ...80 fps on that resolution is not easy to reach , and the freesync range is just 20 fps range (80-100)

but I am worried about the monitor itself , ghosting , input lag , color gamut , 8 bit or 6 bit panel ... there are many important thing you will not find in a cheap monitor .. try looking for reviews and people who tried it.

hz is not everything.

Do you have any specific issues with the monitor? I've looked at quite a few reviews and by far they have been mostly positive and stress that it is a great value for the price. The most common gripes have been terrible freesync range and lack of native vesa support, though you can make an adapter for it. I knew nothing about monitors a year ago and know some but not all of the things you mentioned, looking at the product page does anything other than a relatively cheap price point stand out to you as a red flag?

 

[samer.forums]

Under other circumstances I'd incline towards the GTX 1080.

But, FreeSync? AMD of course!

Then again can cards keep up with at least 80fps at very high/ultra settings at that resolution in 2-3 years? Don't know!

I mean if one would somehow end up lowering settings to keep the FPS above 80 why bother with a 1440 in the first place?

If you can't for some reason use the FreeSync feature in good standing what's the point?

This is pretty much what I am thinking right now. If I have to worry about tuning down the settings to hit free sync range there is no point in 1440p in the first place.

IF you insist on that monitor , Get GTX 1080 ...80 fps on that resolution is not easy to reach , and the freesync range is just 20 fps range (80-100)

but I am worried about the monitor itself , ghosting , input lag , color gamut , 8 bit or 6 bit panel ... there are many important thing you will not find in a cheap monitor .. try looking for reviews and people who tried it.

hz is not everything.

Do you have any specific issues with the monitor? I've looked at quite a few reviews and by far they have been mostly positive and stress that it is a great value for the price. The most common gripes have been terrible freesync range and lack of native vesa support, though you can make an adapter for it. I knew nothing about monitors a year ago and know some but not all of the things you mentioned, looking at the product page does anything other than a relatively cheap price point stand out to you as a red flag?

I dont know this monitor . I cant tell anything about it. but things to check :

1- Input Lag

2- Ghosting

3- Color Accuracy

4- refresh rate

5- 6 or 8 bit panel ?

Thats all ...

 

[eflam]

Under other circumstances I'd incline towards the GTX 1080.

But, FreeSync? AMD of course!

Then again can cards keep up with at least 80fps at very high/ultra settings at that resolution in 2-3 years? Don't know!

I mean if one would somehow end up lowering settings to keep the FPS above 80 why bother with a 1440 in the first place?

If you can't for some reason use the FreeSync feature in good standing what's the point?

This is pretty much what I am thinking right now. If I have to worry about tuning down the settings to hit free sync range there is no point in 1440p in the first place.

IF you insist on that monitor , Get GTX 1080 ...80 fps on that resolution is not easy to reach , and the freesync range is just 20 fps range (80-100)

but I am worried about the monitor itself , ghosting , input lag , color gamut , 8 bit or 6 bit panel ... there are many important thing you will not find in a cheap monitor .. try looking for reviews and people who tried it.

hz is not everything.

Do you have any specific issues with the monitor? I've looked at quite a few reviews and by far they have been mostly positive and stress that it is a great value for the price. The most common gripes have been terrible freesync range and lack of native vesa support, though you can make an adapter for it. I knew nothing about monitors a year ago and know some but not all of the things you mentioned, looking at the product page does anything other than a relatively cheap price point stand out to you as a red flag?

I dont know this monitor . I cant tell anything about it. but things to check :

1- Input Lag

2- Ghosting

3- Color Accuracy

4- refresh rate

5- 6 or 8 bit panel ?

Thats all ...

I assume by input lag you mean response time, it is 8ms. Pretty standard for the 3440x1440 monitors.

The pixio says it has overdrive so it shouldnt ghost at all but a lot of freesync monitors have been released with overdrive issues. Reviews have said this is not an issue.

it has SVA panel which is good for color reproduction. Not as good as IPS but far better than TN. Reviews have said good color out of the box.

Refresh rate is 100hz which is very good for 1440p

"16.7m colour depth through 8-bit panels mostly, some 6-bit+FRC used" that is listed for SVA/PVA panels but I am not sure what 6 or 8 bit panel actually means

 

[Satan-IR]

No input lag is not the same as response time.

 

[samer.forums]

response time is about ghosting.

input lag is about the delay between input and display onscreen.

8 bit panels generate true 16.m colors (8 bit each color total 24bit) , 6 bit panels use 6 per color (18 bit total) less colors, 262,144 colors , 6Bit +FRC uses a trick to reach 16M color.

in general True color is better than FRC ...

you can read in wiki about them if you want more detailed answer.

VA Panels have 3000 contrast , and good view angles but IPS is better in showing accurate colors

I personally avoid cheap made monitors , so maybe my opinion will be not right for you if you feel you like it get it.

 

[eflam]

response time is about ghosting.

input lag is about the delay between input and display onscreen.

8 bit panels generate true 16.m colors (8 bit each color total 24bit) , 6 bit panels use 6 per color (18 bit total) less colors, 262,144 colors , 6Bit +FRC uses a trick to reach 16M color.

in general True color is better than FRC ...

you can read in wiki about them if you want more detailed answer.

VA Panels have 3000 contrast , and good view angles but IPS is better in showing accurate colors

I personally avoid cheap made monitors , so maybe my opinion will be not right for you if you feel you like it get it.

I appreciate the explanation man. I'll look into it a little more before ordering anything but you've definitely given me a few things to look into, thanks.