SupremacyKing2
Deity
No, but he is making youtube videos of his games. A low frame rate might affect the quality of the youtube video.
[GS] Bought a new computer I hope will be great for Gathering Storm
- Thread starter SupremacyKing2
- Start date
No, but he is making youtube videos of his games. A low frame rate might affect the quality of the youtube video.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
Definitely, for him it'd make a difference.
Aristos
Lightseeker
No sacrilege, that is THE question. No, you don't need FPS in a game like civ, that is exactly my point. In my experiment, going all MAX with an "outdated" rig like mine, the 99 percentile still is above 24 FPS, and the average is around 45 FPS. More than enough to enjoy the most part of the game at standard settings. You may only notice some mini-stutter when moving around the map, depending on how fast you move. Obviously, bigger maps than standard will need more VRAM (and only that). Or, you tone down some of the settings that effectively do not produce any noticeable effect (at least for me): i.e. MSAA, water quality and reflections, AO.
racha
Prince
IMHO, not at all. Disclaimer: I play with leader movies disabled.
cvb
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 446
100%! My point was, that with this version of 'Gathering Storm' a combination of 'GTX 980 & i7-4790K' reaches a load factor, which doesn't allow at the same time (ALL graphical settings on MAX) AND (a frame rate @ 50 or 60Hz) - regardless how useful or even necessary this may be for different users.
And just 'Gathering Storm' performing on a known CPU/GPU system, which is easily to watch: @Marbozir.
If you are interested in (comparably) inexpensive, big displays, you find out that 4k-TVs with HDMI connections are limited to 30Hz (specification of cable bandwidth). But methinks without leader movies probably even single-digit frame rates are perfectly ok.
Disgustipated
Deity
Reminds me of one more computer question. Which kind of display connection should I be using for best performance? My video cards never come with cables, so I need to buy one I think. My game does look better, but I wonder if I am hamstringing myself by using an old cable.
edit:
Seems like my Dvi is still okay, I'm not running at 4k. From what I read, it may take 2 video cards to run 4k at 144 refresh. I probably do have room for a 2nd card, but it would start to get crowded, and I already spent a lot (not that I'm short on money).
https://www.avadirect.com/blog/displayport-vs-hdmi-vs-dvi-vs-vga/
Last edited:
100%! My point was, that with this version of 'Gathering Storm' a combination of 'GTX 980 & i7-4790K' reaches a load factor, which doesn't allow at the same time (ALL graphical settings on MAX) AND (a frame rate @ 50 or 60Hz) - regardless how useful or even necessary this may be for different users.
And just 'Gathering Storm' performing on a known CPU/GPU system, which is easily to watch: @Marbozir.
If you are interested in (comparably) inexpensive, big displays, you find out that 4k-TVs with HDMI connections are limited to 30Hz (specification of cable bandwidth). But methinks without leader movies probably even single-digit frame rates are perfectly ok.
I had a 4k display but I will never go back after seeing games in Ultrawide 3440x1440. I've got an Acer Predator monitor and with the wide display and vivid colors I couldn't be happier. I have a beefy computer so I don't have any lag on the higher settings even.
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-Predator-UltraWide-Widescreen-X34/dp/B016GNX4SE
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I have a "middle ground" 1440p monitor, and it looks pretty fantastic to me. And you don't really need the firepower to run it.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I bet! It sounds great.
My primary reasoning for picking the monitor I did was for running lightroom, so for that the wider ratio wouldn't have helped as much. But I am running my old (er) monitor alongside, which is fantastic for browsing while civving or whatever.
cvb
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 446
Would you mind to go into details? I mean, I use short 4k for ultraHD 3840x2160 and I fail to see, how Ultrawide 3440x1440 _so clearly_ should be better than this. Please explain.
And the 34" monitor you link to costs more than $1200 ... What is the price of the 4k display you used for reference?
(I'm not interested in games, which seem to benefit from frame rates of 100Hz or even higher)
I'm set to benefit from the fact that it was time to upgrade my daughter's computer now that she's gotten into more digital content creation and is livestreaming herself doing art. She was using my old Q9550 based system, which has been around for quite a while. And being the eternally generous parent, I decided to give her my 3770k based system to replace it. Of course that meant I needed to upgrade my own rig, so enter a 9900k based system, lol. Not a whole new system - I kept the case, CPU cooler, PSU and drives other than adding a new M2 boot drive.
@cvb - I'd agree with raskak. while 4k is nice, I'd rather have the 21:9, 1440p @ 100hz. For gaming, I think that the ultrawide experience is better than either a single monitor or double monitor setup. At work, I have a triple setup and while it's great for having multiple things going on at the same time, it's not as immersive as the 21:9 is.
I've played a few games on huge maps with the 9900k and 32gb and man, late game turns are way faster.
@cvb - I'd agree with raskak. while 4k is nice, I'd rather have the 21:9, 1440p @ 100hz. For gaming, I think that the ultrawide experience is better than either a single monitor or double monitor setup. At work, I have a triple setup and while it's great for having multiple things going on at the same time, it's not as immersive as the 21:9 is.
I've played a few games on huge maps with the 9900k and 32gb and man, late game turns are way faster.
Looks like it's the 22nd of Feb. now.
Sure. Keep in mind tastes are subjective.
Reference monitor is my old Samsung, a monitor which I did like very much. I also ran that at 3840x2160 and still do on a second computer. I believe it was about a $500 monitor and was 27". Not sure why I can't find the model number on the back.
The difference for me is the aspect ratio. 21:6 versus 16:9. One is HD, but the other is Cinematic. 21 versus 16 may not sound like much but it is, at least for me. Games like Civ, Age of Wonders 3, Endless Space 2, Endless Legend even Fallout have a very wide view. The sacrifice is height of course but I was blown away. The other downside is not all games support Ultrawide, for example Slay the Spire. That said, Battletech looks fantastic and does support Ultrawide.
The color difference might be the quality of the monitor. As you point out, this Acer wasn't cheap but it sure is fantastic looking. Kicks that Samsung's arse all day long.
Again, this is subjective to the eye of the beholder but I found Cinematic versus HD a HUGE difference but I could see someone preferring HD.
cvb
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 446
Thank you for your response. I'm going to buy a complete new set for the (completed) civ6 - so I'm looking more for answers than for trying to defend an existing solution ... though your comparison may be on the edge, really; I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if a $1200 / 37'' display of any format beats a $500 / 27'' display of any other format.
Cinematic versus HD. Sounds epic.
21:9 versus 16:9. I suppose, civ6 shows by default exactly the same image (based on the same height), just broader, extended to both sides. This seems trivial, 3360x1440 ("21:9") _is_ wider/bigger/better than 2560x1440 ("16:9").
This Ultrawide has something magic, I admit. The eye is used to 4:3 or 16:9 since decades. Ultrawide. Magic. Cinematic. Epic theater.
If you divide 3440x1440 by 160 you get 21.5 : 9, for 3840x2160 you get 24 : 13.5 ... which can be reduced to 16:9 ... but so can 21:9 (to 7:3)
Well, I could try to emulate on the 3840x2160 screen a 3440x1440 window for immersive gameplay and a console & open source / log files above or below for immersive debugging?!
Cinematic versus HD. Sounds epic.
21:9 versus 16:9. I suppose, civ6 shows by default exactly the same image (based on the same height), just broader, extended to both sides. This seems trivial, 3360x1440 ("21:9") _is_ wider/bigger/better than 2560x1440 ("16:9").
This Ultrawide has something magic, I admit. The eye is used to 4:3 or 16:9 since decades. Ultrawide. Magic. Cinematic. Epic theater.
If you divide 3440x1440 by 160 you get 21.5 : 9, for 3840x2160 you get 24 : 13.5 ... which can be reduced to 16:9 ... but so can 21:9 (to 7:3)
Well, I could try to emulate on the 3840x2160 screen a 3440x1440 window for immersive gameplay and a console & open source / log files above or below for immersive debugging?!
