Performance in 2560 X 1440 with gtx 770 2gb

[jaguara5]

Hi to all!

My current setup is

i5 2500 3,3Ghz

8GB xms3 1333

msi gtx 770 2Gb

cx600

22'' monitor 1650 X 1080

trackir 5

 

I' m considering to buy a 2560 X 1440 monitor (U2713HM).

What framerates should i expect to see in dcs World?

Also, has anyone a 4K monitor experience in DCS?

Right now i have steady 60 fps (vsync on), little drop when approaching the runway, max. graphic settings in a TE Mission.

Thanks

Edited July 5, 2014 by jaguara5

[*Rage*]

Expect to drop to 25-30 fps. Alot depends on exact settings...

[skouras]

15 fps on 4K

25-30FPS ON 1440P

 

suggestion number 1

go for a nice IPS 1080p monitor 24'' or 27'' either you gonna rock with this gpu

 

suggestion number 2

 

go for a nice 1440p monitor 27'' if you plan to upgrade the gpu for at least 3giga VRAM and above

 

suggestion number 3

 

wait 1-2 years until the 4K's drop the price

 

i have number 1 at the moment and im very happy(recommended)

[Davis0079]

I run triple 1600x900 monitors on a quadcore overclocked with a evga760sc at 3100x1600res (corrected for bezels) with no problems (a weaker system then yours)....I had it in landscape for a while running at 5080x900res....so I think a 770 should handle the extra pixels just fine...

 

...i run all graphics high including water...civ traffic low or off....hdr normal...mods including model and texure upgrades....

 

...dcs is not that gpu heavy now that the 700 series is out and thriving....large amounts of units and static objects scattered across the entirety of the map is a fps killer....large amounts of scripts randomly spawning combat AI with large battles and many destroyed units littering the place is a killer....basically till multi-threading is looked at for DCS...you will always have 25-35 fps(or lower) in largely populated maps...

 

....when edge comes out we may need to do GPU upgrades....but if you own a higher 700 series card (760 or higher) and get low FPS at any resolution in DCS....its most likely unit count and a weak CPU.....not your graphics settings....

[jaguara5]

Thanks for the replies!

I really enjoy how smooth the game runs now in comparison to my previous 560 ti, there is a big difference in smoothness between 30 - 40 fps and 60 fps.

So 25 - 30 is a no go.

Perhaps i could buy the monitor now as a future investment and play in

lower resolution (1920 X 1080) until a later hardware upgrade.

Is there a difference, between 1920 X 1080 native resolution on a 27’’ monitor and 1920 X 1080 resolution on a monitor with 2560 X 1440 native resolution?

How big is the visual difference between 1080p resolution with AA - AF and 1440P without antialising?

Also, i thought there isn't a performance difference between a gtx 770 2 gb and a gtx 770 4 gb in 2560 Χ 1440 :

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

Thanks !

[*Rage*]

Monitors running in non-native resolutions will look aweful. I would wait till edge is released before making any hardware decisions.

[Buckeye]

My 8320 (running at 4.32ghz) with R9 280x (running at 1150/1525) NEVER gets over 40fps on my 2560x1080 res...usually it's closer to 30, and it dips below 30. I know that's not a huge help since it's AMD hardware, but that might give you a bit of context to temper expectations.

[upupandaway]

1440p runs pretty well on my system with details maxed (no mirrors and disp. res. 512), although with DCS being what it is, I usually get FPS around 50-60, but it can drop sown to 25 with too much smoke or other crap in the frame.

Let´s see what changes will come with EDGE...

 

My specs are not that different from yours:

 

i7 2600K (no OC)

8GB RAM

780Ti 3GB

 

Generally I would recommend a larger display with better resolution, even if you might have to turn off some eye candy. The overall immersion is much better in my experience. Waiting for 4K or OR might be a viable option, too. ;)

[Griffin]

How about something in between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440? Check out the AOC q2963Pm 29" 2560x1080 ultra wide screen. In my opinion it's a great stop gap that doesn't tax your performance much yet brings some sweet extra width that is really lovely especially in simulators.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/aoc-q2963pm-ultra-wide-review,3591-11.html

[Abburo]

I have considered 29", 21:9 widescreen for a while. I changed my mind due to the small size of this monitor which is cancelling the immersion. To be more precise, this monitor has the feeling of an 24" extended to sides.

If your position is close enough then it is ok, otherwise is a bit small and hard to have proper readings.

 

An 16:9, 27" creates a bit different sensation like a bigger screen...

[Griffin]

Compared to my old 21" 1680x1050 it seems huge! Of course not vertically but that's the point of this monitor. In simulators, width is what you want, height is secondary and without seeing to the sides makes it feel like looking through a straw. Very restricted even on bigger screen. If I had money, of course I would get a much bigger screen but with my current hardware, I believe it's a perfect stop gap before Oculus Rift.

 

Here's what I wrote in another thread:

LG, Dell and AOC are all launching their new ultrawide monitors this year. LG already has a pre-order and specs to view at over 1000$. Check

video about the amazingness.

 

Dell and AOC are also launching theirs soon. As for the price, LG is the most expensive, Dell comes a bit cheaper and AOC is the cheapest. My guess is that the AOC will cost maybe 700$ on launch. The good news is that they all use the same panel, at least it was the case with the previous generation, so panel quality should be guaranteed. Only the "packaging" varies and gets cheaper, obviously.

 

3440x1440 has 40% less pixels than 4K and 34% more than 1440p but still requires some serious GPU performance.

[cichlidfan]

I have considered 29", 21:9 widescreen for a while. I changed my mind due to the small size of this monitor which is cancelling the immersion. To be more precise, this monitor has the feeling of an 24" extended to sides.

If your position is close enough then it is ok, otherwise is a bit small and hard to have proper readings.

 

An 16:9, 27" creates a bit different sensation like a bigger screen...

 

Agreed. The currently available ultra-wides are too limited in height and they only add a very small percentage to each side (about 15%) when compared to three screens. I considered one when I replaced my 27" (2560x1440) but they all made me feel like I was looking through an horizontal slot. I went with a 40" 1080p TV instead.

 

EDIT: While I do miss the extra resolution (especially with the increased size), the gain in overall screen size was worth it.

Edited July 6, 2014 by cichlidfan