New monitor - Nvidia or AMD GPU?

[ViperDriver]

Hello mates

 

To be ready for DCS 2.5 I will buy a new monitor (Dell U3818DW) and as this is a WQHD monitor I will also upgrade my GPU (I currently fly in FHD with a GTX 970)

 

I personally prefer the Nvidia GTX 1080 (my favourite GPU would be the Zotac GTX 1080 AMP Edition; the Extreme edition would be little bit too big for my PC) but what about AMD? Is there a trend which GPU has a better support for DCS?

 

My system:

 

i7 6700K

16GB DDR 4 RAM

Asus GTX 970 STRIX OC

250GB Samsung 850 EVO Basic SSD

3 TB HDD

WIN 10 HOME 64Bit

 

Thx

ViperDriver

[Hadwell]

Most people use nvidia cards because they generally work better with DCS, and because the 1070ti and better are faster than anything AMD has...

 

the vega 56 is roughly the same speed as a 1070 but costs like 100$ more...

 

the vega 64 is like twice the price of a 1080 for the same performance...

 

and any AMD card less than the vega 56 or 64 isn't as good as the 1070 or 1080....

[sea2sky]

I can't believe people are still buying monitors nowadays when a second gen VR is just behind the corner :). My 32" is such a beauty... although collects dust.

[OldE24]

i dont know what your talking about when you say Nvidia works better Hadwell, i used a R9 390 with free sync 40 to 75HZ and it worked flawless where as people have issues with Gsync, amd's control center is friendlier to use if you ask me also.

 

1070TI and VEGA 56 are on par with each other in different situations the problem is the price is STUPID because of miners. and the power consumption is off the charts for the vega series.

 

the monitor would work not a fan of the price for the size

Edited December 18, 2017 by OldE24

[John Hargreaves]

I still use my monitor for setting up controls on new modules and for designing missions, but for flying, it's not a patch on the rift. For anyone who ever uses their monitor for, er, actual work*, the old 2D still has a few tricks up its sleeve.

 

 

* In my experience this is best avoided

[agrasyuk]

Nvidia. With your monitor you really will want a stronger model,

 

I can't believe people are still buying monitors nowadays when a second gen VR is just behind the corner :). My 32" is such a beauty... although collects dust.

I can't believe people are buying flower pots when the second gen VR...

 

Seriously though, while VR is amazing it's not a direct replacement for a monitor. Hence people still buy them and will buy them for long time.

[Hadwell]

i dont know what your talking about when you say Nvidia works better Hadwell, i used a R9 390 with free sync 40 to 75HZ and it worked flawless where as people have issues with Gsync, amd's control center is friendlier to use if you ask me also.

 

1070TI and VEGA 56 are on par with each other in different situations the problem is the price is STUPID because of miners. and the power consumption is off the charts for the vega series.

 

the monitor would work not a fan of the price for the size

 

I use a 1080ti and get 60+ fps on average, but often 160+ fps, my monitor is 144hz and gsync... except in the harrier for some reason, it's 50+fps... maybe still needs optimization

 

sure ati works, but nvidia works better, not for the same prices, but price has nothing to do with how well something works, just how much it costs...

[BitMaster]

I use a 1080ti and get 60+ fps on average, but often 160+ fps, my monitor is 144hz and gsync... except in the harrier for some reason, it's 50+fps... maybe still needs optimization

 

sure ati works, but nvidia works better, not for the same prices, but price has nothing to do with how well something works, just how much it costs...

 

+1

 

Forget AMD GPUs. Maybe Navi will compete at the same level but for now, it's a simple choice tbh.

[=Pedro=]

I can't believe people are still buying monitors nowadays when a second gen VR is just behind the corner :). My 32" is such a beauty... although collects dust.

 

Behind the corner = maybe at the end of the coming year and you'll need to have a quantum computer to get 90 fps which are needed for good immersion :D

[firmek]

Hello mates

 

To be ready for DCS 2.5 I will buy a new monitor (Dell U3818DW) ...

 

Just as a suggestion with this price range consider getting a monitor with active sync. It really improves the overall experience and image quality. The drawback may be the size as I'm not sure you'll find a 38'' one - last time I had been checking the biggest one available was 34''.

 

If you would decide on a monitor with an active sync technology you'll have to match a GPU manufacturer - G-Sync monitor requires Nvidia graphics card.

 

I can't believe people are still buying monitors nowadays when a second gen VR is just behind the corner :). My 32" is such a beauty... although collects dust.

How this reply contributed to the OP question? I can't believe that there are people that don't believe that not everyone has to get totally crazy about VR.

Edited December 19, 2017 by firmek

[Spectrum Legacy]

It's simple really, depending on the api: Dx11? Go Nvidia. Vulkan? Go AMD.

 

Since I have no idea when Vulkan will arrive for DCS and how well it will be implemented (I was wondering back then whether there were any plans to implement it for DCS prior to dcs v1.5/dx11 being released, but I don't think I got the answer on forums back then), so I would say that right now Nvidia is safer bet for DCS.

 

Second gen VR is interesting for the resolution, because quite frankly, as of now having your whole fov crammed to such low resolution feels very inadequate esp. for long viewing distances and details, which flight simming is full of.

On a side note, do you know who's PC can drive dcs as 64bit process with 90fps / 16.6megapixel-per-frame output using dx11? Nobody's! We struggle a bit with current 2.6megapixel in VR now, don't we?