insane_metalist's forum posts

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts
@BassMan said:
@insane_metalist said:
@GTR12 said:

@Legend002: Neither, 1440p and 4k are dead.

lol... what? Tons of PC gamers play @ 1440p & 4K including myself.

It depends what type of games you play. If you play lots of online FPS then get 1440p 144hz. If you play more single players games then get 4K and G-Sync is very much worth it.

Don't mind him, he likes to pimp the ultra wide displays. I am also gaming on 1440p/144 G-Sync monitor and 4K/60 TV.

My friend owns a 34" (2560 X 1080) and I can definitely see the quality difference compared to my 1440p panel. You definitely need AA @ 2560 X 1080 compared to my 1440p panel where in most cases I don't even have to use AA since games already look pretty sweet without it.
I think 1440p is a better choice since most games support 16:9 unlike 21:9 and games just look sharper in general on a 1440p panel.

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#2 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts

Open up your task manager and as others stated check which exact program is using most of RAM and just "end task".

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#3 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts
@GTR12 said:

@Legend002: Neither, 1440p and 4k are dead.

lol... what? Tons of PC gamers play @ 1440p & 4K including myself.

It depends what type of games you play. If you play lots of online FPS then get 1440p 144hz. If you play more single players games then get 4K and G-Sync is very much worth it.

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#4 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts

@mrmarrero: Is that GTX 1080 Ti FTW3? If it is then how come the shroud is red? Did you spay it yourself? They're suppose to be black or silver-ish color :p

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#5 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts

AMD totally thought they were gonna rule the market with "most" cores... aka 16-core/32-thread Threadripper. AMD "fanboys" are gonna be quiet upset...

I'm a little confused... is i7-7740X and i5-7640X moving to X299 platform? I don't see the purpose since they're "dual channels" chips.

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#6 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts

I usually build a new system for myself every 3ish years or so (mostly because I feel the itch for it). But I usually build a new rig for family or friends every 7 - 9 months.

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#7 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts
@AcidTango said:

Damn all you people here are lucky with your GTX 1080 while I'm stuck with my GTX 1060 :(

GTX 1060 shreds games @ 1080p. Although 1440p and higher res you want a beefier card :p

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts
@Kjranu said:

@appariti0n: my CPU is a 6700k using liquid cooling. I don't want to overclock it too much, so I just OC it to 3.4 it 3.5 GHz. It's certainly not much if a bottleneck if at all.

Is it 6700 or 6700K? If it's 6700K then why are you running it such a low frequency? It can most definitely do 4.2GHz out of the box if you just left it alone. You would definitely be surprised with fps gains you'll get just from that.

I get 100+ fps in BF1 @ 1440p with 6700K and GTX 1080 (Ultra).

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#9 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts

I don't get why i7-7740K and i7-7640K only support 16 PCI-E lanes. Even my i7-6700K has 20 lanes. How will that work for people running multi-GPU's and m.2. ...? It doesn't make sense to decrease amount of of PCI-E lanes on main stream chips.
It looks like 7640K was re-branded from i5 to i7 since it still has 4c/4t.

Avatar image for insane_metalist
insane_metalist

7797

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

230

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#10 insane_metalist
Member since 2006 • 7797 Posts
@RyviusARC said:
@insane_metalist said:
@RyviusARC said:
@insane_metalist said:
@RyviusARC said:

Oops thought you were talking about the 1080ti .

Now I saw that you said 1080.

My bad....

No worries. I've had my AMP Extreme 1080 for 7 months now so I've had enough time to play with it and push it as far as it can go.

I'd like to see a 1080 Ti hit 2.1GHz stable.

What kinda temps are you getting under full load with your AMP Extreme 1080 Ti? And what do you think about build quality of the card? It looks very similar to my card... prolly just as heavy and I'm guessing it sags as well? I had to get a bracket support for mine.

I get around 69C at full load in a demanding game.

It seems to stop at 69C no matter what. Max fan speed I saw was 62%.

I've hear on very rare occasions some people got 2100mhz but they are on water cooling.

Almost everyone else either barely gets 2000mhz or up to around 2060mhz.

I am thinking about not even leaving my OC on as my card was already heavily OCed out of the box and I was only able to bump it a little above that.

Our cards are pretty similar then (even looks wise). Highest I've seen my card hit is 69C as well. No need to OC that 1080 Ti beast for now. It already tears through everything. You game @ 1440p, right? You should have no problems what's so ever maxing out all games for a WHILE! :p

My desktop monitor is 1440p but my living room has a Samsung 65" KS8000 which is 4k. I've been playing most of my games on my TV at 4k for now. Only a few of them I find to be poor performers but everything has been playable at ultra settings. Worst performer I have come across so far is Quantum Break which usually won't use use more than 70% of my GPU no matter what settings I use. Watch Dogs 2 has some big drops in certain heavy foliage parts of the game but that is with max settings (including 100% draw distance) at 4k.

I don't mind less then 60fps performance in games that are not fighters, racing or DMC hack and slash types. But I do care about keeping fps consistent so I sometimes cap at a lower frame rate just for that.

Most games will run fine at 4k 60fps max (keeping MSAA at 2x) It's just the exceptions that don't. You know the games with one or two settings that tank performance but don't offer much of a visual difference.

I did notice when switching from my 970s in SLI to the 1080ti that I can no longer get RE7 to work in HDR. It will enable HDR but instantly disable it right after that. HDR works fine in Mass Effect: Andromeda and Shadow Warrior 2 though.

I don't blame you, I'd do the same if I had a nice size 4K TV. Quantum Break is just one of those games that sadly doesn't utilize all of your GPU power.
You really don't need to use AA at 4K. Games already look amazing on a 4K display without AA.
As for RE7 try reverting back to older drivers or get new ones (if you already don't have it installed).