Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Linux Gaming Benchmarks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by Buntolo View Post
    Your choice, I've a 1080p 120Hz and I'd never go with anything below it, my next main screen will be a 1440p 165Hz Freesync. High frequency is way, way, way more noticeable than higher res and is also more pleasant/satisfying.
    +1 No competitive gamer will argue this and it's accepted as fact not opinion. Not directly related to gaming, but just some interesting facts... In the case of spatial edge modulated light from a stable field, all viewers noticed flickering at 200Hz, median viewer at 500Hz, and some at 800Hz. Another useful one is XKCD's Visual Field.

    So these don't exist? (first is 4ms, second is 1ms)

    https://www.amazon.it/Samsung-C27JG5.../dp/B07FCM5WXF
    https://www.amazon.it/Acer-XG270HUom...dp/B00U2FDO4C/

    Also the Acer shouldn't be cheap crap (despite being in the past the biggest producer of the cheapest crappy laptop), it's one of the first (or its heir) 1440p 144Hz on the market, launched a few years ago for 700€, along with the gaming ASUS for 750€.

    And a 144Hz 4ms is still better than a 60Hz.
    I'm leaning towards what cj.wijtmans said. At this point in time one can only choose two* of the following:
    • Resolution (greater than FHD/1080p)
    • Image Quality (Color & Contrast-Ratio)
    • Refresh Rate & Response Time (potentially freesync too)
    • Affordability (Price/Features)
    IMO for gamers (especially competitive FPS) refresh rate and response time is the most important. Image quality is more important than resolution thanks to things like SSAA (supersampling anti-aliasing). For non-competitive gaming resolution might be more important than image quality but differs from person to person.

    Closest to my ideal: https://www.amazon.com/Pixio-Display-Professional-Adaptive-Sync-Monitor/dp/B07CYRF58V I won't buy it as my GPU rx480 is not fast enough to unlock it's full potential. I'll wait for Navi but not keeping my hopes up like I did with Vega. The geforce 1660 ti looks really good in terms of FPS/Watt but will not be able to do 144Hz at 1440p either so I'll stick to 1080p while I mostly play competitive FPS.

    *There are attempts at three of the options above but it does not always work out as planned. Look at the reviews on this screen for example https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XV273K-P...ustomerReviews I did not go looking for a Acer screen I promise. ;-)

    Also no, 4k gaming may require a better VGA than RX570, I know because I've a 970 and it's not enough for 1080p 120Hz, so I highly doubt a RX570 will be enough for 4k, even @60Hz.
    +1 Perhaps 2D? I don't know in which reality the rx 570 can run 4k games. Also (with current technology) buying a 10bit TN panel is like wearing camo clothes with reflective vest.


    To everyone:
    Visit your local hardware seller and try a PC with a 240Hz monitor: move the mouse cursor around, then go to display setting and try it at 60Hz and see if you notice anything. Then try scrolling a page or moving stuff around.

    If you don't see any difference, then you may have eyesight issues, and I mean this in a non-mocking meaning, but as a statement; if this is the case then yes, higher resolutions will be better than higher frequency.

    I was frustrated by how cranking up resolution in display there was no noticeable change, it was so disappointing. One day I had to buy a screen, didn't want to pay a lot so I went on eBay for an used one: bought a 120Hz as it was the same price of other 60Hz. It blown me away.

    This longpost is NOT to prove you're wrong, I don't care about a virtual medal of won arguments, it's because the internet is full of people saying that human eye can't see above 60Hz/don't need more than 30fps and similar things: I want you to know that you're living a worse visual experience because of these myths, you aren't enjoying what is already available.
    +99999999999999 so many people still living in a cave... go to the local hardware seller now! :-) Used tech can be really underrated especially peripherals.

    Do you know what the CIE 1931 rating is for the Samsung C27JG52? I could not find anyone who has tested it properly.

    Lastly this website is awesome, they know how to test screens: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/revie...y-usage/gaming

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

      You have brainwashed by toms hardware. All my Linux games runs fine graphics settings maximized to make freesync work at 4K 60Hz and many windows games too.
      https://www.youtube.com/user/jod35fa...=dd&shelf_id=1
      Talk about a derailed debate...

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

        You need to use max graphics settings with RX570 and Linux games to downgrade 4 K gaming fps to 40-60 fps range. Ryzen 5 1600 helps, I have faster system than many gtx 970 and gtx 980 owners. https://www.gamingonlinux.com/forum/topic/2683/page=1
        Unigine Superposition Benchmark: 1080P Extreme Profile

        Your score: 1863 - 13.94 FPS average (rx 570)
        My score: 2049 - 15.33 FPS average (rx 480 OpenGL)
        My score: 2455 - 18.36 FPS average (rx 480 Windows Direct X)
        FredO's score: 3457 - 25.86 FPS average (gtx 980ti)

        I own roughly 1000 games. I have done many tests on Windows and Linux. I have found that (on my system) most 2D games run fine at 4K but more than 90% of modern AAA titles does not run fine at 4K.

        I'm finding it very difficult to take you seriously. Maybe your FPS counter is broken? What software are you using to measure your FPS?

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
          CSGO, [...]. FPS is over 40 and that is enough
          I legit laughed out loud.

          Sub 60 FPS is not enough even for turn-based games, and for CSGO a bare minimum 120, comfortable 240.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
            do not post stupid non academic pictures.
            Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
            P.S. Do not use windows, it makes you stupid. Dual booting is for beginners. Using windows is religious, there is no sensible reasons to use it.
            Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
            That is just your brainwashed opinion, not a scientific fact without proof. Post a scientific study link, but you can not.
            Let me recap:
            1) Linux gamers who don't like to game at 40FPS are stupid. Windows users are stupid. Religious people are stupid. Probably everyone but you is.
            2) Everyone but you should abstain from posting non-academic comments.

            Got it.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
              That is just your brainwashed opinion, not a scientific fact. Post a scientific study link, but you can not.
              Study for what? That it's not enough? You will claim it's just a matter of opinion.

              If you truly think you can't recognize 240 FPS, then I feel sorry for you. It means you just never got to try a 240 FPS experience otherwise you definitely would not say that (and try it for some period of hours not 2 minutes).

              Here's a video if you really are that desperate for a "study": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSHeYT2U70

              Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
              Gaming console and laptops players laugh for you.
              https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...sole%20Peasant

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

                That is just your brainwashed opinion, not a scientific fact. Post a scientific study link, but you can not. Gaming console and laptops players laugh for you. I am sorry that you and my kid wasted your money for high end cards just because of boring games like Fortnite.
                Weasel could have phrased it more politely, but he's right. Competitive FPS games require a much higher fps than 40 if you actually want to compete. Weasel's comment that it should be "a bare minimum 120, comfortable 240" is almost exactly what I'd say too.

                Practically speaking, you could easily achieve a decent CSGO fps on your system by dropping the resolution to 1920x1080 and the graphics settings to low. Lots of competitive players play with low settings anyway; it's a normal practise even for people with high-end computers.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
                  And the human eye resolution is 576 megapixels.
                  It doesn't matter and especially because most people don't even see that well, so they see "out of focus" (e.g. people reliant on glasses). The point is that nobody cares about such tiny details in the first place when playing, same reason people don't use sniper lens to zoom into texture to see the fine details.

                  Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
                  I am sorry for you that you can not enjoy games at 60 fps. Kids hate loosing in video games and they blame hardware and buy expensive hardware. Grow up.
                  Because the latency you get from your monitor adds on top of what is already there so it slows your reaction by that much more.

                  Besides, you just can't enjoy stuff below 60fps and even 60fps feels clunky when you are used to 240fps. Not everyone shares your lack of experience. Grow up.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

                    You have brainwashed by toms hardware. All my Linux games runs fine graphics settings maximized to make freesync work at 4K 60Hz and many windows games too.
                    https://www.youtube.com/user/jod35fa...=dd&shelf_id=1
                    I don't know if this is sarcasm or what, as the video you posted are clearly low fps. The Talos Principle was painful to look at. Anyway I don't read toms, I've a GTX 970, a 120Hz 1080p monitor and around 2/3 of my games are Linux-playable (either native or gold/platinum proton level).

                    A lot of my games are below 120fps @1080p, for exampl;e The Talos Principle; I fail to see how a RX570 is fine for 4k.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
                      Many people enjoy video material at 60 Hz/fps.
                      Because they haven't watched a 240 Hz display (with 240 fps obviously) for extended periods.

                      It's like saying many broke people enjoy listening to cheap $2 chinese headphones when they haven't listened to some real proper quality $100 headphones to even claim that. Ignorance is not bliss, sorry.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X