Monitor dilemma...what to do?

[muzik4all]

I don't really want to break the bank and I am not a die hard sim racer, but I already know pretty much what everyone is going to say. So here is my question. I am looking to upgrade my monitor situation. I am on a budget so it is either one 32" curved monitor with TrackIr or triple 27" monitors. What should I do?

 

[Denis Betty]

1080p triples @ 60Hz with a 4790K and a 1080. I was getting horrible screen tearing, so I'm using Riva Tuner and V sync (in game). Runs AC and rF2 on fairly high settings with no drops in frame rate. I only race online so I'm not sure how it works with large grids of AI. The jump in immersion from single screen was immense for me.

I haven't noticed any input lag yet and I'm not gonna look for it. G sync would be nice, but I'm really happy running what I have, as it is for the moment. I think I was averaging around 100 FPS without (EDIT: G sync) V synch, but my monitor's refresh rate is 60Hz, so there was no point in that. My single was 120 Hz and I honestly don't miss the higher refresh rate. Like I said somewhere, we're all different.

 

[muzik4all]

I'm using triple 32" AOC monitors and a GTX 1070 ti, no problems getting 100fps+ in AC with high/ultra settings at 5760x1080/144hz. The cpu is only an AMD FX8350 so it's working rather hard (70-80% core usage), but it gets the job done!

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I mainly play PC2 and ACC. I also have AC and AMS.

 

[muzik4all]

1080p triples @ 60Hz with a 4790K and a 1080. I was getting horrible screen tearing, so I'm using Riva Tuner and V sync (in game). Runs AC and rF2 on fairly high settings with no drops in frame rate. I only race online so I'm not sure how it works with large grids of AI. The jump in immersion from single screen was immense for me.

I haven't noticed any input lag yet and I'm not gonna look for it. G sync would be nice, but I'm really happy running what I have, as it is for the moment. I think I was averaging around 100 FPS without G sync, but my monitor's refresh rate is 60Hz, so there was no point in that. My single was 120 Hz and I honestly don't miss the higher refresh rate. Like I said somewhere, we're all different.

Thanks for the info.

 

[muzik4all]

Yes. But you're likely only going to have 60 fps after turning down settings.

Personally, if want triples that badly, save your money until you can get three matching monitors and the video card that will drive them well. Piece-mealing a system will lead to dissatisfaction with triples.

Otherwise, if ya gotta buy a new monitor NOW to satisfy an itch, get a good large one and stay single screen. You can always sell it off later when you can afford the rest of the triple monitor setup.


LOL... I started my adventures with 1080p triples 4 years ago using a 970. Works fine with rF1, but underpowered for anything more modern unless you're turning off shadows and use no AA (possibly a slight exaggeration, but you get the idea and its not far from the truth). You can certainly drive around with one car at 60 fps, but who really wants to limit themselves in that way?

My current card is a GTX 1080. I'd have been happier if I'd sprung for a 1080ti. My 1080p triples are being refreshed at 75 Hz and I've got settings turned down a bit, primarily in AA, to keep from dropping under 75 fps. On some track/car combos, I'll be at 60fps for the first lap or two, while the cars are bunched up.

So, I guess 2 options for me if I want triples RIGHT NOW.

1. Can I run triple 75hz monitors with my GTX 1070 and have a decent fps? When I say decent, will I see the same or a little better or worse than my current single 8 year old 23" HP monitor?
2. If I go for the 144hz monitors, would an RTX 2060 get the job done? The RTX 2060 I see is $350. I could probably spring for that but couldn't go higher in cost at the moment.

I play PC2, AC, ACC, and AMS right now, but I want to be ready for AMS2 and PC Revolution when they come out.

 

[Emery]

I find the relative performance chart at https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1080.c2839 to be useful for estimating GPU performance when considering whether a GPU is going to be satisfactory.

1070 is 85% fps of a 1080 --> okay for 60 Hz triples @1080p, some settings turned down

1070ti is 95% fps of a 1080
Vega 64 is 99% of a 1080
2060 is 100% fps of a 1080 --> okay for 75 Hz triples @1080p, some settings turned down

2070 is 116% fps of a 1080
5700XT is 119% of a 1080
1080ti is 127% of a 1080 --> good for 75 Hz triples @1080p, settings full (or 60 Hz triples @1440p)
2070 Super is 129% of a 1080

2080 is 137% of a 1080
2080 Super is 145% of a 1080
2080ti is 160% of a 1080

Can I run triple 75hz monitors with my GTX 1070 and have a decent fps? When I say decent, will I see the same or a little better or worse than my current single 8 year old 23" HP monitor?

Going from a single monitor to triple monitors you will definitely see worse fps, in the range of 30%-50% worse. I haven't seen many fps reports for ACC triple monitors and I've yet to buy the game (come on Black Friday!), but it is known for being the poorest performer and I expect my 1080 will not cut it. AMS2 will be similar to PC2 which is similar to AC and they're all slightly better than rF2 when it comes to fps. AMS is the easy one; where the other games might be borderline at some specification, AMS will be solid.

Edit: night and rain are the killers for ACC and rF2, where you'll easily drop another 30% in fps. PC2 (and presumably AMS2) take an fps hit, too, but it's more like 10-15%.

[Worth noting that from the perspective of a 2080ti, there is little difference at each step between the 1080ti, 2070 Super, 2080, 2080 Super, and 2080ti. Only 21% difference overall, but 21% of a 2080ti is 33% of a 1080!]

 

[muzik4all]

I find the relative performance chart at https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1080.c2839 to be useful for estimating GPU performance when considering whether a GPU is going to be satisfactory.

1070 is 85% fps of a 1080 --> okay for 60 Hz triples @1080p, some settings turned down

1070ti is 95% fps of a 1080
Vega 64 is 99% of a 1080
2060 is 100% fps of a 1080 --> okay for 75 Hz triples @1080p, some settings turned down

2070 is 116% fps of a 1080
5700XT is 119% of a 1080
1080ti is 127% of a 1080 --> good for 75 Hz triples @1080p, settings full (or 60 Hz triples @1440p)
2070 Super is 129% of a 1080

2080 is 137% of a 1080
2080 Super is 145% of a 1080
2080ti is 160% of a 1080



Going from a single monitor to triple monitors you will definitely see worse fps, in the range of 30%-50% worse. I haven't seen many fps reports for ACC triple monitors and I've yet to buy the game (come on Black Friday!), but it is known for being the poorest performer and I expect my 1080 will not cut it. AMS2 will be similar to PC2 which is similar to AC and they're all slightly better than rF2 when it comes to fps. AMS is the easy one; where the other games might be borderline at some specification, AMS will be solid.

Edit: night and rain are the killers for ACC and rF2, where you'll easily drop another 30% in fps. PC2 (and presumably AMS2) take an fps hit, too, but it's more like 10-15%.

[Worth noting that from the perspective of a 2080ti, there is little difference at each step between the 1080ti, 2070 Super, 2080, 2080 Super, and 2080ti. Only 21% difference overall, but 21% of a 2080ti is 33% of a 1080!]

Ok thanks for all the great info. I see the 2060 Super is only $50 more than the 2060 and is 12% more in performance, only 4% less in performance than the 2070 so I should do ok with triple 75hz @1080p. The 2070 is getting a bit of out my price range. Know anyone that would want a GTX 1070 less than 1 year used (got it with my PC back in April)? How much do you think I could get for it? None of my friends are gamers so I have no idea who I could sell it to.

 

[Denis Betty]

How much do you think I could get for it? None of my friends are gamers so I have no idea who I could sell it to.

Just look at completed listings on Ebay. Looks like around 180 - 200 pounds in the UK, depending on which variant you have. If you word the listing well, including that fact that it still has warranty, you should receive top end I would think.

 

[Emery]

One more set of data points for you to compare with your 1070...
In AMS, maximum graphics, I ran Boxer Cup at Adelaide, let the AI drive my car, and monitored for lowest fps.

	Daytime fps	Midnight 0fps
Single screen 1080p, No AI	149 minimum	144 minimum
Single screen 1080p, 19 AI	73 minimum	44 minimum
Triple screen 1080p, No AI	72 minimum	73 minimum
Triple screen 1080p, 19 AI	48 minimum	28 minimum

 

[muzik4all]

One more set of data points for you to compare with your 1070...
In AMS, maximum graphics, I ran Boxer Cup at Adelaide, let the AI drive my car, and monitored for lowest fps.

	Daytime fps	Midnight 0fps
Single screen 1080p, No AI	149 minimum	144 minimum
Single screen 1080p, 19 AI	73 minimum	44 minimum
Triple screen 1080p, No AI	72 minimum	73 minimum
Triple screen 1080p, 19 AI	48 minimum	28 minimum

Thanks again for more great info. At this point, I think I am going to divert all the way back to my original intention and that was for a single 32" 144hz monitor. Once I get that, I will look into beefing up my GPU to maximize the potential of the monitor as well as the GPU. Maybe later on down the road I will do triples to experience more immersion. I appreciate the time you took to run these tests and offer your feedback and your opinions.

 

[Harpo]

If you've settled on a 32" monitor, I highly recommend the AOC C32G1. It's 1920x1080, 144Hz, 1ms, and only $260 at Amazon. I'm using them for triples and absolutely love them.

This would give you a good upgrade path too, just add two more later!

 

[muzik4all]

If you've settled on a 32" monitor, I highly recommend the AOC C32G1. It's 1920x1080, 144Hz, 1ms, and only $260 at Amazon. I'm using them for triples and absolutely love them.

This would give you a good upgrade path too, just add two more later!

Thanks. If you saw my earlier posts, I was going to go with the ViewSonic VX3258-PC-MHD. Would you still chose the AOC over the ViewSonic?

 

[Harpo]

If you saw my earlier posts, I was going to go with the ViewSonic VX3258-PC-MHD. Would you still chose the AOC over the ViewSonic?

Viewsonic makes some great stuff, I've used them a lot for my desktops over the years. I considered that model, but it costs about $40 more and I couldn't verify that it had VESA mounts. Here's the mfr pages for both:

AOC C32G1
ViewSonic VX3258-PC-MHD

You may also notice that the AOC page states 4ms response, but other sites (and the factory boxes) do say 1ms. If you can verify that the Viewsonic has VESA, you can't go wrong either way. You'll need this mounting system for triples.

 

[Emery]

If you can verify that the Viewsonic has VESA, you can't go wrong either way. You'll need this mounting system for triples.

ViewSonic VX3258-PC-MHD 32" Curved Gaming Monitor

With an immersive curved screen, the ViewSonic VX3258-PC-MHD provides a stunning viewing experience. The monitor has been designed with an 1800R curve and 88% NTSC colour size to deliver the perfect balance of comfort and immersion. Images are clear and detailed on the monitor’s Full HD...

www.viewsonic.com

As you can see in those pictures at the link, there is no VESA mount.

 

[Harpo]

As you can see in those pictures at the link, there is no VESA mount.

That's what I thought, but I just couldn't believe they would leave it out! Not much use to many gamers that way.

 

[Alex Townsend]

Have a look at the KG271C monitors, that’s what I’ll be getting, decent spec for the budget

Not sure but I heard that you needed display port to get to higher refresh rates?
Not sure where I read that. But I guess it you could get 3 x 27 inch 144hz monitors you'd have some beefy PC specs to power it all

 

[Redvaliant]

Thanks for all the info in this thread, very helpful. I, like the OP am about to plump for a 1440p 32-35 inch monitor to replace an older 24" 1080p. I'm wondering though, whether my system will run a 2560 x 1440p WQHD or QHD at that resolution and at the higher advertised Hz they offer. My system: Ryzen 5 2600X, GTX1660Ti, 16MB Ram on a Asus X470 PRO board. It runs 1080 @ 60Hz no problem; VR on medium to high - with some fiddling. So how much more of a load would a wide 32" place on the gpu and cpu, or could I get away with an QHD such as the AOC CQ32G1? I'm not looking to upgrade the gpu anytime soon, however the Ryzen may get replaced in the new year.

 

[Deleted member 387850]

Thanks for all the info in this thread, very helpful. I, like the OP am about to plump for a 1440p 32-35 inch monitor to replace an older 24" 1080p. I'm wondering though, whether my system will run a 2560 x 1440p WQHD or QHD at that resolution and at the higher advertised Hz they offer. My system: Ryzen 5 2600X, GTX1660Ti, 16MB Ram on a Asus X470 PRO board. It runs 1080 @ 60Hz no problem; VR on medium to high - with some fiddling. So how much more of a load would a wide 32" place on the gpu and cpu, or could I get away with an QHD such as the AOC CQ32G1? I'm not looking to upgrade the gpu anytime soon, however the Ryzen may get replaced in the new year.

I made the same jump, going from 24" 1080p to a 34" 1440p. There's definitely a performance hit going from 1080p to 1440p, although I'd say the difference between 16:9 and 21:9 is fairly negligible. I can't remember exactly what the FPS loss was, but I'm still running at 97fps limited with RTSS on the highest graphics presets in R3E and AC. In ACC on Medium settings I'm in and around 70fps. I'm on older hardware than you as - Ryzen 5 1600 and GTX 1060 6GB. Personally I've no regrets and 1440p is the minimum resolution I'd consider these days!

 

[Emery]

1440p is the minimum resolution I'd consider these days!

27" 16:9 and 34-36" 21:9 (ultrawides that are really just wider 27" monitors) are definitely improved with 1440p, but 1080p is okay.

When you get to 32" 16:9 and larger, I feel 1080p has noticeably chunky pixels when the monitor is right behind the steering wheel and 1440p is very desireable.

 

[Deleted member 387850]

27" 16:9 and 34-36" 21:9 (ultrawides that are really just wider 27" monitors) are definitely improved with 1440p, but 1080p is okay.

When you get to 32" 16:9 and larger, I feel 1080p has noticeably chunky pixels when the monitor is right behind the steering wheel and 1440p is very desireable.

I was definitely fine with 1080p on 24", but less so on 27". It's more about desktop use though, not in game, as I use my monitor for more than just a sim rig. What made things worse is my work monitor is 28" 4K, so coming home to a 27" 1080p felt like I needed my eyes tested I found 1440p to be a nice compromise between decent pixel density for desktop use and not too much of a performance hit in game.

 

[muzik4all]

Viewsonic makes some great stuff, I've used them a lot for my desktops over the years. I considered that model, but it costs about $40 more and I couldn't verify that it had VESA mounts. Here's the mfr pages for both:

AOC C32G1
ViewSonic VX3258-PC-MHD

You may also notice that the AOC page states 4ms response, but other sites (and the factory boxes) do say 1ms. If you can verify that the Viewsonic has VESA, you can't go wrong either way. You'll need this mounting system for triples.

OK. How do pixels look on a 32" in 1080p on a 1920x1080? Does it look OK for you with your AOC? I don't have a rig so the monitor would be on a desk along with the wheel. My eyes would be about 3 to 4 feet away from the screen. This 1080p ViewSonic is $299 but they have another 32" model in 1440p and is LED instead of LCD for $359. I think things would look better in 1440p at 2560x1440 resolution on a 32", so I would rather spend the extra money since I know I am only going to invest in one monitor instead of 3.

If I go with the 32" I don't think I will ever do triples. I think if I was going to eventually go for triples, I would invest in a single 27" now and add 2 more later. Most likely gonna do a single 32" and upgrade my GTX 1070 to RTX 2060 Super and just stay at really high FPS counts in AMS and PC2. Plus I want to be ready to get ACC this week and be able to keep the settings turned up in that on a single monitor.