One step closer to a new PC ...

[thunderhawk]

I am also trying to make a decision regarding a 27" screen ...
Would I need "G-sync" or not!?

I have been using my pc on a 52" screen for ages, Looks perfectly fine with Vsync on/off.
I would say you don't need G-sync, If you have not used it before, It's not something you will miss.

agreed my system is running through a sanyo 50" tv and works fine and my 660ti gets a benchmark of avg 113 fps

[W1der]

I am also trying to make a decision regarding a 27" screen ...
Would I need "G-sync" or not!?

I have been using my pc on a 52" screen for ages, Looks perfectly fine with Vsync on/off.
I would say you don't need G-sync, If you have not used it before, It's not something you will miss.

agreed my system is running through a sanyo 50" tv and works fine and my 660ti gets a benchmark of avg 113 fps

I think the benchmark test is a bit "vague" ...
The amount of vehicles in that "clip" is no where near of what you have in a game after playing +100 hours on the same map ...
Add all the placeables and bales etc to that ...

There should be a "hard core" benchmark also ...

[thunderhawk]

I have been using my pc on a 52" screen for ages, Looks perfectly fine with Vsync on/off.
I would say you don't need G-sync, If you have not used it before, It's not something you will miss.

agreed my system is running through a sanyo 50" tv and works fine and my 660ti gets a benchmark of avg 113 fps

I think the benchmark test is a bit "vague" ...
The amount of vehicles in that "clip" is no where near of what you have in a game after playing +100 hours on the same map ...
Add all the placeables and bales etc to that ...

There should be a "hard core" benchmark also ...

yeah you should be able to run a benchmark test within your own map with your current Equipment to get a accurate score

[W1der]

agreed my system is running through a sanyo 50" tv and works fine and my 660ti gets a benchmark of avg 113 fps

I think the benchmark test is a bit "vague" ...
The amount of vehicles in that "clip" is no where near of what you have in a game after playing +100 hours on the same map ...
Add all the placeables and bales etc to that ...

There should be a "hard core" benchmark also ...

yeah you should be able to run a benchmark test within your own map with your current Equipment to get a accurate score

We are a bit off topic now ... but this is my topic ... so I guess it´s OK ...

I have been thinking, if it would be possible to get a feature, in the developers tools, that shows you how much "stress" each object in the game is causing ...
Something similar to a "thermal camera" ... to detect areas in your map that is suffering from "over load" ...

[don_apple]

The purpose of a benchmark is to be able to compare different hardware configurations with each other and not how a certain system performs with a a mod map and a certain set of equipment. To find out how the game runs with a certain set of mods you just simply run it with those mods

I have been thinking, if it would be possible to get a feature, in the developers tools, that shows you how much "stress" each object in the game is causing ...
Something similar to a "thermal camera" ... to detect areas in your map that is suffering from "over load" ...

This already exists in the game. If you have the "development controls" activated and press the 'F8' key your get an overview on how much Objects are currently in view, how much RAM and VRAM is used, etc. These numbers are updated in realtime, so by moving around the map you'll get a pretty good overview where areas are that can cause performance problems.

[W1der]

I have been thinking, if it would be possible to get a feature, in the developers tools, that shows you how much "stress" each object in the game is causing ...
Something similar to a "thermal camera" ... to detect areas in your map that is suffering from "over load" ...

This already exists in the game. If you have the "development controls" activated and press the 'F8' key your get an overview on how much Objects are currently in view, how much RAM and VRAM is used, etc. These numbers are updated in realtime, so by moving around the map you'll get a pretty good overview where areas are that can cause performance problems.

OK ... I need to test this to see how it look ...
Up till now I have been looking at the FPS and if it drops in an area I have been moving equipment, vehicles, bales or even taken down trees to get a better FPS.

Edit don_apple: fixed quoting

[W1der]

Update ...
I just placed an order

Code: Select all

AOC 27" LED FreeSync G2770PF
1920x1080, 144hz, 1ms, Speakers, Pivot, VGA/DVI/HDMI/DP,
		
Corsair Carbide Clear 400C Midi Tower
Black, Fans: 1x140mm front, 1x120mm back. ATX/mATX, mITX

Corsair CX650M, 650W PSU
ATX 12V v2.4, 80 Plus Bronze, Semi Modular, 4x 6+2-pin PCIe, 6x SATA		

Akasa AK-959CU Komplett Edition
CPU Cooler, LGA 1150/1155/1156, 115W, PWM

Intel Core i7-6700K Skylake Processor
Socket-LGA1151, Quad Core 4.0GHz, 8MB, 91W, 14nm, Tray, u/cooler
			
ASUS Z170 PRO GAMING, Socket-1151
Mainboard, ATX,Z170,DDR4,3xPCIe-x16,SLI/CFX, SupremeFX, GameFirst III
	
Kingston ValueRam DDR4 2133MHz 32GB
2x16GB 2133MHz (PC4-17000) DDR4 CL15 2Rx8

ASUS GeForce GTX 1070 DUAL OC
GPU, PCI-Express 3.0, 8GB GDDR5, DL-DVI-D, 2x HDMI 2.0, 2x DisplayPort
			
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB 2.5" SSD
SATA 6GB/s, 540/520MB/s

Seagate Barracuda 1TB
SATA 6GB/s (SATA 3.0), 64MB Cache, 7200RPM, 3.5"	

MS COA Win 10 Home Nordic

Hopefully I also get my Saitek wheel replaced by the time I get the PC ...

EDIT:
OMG ... I just realized I made a huge misstake!!!
That screen is only 1080p ...
I wonder if I can live with that !?

[JohnDeere318]

1080P!!! I don't even use HDMI, so it will be fine.

[W1der]

1080P!!! I don't even use HDMI, so it will be fine.

I´m used to playing this at 2560x1440 ...

Edit:
Oh ... I just double checked ... my setting was actually 2048x1152.
Maybe not that huge difference ...

And with this PC I can probably set all the other graphic settings to the maximum ... so I might not be able to tell the difference!?

[W1der]

I just tried FS15 at 1080p (on my iMac) and it looked "OK".

Would any one know if 1080p looks "the same" on a 5K screen as it does on a "native" 1080P screen?
If it does ... I´m good with that (as long as I am not able to compare it anyways I guess) ...

I have not been this "nervous" for as long as I can remember ...

[JohnDeere318]

I just tried FS15 at 1080p (on my iMac) and it looked "OK".

Would any one know if 1080p looks "the same" on a 5K screen as it does on a "native" 1080P screen?
If it does ... I´m good with that (as long as I am not able to compare it anyways I guess) ...

I have not been this "nervous" for as long as I can remember ...

I do not know that for sure, I wonder if it is any better. Good question.

[JohnDeere318]

1080P!!! I don't even use HDMI, so it will be fine.

I´m used to playing this at 2560x1440 ...

Edit:
Oh ... I just double checked ... my setting was actually 2048x1152.
Maybe not that huge difference ...

And with this PC I can probably set all the other graphic settings to the maximum ... so I might not be able to tell the difference!?

Setting the stuff on max graphics is so awesome! But I use DVI-D for my gaming rig. Just got a new monitor a couple weeks ago, finally moving away from VGA. Plus, my GPU can't really do Max everything without frame loss happening.

24 inch Acer K242HL w/o HDMI for $150... Not too shabby...

[W1der]

1080P!!! I don't even use HDMI, so it will be fine.

I´m used to playing this at 2560x1440 ...

Edit:
Oh ... I just double checked ... my setting was actually 2048x1152.
Maybe not that huge difference ...

And with this PC I can probably set all the other graphic settings to the maximum ... so I might not be able to tell the difference!?

Setting the stuff on max graphics is so awesome! But I use DVI-D for my gaming rig. Just got a new monitor a couple weeks ago, finally moving away from VGA. Plus, my GPU can't really do Max everything without frame loss happening.

24 inch Acer K242HL w/o HDMI for $150... Not too shabby...

Well ... 1080p would look better on a 24" screen than on a 27" screen anyways ...

[JohnDeere318]

I´m used to playing this at 2560x1440 ...

Edit:
Oh ... I just double checked ... my setting was actually 2048x1152.
Maybe not that huge difference ...

And with this PC I can probably set all the other graphic settings to the maximum ... so I might not be able to tell the difference!?

Setting the stuff on max graphics is so awesome! But I use DVI-D for my gaming rig. Just got a new monitor a couple weeks ago, finally moving away from VGA. Plus, my GPU can't really do Max everything without frame loss happening.

24 inch Acer K242HL w/o HDMI for $150... Not too shabby...

Well ... 1080p would look better on a 24" screen than on a 27" screen anyways ...

Yes I have noticed that. My old 19" TV that I had (never used it for gaming or as a monitor, even though it had a VGA), the HDMI was so clear and crisp. But, the higher you go up, the worse it seems to get. For me, 24 inch is big enough, I would love to get one or two 27" monitors sometime. With HDMI of course.

[thunderhawk]

Setting the stuff on max graphics is so awesome! But I use DVI-D for my gaming rig. Just got a new monitor a couple weeks ago, finally moving away from VGA. Plus, my GPU can't really do Max everything without frame loss happening.

24 inch Acer K242HL w/o HDMI for $150... Not too shabby...

Well ... 1080p would look better on a 24" screen than on a 27" screen anyways ...

Yes I have noticed that. My old 19" TV that I had (never used it for gaming or as a monitor, even though it had a VGA), the HDMI was so clear and crisp. But, the higher you go up, the worse it seems to get. For me, 24 inch is big enough, I would love to get one or two 27" monitors sometime. With HDMI of course.

My question is why are you talking about running monitors on hdmi heck just go to a tv I'm running my computer through my 50" sanyo tv on HDMI with wonderful picture at 1920x1080 that's just my preferred setting