Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Zacherof on October 12, 2015, 12:39:30 PM
-
Does lit LED or LCT matter for the game?
-
Only if they include image enhancing technology that can cause lag. The main difference is in image quality but again, there's more than just one variable.
-
LED is usually better than an LCD because of a broader range of colors. LEDs can usually reach a darker shade of black than an LCD but there are exceptions. LEDs also tend to have wider viewing angles. There are some other advantages but they aren't really game changing so I'm not listing them.
If you are looking for a gaming monitor, generally there is no really noticeable difference between LED and LCD. Just look for a monitor with a low response time (5ms or less) and fits the size and resolution you want.
-
They are mostly all LCD today. LED is in reference to the light type. For lighting the LCD, LED is winning the battle over fluorescent even though fluorescent has been improved substantially. In the LED class, there are a couple of techniques used to light the LCD panel.
Edge lit, where LED's are supplied along the edge (cheapest and lowest power used as well, but sacrifices a bit of the black level quality) and backlit, where any number of LED's are used to supply lighting for the LCD (more expensive, more power, best lighting solution).
In the LCD class there are a number of LCD technologies. All have pluses and minuses. If you want the best color representation then you are going to have some ghosting in high speed motions. Going the other direction gives up color saturation and detail.
Some of the high end IPS LCD panels seem to be able to provide both color and minimal ghosting as well, but black levels are not the best, nor consistent.
-
Thanks for the input guys.
Didn't know that much went into the monitors lol
-
I have used 2 different SONY Bravia's, a LED and a LCD. The basis of which models I chose was the screens response time. I had 8ms with the LED and I have around 20ms with the LCD. For gaming you want low response time. LCD's seem to have higher response times than LED's as a general rule. Both my HDTV's have a max refresh rate of 60Hz. You can get them higher but I'm not sure there's a real benefit. Besides from what I understand, higher than 60Hz refresh rate is a software trick. The United States uses 60Hz power. I use none of the motion blur or other options.
I shopped them awhile before purchase. mucho options available.
Pictures great, large screen is great, HD is great. Once I figured out whats what it was ez. I have used hdmi, dvi>hdmi, dvi>dsub connects at various stages. All provided great pics, great pc monitors, great sound thru hdtv's on-device speakers. I did purchase quality electronics so no issues with TV's.
luck
-
Anything faster than 60Hz is not a software trick. 144Hz is actually the best I have seen, but if they ever make them faster I am all for it.
Originally, 24fps was all anyone could have, but that was movie theater standard because of the human persistence of vision. Any slower than that and you see it as separate frames and you will certainly see flicker also. It is not really a good experience to have over time. Anything over 60 fps is really hard to see composed as single frames, unless you have a system that tears the screen when you turn your viewpoint in a game, or if the frame rate drops drastically even for a moment. 144 Hz is just a great experience, because if you get 144 fps reliably you will not see momentary frame tears because your human persistence of vision cannot define the tear as quickly as it goes by (1/24th of a second as opposed to 1/144th of a second).
EDIT: I knew someone would have this persistence of vision thing explained on YouTube. Thank goodness it is SmarterEveryDay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FlV6pgwlrk
-
I will stress this as it did not seem to catch before.
Any flat panel monitor is LCD based. LED simply means that is the backlighting used for the LCD. Before LED lighting, fluorescent backlighting was used, and is still used today.
There is no such thing as an LED based computer monitor, unless you are talking some very specialized large format monitors (measured in feet diagonally).
-
Skuzzy I understood. The different generations of TV's use letters as identifiers, I just followed. My different TV's are defined as a LED and or LCD. Just names ultimately, good picture, yes, could careless about some of the finite details. he he
Challenge maybe I recall a HDTV forcing higher refresh with software or maybe motion blur. I know I read something about HDTV's and getting 120Hz, 240Hz but it not being physically true. Actual puter designated monitors are different tho, I have no experience since going HDTV.
Either way I have never experienced tearing in AH, just connect stutters. Always got 60f/s. no ghosting, 1080p/i.
After big screens so long, I cannot imagine a 24" monitor. maybe 1 day I will do a triple head out of HDTV's. he he
-
Traditional television used (uses) an interlaced scan approach to drawing frames. So, on one pass the odd numbered lines of a frame will be displayed, followed by the even numbers of a frame. Under this approach a 60Hz television actually only displays 30 full frames (60 fields), but the human persistence of vision creates the illusion that you are seeing a full 60 frames and motion on the screen appears to be fluid. In reality you are seeing 60 fields per second, instead of full frames. This is true for NTSC televisions like we have in the U.S., but for most European countries and perhaps others too it is a 25/50 approach.
If your television indicates that it has a progressive scan mode, then you are seeing each line drawn progressively until the screen image is completed to fill the frame. Thus, 1080i is an interlaced scan device, while 1080p is progressive scan.
When you get into the 120/240Hz range what you are talking about is refresh rate of the display more than you are frame rates. The higher the range the more likelihood you are to reduce flicker and improve motion rendering. So, on a 120Hz television the entire image will be reconstructed and displayed 120 times each second. On a 240Hz system that is 240 times each second. Does this mean you are getting 240 FPS? No. While the television is refreshing the image 240 times each second the image may only change 24 times each second, or 25 times, or 30. . . it depends on the signal input. In fact, in some cases a 240Hz system may not even accept your input signal depending on how the system is set (a 1080p/60 will not take a 24fps input, for instance). However, there are systems that can take a 24fps signal and interpolate 1080p/60 (via pulldown), but it does not create frames it merely repeats frames. There is nothing in your television that would allow it to create frames that do not already exist.
Likewise, if your system is synched for video output to video display on a 240 Hz display it does not mean that you are magically getting 240 fps. If you are playing a game and the maximum number of times the game is rendering on your video card is 48 fps then your display is going to be repeating a lot of frames. It will still appear to be smoother, but you do not magically get more fps. This is not to say that you cannot adjust your game settings to hit 240 fps, because that is completely different.
Just don't be fooled when someone goes out and buys a 240Hz television to play games on and they report "full settings" at 240 fps. No, they're not.
-
I switched to a 120 hz monitor for gaming a couple of years back, I have a second monitor I use for skinning work which is better at reproducing colours accurately.
I found the 120 hz monitor a big improvement over the old 60 hz one for AH. Just having up to twice as many visual updates per second is a great benefit for gunnery. Also when skimming above the ground at low alt I get a lot less of the terrain moving across the screen in little jumps which helps immersion. Of course its only worth it if your PC will run AH at over 60 fps.
There are several different panel technologies used for LCD monitors, the main ones are TN, IPS and VA. TN gives the worst viewing angles and the least accurate colour reproduction but is generally the fastest updating screen so you tend to get less motion blur. IPS and VA have better colour reproduction and viewing angles but don't update the screen quite as quickly so may get more motion blur. VA panels usually have darker blacks than IPS ones. Motion blur can also be reduced by the monitor doing clever processing of the image so the screen technology isn't the only factor in this.
Most 100 hz+ monitors tend to be TN panels but there are a few IPS ones coming out now and at least one VA. Most are also 1920 x 1080 res but there are some coming out at higher resolutions now. Those are only going to be worth getting if you have a seriously good video card though.
Nvidia and AMD have there own technologies to allow the video card to control the refresh rate of the monitor. This can lead to less screen tearing and to smoother gameplay. If you have an Nvidia video card that supports G-Sync then it may be worth getting a G Sync monitor. If you have an AMD card that supports Freesync then it may be worth getting a Freesync one. A G-Sync monitor tends to be more expensive than its Freesync equivalent but most people reckon G-Sync does a better job than Freesync.
The other thing that is important for gaming monitors is input lag. Basically the time it takes for the monitor to process the image it gets from the PC and display it on the screen. This can vary enormously between different monitors. Also some monitors have a gaming mode that turns off a lot of the processing that improves image quality, but reduces input lag.
I find the following site to be a good source for monitor reviews:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
-
http://televisions.reviewed.com/features/how-to-prevent-game-lag-in-3-easy-steps
-
MADe,
Followed one of the instructions about turning off internal motion smoothing enhancements. I have a Samsung 24" TV\PC Monitor using HDMI, so the PC Gaming mode is disabled. I did turn off the video playback enhancement\smoothing mode to make videos look better. I saw visual and motion improvements in both the alpha and AH2. I will up later to see how these effect online game play.
-
it about time for a new monitor, instead of making i new thread ill bump this one, anyone got any suggestions on what to get?
-
it about time for a new monitor, instead of making i new thread ill bump this one, anyone got any suggestions on what to get?
This is going to be one of those "it depends" answers.
First what system do you have, in particular what CPU, memory and above all what video card? There is no point getting a much bigger monitor if your system won't handle all those extra pixels at an acceptable frame rate. Also some top end monitors work better with either Nvidia or ATI video cards. The amount of desk space you have for the thing might be an issue to you too.
What if anything do you do with your PC besides play AH? If you do any sort of PC painting or editing photographs you might want a monitor that gives very accurate colour reproduction. If you watch a lot of movies something that shows good deep blacks would be a good idea.
-
BigGamer, I'd try and get a 120-144hz+ monitor. There are many types from 1080p to 1440p available, from 24" and up. Acer's new Predator series has a 34 inch widescreen that overclocks to 100hz and has Gsync. Gsync from my experience with the Rog Swift Asus monitor and Acer's 4k Gsync is alright, but I would recommend spending the $ on a higher hz/refresh over Gsync if you must pick between the two.
Asus just came out with a new 27" ROG 144hz+1440P monitor to replace the TN Rog Swift with an IPS panel, for about 150$ more, and that's what I'm going to go with I think. I like my current Swift, but the TN panels really aren't that great for color/looks compared to the IPS IMO, and I don't really need pro-level refresh for FPS, and I would rather have an IPS even with the slower refresh rates.
Lots of good options, for under 300$ you can get a 24" Asus 144hz gaming monitor, I've had a 3 monitor setup of these, and they are fantastic for the $. If price is an issue, get that, or the BenQ 144hz of similar price/capability. If $ isn't an issue, the newer Asus ROG Swift is probably the best 27" monitor you can get for gaming, with a slew in the middle. Again, a 100+hz refresh is what you should focus on for any type of gaming IMO, the difference is major between 60 and 100. From 100 to 144 it's a little harder to distinguish, anything in triple digits and you'll be impressed IMO.
Looking at some of Greebo's new skins with my Swift on 1440p from the new Alpha - wow, this is really going to be something when all the lighting/etc stuff and all that jazz is done, and IMO the new AH game will really, really benefit from a higher end monitor as much as a fast GPU.
-
Lots of good information there. I'd like to add one feature: Flicker-Free technology is very good if you tend to get headache from looking at the screen. That doesn't even cost much extra.
-
I bought Viewsonics first 120hrz lcd back in 09 and have been hooked ever since. I now have a benQ 27'' 144hrz and love it . Id rather go back to a 100hrz crt than play on a 60hrz lcd myself lol.
-
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 11/13/2015, 20:06:41
Machine name: USER-PC
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.151019-1254)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: MSI
System Model: MS-7850
BIOS: BIOS Date: 07/17/14 14:15:17 Ver: V2.8B0
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.4GHz
Memory: 8192MB RAM
Available OS Memory: 8120MB RAM
Page File: 2044MB used, 14193MB available
Windows Dir: C:\Windows
DirectX Version: DirectX 11
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
User DPI Setting: Using System DPI
System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent)
DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled
DxDiag Version: 6.01.7601.17514 64bit Unicode
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce GTX 960
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1401&SUBSYS_29663842&REV_A1
Display Memory: 3978 MB
Dedicated Memory: 1930 MB
Shared Memory: 2048 MB
Current Mode: 1920 x 1080 (32 bit) (60Hz)
Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor
Monitor Model: SAMSUNG
Monitor Id: SAM08FE
Native Mode: 1920 x 1080(p) (60.000Hz)
Output Type: HDMI
Driver Name: nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um
Driver File Version: 9.18.0013.4752 (English)
Driver Version: 9.18.13.4752
DDI Version: 11
Driver Model: WDDM 1.1
-
dont know if that will help or not im not very PC savy, i dont do anything other than play games on my PC, i am using a big screen TV right now and it just sucks my aim went to hell soon as i hooked it up but my old 19" monitor took one so had no choice really this TV is 32" i dont wanna go under 27" and dont really wanna go over 30" either this TV is a shade to big for my liking
-
dont know if that will help or not im not very PC savy, i dont do anything other than play games on my PC, i am using a big screen TV right now and it just sucks my aim went to hell soon as i hooked it up but my old 19" monitor took one so had no choice really this TV is 32" i dont wanna go under 27" and dont really wanna go over 30" either this TV is a shade to big for my liking
Your in pretty good shape. Your computer can handle most any monitor.
What TV are you using now and what don't you like about it?
In this thread are a number of suggestions about how big and the best monitors/tvs,
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,375269.0.html
I have a 42 inch 1080p tv as my monitor and I love it. I shoot much better as I can see what Im shooting at much better.
-
the only thing i dont like about it is it messed with my aim i gotta lead double of what i used to and i just cant seem to adapt to that for some odd reason, not sure what model my TV is honestly, ill figure that out later and thanks for the help
-
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-RL2755HM-27-inch-Official-Monitor/dp/B00RORBPCO/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1447540418&sr=1-1&keywords=gaming+monitor&refinements=p_n_size_browse-bin%3A3547807011
would something like this be ok for gaming? i dont really wanna go over $400 on a monitor
-
This one is a little bit more but it does have the 144hz refresh rate which is what a lot of people say is a must.
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-XL2720Z-Gaming-Monitor-Resolution/dp/B00GWFNMJS/ref=pd_sim_147_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=51kWnf47HRL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR153%2C160_&refRID=0R28T7ZVJ60T8DJ6K673
-
Thanks fugi thats probably the one i will end up getting :salute
-
This one is a little bit more but it does have the 144hz refresh rate which is what a lot of people say is a must.
http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-XL2720Z-Gaming-Monitor-Resolution/dp/B00GWFNMJS/ref=pd_sim_147_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=51kWnf47HRL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR153%2C160_&refRID=0R28T7ZVJ60T8DJ6K673
Thats the monitor i have and it is awesome for AH ....... or any game for that matter .
-
That's a perfect gaming 1080p monitor. It's only about 90$ more than the Asus 24" 144hz monitor, worth the extra for a 27" IMO. IMO 1080p will be here for a while still, gaming at 4k and even 1440p, from personal experience, just isn't quite there yet and will take some time before becoming mainstream and mostly less costly, and even then 1080p will still be extremely popular and will perform great.
You'll be happy you went with 144hz once you use it.
-
the 2720Z is a solid gaming monitor buy :aok
I did the analysis on gaming monitor buys and few monthes ago and decided to throw the extra bucks and get the Acer X270HU http://www.amazon.com/Acer-XB270HU-bprz-27-inch-Widescreen/dp/B00UPVXDA8/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1447694720&sr=1-1&keywords=xb270hu
This is the article that made me tilt:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm
quite frankly after 3 monthes with it I'm still ultra impressed with the display quality (IPS planel) and gaming experience (still reactive and gsynch).
I have a core I5 3570K@4.2Ghz with a GTX 970 so games like GTA5 run in full detail 1440p at about 30-40fps, but gsynch will make people swear you are playing at 60FPS+. So you get the graphics AND the smoothness, that's why after owning one I would recommend prioritizing Gsynch/FreeSynch over other specs of your monitor.
-
I almost bought 3 of those SirNuke, great monitors, I've used them up close in my local gaming shop. If Asus hadn't come out with their new IPS 144hz/Gsync, I'd not have replaced my TN Swift with them and got that Acer. I'm happy with my 4k Acer monitor, Acer has come a long way in just a couple years. Their 34" Predator is incredible up close too.
-
I almost bought 3 of those SirNuke, great monitors, I've used them up close in my local gaming shop. If Asus hadn't come out with their new IPS 144hz/Gsync, I'd not have replaced my TN Swift with them and got that Acer. I'm happy with my 4k Acer monitor, Acer has come a long way in just a couple years. Their 34" Predator is incredible up close too.
4K never was on my radar as I don't have the computer for it those must look awesome!
-
I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least. Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it. Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?
-
I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least. Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it. Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?
After using DSR w/ my Nvidia GTX 780Ti vid card & VSR w/ my AMD R9 290X vid card on my DoubleSight DS-279 2560x1440 IPS 60Hz monitor when I was doing comparisons between these 2 cards I had come to a similar conclusion concerning 4K myself as IMHO a 27" screen size just doesn't do 4k res any justice (drives the DPI too compacted within the 27" screen real estate for the human eye to properly focus the images shown & messed w/ my ability to perceive depth\distance while flying in AH).
I never put a thought to what size screen would bring 4k back to a more realistic feel as after those trials I had given up on 4k (and DSR\VSR as well) to concentrate on a 27" 2560x1440 res IPS 144Hz monitor w/ FreeSync to emerge.........which now are out there & I'm looking to get 1 sometime around Christmas.................... .........
Just thought I'd mention this...................
:salute
-
I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least. Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it. Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?
Exactly why I went with a 40" monitor. The advantage of higher resolution is lost on small-ish monitors I think.
-
I think for 4K to look awesome, you might need a 36"+ video, at least. Once your DPI gets so low, the human eye just cannot see it. Put another way, is it really worth the cost to get a 27" monitor to look 2% to 3% (arguable numbers) better?
This IMO is very accurate. I have the Acer XB280HK 28in 4K, and ended up with it in a trade and got a good deal, and just wanted to try 4k out. IMO it a: Isn't ready for primetime gaming even with 980ti, 980SLI, or Titan, all of which I have. Plus, Skuzzy/Chalenge are correct, the dots are so incredibly small even on a mid size 27 or 28 screen that it just doesn't seem to make a huge diff over 1440p to me, other than the massive performance hit in AAA games. I would put it at 1% myself, or no difference. IMO spending money on a 4k right now just isn't a good bet for gaming, unless you have $ to burn and just want to see the 4k experience as it is now for yourself. Good advice IMO would be put that $ into a 144hz/Gsync screen, a larger TV size panel of good gaming potential, or other devices like drives, and whatnot.
-
After using DSR w/ my Nvidia GTX 780Ti vid card & VSR w/ my AMD R9 290X vid card on my DoubleSight DS-279 2560x1440 IPS 60Hz monitor when I was doing comparisons between these 2 cards I had come to a similar conclusion concerning 4K myself as IMHO a 27" screen size just doesn't do 4k res any justice (drives the DPI too compacted within the 27" screen real estate for the human eye to properly focus the images shown & messed w/ my ability to perceive depth\distance while flying in AH).
I never put a thought to what size screen would bring 4k back to a more realistic feel as after those trials I had given up on 4k (and DSR\VSR as well) to concentrate on a 27" 2560x1440 res IPS 144Hz monitor w/ FreeSync to emerge.........which now are out there & I'm looking to get 1 sometime around Christmas.................... .........
Just thought I'd mention this...................
:salute
I did 1440 with VSR and while things looked good , everything seemed way to small . Cons were tiny and it just wasnt a good fit . Frame rates were good but the 27'' just didnt make it worth while . If you have the box to run 4K then you should invest in a good monitor to take advantage of your hardware , a r9 390 isnt a 4k card by any means, but it really does 1080p well . Maybe the 390 will do well at 1440p but anything beyond that is a pipe dream .
-
A tight resolution on a small screen can be a nightmare if the OS and applications can't scale to that resolution. As 38ruk said, everything will seem too small. 15" laptops doing FullHD (1080) back when XP still was mainstream were something you'd need a magnifying glass to read! Pictures looked good, but the OS couldn't nicely scale text to a readable size. Newer OS'es support higher resolutions, so readability shouldn't be any problem with correct settings.
In AH and other games a small-ish screen with a tight resolution will crave a little more tinkering than just scaling from "normal" to "125%" in Windows' settings. Some applications may not even have the option to scale text and other objects. Thus the simplest solution would be to find a monitor whose physical size matches the desired "default" scale. For 1080 22" is still readable, 27" being very nice for aging eyes without the image looking garbled at a normal viewing distance. My 24" 1920x1200 looks roughly the same as my 30" 2560x1600, those sizes work with my eyes on the "default" setting. For both I now need +1 reading glasses to see the grid on the screen, so the DPI is high enough. As Skuzzy said, 36" might be somewhat of a minimum for a 4K monitor for awesomeness and IMO Chalenge isn't exaggerating with his 40".
-
I did 1440 with VSR and while things looked good , everything seemed way to small . Cons were tiny and it just wasnt a good fit . Frame rates were good but the 27'' just didnt make it worth while . If you have the box to run 4K then you should invest in a good monitor to take advantage of your hardware , a r9 390 isnt a 4k card by any means, but it really does 1080p well . Maybe the 390 will do well at 1440p but anything beyond that is a pipe dream .
To add 1 more item to the discussion, while I was doing those tests I also ran tests on both vid cards (Nvidia GTX 780Ti & AMD R9 290X) running at 2560x1440 res to test the verbage of the necessity of AA w/ an increase in screen resolution (DPI) as AA was invented back in the days of low-res to help smooth the jaggies created mostly due to the current methodologies of drawing a computer image as well as the DPI of the res of the day (600x480). What I found out, & this repeated itself on both the Nvidia & AMD vid cards that I used was that, at 2560x1440 res, I couldn't detect any change in the images around the curved\diagonal edges (where AA would be most effectively applied) until I dropped the amount of AA being used all the way down to 2x AA--1 setting off No AA......any AA setting above 2x at 2560x1440 res didn't create a visable difference in the images displayed at all.........BUT the extra GPU power needed to maintain the proper FPS to maintain the image on screen due to higher AA application was affecting the "visibility" of the images being displayed far more than the amount of AA being applied......
These results cemented in my mind the worth of a monitor's res vs the amount of AA a GPU can apply.................the higher the monitor's DPI, the less AA is actually needed to achieve visual parity. When I backed off the AA on both the Nvidia GTX 780Ti AND the AMD R9 290X, both vid cards ran just fine at 2560x1440 res maintaining the 60 Hz (60 FPS) of my monitor, which now allowed me to make other setting changes to improve other aspects of the image but still not overly increase the GPU load past the point that the GPU starts to have issues rendering the image frames & maintaining the FPS (display flipping frequency) necessary for smooth imagery display on screen..........
So for AH, I found that the 2 GPU settings that will sap a GPU's power far above all else at 2560x1440 res are AA & EM.......
Back off the AA, you can increase the EM & still hold some FPS & image fidelity.....If you try to apply high amounts of AA @ 2560x1440 res, you WILL have to back off the EM somewhat to achieve the same level of FPS & image fidelity as once you cross the threshold of a GPU's capability the performance goes down.............
Since I've realized this I no longer set the AA level greater than the 1st notch off None in AHII Video Settings, regardless of how powerful the GPU is as I know I am only using up GPU cycles & power for absolutely no visual gain at 2560x1440 res........don't have this issue w/ the Alpha as the method & level of AA is set within the game code so you either turn it on or turn it off.
So in my mind a R9 390 can most certainly run well @ 2560x1440 res..........how well will depend on the user's tastes & what is important to the user to use the R9 390 GPU's capabilities on vs what is not.
In short I agree w/ you, 38ruk........................
:D
I hope to soon find out just how much 144Hz will impact my Fury X vs what 144 FPS can give me from a visual perspective @ 2560x1440 res....................
:salute