[Mackenzie]

  1440p is very hard to drive compared to 1080p. If you want to max game settings out, most AAA titles will stay around 60-80 FPS at 1440p with a GTX 980 Ti. That is certainly smooth gameplay, but if you want to be taking advantage of 120 or 144 Hz, you need two 980 Tis. I have benchmarked my 980 Ti countless times in different games and programs, and though it barely cuts it for 96Hz, it is simply not powerful enough to take full advantage of 1440p at 144Hz. Granted, G-Sync can make 80 fps feel like 120, but either way you wouldn't be taking advantage of the Predator's refresh rate.

Absolutely, but for any non-AAA I'd easily be able to take advantage of >120 refresh / frames wouldn't you say? Especially considering 99% of games were released during or before 2013/2014 and I'm honestly not really into newer games, the more that come out the more disappointed I seem to be with each title. Will most be sticking with the ones I love and looking to blast their quality up with the power of graphical modding. But even so, for really modern and demanding 2014/2015 games (2016 soon) I could make the decision of 60-85 frames which is still extremely smooth to me and I bet will remain more than enough even when I get used to 100+, or lower the settings a bit to jack up the frames. So many options but as my previous post states, I do intend to SLI the 980 Ti equivalents that I obtain in 2016!

Thanks for the tips though I am taking close note of these bits of useful information and hope the Head-Fi staff never erases this thread. ><

 

[Mackenzie]

   
I get over 60 FPS in most AAA titles with a GTX 980 on the XB270HU.  In The Vanishing of Ethan Carter for example, both the UE3 and UE4 versions, I typically get 70-100 FPS, and this is one of the most advanced games in terms of technical graphics.  In CS:GO I'm sure I'd average 144 even with 2x supersampling.  BF4 averages well over 60 as would Hardline I'm sure (but definitely below 100 FPS).  Far Cry 4 and Tomb Raider also average well over 60.  I can't see the latest Call of Duty being problematic either, not that I've tried.  Telltale games of course run between 120-144.  A lot of games and upcoming games are still using UE3 which won't be much of a challenge for my GTX 980, much less a GTX 980 Ti.
 
The only problematic games (sub 60 FPS average on max detail) are GTA V, The Witcher 3, a few areas in Dragon Age: Inquisition, ArmA games and Day Z (not AAA but I must point it out anyway, literally every system will struggle unless you play on a near-empty map), and maybe some parts of Total War: Attila on the campaign map.
 
Plus, if you're the type who isn't afraid to play a games that are a few years old, then you'll witness 144 FPS in those.  For this reason I personally find myself averaging over 100 FPS in most of the games I play.  Most present day games disappoint me.  
 
More importantly as long as your frame rate is above 10, you'll be taking advantage of 2560 x 1440 with G-SYNC.  I say don't worry about not running all games at 144 FPS.  144 Hz is just a bonus really, the combination of 1440p + G-SYNC or ULMB + a refresh rate of well over 60 + extremely low input lag are the most important features about the XB270HU.
 
I don't think G-SYNC makes 80 FPS look or feel like 120, but it does make 45-50 look/feel like 60-65, and it makes 30-35 look more like 45 or even 50.  Impressive stuff.

Hopefully the Ti will help with the sub-60 issue for GTA V as I do intend to play that one in the future. I hardly consider 60-85 frames a problem even if FuhrerKBradley says it could be, which by the sounds of it, it shouldn't be.

I'm not only immune to fear of playing older games, I personally prefer it! So it looks like it will be quite an awesome visual setup for me! Expensive, sure, but you only live once.

Capping at 120 may be ideal for me, maybe not to get too spoiled with 144 until there are some significant hardware breakthroughs that make driving those kinds of framerates on modern titles with max settings at 1440p much easier and reliably so. G-sync is sounding really impressive though, I can't wait to try it!

 

[Rhamnetin]

 
Hopefully the Ti will help with the sub-60 issue for GTA V as I do intend to play that one in the future. I hardly consider 60-85 frames a problem even if FuhrerKBradley says it could be, which by the sounds of it, it shouldn't be.

I'm not only immune to fear of playing older games, I personally prefer it! So it looks like it will be quite an awesome visual setup for me! Expensive, sure, but you only live once.

Capping at 120 may be ideal for me, maybe not to get too spoiled with 144 until there are some significant hardware breakthroughs that make driving those kinds of framerates on modern titles with max settings at 1440p much easier and reliably so. G-sync is sounding really impressive though, I can't wait to try it!

 
Yeah the XB270HU will be a big upgrade for you.  I mostly play older titles as well.  Also the perceivable difference between 120 FPS and 144 FPS is rather small, I consider 120 Hz to be the point of diminishing returns.  ULMB doesn't work at 144 Hz, so if you use it then you'll be at 120 Hz anyway.  

 

[Mackenzie]

   
Yeah the XB270HU will be a big upgrade for you.  I mostly play older titles as well.  Also the perceivable difference between 120 FPS and 144 FPS is rather small, I consider 120 Hz to be the point of diminishing returns.  ULMB doesn't work at 144 Hz, so if you use it then you'll be at 120 Hz anyway.  

Exactly. Like you though, I favor logic and the logic of motion blur being a perceivable reality in real life I will probably also enjoy adaptive sync technology more. Nothing breaks immersion like tearing/stuttering. ULMB might be good for 2D games I'm thinking, or ones with really cartoon-ish or bright 3D graphics like Borderlands 2 or Salt. Those situations I bet will be complimented by CRT-izing the motion blur. It won't matter if I cap at 120 FPS/Hz for it either if I don't spoil passed that amount - especially if you're right about the diminishing returns point being 120.

 

[Ethan Groover]

 
Never too late for this party! Welcome haha.

I plan on capping to 120Hz refresh so avoid problems at framerates >=144 frames per second. I also think 120 would be much easier to drive and would feel pretty much the same as 144 frames. If you notice a significant different between 120 and 144 by all means tell me what you notice is problematic on the 120 side compared to 144.

Thank you for sharing, that's good to know you went through an upgrade situation very similar to how I perceive mine ending up next year! That makes it all the more exciting!

Yeah the 980 Ti seems like a cheaper Titan Jr of sorts, just not best of the best premium tier. I've also read a LOT of good things about the 980 Ti, but hey this time next year there might be an equivalent with DX12 and I'll get one or two of those instead!

You won't notice a difference from 144Hz to 120Hz. Take it from me, I used to game at 144Hz for a long time, then I dropped down to 96Hz 1440p because it feels just as responsive but has wayyy better fidelity.
 
The 980 Ti, for all intents and purposes, IS a Titan X, with one exception: If you are playing on a 4k panel, the Titan X might matter, but only if you are playing games that use a ton of VRAM, like Skyrim with 150+ graphics mods and an intensive ENB, while still on native 4k.
980 Ti is just the GM200 at a $350 discount with the freedom to choose from a large variety of aftermarket variations.

 

[Mackenzie]

  You won't notice a difference from 144Hz to 120Hz. Take it from me, I used to game at 144Hz for a long time, then I dropped down to 96Hz 1440p because it feels just as responsive but has wayyy better fidelity.
 
The 980 Ti, for all intents and purposes, IS a Titan X, with one exception: If you are playing on a 4k panel, the Titan X might matter, but only if you are playing games that use a ton of VRAM, like Skyrim with 150+ graphics mods and an intensive ENB, while still on native 4k.
980 Ti is just the GM200 at a $350 discount with the freedom to choose from a large variety of aftermarket variations.

I didn't think I would notice a difference either, even if I had a bunch of 144 frames per second experience, which I doubt is easy to achieve in 3D games anyway at this point in time. I do have a heavily modded Skyrim with dozens of mods adding varieties of 2k and 4k textures across all sorts of things like like weather/water/objects/models pretty much everything got a graphical improvement, but the resolution itself of my display remains 1080p. 1440p sounds like a really nice upgrade though.

 

[Ethan Groover]

 
I didn't think I would notice a difference either, even if I had a bunch of 144 frames per second experience, which I doubt is easy to achieve in 3D games anyway at this point in time. I do have a heavily modded Skyrim with dozens of mods adding varieties of 2k and 4k textures across all sorts of things like like weather/water/objects/models pretty much everything got a graphical improvement, but the resolution itself of my display remains 1080p. 1440p sounds like a really nice upgrade though.

I'm running a fairly heavily modded Skyrim as well, with about 175 graphical mods and 65 lorefriendly mods to the game itself. Nearly everything in the game replaced by either a 2k or 4k texture, and then Realvision ENB on Ultra, and in game shadows turned down to High. With all those settings I get an average of 45 FPS when in the open world and 60 in caves and dungeons, and that is with the 980 Ti overclocked to 1445 MHz, so 1440p is a LOT harder to run with heavy graphics mods, and it uses over 4 Gbs of Vram.

 

[Mackenzie]

  I'm running a fairly heavily modded Skyrim as well, with about 175 graphical mods and 65 lorefriendly mods to the game itself. Nearly everything in the game replaced by either a 2k or 4k texture, and then Realvision ENB on Ultra, and in game shadows turned down to High. With all those settings I get an average of 45 FPS when in the open world and 60 in caves and dungeons, and that is with the 980 Ti overclocked to 1445 MHz, so 1440p is a LOT harder to run with heavy graphics mods, and it uses over 4 Gbs of Vram.

Really? That's strange. My performance is better outside on the open world and worse in caves/dungeons.

I have about 50 mods total I think, a few of them I designed myself. I use Realvision ENB too, I can't remember which tier, pretty sure it's the best one as I was really confident in my 770 at the time I upgraded to that ENB tier but I pretty much have very smooth gameplay at all points except really foggy/smokey dungeons and caves. Then I experience some micro-stuttering but FRAPS if I recall displayed no significant frame loss in such situations. Thinking G-Sync might help remedy that. You might have newer and more difficult to drive graphical mods overall though if you are struggling to maintain 55+ frames. That's crazy 'cause I find mine extremely high quality even compared to modern games.

 

[Ethan Groover]

 
Really? That's strange. My performance is better outside on the open world and worse in caves/dungeons.

I have about 50 mods total I think, a few of them I designed myself. I use Realvision ENB too, I can't remember which tier, pretty sure it's the best one as I was really confident in my 770 at the time I upgraded to that ENB tier but I pretty much have very smooth gameplay at all points except really foggy/smokey dungeons and caves. Then I experience some micro-stuttering but FRAPS if I recall displayed no significant frame loss in such situations. Thinking G-Sync might help remedy that. You might have newer and more difficult to drive graphical mods overall though if you are struggling to maintain 55+ frames. That's crazy 'cause I find mine extremely high quality even compared to modern games.

I've got a couple of mods that extend the entity render distance and highly improve the level of detail at distance. I also use Skyrim Flora Overhaul, which is a pretty big hit to framerate, though only in the wilderness obviously. And when I say that every texture in the game is replaced by 2k or 4k, I really mean it, so it doesn't really surprise me that I have such a framerate at 1440p. It stays around 120 at 1080p.
I am not saying I have a bad experience from that of course; Skyrim is a very cinematic game, so it really doesn't benefit from a high refresh rate anyways.

 

[Ethan Groover]

 
Absolutely, but for any non-AAA I'd easily be able to take advantage of >120 refresh / frames wouldn't you say? Especially considering 99% of games were released during or before 2013/2014 and I'm honestly not really into newer games, the more that come out the more disappointed I seem to be with each title. Will most be sticking with the ones I love and looking to blast their quality up with the power of graphical modding. But even so, for really modern and demanding 2014/2015 games (2016 soon) I could make the decision of 60-85 frames which is still extremely smooth to me and I bet will remain more than enough even when I get used to 100+, or lower the settings a bit to jack up the frames. So many options but as my previous post states, I do intend to SLI the 980 Ti equivalents that I obtain in 2016!

Thanks for the tips though I am taking close note of these bits of useful information and hope the Head-Fi staff never erases this thread. ><

I guess I missed seeing this post :/
Yes, you will absolutely be able to get higher than 120 fps in almost every game before 2013/14. I don't like a lot of newer games either to be honest, actually come to think of it I don't like any of the ones I have played lol. I will say that I don't view 60-85 fps as bad at all. Anything above 50 fps looks buttery smooth to me, but when it comes to first person shooters, and only those, I don't enjoy anything below about 100 fps.

 

[Rhamnetin]

 
I am not saying I have a bad experience from that of course; Skyrim is a very cinematic game, so it really doesn't benefit from a high refresh rate anyways.

 
Please, not the Ubisoft "We should play games at 30 FPS because it's more cinematic" hogwash.  

 
Plus, Skyrim isn't cinematic in the slightest.  Single player != cinematic.  Naughty Dog games and Metal Gear Solid games are cinematic due to the focus on cinematography and facial animations in cutscenes.  Skyrim is all about open world free roaming, doing whatever you want, and it's mainly a first person game, and games aren't cinema in the first place.  All of this plus the fact that it's an action game would normally mean high frame rate would be preferable.  However, Skyrim's physics get glitchy when going past 60 FPS so you'll have to limit its frame rate.

 

[Ethan Groover]

   
Please, not the Ubisoft "We should play games at 30 FPS because it's more cinematic" hogwash.  

 
Plus, Skyrim isn't cinematic in the slightest.  Single player =/= cinematic.  Naughty Dog games and Metal Gear Solid games are cinematic due to the focus on cinematography and facial animations in cutscenes.  Skyrim is all about open world free roaming, doing whatever you want.  That plus the fact that it's an action game would normally mean high frame rate would be preferable.  However, Skyrim's physics get glitchy when going past 60 FPS so you'll have to limit its frame rate.

Haha no I definitely didn't mean that xD
 
I mean that the game is visually slower paced than a first person shooter, even when a lot of things are happening at the same time. It feels like playing a movie, like lord of the rings. I never go below 40 fps though, and have fairly consistent framerates within a range of 5-10 fps all the time, so it feels quite smooth. A high framerate would certainly be preferable, but I'm not willing to pay $650 more for it (;

 

[Rhamnetin]

  Haha no I definitely didn't mean that xD
 
I mean that the game is visually slower paced than a first person shooter, even when a lot of things are happening at the same time. It feels like playing a movie, like lord of the rings. I never go below 40 fps though, and have fairly consistent framerates within a range of 5-10 fps all the time, so it feels quite smooth. A high framerate would certainly be preferable, but I'm not willing to pay $650 more for it (;

 
If you want to see Lord of the Rings in video game format, see Dragon Age: Origins.  Yeah not Shadow of Mordor.  Also with the right mods it looks insanely good for a 2009 game, and then I get well over 100 FPS in it for good measure.

 

[Mackenzie]

  I've got a couple of mods that extend the entity render distance and highly improve the level of detail at distance. I also use Skyrim Flora Overhaul, which is a pretty big hit to framerate, though only in the wilderness obviously. And when I say that every texture in the game is replaced by 2k or 4k, I really mean it, so it doesn't really surprise me that I have such a framerate at 1440p. It stays around 120 at 1080p.
I am not saying I have a bad experience from that of course; Skyrim is a very cinematic game, so it really doesn't benefit from a high refresh rate anyways.

I am not so sure about that, I'm thinking 3D games especially are directly relevant to the refresh rate. I guess I do have to be careful about over modding Skyrim though, if running it at 1440p for such an older game is that taxing on a 980 Ti!
 

  I guess I missed seeing this post :/
Yes, you will absolutely be able to get higher than 120 fps in almost every game before 2013/14. I don't like a lot of newer games either to be honest, actually come to think of it I don't like any of the ones I have played lol. I will say that I don't view 60-85 fps as bad at all. Anything above 50 fps looks buttery smooth to me, but when it comes to first person shooters, and only those, I don't enjoy anything below about 100 fps.

I definitely understand why in FPS it would be important at higher levels. Glad to know pretty much every game I do play though (older), will be easily 120 frames at max! That's exactly what I'm hoping for.
 

All of this plus the fact that it's an action game would normally mean high frame rate would be preferable.  However, Skyrim's physics get glitchy when going past 60 FPS so you'll have to limit its frame rate.

Yes, smoother is better I would think. Never heard of Skyrim's physics getting wonky, I guess I'll have to test that one out. I'd have no issue limiting it to 60 if I had to.
 

 

[Rhamnetin]

 
Yes, smoother is better I would think. Never heard of Skyrim's physics getting wonky, I guess I'll have to test that one out. I'd have no issue limiting it to 60 if I had to.

 
It's a rather notorious Gamebryo/Creative engine limitation, with physics being tied to frame rate.  I can run > 60 FPS just fine in Morrowind though since it barely has any dynamic physics effects.  Let's hope Fallout 4 doesn't exhibit the same issue.