If the monitor is 27 inch full hd for games?

FedulGOR
He did not support the 970?Year it was sitting at 2K resolution...do Not write nonsense...

dobro4insky
FPS in games will drop if you put a larger resolution or have to put lower graphics settings

FedulGOR
not supported card - On specifications for the gtx 970, max resolution - 4096x2160. Can take, up to specified value, except, in the games at 4096... more likely to see a slideshow (looking at what), permission wanted, more needed, more powerful graphics card (video card).
So, I play on the TV monitor 42 inch, at a given resolution, and is very happy. The more the better, now I think that even a little. Well, at 1920x1080 (the most common resolution, more is needed, especially for the video card), no pixels can not see, everything else depends on the resolution and quality of the pictures. Take it, and don't think it will work.

FedulGOR
Oh yeah,down by as much as 4 frames...but still 970 is already on fh nothing pulls at top speed, so still lower...

dobro4insky
What the hell:
All тянетhttp://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1743
What 4 frames
Depends what resolution to take after 1920... I do not know if there is something else, not watching. But at 2k, as many as 22 of the frame lose, and it is in theory.
FedulGOR
Monitor, as I know higher resolution just will not work, will not work to run. Need, despite that take more. The above given link and counted how many will drop to 2k resolution. And Yes, at a higher resolution will have to lower the settings, IF the game demand it, and the FPS is not satisfied. Generally, this permission is, again, La this card is already serious. In the same Witcher 3 at max settings, 30-40 on my gtx 980 was 45 in the open world.

VOVAN WOLF
At home I have this card lying around,do not pull it at max speed....1070 pulls,do not argue,and 970 alas,but no...

VOVAN WOLF
You have a TV in 42 inch and 4K or full HD?

dobro4insky
About 1070 and out of the question. 970 is rather weak, but can still work on maximum settings, just out of the question, but medium and even high, it is. I agree that with this video card, to be honest with you all, especially at FullHD. The same Call of Duty Modern Warfare Remastered, at the highest setting and FullHD eats have 6 GB of memory.
PS Minus rolled up not me, if that was all of 4 frames.
FedulGOR
I noted that in FullHD or 1920x1080. Model lg 42lm640t, Google, if you're wondering what it is.
For 4k/2k need a powerful video card, no, there is more acceptable SLI, especially 4k. 2k can still pull one, BUT I still prefer high FPS. Because sitting in FullHD, this medium variant, the most reasonable (there is more headroom, to fall, to raise FPS).

VOVAN WOLF
I do not care for the cons,I have both cards at home,I both played and saw everything with my own eyes, and to take now full HD mildly stupid...take the 2K,and then simply change the map than to change everything again..All modern games I passed on 970 in 2K high...

dobro4insky
I both played and saw everything with your own eyes - however, the tests and reviews tell a different story, the difference is not 4 frames, and at least 10-15, sometimes, it's important, sometimes, this number increases to 30 and up to 60.
and now take full HD to say stupid - I disagree, in the medium variant is acceptable, I can't even say budget, the budget, which is 1366x768. To the average consumer, which is acceptable.
Personally, I like already wrote, I prefer higher FPS+the performance reserve, it's mine. It is better to play at 60 fps than to sink to 45. The most smooth and acceptable picture, it is 50+ at least, I personally do not agree.
But then, once you've changed, I understand why you are not satisfied with do not pull it at top speed resolution higher than 1920x1080. The FullHD FedulGOR with 970 still you can sit when like 2k will have to change and even the graphics card. The author, let him decide where, how, and at what resolution.
All closed question, I heard your opinion, you are mine. Happily. Everything else on the theme.

VOVAN WOLF
I changed not because I don't pull...It was a gift from his wife on Ng..I just chose the vendor....

if the matter 27 to get a clearer picture if you want at the same resolution take less

24 inch edge for FullHD monitor.

finally the strange thing is that such stremnina ask questions
visibility Pixela depends on the resolution of view and distance to object
and who is a very entertaining pitch that can lead the progression and calculate of the ophthalmic scales for objects of size Pixela.
so 27 and full of the black hole is in absentia a very large monitor for this resolution. will have to use anti-aliasing. normal for Igor 23-24 monitors of this resolution.

It is not necessary here about pixels and stuff. He have a 27 inch monitor with FullHD LG 27MP77HM-P, Sit mostly at arm's length. No pixels never invisible. Everything is fine, I can not get enough. When he suffered this issue about the pixels, but it's all good.

So the author, everything fits perfectly don't worry.

KrakoZyabLik
Well, if you have a long arm with a meter, then Yes. Otherwise you can see everything. Maybe it is not critical, or you have become accustomed.

Normally everything is played on a 27 inches. But the tele is 129 cm pixels visible.

RDIFB0
Meters that accurately present. You can see the pixels, centimeters 30-40, and if you look closely.And in games, so generally unnoticed)

Me personally, after switching to 2K on the 27th, even 24 inches full hd seem to have no ice , 27 full hd all tin for me, the pixels with a fist and other pleasures believe me I know whereof I speak compared and seen, but again it's my personal preference, well if you are spoiled by 2K and especially 4K I think will get used. moreover, to each their own, a lot of people in minimal medium and plays games without any smoothing and quite not bad feels, and I for example as an avid scribbler, even on ultra with all the smoothing sometimes its not enough in 2K games.

Playing on a Benq XL2720Z. Not any discomfort not experience, everything looks great.