92% of Steam users use 1080p or under, so is GTX1070+ overkill?

[ZZZAAA]

I have no idea what your tastes are, but I have probably 50 steam games, 1 EA game, and 2 Blizzard games which I no longer play. There are tons of games worth playing.

And how many of those were bad console ports and how many of them were worth playing?

 

[ZZZAAA]

Valve IS Steam.

 

[bystander36]

Steam is a service to sell games for not only Valve, but anyone who want to sell their games online. Valve owns Steam, but most games on Steam are not Valve games.

 

[ZZZAAA]

T-T-T-T-HEh


Threadcrapping and trolling are not allowed
Markfw900

 

[bystander36]

And how many of those were bad console ports and how many of them were worth playing?

Most were worth playing. I don't buy games on day 1, so I know ahead of time if they were a bad port.

 

[poohbear]

I thought I had the best reply to your OP.

no, ure hijacking the thread and derailing the topic.

 

[Intervenator]

And how many of those were bad console ports and how many of them were worth playing?

All I know is that Steam only has about 95% of the games worth playing on the PC, and that the vast, vast majority of PC gamers have a Steam account.

So yeah, I have absolutely no clue what point you are trying to prove.

 

[bystander36]

Anyways, you've gotten this way off topic. The point being, Steam represents the most complete view of PC gaming than you'll get from any other place, as it includes AAA games, down to indie games. Almost everyone who games on a PC, has Steam installed, and are part of their surveys.

If you want to know what the whole market uses, you look at Steam first. If you only want to know what the enthusiasts use, then you can look elsewhere.

 

[ZZZAAA]

Yeah whatever. I am out of this thread. Peace.

 

[3DVagabond]

Anyways, you've gotten this way off topic. The point being, Steam represents the most complete view of PC gaming than you'll get from any other place, as it includes AAA games, down to indie games. Almost everyone who games on a PC, has Steam installed, and are part of their surveys.

If you want to know what the whole market uses, you look at Steam first. If you only want to know what the enthusiasts use, then you can look elsewhere.

While I have Steam installed I have never been part of any survey.

 

[bystander36]

While I have Steam installed I have never been part of any survey.

I did say, almost all. Maybe I'm underestimating how many opt out, but there doesn't seem to be much reason for someone to and it should be a pretty even number of people throughout all segments of gaming.

 

[Adrenaline]

Looking over the reviews for the 1070, I think it would be a great card for the price. I may wait a bit and pick one up. I have a 970 now and it does stuff fine, but I want to upgrade it to push my computer.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

DSR & VSR. I don't know why everyone with a card with any sort of grunt isn't using those incredible features. I use VSR when playing older games on my sub-peasant class q9550, peasant class 7950 on my peasant class 1080p Acer turdlord of a monitor.

Anyone with anything even remotely better in terms of hardware is just flat out leaving performance on the table.

I use DSR on old games on my 970, but on games like Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, AC Unity, or AC Syndicate I have to drop some settings to high to get the consistent 60 fps I want at 1080p. When I try 1440p DSR for Witcher 3 I'm in the 50s fps even turning a lot of settings down to medium.

 

[topmounter]

The next game with demanding hardware requirements released by Blizzard will be the first game with demanding hardware requirements released by Blizzard.

Otherwise, I can't think of one PC game with demanding hardware requirements not available on either Steam or Origin. Certainly all of the games commonly used in GPU reviews across the Internet are available on one platform or the other.

There is GoG, but I don't recall them having any exclusive AAA titles.

 

[casiofx]

For around the same price point, you get more performance, why complain?

Another thing, 970 can't run The Witcher 3 with full Hairworks at 60fps and game settings for 1080p, 1070 can do that, isn't that a good thing?

Future games maybe even more taxing for GPU side too.

 

[RussianSensation]

My GTX 680ti was a little underpowered for Fallout 4 at 1080p in some areas. I could have dialed down settings but upgraded to a 980ti instead.

So nope, not really overkill for 1080p unless you want to reduce some settings.

A 1060 might be OK when released someday, at least if you're willing to replace it in a year.

There is no such thing as a 680Ti.

That doesn't prove the OP's point wrong. You could have gotten a 980 OC or any card in this class and achieved 1080p 60hz gaming. 1070 is a useless videocard for 1080p 60Hz gaming. Using the argument that use DSR/VSR is kinda a moot point since the immersion factor of gaming on a smaller 22-24" 1080p monitor (of which many gamers use the garbage TN panels) is far inferior to gaming on a 27-32" VA/IPS 1440P panel. Also, almost all 1080p 60Hz monitors the mainstream/average Joe PC gamers use are of low quality compared to the best 1440p/4K monitors. I bet most of them are using TN 1080p 60Hz panels.

Gamers have been stuck on 1080p 60Hz bandwagon for too long and it's time to accept the facts and move on. 1440p/4K gaming (or 3440x1440 or 2560x1080 or multi-panels at minimum) is what's needed for $350 2016 GPUs. It's also why Linus Tech Tips didn't even bother testing the card at 1080p. Most people also don't have anywhere close to an i7 4790K/i7 6700K OC, which means they will also bottleneck 980Ti/1070/Fury X level card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5lfMogcrPU

In practice it means, 1080p 60Hz gaming will be:

1) CPU bottlenecked with cards as fast as the 1070/980Ti
2) or the GPU will render way too many frames that the end user will never see.

The end result is a 1060/1060Ti/Polaris 10 is a far better fit for most gamers using older generation CPUs or stock i3/i5 Skylake.

This is basically the result of XB1/PS4 gimping the progress of PC gaming because most developers make games cross-platform and it's too hard to ignore how under powerd those consoles are now in 2016.

 

[RussianSensation]

For around the same price point, you get more performance, why complain?

Another thing, 970 can't run The Witcher 3 with full Hairworks at 60fps and game settings for 1080p, 1070 can do that, isn't that a good thing?

Future games maybe even more taxing for GPU side too.

The same 92% of PC gamers do not have PCs anywhere close to an i7 4770K/i7 6700K OC.

In sections of modern games where CPU speed is required, 1070/980Ti/Fury X will choke at 1080p 60Hz gaming for these gamers. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. All major reviews are using i7 6700K 4.5Ghz or similar (5960X OC), which is why we never see how poorly these fast cards would actually do with weaker CPUs. Here is 980Ti getting choked to death by weaker CPUs in CPU-limited sections of games at 1080p 60Hz gaming.

All the data is out there showing exactly what I am saying. At 1080p 60hz, if the CPU isn't a bottleneck, the 1070 is overkill. In cases where the game requires a fast CPU, anything other than top end Haswell/Skylake will choke a 1070 level card. Mainstream PC gamers are unlikely to have such fast CPUs. Finally, most 1080p 60Hz monitors are junk in quality to begin with and are small in size (worse immersion factor).

I find it ironic how in the past PC gamers were driven to upgrade to higher end PC parts to play games at higher resolutions. Then when larger monitors came out, many wanted those; yet now stubbornly many PC gamers keep clinging to outdated 1080p 60Hz gaming. In 2017, Big Pascal will be fast enough to do 4K gaming and 1440p will be in the realm of $325 cards. By 2018, a $249 card should be able to do 1440p with ease.

 

[ZGR]

Every game I play I am CPU limited. It was even like that when gaming on a Macbook (3.4 ghz i7 ivy and a 1.05ghz gt 650m).

This is definitely not something new. It seems a lot of people don't notice or don't play those games.

GTA V, GTA IV, The Division/Watch_Dogs, All TW games except finally DX12 Warhammer, ALL DX9 RTS games, ARMA series, Racing games with tons of AI, ETC.

Lots of AI are not efficiently multithreaded except for the new wave of DX12 games.

The best games are always CPU limited.

 

[boozzer]

it costs 400-450 or more. so yea, not main stream at all.

 

[poohbear]

Russiansensation, the charts you posted are interesting, but how is a 980ti with a 6700k getting 62fps in Starcraft2 @ 1080p? is that accurate? Or is that with vsync on? cause starcraft2 with a 980ti would be way into the 200fps, it's not very demanding no?

 

[biostud]

Lots of steam users are gaming on their laptop. And if you are a casual gamer gtx 1070 might be overkill, but extra performance -> longevity.

 

[3DVagabond]

For around the same price point, you get more performance, why complain?

Another thing, 970 can't run The Witcher 3 with full Hairworks at 60fps and game settings for 1080p, 1070 can do that, isn't that a good thing?

Future games maybe even more taxing for GPU side too.

Future games are going to leverage DX12 more. Why buy a new card that's not designed for the new API?

 

[Bubbleawsome]

I can't max my games at 1080p, so 1070/1080 here I come.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Russiansensation, the charts you posted are interesting, but how is a 980ti with a 6700k getting 62fps in Starcraft2 @ 1080p? is that accurate? Or is that with vsync on? cause starcraft2 with a 980ti would be way into the 200fps, it's not very demanding no?

If I recall correctly, Starcraft 2 relies heavily on perhaps one or two threads. It was originally launched when Core 2 Duos ruled after all. It isn't unfeasible that you could throw such a scenario that it would swamp even a Skylake core.

Consequently though, i5s would do just fine for this particular game assuming equal clocks to their i7 counterparts.

I find it quite interesting that even the 4.7 GHz FX-9590 is falling behind even the stock 2500K in not only games using relatively few threads, but most games that are more heavily threaded. Even in the best case of the benches Russian showed, the 9590 probably only barely competes with locked Haswell i5s, with all the drawbacks of the far-higher power consumption thrown in too.

Would be great to see Hyperthreading across the entire Intel lineup soon though with 2 core i3s, 4 core i5s, and six core i7s. But this makes way too much sense for the consumer.

Even a gamer on a 1080P monitor stands to benefit from downsampling. Granted, the benefit is smaller than true higher resolutions, the quality improvements are far from negligible.

 

[RussianSensation]

Lots of steam users are gaming on their laptop. And if you are a casual gamer gtx 1070 might be overkill, but extra performance -> longevity.

1070 150W TDP card will be the flagship mobile dGPU going into $2500 laptops. If you look at these so called "laptops" with a 980 card, they are basically 40 min battery life briefcases. These are not laptops - it's basically a $2500+ small form factor briefcase with a screen attached. It's cheaper to build a Raven RVZ02 i7 6700K and a GTX1080 and buy a separate 4K / 1440p 165Hz G-Sync monitor to take with you on flights for work .

On a more serious note, laptop gaming discussion has nothing to do with the desktop PC gaming space. But if you want to go that way, it's possible to build a GTX1070 desktop PC + monitor and get an good laptop with decent battery life for more or less the price of an overpriced gaming laptop that has an i7 6820 overclockable CPU + GTX1070 level card. OTOH, a desktop replacement laptop is garbage as a laptop (battery life is non-existent, screen is garbage compared to a dedicated desktop monitor, excessive weight makes it inconvenient for carrying around daily) and is slower than a dedicated i7 6700K OC + GTX1070 OC desktop. The main reason these gaming laptops exist is because parents of 18-year-old college students aren't willing to pay for 2 separate PCs....and many PC gamers have no clue how to build a PC with parts . Besides, the biggest laptop in the world is what 18.4"? That's honestly pathetic for immersion factor for spending $2500-3000 USD. Plus, if anything major breaks in the laptop, it's worthless junk or the costs to repair it are excessive.

Future games are going to leverage DX12 more. Why buy a new card that's not designed for the new API?

That's true but it's NV. If you buy an NV card, you know upfront it's for 2 years or less. DX12 games are still too far and few. We'll see what AMD has with Polaris 10. They still have a shot if they release Fury Air level of performance for $249 or Fury X level P10 for $299-329.

Even a gamer on a 1080P monitor stands to benefit from downsampling. Granted, the benefit is smaller than true higher resolutions, the quality improvements are far from negligible.

- Cannot magically reproduce extra immersion with 19-24" small monitors against 27-32" ones.
- Most PC gamers who are using 1080p 60Hz panels likely have TN junk with horrible whites, blacks and colours. You can render 1000 frames on that monitor, each of those frames looks terrible. Quality per pixel matters more than the number of pixels themselves --> Hence the entire reason OLED and HDR HDTVs blow away LED/LCD into the stratosphere
- Who in 2016 spends $400+ on a high-end GPU, has a $300+ i7 4770K/i7 4790K/i7 6700K but a welfare state $90-$100 1080p 60Hz panel? Talk about not knowing how to build a well balanced PC. This is like buying a Porsche 911 GT3 RS and putting $100 used tires on it and going to race on the 'Ring.

Honestly, even 1440p 60Hz is becoming a bare minimum now for a high-end gaming PC in 2016. 4K IPS panels are dropping to $400. The only reason 4K monitors aren't flying off the shelves is that even if one can buy them for $400, to get a great gaming experience would require at least 1070 SLI/980Ti SLI or greater which is $760+. Otherwise, 4K monitors are not far away from becoming very affordable. 1080p 60Hz is pure budget builds now and has been for a while. This is just a repeat of 2GB videocard owners defending those cards, dual core PC users defending those CPUs and of course 92% of PC gamers having budget monitors defending what they own. I had a 1600x1200 CRT in 1998, or 18 years ago.