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

[Zodiark1593]

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 .

There are a couple scenarios where Behemoth Books make sense, gaming is not that scenario. ()

 

[escrow4]

Name a card that can give you consistent 60FPS at 1080p apart from the 1070 including minimums. All settings maxed out, AA disabled, recent triple AAA titles. A poky 960 or 970 won't do it. You'll need a 980 at least. Even at 1080p you can have some use for a 1070.

 

[mohit9206]

I don't see how the 1070 is overkill for 1080p.In fact its the perfect card for 1080p.People atleast most people don't buy video cards to just play today's games.Most buy it to keep it for 3-4 years.1070 already cannot maintain 60 fps avg at 1440p in Crysis 3,Witcher 3 and AC:Syndicate.So for those who buy video cards without the intention to sell it off the moment next great card arrives,it will play games at 1080p 60fps maxed for atleast 2-3 years.

 

[Bacon1]

I don't see how the 1070 is overkill for 1080p.In fact its the perfect card for 1080p.People atleast most people don't buy video cards to just play today's games.Most buy it to keep it for 3-4 years.1070 already cannot maintain 60 fps avg at 1440p in Crysis 3,Witcher 3 and AC:Syndicate.So for those who buy video cards without the intention to sell it off the moment next great card arrives,it will play games at 1080p 60fps maxed for atleast 2-3 years.

Keeping the 1080 FE for years is a terrible buy. Its only here as a stop gap before the big dies yet sold with big die pricing.

Once Polaris hits the price will drop a lot and you'll see them down to the actual MSRP or even lower.

The price/perf will again be demolished when Vega and 1080 ti or w/e they call it are released in a 6ish months. So the 1080 is only for impatient people not those that want a card that will last.

 

[Red Hawk]

The real question is, how many games does Steam have that are worth playing? Other than CSGO and what are their "spinoffs" and also Dota, I don't really see any other games that have a large installed base. Of course I could be wrong but I think Battlenet with SC, Diablo, and WOW could be just as large as Steam with all of its 1000's of games.

Not sure if serious? This isn't 2004. Steam is the primary digital distributor for the majority of PC publishers nowadays. There are a couple exceptions -- EA and Blizzard. But they're just that, exceptions. Non-Blizzard Activision games get published to Steam, along with Ubisoft, Zenimax, Sega, Paradox, Square Enix/Eidos, Warner Bros, 2K, Stardock, Deep Silver, Firaxis. The list goes on and on. And they get published to Steam simultaneously with the console version. There are exceptions, like MGSV and Rise of the Tomb Raider, but again, they're exceptions.

Big games published recently to Steam include:

DOOM
Stellaris
Fallout 4
Hitman
Total War Warhammer
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
Assassin's Creed: Syndicate

To name a few. When it comes to install bases for recently released games, you don't get much bigger than Fallout 4.

 

[ZZZAAA]

Whoa shiz, sorry about that. I have been skimming the news the past few years with my old PC and steam looks like a jumbofest of indie games at least from over here. Are you sure all those games aren't console ports and exclusives to Steam though?

 

[khon]

Yes, it is overkill, that's why AMD/NVIDIA are hoping for VR to take off. They know that most people don't actually need a new graphics card yet, so they need are looking for something to motivate the upgrade.

 

[ZZZAAA]

Thought I would know which games are AAA and made for PC because I read lots of news and reviews. I just see big budget games and automatically think EA. I rescind my previous comments then.

EDIT: I guess I could say I was half-right with some games being originally console games that were ported to PC and not the other way around. Also, I hate ugly games meaning good graphics =/= good art. Some PC games are cheap and make me sick and they are just uncool. Still EA + Blizzard > Steam for me other than csgo.

 

[3DVagabond]

I don't see how the 1070 is overkill for 1080p.In fact its the perfect card for 1080p.People atleast most people don't buy video cards to just play today's games.Most buy it to keep it for 3-4 years.1070 already cannot maintain 60 fps avg at 1440p in Crysis 3,Witcher 3 and AC:Syndicate.So for those who buy video cards without the intention to sell it off the moment next great card arrives,it will play games at 1080p 60fps maxed for atleast 2-3 years.

Go back 3 or 4 years and see which cards sold then are the best performing today.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Keeping the 1080 FE for years is a terrible buy. Its only here as a stop gap before the big dies yet sold with big die pricing.

Once Polaris hits the price will drop a lot and you'll see them down to the actual MSRP or even lower.

The price/perf will again be demolished when Vega and 1080 ti or w/e they call it are released in a 6ish months. So the 1080 is only for impatient people not those that want a card that will last.

You do make a lot of claims you lack data on. From all leaked material Polaris is not even in GP104 segment. But rather GP106.

 

[mohit9206]

Go back 3 or 4 years and see which cards sold then are the best performing today.

7950 and 7970 are the best performing cards from 4 years ago. But i don't understand your point.

 

[beginner99]

I'm on 1080p as well but 144 hz. Wanted to go 1440p 144 hz but just needs to much GPU power compared to what I'm willing to spend on it.

And yes 144 hz + blur reduction has a tremendous impact in some games.

Also higher res mostly also means a bigger screen and due to how human vision works it can for some game actually be counter productive.

 

[poohbear]

Not sure if serious? This isn't 2004. Steam is the primary digital distributor for the majority of PC publishers nowadays. There are a couple exceptions -- EA and Blizzard. But they're just that, exceptions. Non-Blizzard Activision games get published to Steam, along with Ubisoft, Zenimax, Sega, Paradox, Square Enix/Eidos, Warner Bros, 2K, Stardock, Deep Silver, Firaxis. The list goes on and on. And they get published to Steam simultaneously with the console version. There are exceptions, like MGSV and Rise of the Tomb Raider, but again, they're exceptions.

Big games published recently to Steam include:

DOOM
Stellaris
Fallout 4
Hitman
Total War Warhammer
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
Assassin's Creed: Syndicate

To name a few. When it comes to install bases for recently released games, you don't get much bigger than Fallout 4.

And one of the biggest selling games of all time: Grand Theft Auto 4 & 5.

Anyways back to original topic, I'm not sure how well the 1070 is gonna sell like crazy given the needs of 92% of pc gamers nowadays. 8GB of RAM, performance 70% better than gtx 970. It's all awesome, but if even an enthusiast like me isn't gonna upgrade cause I'm satisfied with my GTX 970 performance, & new ppl will see the price drops on GTX 970s as a great opportunity to get the best 1080p card, is it really gonna be a mad fest to buy these new cards?

 

[sam_816]

And one of the biggest selling games of all time: Grand Theft Auto 4 & 5.

Anyways back to original topic, I'm not sure how well the 1070 is gonna sell like crazy given the needs of 92% of pc gamers nowadays. 8GB of RAM, performance 70% better than gtx 970. It's all awesome, but if even an enthusiast like me isn't gonna upgrade cause I'm satisfied with my GTX 970 performance, & new ppl will see the price drops on GTX 970s as a great opportunity to get the best 1080p card, is it really gonna be a mad fest to buy these new cards?

yes, it will sell a lot. thing is not many think like you.
not everyone can afford a titan but everyone wants a titan. 1070 is not pitched at 70% more than 970 or best 1080p card. it is pitched as titan's performance at 380 msrp. people will eat that up without thinking twice.
another factor is after 1070 becomes easily available 970 will lose its value drastically in 2nd hand market. so, ppl will try to minimize lose and jump to the next card. this is a trend now.

Spoiler

 

[seitur]

To name a few. When it comes to install bases for recently released games, you don't get much bigger than Fallout 4.

True BUT remember that post F3 Bethesda games including Skyrim and Fallout 4 are Steam ONLY.

While many (most?) other AAA games are not.
Ubisoft games make a lot of it's sales on Uplay and i.e. The Witcher 3 had more copies registered on GoG than on Steam.

Just my 2 cents to remember that Steamspy / Steamchart installbases / games activity charts are skewed due to fact that Bethesda has all it's customers on Steam while many AAA games on Steam do not.

 

[guskline]

poohbear, despite your reasons, which make sense, I suspect the GTX 1070 at that price point will be a BIG seller. The GTX 970 was.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

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.

I remember hearing a lot of the same things about the 970 though, how it was really a 1440p gpu. When I got mine a couple months after launch I ran it with a Xeon E3-1231v3 and in the game that came with it, Far Cry 4, I had occasional drops below 60 fps at 1080p ultra with 99% gpu usage. So I don't think it was the cpu holding it back. Similar story with Dragon Age Inquisition. The 970 absolutely cannot run Witcher 3 on ultra settings (no hairworks) at 1080p if you want to maintain a reasonably consistent 60 fps.

It always seems like new games push these gpus a lot harder, and pretty quickly. It's why I'm waiting until the end of the year before I consider an upgrade. I want to see how things shake out when the new wave of Christmas 2016 games hits. If the 1070/Vega 10 looks like it's still achieving a locked 60 fps in new AAA releases at 1440p I'll probably bite the bullet and buy an IPS 1440p 60 Hz panel and a 1070 / Vega 10. If not I'll probably put off 1440p until the non flagship hardware catches up and stays ahead. I don't think I ever want to pay the money for a flagship.

I do know if I had gone 1440p when I bought my 970 I would have been forced to buy the 980 Ti at launch, because when I run 2015 and newer games at 1440p DSR I really don't like the results. Witcher 3 I can't even come close to 60 fps at 1440p DSR unless I turn off a lot of the things I think really make the game look great, like HBAO+.

 

[DeathReborn]

Been using 3x IPS 23.6" 1080p 60Hz displays since January 2013, started out with 2x 670's running them and currently 2x 290's. 1440p never interested me, 120/144Hz at the time I purchased my screens was a huge price increase. I did look at 30" 1600p screens but got the 3 1080p screens in a sale for half the price of those. Hell I was among the early adopters of the Sony FW900, kept that for years before GPU's could actually make use of the resolution properly.

4K is the future but it's still only just starting to pick up traction, when you can get a 4K display for under $250 that isn't crap it'll probably become the number 1 display choice. It's down to £230 in the UK for a reasonable 4K display (albeit 23.6") and £350 for 27", both still need to drop a little more3 to really hit the buyers pockets effectively.

 

[xantub]

There's also VR, which it's just starting now but should be making more headlines as more people get theirs.

 

[NTMBK]

I've been using the same HD 7770 ever since I got my 1080p monitor, so... yeah, I think it's overkill.

 

[tential]

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.

As my thread already shows, Nvidia users are less inclined to use features like DSR to get the full amount out of their GPUs. For the most part, it seems they're perfectly happy 1080p gaming.

I mean, despite the fact that at launch the GTX 970/980 were talked about as 1440p capable GPUs, now when I look around, many users are strict in saying that they're 1080p ONLY GPUs.

 

[tential]

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.

Like the 780Ti right? Extra performance -> Longevity?

@RS
1080p high refresh rate monitor with Freesync
1440p 60 hz monitor
1440p high refresh rate monitor
4K adaptive sync monitor.

Those are the only monitors worth having today except for some fringe cases (HDTVs, Projectors, Nvidia users who want a large 4K monitor but don't have GSYNC as an option, etc.)

If you don't have one, you should be trying to fix that problem first...

VSR definitely makes a large difference for me on an 80 inch screen, but I don't have the feature anymore so maybe AMD will fix it in an update.

 

[TeknoBug]

A lot of Steam users are still using dual cores too, I'm assuming a lot of people play DOTA or some sort on their laptops hence why lower than 1080p is common.

So I wouldn't take those stats seriously as a PC gamer.

 

[crisium]

There's no such thing as overkill at 1080p.

You still get poorly optimized games from time to time that need every bit of performance on the market.

For games that are easily maxed out there, you can enjoy a low aliasing experience with VSR and DSR. Having gone from 1080p with VSR to a 1440p display I can say VSR doesn't have quite the same clarity but the lack of aliasing is very nice. VSR is underused and underappreciated (I'd assume DSR is similar quality).

That being said...

I'd still say the 1070 user would be better off with a 1440p monitor. Even when you do get poorly optimized games you can just turn down the settings for those few titles and still have the benefits of the higher PPI.

But just because the 1440p option is better doesn't make the 1080p option overkill. I know I was shocked from that poll that few use VSR and DSR, but surely you know the goodness of super sampling. 4K downsampled onto a 1080p panel looks much, much, better than just 1080p or 1080p with some minor post process AA. I suppose if you really like your 1080p 60Hz monitor in general I can see sticking with VSR/DSR gaming.

 

[Zodiark1593]

There's no such thing as overkill at 1080p.

You still get poorly optimized games from time to time that need every bit of performance on the market.

For games that are easily maxed out there, you can enjoy a low aliasing experience with VSR and DSR. Having gone from 1080p with VSR to a 1440p display I can say VSR doesn't have quite the same clarity but the lack of aliasing is very nice. VSR is underused and underappreciated (I'd assume DSR is similar quality).

That being said...

I'd still say the 1070 user would be better off with a 1440p monitor. Even when you do get poorly optimized games you can just turn down the settings for those few titles and still have the benefits of the higher PPI.

But just because the 1440p option is better doesn't make the 1080p option overkill. I know I was shocked from that poll that few use VSR and DSR, but surely you know the goodness of super sampling. 4K downsampled onto a 1080p panel looks much, much, better than just 1080p or 1080p with some minor post process AA. I suppose if you really like your 1080p 60Hz monitor in general I can see sticking with VSR/DSR gaming.

Though RS will probably have a heart attack, I game on a 768P HDTV and utilize downsampling very regularly on my GTX 960. Some games I can push 4K DSR, and the results look quite fantastic.