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

[bystander36]

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.

Just about every EA game is made for console and PC simultaneously just like every other AAA game made these days. Blizzard is about the only big company that makes exclusive PC games, or at least makes it for PC first, but then they are all about the online game.

And yes, Steam has a lot of Indie games too. They are a game distributor, and they pretty much carry all games, small and big, except for Blizzard and EA.

 

[tential]

I guess we just ignored Dota 2... One of the most widely played games out there.

The only thing blizzard has made rihht now that is good is overwatch. That's a must have game to me it's so fun.
Been awhile since blizzard had made a game like that for me.

As for ea... What is an ea game that I must have?

That's so few games vs steams whole entire library. You'd be insane to snub steam for ea and blizzard only.... Thats so few games. I mean Dota 2 and cs go are 2 massive games. Steam is a massive source of big fun games to play....

 

[Bacon1]

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.

And yet you completely ignored all points and provide no evidence or data yourself.

Just becuase they won't directly compete doesn't mean it won't effect prices.

AMD wants to bring VR performance to mainstream. That means 290/970+ performance to the mainstream. Mainstream meaning under $250, probably closer to $200 or even way less. AMD has said that they can provide better performance, for less cost, for more die per wafer.

When you can get 970 perf for say $150 that drives down the price/perf level of 1070 / 1080 and forces them to cut prices to stay competitive.

 

[Intervenator]

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.

Wow, I didn't know we were allowed to make reasonable posts in this thread. Way to buck the trend!

But seriously, the 1070 is also great for people like me who favor extreme performance over visuals, but still wants their games to look acceptable. I prefer a solid 250 FPS on my 144hz 1080p monitor to ensure my frame rate is as solid as a rock, so this card will serve me well by allowing me to enjoy more modern games, and allowing me to bump up my settings in old games I haven't been able to max! I'm currently rocking a 770, and don't plan on upgrading after the 1070 until I can play 1440p 250 FPS consistently at medium settings. Next generation, perhaps? 0.0

And I don't know why people are being so pessimistic, making a huge fuss over fundamentals that are *well known* in this industry! Yes, the next generation card will be faster, and yes, the current generation cards will drop in price eventually, and yes, future cards will be better optimized for future software and hardware. This stuff is not new! As I always suggest, if you need to upgrade and a card meets your current and expected future needs, and you feel the price is reasonable, buy it! There will always be something enticing around the corner but you have to pull the trigger eventually.

 

[Makaveli]

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.

Agreed Starcraft 2 only uses 2 threads.

I play it alot on a 4vs4 map 30 mins in with everyone having large units it will tank framerates.

 

[RussianSensation]

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.

Hehe. No, I wouldn't because I will assume you aren't sitting 40-70 cms away from your HDTV. The discussion of using a 768/1080p HDTV for games is a whole other ballgame. Any LG 1080p 60Hz OLED looks better in IQ than any LED/LCD 4K HDTV. We won't even go there.

I am taking about buying a $400-700 card to play on a tiny 22-24" 1080p 60Hz screen.

Every professional review on the net agrees with me. 1070 is a 1440p 60Hz card:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_review,13.html

There will always be poorly optimized games with GameWorks features or just horribly optimized games like Quantum Break or Ark Survival Evolved. If someone absolutely must require 60 FPS minimums in some games, I can totally get that. The problem with this argument then is that in MANY other games 1070 can do 100-140 FPS at 1080p. In that case, why not get a 1080p 120-144Hz monitor then? The people defending 1080p 60Hz monitors are just not consistent at all. Whatever, it's not my money.

Using some of the logic presented in this thread, I could always find 1-2 games over the next 5 years that will never maintain 60 FPS minimums at 1080p 60Hz.

Wow, I didn't know we were allowed to make reasonable posts in this thread. Way to buck the trend!

But seriously, the 1070 is also great for people like me who favor extreme performance over visuals, but still wants their games to look acceptable. I prefer a solid 250 FPS on my 144hz 1080p monitor to ensure my frame rate is as solid as a rock, so this card will serve me well by allowing me to enjoy more modern games, and allowing me to bump up my settings in old games I haven't been able to max!

Ya, but no one is disputing that 1070/1080 cards aren't a good fit for a 1080p 144Hz monitor (as long as one has the fastest Intel CPU on hand). That's the thing I keep repeating - most people don't even have i7 4770K / i7 4790K/ i7 6700K or i7 5820K OC to 4.5Ghz either.

That's the beauty of 4K 120Hz. It will allow us to play the most demanding games at 1080p 120Hz, and next gen games at 4K 60Hz. Unfortunately those monitors won't be affordable for years. That's why to me 1440p 60Hz is the sweet spot but if I were buying a new monitor now I'd go to 4K, 1440p 144-165Hz or 3440x1440.

There are many genres like strategy and racing games that look amazing on a larger screen. As tential and others would attest, once you get used to using a large monitor for media, games, a 22-24 1080p 60Hz panel that can easily be purchased now for $90-100 is 100% budget gaming. Now if someone wants to buy a $400-700 and pair it with a low end monitor, it's their choice. The end result is the rig is still a budget gaming system since it's only as good as the final image on the screen.

What would give me a heart attack is the amount of people defending 1080p 60Hz panels also using TN with their 1070/1080 card.

 

[Grooveriding]

I think you could use a 1070 for 1440p 120hz gaming as well. In my experience with 980ti SLI there were only a handful of games that needed SLI to give me 120hz @ 1440p Off the top of my head it would be Witcher 3, The Division, Tomb Raider & GTA V. Forget DX12 titles, at least for now, SLI doesn't even work in any of the DX12 games I have.

Other than that I was able to run a single card for 120hz in anything else I play. Even BF4 gets about 100FPS with a single 1.5ghz 980ti @ 1440p.

I think it's a good time to wait and see how multi gpu goes for DX12. Right now SLI and Crossfire don't work in nearly every single DX12 game released. It requires work done on the developers end to allow it to work. My guess for the future of DX12 and multi gpu is that it's only going to work in titles that have heavy involvement from one of the GPU vendors. I also think we could easily see a situation where multi gpu only works with one vendor's cards in certain games. DX12 Gameworks games could wind up only supporting SLI and not CF.

 

[Azix]

1080 is standard new monitor resolution. Most of those people will be buying the most common GPUs, and the 1070 falls out of that. looking at under $300.

Honestly cards like the 1080 and 1070 make PC gaming look bad. Well, particularly the 1080. Most gamers aren't affording these things to play league of legends or overwatch type games.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Honestly cards like the 1080 and 1070 make PC gaming look bad. Well, particularly the 1080. Most gamers aren't affording these things to play league of legends or overwatch type games.

How do the 1080 and 1070 make PC gaming look bad?

 

[HeXen]

1080p looks fine, I'm happy enough to max out graphical effects. Didn't even know about DSR nor notice the option but doubt I can afford the frame rates anyway. The minimum FPS is what really counts and I have a 970 gtx/core i7 and quite a few games are under 45fps at 1080p. GTA 5, maxed out and modded with texture packs, ENB..etc on 1080p only averages 26fps...fucking 26!! and with some dips below that. Yeah that's right, I'll game on a 1080GTX at 1080p...and what about VR? I'll definitely need it for that.
Fuck 4k.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Hehe. No, I wouldn't because I will assume you aren't sitting 40-70 cms away from your HDTV. The discussion of using a 768/1080p HDTV for games is a whole other ballgame. Any LG 1080p 60Hz OLED looks better in IQ than any LED/LCD 4K HDTV. We won't even go there.

I am taking about buying a $400-700 card to play on a tiny 22-24" 1080p 60Hz screen.



That's the beauty of 4K 120Hz. It will allow us to play the most demanding games at 1080p 120Hz, and next gen games at 4K 60Hz. Unfortunately those monitors won't be affordable for years. That's why to me 1440p 60Hz is the sweet spot but if I were buying a new monitor now I'd go to 4K, 1440p 144-165Hz or 3440x1440.

There are many genres like strategy and racing games that look amazing on a larger screen. As tential and others would attest, once you get used to using a large monitor for media, games, a 22-24 1080p 60Hz panel that can easily be purchased now for $90-100 is 100% budget gaming. Now if someone wants to buy a $400-700 and pair it with a low end monitor, it's their choice. The end result is the rig is still a budget gaming system since it's only as good as the final image on the screen.

What would give me a heart attack is the amount of people defending 1080p 60Hz panels also using TN with their 1070/1080 card.

You would be correct. I don't really play shooters myself, so I just kick back in bed and play JRPGs for the most part. Ironically, a 2D jRPG is giving my system more of a challenge than Tomb Raider (2013) on max settings due to DirectDraw being completely borked from Win 8 and on, but that's a discussion for later.
I use this TV for my older consoles as well, which is the only reason I keep it around as I don't have the space for a separate TV stand, and going with a proper monitor requires me to pick up an expensive capture card as well. When I do upgrade, I will probably go all the way to 4K though.

To an extent, I consider the display a separate and independent device from the rest of the PC. It's primary, and usually only function is to provide a visual output for the PC. It is also one of the most, if not the most important part of providing an immersive gaming experience.

I do strongly agree with you on the stagnation of display tech. I would really like to see a 4K TV or monitor that is OLED, and supports Displayport, HDMI, And Component input. Like CRTs of old, OLED should scale lower resolution output much better than LCDs. Essentially, a monitor that will give a quality image regardless of what it's fed, with a high enough ceiling that it will last many gens and many cards.

 

[omek]

Honestly I don't know if 4K makes any sense for games and I'm not sure it will in 5 years. Games are continuing to become more demanding and with that you lose the leeway (or tolerance) to increase resolution. Years ago when resolution was increasing like crazy hardware was outpacing its demand, that and the fact that those lesser 4:3 resolutions were seriously terrible. 1080p with a little anti-aliasing is good enough for the average joe.

There are reasons why 4K will penetrate television but for gaming I'm not certain. If anything I think a frame rate race could be the next movement and possibly 1440p standardized on the PC while 1080p and higher resolution upscaling, anti-aliasing and higher frame rates are the goal set for consoles.

With 92% of the market gaming at 1080p and under, you can tell why AMD is targeting Polaris at this segment with a ground up design.

Exactly.

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 agree that the consoles are underpowered but I think you may find that the previous gen of consoles were the ones that enforced resolution stagnation.
If anything the fact that cross-over is much more native with the current generation is it's biggest asset even while being underpowered.

Think about the ridiculousness of porting a game from the PS3 to the PC and the amount of performance which was lost. The console decides where the industry goes - bad ports, bad frame rates, DirectX 9 draw call limits, single threaded engines and CPU utilization issues.

The XB1 and PS4 remain mostly coherent PC hardware (and coherent within themselves unlike the hardware discrepancies between the 360/PS3). If porting a game to the PC is easy and the loss of performance is low adding eye candy for the master race should also be much easier to do, Doom for example.

 

[Red Hawk]

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?

I didn't say they are. "Does Steam have games with a large install base" and "Does Steam have games that are exclusive to PC and Steam itself" are two separate questions. Pulling this back to the thread topic, the Steam survey isn't just representative of people who play Valve games, because Valve games are only a small fraction of the games that get purchased and played by Steam users.

There is a mess of indie games on Steam, that much is true, but that doesn't somehow mean that Steam doesn't have more graphically demanding games.

 

[Insomniator]

Most people aren't buying a $400 video card. Its a high end product, just like a Porsche could be considered 'overkill' for driving around town all day.

 

[RussianSensation]

1080 is standard budget monitor resolution.

It may be the standards but that has nothing to do with 980Ti/Fury X/1070 level cards. I am sure many people on Steam find Core 2 Duo <-> i5 2500K also good enough. Sorry but those CPUs aren't fast enough for 1070 either.

Honestly cards like the 1080 and 1070 make PC gaming look bad. Well, particularly the 1080. Most gamers aren't affording these things to play league of legends or overwatch type games.

Why are they making PC gaming look bad? It's the opposite. 1070/1080/980Ti allow PC gaming to exist in the realm of multi-monitor gaming, 1080p 120-144Hz gaming, 1440 60-165Hz gaming, 4K and even 5K gaming. It's the next level of gaming well above consoles.

Some of the most popular games among the mainstream gamers run at 60 fps on a GTX950.

Anyone who is trying to be the best at faced paces twitch shooters like CS: GO, Overwatch, Battlefield, SW:BF, L4D, is going to want a 120-165Hz monitor because aiming and shooting is far superior. So that destroys the argument for any 1080p 60hz monitor. OTOH, anyone else with a 22-24" 1080p 60hz panel is likely using an average panel, worse a TN, in which case all games, all media don't look great. All it is is an excuse because people stubbornly don't want to spend $ on a new monitor. They'll buy high-end PC parts and cripple their $1000+ PC with a 1080p 60Hz $100-200 monitor without GSync/FreeSync. There should be a MUST build guide of things NOT to do when building a PC and this should be #1 on the top of that list.

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.

That's not 1080p 60Hz gaming. That's multi-monitor 5760x1080 gaming. 3X the pixel workload of a single 1080p 60hz monitor. The discussion about how 1070/980Ti cards aren't a great fit for 1080p doesn't apply to your situation.

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.

Ok but a 4K FreeSync/GSync monitor allows you to not care as much if the FPS dips below 60. $400. 1440p and 4K panels will only continue to drop in price.

4K 43" IPS is already $800 USD. I guarantee it if someone gave you this monitor and you played on it for a month and you went back to your 24" and lower 1080p 60Hz panel, you'll hate it.

The 1080p 60hz supporters claiming they want the best 1080p 60Hz gaming experience aren't realizing that you can get that + get all the benefits of the 144Hz twitch gaming because there are FreeSync and GSync 1080p 144Hz panels.

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.

Ya and before 1070 brought 980Ti level of performance to below $400, how many people on this forum recommended getting a 980Ti/Titan X/Fury X for 1080p 60hz gaming?

What's with the arbitrary 1080p then? While at it while spend $ at all, just downgrade the resolution to 1280x1024 or 720P and not upgrade for 5 more years. It seems in recent times there is a MASSIVE reluctance of PC gamers to ditch 1080p 60Hz monitors but the same people are willing to spend $300-500 on Core i7s and $400-700 GPUs? :sneaky: It makes no sense, no sense at all. The monitor benefits the end user outside of games and can last 5-10 years. The only reason I haven't spent more than a grand on a 4K panel yet is because I want 32"+ 4K HDR with FreeSync/GSync and preferably with 120Hz support. What's being ignored here is only the resolution is being compared but the small size of 1080p 60Hz panels is completely ignored. The only way this can happen is if the vast majority of these PC gamers never used a 28-43" monitor/HDTV for gaming.

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.

In many games cranking every setting to the max provides literally a 0% benefit in visual quality while the game is in motion. It's only visible once zooming in in still screenshots online to 200-300%. Secondly, a 1500mhz 970 is faster than a 980 so you almost contradicted yourself there. Thirdly, if you cared so much about having 60 fps minimums at all times, why would you NOT get a 120-144Hz monitor then so that way you also get the full benefits of much faster fluid motion in FPS shooters/online shooters because 1070 can also provide that? By sticking only to 1080p 60hz monitor, you will never take the full advantage of a $400-700 videocard. It's also strange you'd defend budget 1080p 60Hz gaming since you have a 5930K. You do realize a 5930K is actually a worse gaming CPU than an i7 4790K/i7 6700K but you spent $$ on that rather than upgrading to a 1440p/4K panel? I don't get it.

Your post also assumes ALL gamers looking to buy a 1070 for 1080p 60hz gaming even have CPUs fast enough to sustain 60 fps minimums in AAA games. They don't.

You guys know that before 1600x1200 and 1080p became the standard, people were defending 1280x800, 1280x1024 the same way you guys are defending 1080p 60hz? Imagine back then if the entire PC industry shunned away from 1080p monitors, we'd still be using 1280x1024 LCDs. The whole point of PC gaming over console gaming is to push the boundaries of what's possible since tech is constantly evolving. 1080p 60hz is something that was cutting edge 15-20 years ago.

What the OP should do is start a Poll for all GTX1070 and GTX1080 owners (separate polls for each card) to see how any of them are using 1080p 60hz monitors vs. any other monitor configuration. This will tell us what the target market is for 1070/1080 upgraders/new system builders on our forum is. At least we'll have some data to support this thread.

 

[tential]

The best gpu in thr world doesn't fix a bad display. I see people. On here 980tis and 1080p monitors. Truly sad.

 

[Lepton87]

I do strongly agree with you on the stagnation of display tech. I would really like to see a 4K TV or monitor that is OLED, and supports Displayport, HDMI, And Component input. Like CRTs of old, OLED should scale lower resolution output much better than LCDs. Essentially, a monitor that will give a quality image regardless of what it's fed, with a high enough ceiling that it will last many gens and many cards.

It's not that bad I had Dell U2711 but it broke down so I bought the Acer Predator X34 and I'm very pleased with it aside from some games that don't work with UltraWide Resolution. IMHO 3440x1440 is the max resolution that I want to have with a single graphics card and M-GPU is unreliable. Besides this aspect ratio with curved screen better fills my field of view then 4K and 100Hz refresh with that resolution and G-SYNC is just incomparably better then 60HZ IPS. The only downside is the insane price but UltraWide with 100Hz is so much better then 60HZ that it makes it look choppy and makes me wonder how I could play on that. G-SYNC is awesome when the FPS falls below 100fps and it falls a lot. The only downside is the price. I'm not buying a 4K screen, next screen will be also curved with even higher refresh rate and OLED. Frankly aside from that I don't see an upgrade. The only downside is the horrid price well over 1100$ but still worth it. And of course NVIDA and its stupid proprietary as if they couldn't support some open standard of variable refresh rate. Now i"m stuck with their cards which sucks a lot.
I have 980Ti at 1470/1950 so it is within 5% of 1080 or at its level if it drops from boosts clocks and that's barely enough for 3440x1440 I don't know how people can consider contemporary cards enough for 4K. An overclocked 1080 it's going to be 15%? Not much to make a difference, maybe it could help a bit at my ULTRA-WIDE resolution but I bought it new for the price of 1070 so no regrets. It a stop-gap for me until the big-die will have launched.

 

[Heatshiver]

I would think it's overkill. I was using either 1080p or 1200p at all times until recently. Now I am at 1440p and have no intention of jumping that for quite some time.

 

[Azix]

How do the 1080 and 1070 make PC gaming look bad?

cost vs returns. if you try to convince someone of pC gaming they can always point to these cards that cost more than a console, sometimes twice as much. An argument could also be made for disproportionate return on that investment.

Most people aren't gaming at that level (multi monitor etc). Maximum return on affordable investment is the ideal. Sure its nice to think about the enthusiast stuff like 144hz multiple 1440p monitors etc. but the 92% is regular people, the ones that matter the most. That's the market that needs to be maximized and the market that console gamers can look at realistically. Not going to have too many paying $350 for a console thinking about spending more than that just on a GPU, then more than that on a monitor so the GPU is worth it. When its these cards that take the limelight and represent PC gaming, it looks bad. "You need too much money to get into PC gaming"

 

[Sonikku]

I'm a 1080p 60hz peasant so I hope the Polaris can give me 290x performance for $200. We were practically there two years ago. Is it asking too much for it in 2016? Nvidia's two cards are both beyond what I would need.

 

[Makaveli]

The best gpu in thr world doesn't fix a bad display. I see people. On here 980tis and 1080p monitors. Truly sad.

See this all the time really unbalanced builds.

But I assume they are planning on upgrading the monitor after or alteast I hope so

 

[Leyawiin]

I have a Dell U2412M (24" 60hz IPS - 1920x1200) and I'm fine with it for the foreseeable future. I have an i7-4790k and a GTX 980. As it stands right now I can use max settings on Fallout 4 and generally stay at 60 FPS in about 80% of the game. It never drops below 45 FPS. So yeah, unless I upgrade the monitor (which I have no plans to do) the GTX 1070 isn't needed. It just wouldn't be a big enough jump over what I have to justify the purchase anyway (maybe 20-25%?).

Oh, I do use DSR on some older games though. It can make Skyrim, WoW or Divinity 2 look quite nice.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Ok but a 4K FreeSync/GSync monitor allows you to not care as much if the FPS dips below 60. $400. 1440p and 4K panels will only continue to drop in price.

4K 43" IPS is already $800 USD. I guarantee it if someone gave you this monitor and you played on it for a month and you went back to your 24" and lower 1080p 60Hz panel, you'll hate it.

The 1080p 60hz supporters claiming they want the best 1080p 60Hz gaming experience aren't realizing that you can get that + get all the benefits of the 144Hz twitch gaming because there are FreeSync and GSync 1080p 144Hz panels.

I want to see how the 1070 holds up with games coming out this year before committing to 1440p resolution. Because using DSR at 1440p has been a disappointing experience in a lot of games with my 970, so I know my 970 was never really a 1440p gpu except in the old games it got reviewed on at launch. If it's still killing games at 1440p after all the Christmas season releases (or if Vega is and is below $500) I'll probably get a 1440p panel and a 1070 or Vega.

I'll wait until a winner emerges from FreeSync vs GSync before picking a side.

 

[Intervenator]

Most people aren't buying a $400 video card. Its a high end product, just like a Porsche could be considered 'overkill' for driving around town all day.

Would be a good example if the requirements to run games did not increase with each passing month...

I mean, is it harder for a Porsche to overcome air resistance one day to the next? Or does the required power to turn a tire increase with every mile driven?

Whereas a Porsche is always overkill for driving around town, a graphics card eventually becomes useless as requirements for newer titles is always becoming more demanding.

 

[Intervenator]

The best gpu in thr world doesn't fix a bad display. I see people. On here 980tis and 1080p monitors. Truly sad.

Not necessarily. You haven't a clue what their use case is.