mabe you missed my explanation/post.....
make sense?, there is no definitive answer, unless you have a crystal ball.
Your either a "better safe than sorry "person or a "ahh I can turn down a few settings" person.
Relative performance in 15 games @ 1440p. If the 1070 is a 1080p card, then all others below it are worse.
Its not Nvidia or AMD shifting the goalposts, its the game developers.
You could buy a gtx1070 now and think your set for 1080p and bam Crysis 4 is released and your in the 40's @ 1080p and your suddenly turning down shadows and godrays.
Then bam Battlefield 5 is released now your using high settings instead of ultra.
Would it bother me ? not really but some people like their ultra settings.
or mabe later game releases will be like Doom where just about anyone with a mid range card can play with healthy fps.
Now it depends on if your the type of person that likes to play it safe and not worry about settings for a bit or if your willing to turn down a few settings.
Its really quite simple, game developers move OUR goalposts.
ahhh WRONG again! max overclock 970 vs 780ti
HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!
time to shift your goalposts.
Well, I know my answer applies to me and has held well in the 2 1/2 years I've been on 1440p. No game has ever let me down on that res. I could ALWAYS find settings where things looked good at reasonable FPS. In fact even in the most crippling games, I would prefer 1440p at lower settings than higher at 1080p.mabe you missed my explanation/post.....
make sense?, there is no definitive answer, unless you have a crystal ball.
Your either a "better safe than sorry "person or a "ahh I can turn down a few settings" person.
Settings, how do they work?! :hmm:
Most people, myself included (back in the past anyway) wouldn't believe you. Since vsr though and more resolution scaling I've tested myself. On my 1080p screen, resolution makes the most difference. If I can render at a higher resolution it's far more worth it over slightly better shadows.Well, I know my answer applies to me and has held well in the 2 1/2 years I've been on 1440p. No game has ever let me down on that res. I could ALWAYS find settings where things looked good at reasonable FPS. In fact even in the most crippling games, I would prefer 1440p at lower settings than higher at 1080p.
You are absolutely ridiculous putting words in my mouth left and right. I NEVER said a 1080p screen is better than a 4K screen I was talking about a 1080p 50" screen.Ok, let's go with that view. If 1070 is only a MAX settings 1080p 60Hz card, and it's 60% faster than a 780Ti/970/290, you agree then 780Ti/290/970 are only MAX settings 1280x1024 cards.
It's amazing how for 15+ years gamers aimed 60 FPS averages at 1080p/1200p, but now suddenly I should want 60 FPS minimums in a slow-paced ROTTR game and every other game? Next thing you know when GV104 comes out with yet another 60-70% more performance, we'll still call it a 1080p 60Hz card* but now with DSR maxed out.
Some people here are just either too cheap to throw away peasant 1080p 60Hz monitors or have never used a 28-40" 1440p/4K one. The defense for 1080p 60Hz screens is pathetic. Did people defend 1024x768, then 1280x1024, then 1600x1200 as we moved to more affordable high resolution CRTs?
Also we have a guy claiming 25" 1080p is superior gaming experience to a larger monitor. That's why almost all the guys buying high end rigs on this forum have moved to 1440p/3440x1440/4K or multi-monitors? They must be all stupid wasting their money.
1080p itself is just an arbitrarily number set as a result of HDTV resolution standard. For PC gaming, I want the best visuals, not console visuals.
Care to guess how many people with a 22-25" 1080p 60Hz panel on these forums, if they were given a FREE 43" 4K 60Hz monitor, would say: "No, please, I want my 2004 screen size and resolution back."
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01E...4k+monitor&dpPl=1&dpID=515p3zoLJhL&ref=plSrch
tential is right-- almost all the people defending 1080p 60Hz gaming either have never games on a good large monitor or are just too cheap to buy a new high-end card and a new monitor together.
Even for competitive gaming, all the top guys who play competitive FPS use 100-165Hz screens.
I'll just say there will always be people who will pay $700-1000 for a card and game on a crap $100-200 22-25" 1080p 60Hz monitor. Same way there will be guys in the hood with $3-4K expensive rims and tires on their POS $10-15K car.
Point is someone was given 1070 and a 4K 120Hz OLED, are they going to claim that IPS/TN 1080p 60Hz gaming is better? Give me a break. Call it what it is -- a lot of people defend 1080p 60Hz gaming because they can afford to buy a $200-400 card, sell it in 2 years with a $100 loss in value, but they shake when asked to pay $500-800 for a 1440p/4K monitor. It's too expensive for them. That's why 1080p 60Hz and lower dominates Steam, not because 1080p 60Hz is somehow superior.
Let's face it, if tomorrow you could buy a 27-28" 1440p 120Hz G-Sync HDR panel for $100-150, you'd get one for you 1070. That's the truth that 1080p 60Hz gamers hide behind. I am man enough to admit that I don't have the budget for a 34" 3440x1440 100Hz G-Sync Panel and 1080 SLI but I sure as hell don't defend 1080p 60Hz or 1440p 60Hz gaming in that context.
You are absolutely ridiculous putting words in my mouth left and right. I NEVER said a 1080p screen is better than a 4K screen I was talking about a 1080p 50" screen.
Ok, let's go with that view. If 1070 is only a MAX settings 1080p 60Hz card, and it's 60% faster than a 780Ti/970/290, you agree then 780Ti/290/970 are only MAX settings 1280x1024 cards? Then 950/960/280X/770 users should have all been gaming at 1280x1024 or 720p in 2014-2015 because 980 was also a 1080p 60Hz card? Do you realize how insane your defense of 1070 = 1080p 60Hz card sounds?!!
You're living in a bubble if you think that's the majority. A $400-500 card also means a $1000+ computer build. rx480 enables decent $700 PC builds. Which opens up premium PC gaming experience to folks who wouldn't even consider building a PC in the past.I have friends that have car hobbies, motorcycles, even sneaker collectors. They spend way more than 400$ A YEAR on their hobbies.
I bet my father spends more than that on cleaning supplies for his motorcycle and truck.
Most adults have jobs and can easily afford a 4 or 500$ card, especially every 2 or 3 years.
just my opinion.
Care to guess how many people with a 22-25" 1080p 60Hz panel on these forums, if they were given a FREE 43" 4K 60Hz monitor, would say: "No, please, I want my 2004 screen size and resolution back."
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01E...4k+monitor&dpPl=1&dpID=515p3zoLJhL&ref=plSrch
You'd have a point on 1440p, but if you gave me a 43" 4k monitor I'd sell it and buy a 27"-32" 1440p one. With how horrible multicard support has been the last few months I would not want a 4k monitor. The Division and Ashes are about the only recent games to have reasonable scaling (and only for AMD on Ashes), and Ashes just seems like a DX12 demo. It's unbelievable how bad multi-gpu support has been lately. I mean check GameGPU's benches for ROTR, Hitman, Gears of War Ultimate, Forza, Quantum Break, Just Cause 3, Dark Souls III, Far Cry Primal, Doom, Total War Warhammer, and Mirror's Edge Catalyst.
Funny, because I would choose the 4k monitor every time, and use lower settings than the one they use in benchmarks which tanks FPS.
Thats your preference and that's fine but not everyone has that preference.Funny, because I would choose the 4k monitor every time, and use lower settings than the one they use in benchmarks which tanks FPS.
Are you going to get a consistent 60 fps at 4k medium on say Witcher 3, much less newer titles, even with a GTX 1080?
I would say that's entirely plausible, but you'll never see a benchmark at anything other than Ultra settings with every possible option enabled, which causes everyone to whine about low framerates. With the new (non-beta) drivers, HardwareUnboxed is showing the 1070 getting 33 FPS average (24 minimum) running Witcher 3 at 4K/Ultra+HairWorks+SSAO. Crysis 3 at 4K/Ultra+4xSMAA, the 1070 drops down to 23 FPS average (18 minimum).
Lose the AA (do you really need it at 4K on any size screen?), drop the settings down a bit, I wouldn't be surprised if you got much closer to 60 FPS.
That said, I'm used to <40 FPS at 1920x1200/Low, so... Anything is an improvement for me.
I've seen claims that the GTX 1070/1080 are hitting thermal limits and throttling after a few minutes in some games (like The Witcher 3).
Is that true?
Hmm yes you absolutely need AA.Lose the AA (do you really need it at 4K on any size screen?)
Not at 4k.... I would never waste performance on aa at 4k. The whole reason I run at high resolutions is to get rid of the necessity of AA. That's why I downsample especially as well.Hmm yes you absolutely need AA.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
What are you talking about? The need for AA is directly proportionate with PPI not what the resolution is lol.Not at 4k.... I would never waste performance on aa at 4k. The whole reason I run at high resolutions is to get rid of the necessity of AA. That's why I downsample especially as well.
AA is the last option you would improve at 4k resolution. Honestly if I need aa, I'm not adding it. I'm rendering at a higher resolution. Aa is such a bad excuse for rendering at a higher resolution.