The great misconception about a graphic card being "overkill" for a resolution.

[Thinker_145]

I have been PC gaming for nearly 10 years and I have seen this downright terrible argument time and time again.

Gamer looking for advise: Is this a good GPU to buy for my PC?

Forum expert: What monitor do you have? Don't you dare buy that graphic card if you don't at least have an xyz monitor as otherwise you will be in massive overkill territory. While in theory the argument will work when we talk about extreme scenarios. But people practically fail to apply it in an effective manner.

Right now if someone were to say that they bought a GTX 1080 to play games on their 1080p screen everyone would go like "OMG such a waste". Some people would even say that if you bought a GTX 1070 for 1080p. But I bet almost everyone will say that about the GTX 1080 hence that is what I am gonna concentrate on here.

The next resolution jump while maintaining aspect ratio after 1080p is 1440p so let's just examine how the "overkill" GTX 1080 performs at 1440p shall we?

Oh no that's not a good start lol.

Opps...

So overkill? lolol

Does not look well for future games...

So the GTX 1080 does not max out every game at 1440p even at launch what do you think is going to happen going forward? Are you guys really that clueless about how fast GPU requirements increase to even consider such arguments? A GPU would need 120+ FPS in EVERY game for that argument to have any merit.

To force a noob gamer into buying an inferior GPU to what they could actually afford just because their resolution doesn't meet your lofty standards is just bad advice and will have a negative impact on PC gaming when 2 year onwards that gamer would be struggling with most games at decent settings.

Now your "PC master race" mentality may not be able to digest it but the fact is 1440p continues to be a dual card resolution. PC graphics cards have simply not left 1080p in the dust and that's fine. The consoles still don't do 1080p in every game last time I heard.

Not to mention insane resolutions are actually detrimental to the progress of graphics. If a game developer wants their game to run very well at very high resolutions with single GPUs then they are clearly sacrificing the fidelity for that.

Now YOU may be fine playing at higher resolution at the cost of lower settings and lower performance. But please stop pretending that your monster GPU eats out all games at 1440p because it really doesn't.

 

[positivedoppler]

Is TPU a reliable site? Scanning through the VC form, I see a lot of not so great comments about them.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Who plays Anno 2205 and AC:Syndicate? A 1080 for 1080p is somewhat of a waste, not to mention a disproportionate ratio of money invested in a display to money invested in GPU, IMO.

The mentality that every game has to be run at the absolute maximum settings is asinine. Even more so if the title is poorly optimized.

I see your argument, but you aren't doing yourself any favors with the games you chose to help your case...

 

[Pottuvoi]

Additional power is never waste if it helps to make experience better.
Always fun to return to some really old game, force 16xSSAA and make the game look a new.

 

[xthetenth]

Spending more than $300 or maybe $400 on a graphics card, let alone 600+ is asinine if you're only running a 1080p screen. Similarly spending $600+ on a video card is ludicrous unless you're already maxed out on the gains from upgrading more frequently, and if you are upgrading that frequently, what are you doing with a screen worth less than your yearly upgrade budget?

But yeah, people spending less than $300 on a video card are definitely in the max settings in future games or bust crowd. For sure.

 

[bystander36]

The argument also does not consider the high FPS gamer often. That said, there are 3 types of gamers you see on the forum. 1) The enthusiast who will have either a high resolution or high hz monitor who has to turn every setting to the max, 2) the best bang for your buck gamer, who wants at least high settings, but does not need maxed out settings, and 3) the budget gamer who just wants to play the games at medium or so settings.

It seems those who like to talk about the latest tech fall into category 1 most often, but those giving advice seem to fall into category 2. But it really depends on the gamer and what his desires are. It isn't such a bad deal to get a GTX 1080 for 1080p if you like high FPS on a high hz monitor, and maybe a GTX 1070 for someone who wants good FPS on a standard hz monitor and desires some life out of the card. It might not be the best bang for your buck, but it isn't really wasted either.

 

[sm625]

You're not making much of an argument here. There is clearly such a thing as overkill. A 980ti for a 1366x768 screen is clearly overkill. Hell, some people still use 1024x768.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The argument (of overkill) considers the budget of the person.

If you have enough money to buy an i7, 16 GB, large SSDs, nice case and a 1080 then why not?

If buying the 1080 means you have to cut back on other parts then a 1070 could be the better choice for that person.

 

[guachi]

Now your "PC master race" mentality may not be able to digest it but the fact is 1440p continues to be a dual card resolution.

Except that it doesn't. It very much depends on the types of games one plays and the detail level one desires.

If you play a FPS and just have to max detail then, yes, you probably need a dual gpu computer. But if you don't, then you really don't need a super gpu to play games. I still have a 5870 and had (and have) no problem running WoW or Dragon Age: Origins in 2010 at 2560x1600 or 5760x1200 (or 3600x1920) and just turn detail down a bit. I still have no problem running a game like EU IV as it's not very demanding on a video card. Even Total War games aren't an issue at 2560x1600 simply because FPS just doesn't matter nearly as much (single player).

And I suspect when I get a 3840x2160 monitor in a month I'll have no trouble pairing it with a 480.

Again, it's all about the games you play.

 

[digitaldurandal]

The argument (of overkill) considers the budget of the person.

If you have enough money to buy an i7, 16 GB, large SSDs, nice case and a 1080 then why not?

If buying the 1080 means you have to cut back on other parts then a 1070 could be the better choice for that person.

I agree, overkill is something that is going to be relative. One person in this thread says they use SSAA 16x for instance so any amount of power is good for them but.. unless they're running SLI 1080s I must conclude that even they see some purchases as overkill.

It is about the fidelity you get for the money. Being able to max every display setting in every game is not necessary for most consumers. Some settings do very little to enhance the fidelity of the game while taking a large performance hit. Things like Hairworks or some of the ambient occlusion methods for instance. Sometimes I even prefer a setting that is less demanding like soft shadows instead of softest shadows.

Often in games a user would be hard pressed to tell the difference between Ultra and Very High settings especially during actual gameplay. So for a gamer considering purchasing a card for 1080p who may be looking at a 1070 and a 1080, it may be overkill for them to get the 1080. Will there be a benefit? Sure it is obviously the better card. Will it be worth the extra 325 bucks? Probably not for the average user.

On the other hand if the person is an enthuisiast who has a 144hz 1080p panel and plays a lot of twitch shooters, they may consider the 1080 worth the additional money.

It is definitely a relative thing with no clear concrete answer as to when enough power is enough.

 

[MongGrel]

Conundrum not found, why are you raging about a 1440P vs a 1080P OP ?

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish from the thread really.

 

[crisium]

I agree with the title, even if not exactly how you are presenting it.

There's no such thing as single card overkill even at 1080p, since there are VSR/DSR and other super sampling options that can do wonders. Though if you find yourself using VSR in most games you should probably get a new monitor. This is what I did last year as I found out that I could do 1440p VSR on my 1080p 60Hz screen in most new releases, so I might as well get native 1440.

 

[Gorbugal]

What an odd thread.

So some people allegedly say a GTX 1080 is a waste for 1080p? Therefore you're here posting a bunch of cherry picked 1440p benchmarks along with some condescending commentary? Why? What does maintaining aspect ratio have to do with anything? Is this the tenuous reasoning for using 1440p benchmarks? By the last line you're just arguing with yourself about 1440p and have dropped any reference to 1080p altogether.

Nobody forces anyone to do anything, if someone comes for advice here they can take it or leave it. Personally I'd rather have a 1070 with a higher-end 1440p monitor than a GTX 1080 with a cheaper monitor. But I don't play FPS nor do I mind dropping a few key settings (which usually are almost impossible to notice if you're not comparing screenshots) to get good performance. 1440p a dual card resolution? I can attest personally it doesn't have to be.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Except that it doesn't. It very much depends on the types of games one plays and the detail level one desires.

I agree.

I have a 1440p 144hz monitor running on a single 290. I play quite a few games.

Battleborn runs over 90 fps (on the versus maps there are a few campaign maps with big fps drops, however I only play the versus) with most settings enabled
Rocketleague runs 143 fps with everything I want enabled
Dark Souls 2 60 fps (game fps locked) with everything I want enabled
Pillars of Eternity over 60 fps with everything I want enabled
GTA5 over 60 fps but a few settings did have to be turned down
The Solus Project over 60 fps with everything I want enabled

While I am not hitting 143 fps in every game I still have the advantage of my more than 60hz monitor and freesync in many games. I am ready for an upgrade but I can run 1440p with this card and if I wasn't able to afford upgrading I would be fine for at least another year with it.

As it is I am probably looking at another 6 months before a real upgrade and honestly I am fine with that. I may sell the 290 and grab a 480 which later would go into my wife's rig with a much less powerful PSU.

 

[rgallant]

I have been PC gaming for nearly 10 years and I have seen this downright terrible argument time and time again.

Gamer looking for advise: Is this a good GPU to buy for my PC?

Forum expert: What monitor do you have? Don't you dare buy that graphic card if you don't at least have an xyz monitor as otherwise you will be in massive overkill territory. While in theory the argument will work when we talk about extreme scenarios. But people practically fail to apply it in an effective manner.

Right now if someone were to say that they bought a GTX 1080 to play games on their 1080p screen everyone would go like "OMG such a waste". Some people would even say that if you bought a GTX 1070 for 1080p. But I bet almost everyone will say that about the GTX 1080 hence that is what I am gonna concentrate on here.

The next resolution jump while maintaining aspect ratio after 1080p is 1440p so let's just examine how the "overkill" GTX 1080 performs at 1440p shall we?

Oh no that's not a good start lol.

Opps...

So overkill? lolol

Does not look well for future games...

So the GTX 1080 does not max out every game at 1440p even at launch what do you think is going to happen going forward? Are you guys really that clueless about how fast GPU requirements increase to even consider such arguments? A GPU would need 120+ FPS in EVERY game for that argument to have any merit.

To force a noob gamer into buying an inferior GPU to what they could actually afford just because their resolution doesn't meet your lofty standards is just bad advice and will have a negative impact on PC gaming when 2 year onwards that gamer would be struggling with most games at decent settings.

Now your "PC master race" mentality may not be able to digest it but the fact is 1440p continues to be a dual card resolution. PC graphics cards have simply not left 1080p in the dust and that's fine. The consoles still don't do 1080p in every game last time I heard.

Not to mention insane resolutions are actually detrimental to the progress of graphics. If a game developer wants their game to run very well at very high resolutions with single GPUs then they are clearly sacrificing the fidelity for that.

Now YOU may be fine playing at higher resolution at the cost of lower settings and lower performance. But please stop pretending that your monster GPU eats out all games at 1440p because it really doesn't.

we only have low to mid range next gen chips released at this point in time , so there are no monster chips released yet ,but they are coming and named .

 

[Thala]

I agree to the assessment of the OP.
For me a minimum frametime of 16.6ms is obligatory, as this allow locking to 60Hz.
With other words, i will be gaming with 1080p for quite a while and i do not consider any available GPU as overkill for 1080p.
For some games it might be viable to go to higher resolution though, as long as the framerate does not suffer.

 

[Ranulf]

A 1080 gtx for 1080p. A chicken in every pot! Low ping for every bastard! This I decree!

Spending $600+ for 1080p is generally dumb unless holding onto the card for 3-5 years. Even then, several people have had long posts on this forum explaining why over the past few years that is likely a bad investment given current trends in the tech of graphics cards, driver support and pricing.

How much money would I have lost if I had gone with a 980 instead of a 290 in the fall of 2014? The 980 was $549 on release IIRC, that is $50 more than the two 290s I ended up getting with several free games last spring.

 

[topmounter]

It is overkill if I blow my budget on a 1080 and don't bother upgrading the remaining antiquated components in my system, leaving me bottlenecked due to my CPU / Mobo / RAM while the 1080 is running at a fraction of its potential.

And showing QHD benchmarks to bolster your FHD argument is bizarre. Regardless, this is well traveled territory and if you truly believe that you benefit by purchasing a $699 1080 to game at 1080p, then spend Thinker spend!!!

 

[Kuiva maa]

Well, add enough MSAA or, even worse, SSAA and there are gonna be many games that will kill even the strongest GPU. Nothing new here.

 

[DamZe]

It is overkill if I blow my budget on a 1080 and don't bother upgrading the remaining antiquated components in my system, leaving me bottlenecked due to my CPU / Mobo / RAM while the 1080 is running at a fraction of its potential.

And showing QHD benchmarks to bolster your FHD argument is bizarre. Regardless, this is well traveled territory and if you truly believe that you benefit by purchasing a $699 1080 to game at 1080p, then spend Thinker spend!!!

Ouch... so true!

 

[boozzer]

does this read like marketing to any of you? trying to sell those 600+ cards to 1080p gamers?

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Gamer looking for advise: Is this a good GPU to buy for my PC?

Forum expert: What monitor do you have? Don't you dare buy that graphic card if you don't at least have an xyz monitor as otherwise you will be in massive overkill territory. While in theory the argument will work when we talk about extreme scenarios. But people practically fail to apply it in an effective manner.

Really, you have the beginnings of a good argument here, but you're sort of missing the point. No one I've seen recommends against a card because it's overkill, they recommend against it because it's a case of diminishing returns.

 

[xthetenth]

does this read like marketing to any of you? trying to sell those 600+ cards to 1080p gamers?

Sounds to me more like the OP's one of that type of enthusiast who doesn't really get the whole idea that a GPU is only one component of an overall system or that people in the market for $200 GPUs not only exist but aren't the max settings at any cost crowd.

 

[provost]

Well, sprinkle some Gameworks'magic dust, add 100x tessellation to objects no one sees, mix in a pinch of hairworks combined with waveworks, and as if by magic, just like that, your $1,400 sli set up is all of the sudden now struggling to keep up high settings on 1080p. Whatever is left, the drivers can take care of it when the next release at $299 comes out within a few months. It's a pretty simple formula really- ensure that customers continue to chase performance by controlling performance through the software...lol

 

[Qwertilot]

It should be very easy to resist that of course, but it does seem like some people can't