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

[4K_shmoorK]

Where did I ever say it's insufficient for 1080p? I said it's insufficient for 1440p which leaves us no option but to go for 1080p. I would not want to game on anything less wide than 16:9.

A single GTX 1080 is in no way, shape, or form insufficient for 1440p. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Thinker_145]

A single GTX 1080 is in no way, shape, or form insufficient for 1440p. Let's just agree to disagree.

Sorry but you are just ignoring facts. A GTX 1080 gets an AVERAGE of 50FPS in crysis 3 at 1440p. That's right there insufficient.

 

[Gorbugal]

Sorry but you are just ignoring facts. A GTX 1080 gets an AVERAGE of 50FPS in crysis 3 at 1440p. That's right there insufficient.

That's at MSAA High(8x) I'd assume because Techpowerup runs everything at the highest possible settings. As with all the other game benches. Not the choice most people would make. I know I'd take 1440p 4x MSAA over 1080p 8x and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with similar performance.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis3_6.html

Looks like even 2560x1600 is faster at 4x than 1080p @8x. Unrealistic settings.

 

[sxr7171]

Sorry but you are just ignoring facts. A GTX 1080 gets an AVERAGE of 50FPS in crysis 3 at 1440p. That's right there insufficient.

Also no amount of MSAA gets rid of the aliasing. You will see it on stairs and on almost every scene somewhere. That game needs DSR to get rid of all the aliasing. Ryse Son of Rome does not have this problem. Boring game though.

 

[mooncancook]

It's never overkill if you can afford it. Somebody who has no problem affording a GTX 1080 right now should have no problem affording a 1440p or better monitor either. Useless discussion.

 

[Thinker_145]

It's never overkill if you can afford it. Somebody who has no problem affording a GTX 1080 right now should have no problem affording a 1440p or better monitor either. Useless discussion.

No I think you guys are missing the point. I have just used the 1080 as an EXAMPLE. There are people and even reviews of the 1070 saying that it is overkill for 1080p and that owners of 1080p screens should look for a cheaper card which is absolutely utterly ridiculous thing to say.

 

[bystander36]

No I think you guys are missing the point. I have just used the 1080 as an EXAMPLE. There are people and even reviews of the 1070 saying that it is overkill for 1080p and that owners of 1080p screens should look for a cheaper card which is absolutely utterly ridiculous thing to say.

You have to realize that for the most part, those statements are aimed at the mainstream gamer. Those who are extremists, who don't settle for turning down a few settings, know what they want, and can look past what the typical gamer should do.

You don't like to adjust settings at all. You simply turn everything up, regardless of how practical it is. You know this, and get a GTX 1080. For most others, they can adjust a few settings and have a great experience with much less expense.

 

[Thinker_145]

You have to realize that for the most part, those statements are aimed at the mainstream gamer. Those who are extremists, who don't settle for turning down a few settings, know what they want, and can look past what the typical gamer should do.

You don't like to adjust settings at all. You simply turn everything up, regardless of how practical it is. You know this, and get a GTX 1080. For most others, they can adjust a few settings and have a great experience with much less expense.

No it's not just about that. Graphical demands increase at a staggering pace in PC gaming. Which is why to make a statement that 1070 is overkill for 1080p is terrible advise.

I just find it so careless when people talk as if someone buys a GPU just to play games already released.

 

[sxr7171]

No it's not just about that. Graphical demands increase at a staggering pace in PC gaming. Which is why to make a statement that 1070 is overkill for 1080p is terrible advise.

I just find it so careless when people talk as if someone buys a GPU just to play games already released.

You have to admit people like us are not mainstream. I firmly believe in never having enough GPU power even at 1080p. But we are the exception. I think the average 1080p gamer would do very well with a 1070.

 

[coercitiv]

No I think you guys are missing the point. I have just used the 1080 as an EXAMPLE. There are people and even reviews of the 1070 saying that it is overkill for 1080p and that owners of 1080p screens should look for a cheaper card which is absolutely utterly ridiculous thing to say.

So you used 1440p and 1080 as an example, when in fact you meant to talk about 1080p and 1070. A couple more pages on this thread and we'll end up with 1060 and RX 480.

The elephant in this thread is how some perceive 1080p standard as a must for various reasons, but demand that associated GPU segment for 1080p be removed because standards do a bad job at representing true performance. Meanwhile only the "ultra settings" standard is acceptable (although it has no absolute or standardized meaning).

You want your 1080p monitor and a GTX 1080? That's fine, enjoy it. It's your purchasing decision and may very well be the best decision in your case, especially if it's documented. But don't try to impose it as the new norm, because this choice fails in the face of several metrics people use to create objective purchasing criteria. It's a personalized build and should be evaluated as such.

You have to admit people like us are not mainstream. I firmly believe in never having enough GPU power even at 1080p. But we are the exception.

Well put.

 

[Bacon1]

No it's not just about that. Graphical demands increase at a staggering pace in PC gaming. Which is why to make a statement that 1070 is overkill for 1080p is terrible advise.

I just find it so careless when people talk as if someone buys a GPU just to play games already released.

The points raised are unless you are spending $400+ on the CPU as well, you will be CPU limited @ 1080p, so why spend more money on a 1080/1070 when you won't get much if any faster FPS?

Those who don't care about burning money don't care that the cards are overkill.

Stop trying to say there aren't multiple groups with vastly different budgets. For most gamers, the 1070/1080/980 TI/Fury X etc are all overkill and not worth the money.

 

[therealnickdanger]

I can see the merits in custom-fitting a GPU to someone's needs and saving some money, but then I also completely understand buying something that is "overkill". As someone that usually never sells his GPUs, it's nice to have more powerful hand-me-down GPUs to put in other machines whenever I upgrade. It helps keep all my computers more capable for longer. After my next upgrade, my 970s are going into an i3 and a Q6600.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Sorry but you are just ignoring facts. A GTX 1080 gets an AVERAGE of 50FPS in crysis 3 at 1440p. That's right there insufficient.

for you maybe...but for many people 50 FPS is just fine.

It doesn't matter how much hyperbole and how many ad hominem attacks you throw around, you are stating your opinion, not fact.

 

[TemjinGold]

No it's not just about that. Graphical demands increase at a staggering pace in PC gaming. Which is why to make a statement that 1070 is overkill for 1080p is terrible advise.

I just find it so careless when people talk as if someone buys a GPU just to play games already released.

There is no staggering pace. I've actually been annoyed at how SLOW PC gaming has advanced once things pegged to consoles. Back in the day when your 2-yr old card stopped meeting MINIMUM requirements in the blink of an eye and you HAD to upgrade often, that was a staggering pace. It is now a snail's pace.

Here's the thing: You have your opinion on what you need and that's great. But it should be abundantly clear by now that very people support your view. You can cry about it all you want, it's not going to change anything so deal with it.

 

[agfkfhahddhdn]

.

 

[HOOfan 1]

This is stupid and adds nothing to the conversation.

Neither does the speak of "1440p elitist attitude" or "PC master race mentality" that the OP keeps bandying about.

 

[agfkfhahddhdn]

.

 

[xthetenth]

And what exactly is wrong in being "stuck" at 1080p? IPS glow actually gets worse with size so it can argued that the smaller 1080p monitors are actually better than the bigger ones in terms of IQ.

I find this elitist attitude of the 1440p race pretty funny. You guys play down the importance of ultra settings and yet pixels are everything.

"If you can buy a $600 card then why not a better monitor?"
Well why should I when the more expensive monitors offer virtually no IQ improvements and just gives me bigger size and resolution? Is it really inconciebable that people might be happy with gaming on a certain size?

I have a 24" 1080p 60Hz IPS screen and believe me resolution and size are the very last things I would like to upgrade. I would like to have 120hz yes but apart from that the things I want are not provided by any of these high end monitors. So if I have to accept mediocrity I'll rather do it at a lower price.

Give me an OLED screen or even a very fast VA screen and that's what I would call a real high end display.

Pixels/size translate directly into coverage of the field of view unless you're in the habit of having the monitor over your hands or something, at which point it's going to look pixelated. Better monitors provide other major benefits since smaller IPS tend not to have fully functional *sync implementations, which make a massive difference in perceived smoothness. I'd much rather those improvements even if I have to cut down some of the fancier effects.

It's very funny that you're railing against the idea of overkill on GPUs and here you are making a tacit statement that you consider most enthusiast monitors overkill.

 

[bystander36]

No it's not just about that. Graphical demands increase at a staggering pace in PC gaming. Which is why to make a statement that 1070 is overkill for 1080p is terrible advise.

I just find it so careless when people talk as if someone buys a GPU just to play games already released.

Graphical demands only advance at the pace of hardware. When hardware was advancing at a "staggering" pace, so were gaming demands. Now that things have slowed down a lot with hardware, so are the demands from games.

For most people, they'd find better performance over time purchasing a GTX 1070 now, at a much lower price, getting good performance for 2-3 years, then take the savings and put it towards their next purchase, or another aspect of their system.

Generally speaking, the 2nd and 3rd fastest cards being sold give you only a little less performance for a far lower cost.

 

[Thinker_145]

The points raised are unless you are spending $400+ on the CPU as well, you will be CPU limited @ 1080p, so why spend more money on a 1080/1070 when you won't get much if any faster FPS?

Those who don't care about burning money don't care that the cards are overkill.

Stop trying to say there aren't multiple groups with vastly different budgets. For most gamers, the 1070/1080/980 TI/Fury X etc are all overkill and not worth the money.

One could upgrade CPU later and same goes for monitor. You don't only buy components in relation to what you currently have but also what you may get in future. Incremental upgrades are one of the greatest things about PC gaming and its totally okay if things remain a little unbalanced in between.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

One could upgrade CPU later and same goes for monitor. You don't only buy components in relation to what you currently have but also what you may get in future. Incremental upgrades are one of the greatest things about PC gaming and its totally okay if things remain a little unbalanced in between.

Seems to contradict what you've been arguing this entire time. I thought this whole argument is about how the GTX 1080 is not overkill for 1080p gaming and that it is insufficient for higher resolutions. i.e. There's no need for a monitor upgrade if the GTX 1080 can't max games at 2560x1440. Not sure it's valid to argue the value of incremental upgrades when the whole argument hinges on hardware that you claim is sufficient for your purposes and thus not overkill. Bit of a circular argument.

 

[coercitiv]

One could upgrade CPU later and same goes for monitor.

And exactly the same thing applies to GPUs.

 

[amenx]

Not a single game was 'unplayable' for me on 1440p on a 970, incl Crysis 3. I could always find settings that were perfectly playable AND which looked better than higher settings on 1080p. Btw, not sure what settings TPU used, but from AT review, Cryisis 3:

p.s only game that really gave me trouble on 1440p was Ark Survival. It was only playable at low FPS and looked like crap.

 

[bystander36]

It really comes down to this:
Most people do not recommend a GTX 1080 to someone who is using a 1080p monitor, except if they mention they are wanting to play at 100+ FPS, plan to use VR/3D, make it clear they will not except lowering settings, or some other specific example.

There may be ways to make use of a GTX 1080 on a 1080p monitor, but it's generally not what should be recommended for the average person asking for a GPU recommendation. That doesn't mean you don't have your own reasons to ignore that advice.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Not a single game was 'unplayable' for me on 1440p on a 970, incl Crysis 3. I could always find settings that were perfectly playable AND which looked better than higher settings on 1080p. Btw, not sure what settings TPU used, but from AT review, Cryisis 3:

p.s only game that really gave me trouble on 1440p was Ark Survival. It was only playable at low FPS and looked like crap.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GTX_780_Ti_Jet_Stream/14.html

Whatever settings they used, the 780 Ti was below 50 FPS average at 1080p. So, basically if averaging 50 fps on a single game using TPU's settings, at a resolution is insufficient, not a single GPU was sufficient for 1080p in 2013. The Titan only managed 45 fps, the dual GPU 690 and 7990 averaged under 60 fps.

Heck, AMD's top of the line card when Crysis 3 lauched, the 7970 Ghz edition apparently wasn't sufficient for 900p either, because it only averaged 42.7fps with TPU's Crysis 3 settings. Same for nvidia's top of the line card when Crysis 3 released...the GTX 680 only averaged 43 fps on TPU's Crysis 3 test.