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

[Zstream]

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

That's why all of my friends have moved on to consoles

 

[Kenmitch]

1080p 144Hz user here....No such thing as overkill too me at least.

 

[topmounter]

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

I'm a little surprised that he didn't preface it with "I'm just going to leave this here..."

 

[bystander36]

That's why all of my friends have moved on to consoles

There is nothing stopping people from simply turning down a few settings. It'll still look better than a console game. Sadly, it seems some people don't understand that PC games are designed to self optimize, and the medium-high settings is all it takes to meet or beat a console in graphics.

 

[crisium]

That's why all of my friends have moved on to consoles

Do they know that rather than Ultra, consoles are usually a mix of High, Medium, and even some low settings? And sometimes at only 900p (less with Xbone)? Digital Foundry can always match PS4 settings and performance with a GTX 950 and often even with a 750 Ti. $90-$150 cards.

The Ultra Hyper settings effect is really funny.

Console-only players use it to justify avoiding PC gaming.

Enthusiasts use it as justification to buy the fastest and upgrade.

I admit I'll fall for the same trap if Battlefield 1's High performs the same as Ultra in Battlefront. That'll mean I can't do Ultra anymore? Nooo! Better start camping in line for Vega.

 

[Thinker_145]

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!!!

Yea ofcourse nobody suggested buying a high end card with low end components. In fact I would say the GPU should be the lowest common denominator in a gaming PC.

 

[xthetenth]

I get frustrated by the people who are allergic to settings menus for either the 'complexity' or maxing out reason. They're the biggest advantage of PC gaming, and are why the same game that looks good on my 290 and 3440x1440 is the same game that my friend can play on a GT 430 or whatever relic he's got. Add in that we're playing the same games usually way cheaper than console.

Honestly looks good is good enough for me. I enjoy having a really good price/performance part as much as having super crazy performance to turn up all my settings. I guess that the wallet enthusiasts crank settings like that to maximize that sweet sweet money out dopamine in action from buying high end cards.

I'm totally going to sell myself of Vega though, but that's because I really like nice coolers.

 

[Thinker_145]

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.

There are always diminishing returns with high end parts.

 

[Thinker_145]

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.

Spending $600 on a card for 1080p is only dumb if you won't be able to upgrade when you can no longer max out games. In that case buying a cheaper GPU and saving the rest for future upgrade would be much better.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

There are always diminishing returns with high end parts.

And there's also diminishing returns at lower resolutions where you're more likely to run into CPU-bound scenarios instead of GPU-bound ones compared to higher resolutions. Generally, when someone asks 'is this a good GPU for my PC,' it isn't asked in a vacuum and price does matter. Is a $600 GTX 1080 going to outperform a $250 480/970/390 at 1080p? Oh, yes, absolutely. Is the extra $350 for the GTX 1080 going to give you a boost worth the price? I'm going to say 'no.'

Sure, you can say 'well what if price isn't an issue,' but then I have to ask why they don't upgrade their monitor to match their nice $600 GPU.

 

[Thinker_145]

And there's also diminishing returns at lower resolutions where you're more likely to run into CPU-bound scenarios instead of GPU-bound ones. Generally, when someone asks 'is this a good GPU for my PC,' it isn't asked in a vacuum and price does matter. Is a $600 GTX 1080 going to outperform a $250 480/970/390 at 1080p? Oh, yes, absolutely. Is the extra $350 for the GTX 1080 going to give you a boost worth the price? I'm going to say 'no.'

Sure, you can say 'well what if price isn't an issue,' but then I have to ask why they don't upgrade their monitor to match their nice $600 GPU.

At 720p sure but 1080p continues to be a very demanding resolution this is the part that most people don't seem to accept. Similar to how the 1080 can't do 60FPS in a few games at 1440p the 1070 can't at 1080p.

If we talk so strictly about value you can pretty much never justify buying a 1080 over a 1070.

Someone could still play at 1080p despite no budget limitations because they want to max every game at launch and don't want to bother with the issues of SLI. Although if I had unlimited budget I would play at 1440p and buy every new performance king GPU at launch. I would never buy a 4K monitor for gaming in the current generation.

 

[Thinker_145]

I don't understand why nobody makes a 1080p 144hz IPS screen. That would be a screen fit for any sort of a gamer.

 

[bystander36]

I don't understand why nobody makes a 1080p 144hz IPS screen. That would be a screen fit for any sort of a gamer.

Until very recently, IPS and similar tech have had too poor of pixel response times to make 144hz practical. In the last year, they have released some IPS 1440p 144hz monitors with the new tech. When your pixel response time is as long as the frame times, you do not get 144 crisp frames per second, and instead just get blur as they transition between frames (not that it would look terrible, it just wouldn't give you much benefit).

 

[Silverforce11]

Any GPU can be overkill if you crank up the max, 8x MSAA, or heck, even 4x SSAA, at 1080p.

Many of these modern games have done away with that inefficient AA approach, but there's always a bunch that's poorly optimized + MSAA/SSAA and it will cripple your top GPU.

For example, Ark is notoriously unoptimized and looks awful at maxed. The question is do you want to max those games? Is it worth it?

If the answer is yes, then you need the best GPU money can buy at the time. Maybe even 2. Just to max it at 1080p.

 

[Thinker_145]

Until very recently, IPS and similar tech have had too poor of pixel response times to make 144hz practical. In the last year, they have released some IPS 1440p 144hz monitors with the new tech. When your pixel response time is as long as the frame times, you do not get 144 crisp frames per second, and instead just get blur as they transition between frames (not that it would look terrible, it just wouldn't give you much benefit).

Yes I know it has only been achieved recently but now that we have seen so many 1440p panels with it I would have expected them to make 1080p as well. I mean they are just missing out on a market I can't imagine that 1080p 144Hz IPS won't be a huge market. Even the TN panels manage to charge a premium for 144Hz.

I mean if 144 is a problem then make it 120 I don't think anybody would complain.

 

[Thinker_145]

Any GPU can be overkill if you crank up the max, 8x MSAA, or heck, even 4x SSAA, at 1080p.

Many of these modern games have done away with that inefficient AA approach, but there's always a bunch that's poorly optimized + MSAA/SSAA and it will cripple your top GPU.

For example, Ark is notoriously unoptimized and looks awful at maxed. The question is do you want to max those games? Is it worth it?

If the answer is yes, then you need the best GPU money can buy at the time. Maybe even 2. Just to max it at 1080p.

I am not saying that a GPU isn't overkill because you can always super sample. But for me 4xMSAA, max in game settings and min FPS of no lower than 50 is what I call properly maxing out a game. And this is not easy to achieve in every game even at 1080p.

 

[Silverforce11]

I am not saying that a GPU isn't overkill because you can always super sample. But for me 4xMSAA, max in game settings and min FPS of no lower than 50 is what I call properly maxing out a game. And this is not easy to achieve in every game even at 1080p.

Why MSAA?

MLAA and SMAA actually are great with little blurring of the scene. They even handle transparencies which MSAA does not.

4x MSAA in deferred engine games (most big open world games are using this rendering approach) just kills performance.

I'm playing Total War Warhammer now, and MLAA is doing an excellent job with only a small performance hit. If it was 4x MSAA, frame rate would be cut in half.

 

[Thinker_145]

Why MSAA?

MLAA and SMAA actually are great with little blurring of the scene. They even handle transparencies which MSAA does not.

4x MSAA in deferred engine games (most big open world games are using this rendering approach) just kills performance.

I'm playing Total War Warhammer now, and MLAA is doing an excellent job with only a small performance hit. If it was 4x MSAA, frame rate would be cut in half.

But what I am saying is that if I have performance to spare I would always want to have MSAA.

The performance impact of 4xMSAA gets bigger with higher resolution. 1080p with 4xMSAA is totally doable without buying a new card every year.

 

[HannooFX]

I totally agree, buying a powerful graphics card ensures that you will be future proof for at least 2-3 years, even if gaming at 1080P

GPU requirements increases year after year.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Does not look well for future games...

I think it's better to go a tier or two below the top of the line and then just upgrade more often, unless you're loaded. Gaming is a hobby, and there are more expensive hobbies out there.

 

[Thinker_145]

I think it's better to go a tier or two below the top of the line and then just upgrade more often, unless you're loaded. Gaming is a hobby, and there are more expensive hobbies out there.

Oh I totally agree with that.

 

[Pottuvoi]

I think it's better to go a tier or two below the top of the line and then just upgrade more often, unless you're loaded. Gaming is a hobby, and there are more expensive hobbies out there.

Yup, always go for the point of best performance/price.

 

[ultima_trev]

While I myself would never spend 500+ on a GPU, I do somewhat agree with the OP's assessment. I have an R9 390 and people keep telling me to upgrade to 1440P (where I'd certainly have to dial down settings to high or medium in most cases) while I'm satisfied gaming at 1650*1050 where I can set everything to Ultra and get decent framerates.

1440P is truly the realm of dual GPU and as multi-GPU scaling is typically terribad (be it SLI or CFX), I won't be visiting that area anytime soon.

 

[Raduque]

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 want to max out games at 1080p. I don't want a higher resolution monitor because text is already hard for me to read at 1080p. So what GPU should I buy? I suppose you'd say a 970 and stop trying to max the settings.

Asinine indeed.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Any GPU can be overkill if you crank up the max, 8x MSAA, or heck, even 4x SSAA, at 1080p.

Many of these modern games have done away with that inefficient AA approach, but there's always a bunch that's poorly optimized + MSAA/SSAA and it will cripple your top GPU.

For example, Ark is notoriously unoptimized and looks awful at maxed. The question is do you want to max those games? Is it worth it?

If the answer is yes, then you need the best GPU money can buy at the time. Maybe even 2. Just to max it at 1080p.

Saner words have never been spoken.

In addition, there is still the issue whether such games are even worth the effort playing at all from a gameplay PoV.