# 720p/900p 60 fps, Ultra Settings Gaming



## vc92 (Apr 13, 2018)

Hello, good people of TechPowerUp forums,

As the title suggests, I am looking to game at either 720p or 900p (720p preferred) with Ultra Settings. Will the following configuration be enough for post-2016 titles including AAA ones?

CPU - Core i3-8100/Ryzen 5 1400 with compatible mobos from the value spectrum (think H series for Intel and B series for AMD)
RAM - 8 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 (4 GB x2)
GPU - 1050 Ti 4 GB/1060 3 GB

Any preferences, comments and suggestions are welcome!

Thanks a lot, folks!

**EDIT 1 - 
Games include - 

Tom Clancy Series
Assassin's Creed Series
Tomb Raider (2013)
Borderlands Series
The Witcher Series
Any RTS including Civilization Series, Warhammer 40k etc.
Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Tekken etc.
Far Cry Series

I hope the game list helps!


----------



## DRDNA (Apr 13, 2018)

CPU - Core i3-8100  +  1060 3 GB  is the better of the above config. It should give close to what you want at 720p if not maybe a touch more than you want. A game list would be helpful but yes this is okay for a 720p ultra gaming. Welcome to TPU!


----------



## vc92 (Apr 13, 2018)

Thanks a lot, DRDNA! I edited the post to include games. Please have a look!


----------



## Toothless (Apr 13, 2018)

The 1060 would suit well, and the i3 would work. At that low resolution the primary concern will be the cpu either way.


I'd get 16gb (2x8) for the ram though.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 13, 2018)

At 720p you might even be looking at high refresh rate / 60-120 FPS. 720p is really light on a GPU. But still get the 1060. 1050ti isn't really that much.

I would suggest getting the highest clocked CPU within budget, so you can last several GPU upgrades.


----------



## vc92 (Apr 13, 2018)

Toothless said:


> The 1060 would suit well, and the i3 would work. At that low resolution the primary concern will be the cpu either way.
> 
> 
> I'd get 16gb (2x8) for the ram though.


Thanks a lot for the suggestion Toothless! How about a Core i5 8400 if I bump up my budget or a Ryzen 5 1600 with compatible motherboards?



Vayra86 said:


> At 720p you might even be looking at high refresh rate / 60-120 FPS. 720p is really light on a GPU.


Thanks a lot for your suggestion Vayra86! Toothless suggested the same, a higher clocked CPU? An i5/Ryzen 5?


----------



## Vya Domus (Apr 13, 2018)

Don't buy a 4 core / 4 threads CPU in this day and age. I am also quite against that 3GB 1060 , might as well go for the 6 GB variant which is also about 10% faster.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 13, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Don't buy a 4 core / 4 threads CPU in this day and age. I am also quite against that 3GB 1060 , might as well go for the 6 GB variant which is also about 10% faster.



For 720p/900p that 6GB is totally not worth it, there is quite price gap. 1080p, sure... I do sort-of agree with the 4c being a minor risk, in which case Ryzen 5 would be a strong contender.

@jmcslob As for the 1050ti... its going to go obsolete real quick with ultra settings. You just lack the shaders and in the longer term its going to force OP into a faster upgrade. In addition the resale value of that tier of cards is... near nonexistant. GPU overkill hardly exists... time takes care of that. And a 2400G is just below a GT1030... hardly comparable.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 13, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Don't buy a 4 core / 4 threads CPU in this day and age. I am also quite against that 3GB 1060 , might as well go for the 6 GB variant which is also about 10% faster.


Given his intentions a 1060-3gb is Overkill.
He's looking for 720p...An AMD 2400g almost has him covered...
A 1050 of any variety has him covered.
A 1050ti would be great...a 1060 3gb would be Overkill and the 1060 6gb would be a waste...


----------



## Vya Domus (Apr 13, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> For 720p/900p that 6GB is totally not worth it.



Are you really sure though ? There are games out there than run below 60 fps at 1080p/ultra on 6 GB 1060 and as time goes on it's only going to get worse , naturally. You can already get an advantage by using a slightly faster card even at those resolutions.

Always get the fastest card you can afford and the one with the most VRAM , even if you think you might not need it , it never hurts and it can only benefit you in the end when graphics technologies advance. You mentioned the same idea about future proofing the CPU , no reason to not apply that to the GPU as well.

Though I have to admit , the reason why I never recommend the 3 GB 1060 it's also partially because I hate how Nvidia is trying to sell an inferior product under the same name.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 13, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Are you really sure though ? There are games out there than run below 60 fps at 1080p/ultra on 6 GB 1060 and as time goes on it's only going to get worse , naturally. You can already get an advantage by using a slightly faster card at that resolution.
> 
> Always get the fastest card you can afford and the one with the most VRAM , even if you think you might not need it , it never hurts and it can only benefit you in the end when graphics technologies advance. You mentioned the same idea about future proofing the CPU , no reason to not apply that to the GPU as well.
> 
> Though I have to admit , the reason why I never recommend the 3 GB 1060 it's also partially because I hate how Nvidia is trying to sell an inferior product under the same name.



Of course, I do also lean towards the 6GB / most beefy GPU one can buy for most situations, but this one is a special situation of 720p. For the 10% performance, the price gap of as much as 30% is just horrid and for the VRAM its not necessary now or in two years time. They both do share the same bandwidth. I think OP's better off replacing the 3GB card with a proper one when the time arises, not now.

The thing is even with a 6GB card, the sub 60 FPS is going to be caused by shader count anyway and 1152 or 1280 won't make much of a difference.


----------



## Vya Domus (Apr 13, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> but this one is a special situation of 720p. For the 10% performance, the price gap of as much as 30%



I mentioned it in case OP was not aware of the difference between the two which goes beyond just VRAM. If it's worth it or not it's up to him.


----------



## Toothless (Apr 13, 2018)

vc92 said:


> Thanks a lot for the suggestion Toothless! How about a Core i5 8400 if I bump up my budget or a Ryzen 5 1600 with compatible motherboards?
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot for your suggestion Vayra86! Toothless suggested the same, a higher clocked CPU? An i5/Ryzen 5?


I'd say the Ryzen, whichever model of the 6 core is higher clocked. You may end up seeing that more threads is nice later on.


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 13, 2018)

Why do you want to play at 720p ? If you can afford a GTX1060 then you can buy a cheap 1080p monitor.


----------



## Toothless (Apr 13, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> Why do you want to play at 720p ? If you can afford a GTX1060 then you can buy a cheap 1080p monitor.


Maybe OP doesn't want a new monitor at the moment? I had a 1600x900 that looked better than most 1080p monitors. Maybe they like the colors or don't care to upgrade yet.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Apr 13, 2018)

Toothless said:


> Maybe OP doesn't want a new monitor at the moment? I had a 1600x900 that looked better than most 1080p monitors. Maybe they like the colors or don't care to upgrade yet.


There's one too many maybes in there, it's a curious question tbh, 1080p monitors can be had for like $99+ and seriously most budget monitors 1080p/720p are likely using similar low quality panels and can be tailored/calibrated to the users preference where there wouldnt be no discernable difference in quality between them both. Could well be he prefers ultra quality settings over resolution in which case at 1080p you need a 1070 for some and more upcoming titles whereas at a lower res such as 720p a 1050 Ti/1060 3GB would indeed suffice.

Personally I still rock a 780ti (with a Ryzen 1600 3.9Ghz) at 1080p 75Hz and am happy playing new AAA games with mostly high settings and just toning down some pretty bells and whistles to hit my desired FPS over turning every slider up to max just "because". My 780 Ti still trades blows with 1060 3Gb/6Gb and cost me about £120, so I can't really complain


----------



## Toothless (Apr 14, 2018)

NdMk2o1o said:


> There's one too many maybes in there, it's a curious question tbh, 1080p monitors can be had for like $99+ and seriously most budget monitors 1080p/720p are likely using similar low quality panels and can be tailored/calibrated to the users preference where there wouldnt be no discernable difference in quality between them both. Could well be he prefers ultra quality settings over resolution in which case at 1080p you need a 1070 for some and more upcoming titles whereas at a lower res such as 720p a 1050 Ti/1060 3GB would indeed suffice.
> 
> Personally I still rock a 780ti (with a Ryzen 1600 3.9Ghz) at 1080p 75Hz and am happy playing new AAA games with mostly high settings and just toning down some pretty bells and whistles to hit my desired FPS over turning every slider up to max just "because". My 780 Ti still trades blows with 1060 3Gb/6Gb and cost me about £120, so I can't really complain


My other rig has a G3258 and GTX780 and has had no issues on 1080p so far. As for OP I can see where ultra settings sound nice on a really good quality monitor to stay at 720/900. Probably can get more life out of the 1060 than running 1080p.


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 14, 2018)

Toothless said:


> As for OP I can see where ultra settings sound nice on a really good quality monitor to stay at 720/900.


Quality is directly tied to resolution and pixel density, together with how colors and brightness/contrast are set for the monitor.

Ultra with 720p makes as much sense as wearing a Hugo Boss suit and taking a bus to work during summer time in India.
It boggles my mind how people can buy 300+ $ GPUs and use crappy 900 or 720p monitors. For about 150$ you can get a nice 1080p 75Hz monitor with VA or IPS panel. http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24MP59G-P-gaming-monitor for example


----------



## DRDNA (Apr 14, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> Quality is directly tied to resolution and pixel density. Ultra with 720p makes as much sense as wearing a Hugo Boss suit and taking a bus to work during summer time in India.
> It boggles my mind how people can buy 300+ $ GPUs and use crappy 900 or 720p monitors. For about 150$ you can get a nice 1080p 75Hz monitor with VA or IPS panel. http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24MP59G-P-gaming-monitor for example


MY OLD EYES WOULDNT SEE SHIT AT 24" 1080P


----------



## chaosmassive (Apr 14, 2018)

lower resolution like 900p tend to give gpu longevity in term of graphic quality and fps
there is no crime to use something like GTX 1060 or even GTX 1070  to play on resolution 900 or 720p
no need to "OMG Y U NO go for 1080p, WHAT A WASTE ZZZ" like that every person has their own preference

does it hurt you physically/spiritually that much if someone use, lets say, GTX Titan V to play games  on 720p?

I am playing games on ultra setting with capped 60 fps with RX 580 8GB on 900p, how triggered are you now?


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 14, 2018)

DRDNA said:


> MY OLD EYES WOULDNT SEE SHIT AT 24" 1080P


I got a 32" 1080p for my aunt, she is 70 and very happy with it. For me the pixels were too big at that resolution and size.


chaosmassive said:


> does it hurt you physically/spiritually that much if someone use, lets say, GTX Titan V to play games on 720p?


I think i can get you a cheap CRT 640x480 that would mean you can game AAA titles well in to the 2030s ...
The year is 2018 1440p and above should be the norm with 1080p for lower spec machines, 720p was fine in 2005 and 17/19" monitors with 1280x1024 or 1440x900.
But to each his own, use whatever you want.


----------



## chaosmassive (Apr 14, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> I think i can get you a cheap CRT 640x480 that would mean you can game AAA titles well in to the 2030s ...
> The year is 2018 1440p and above should be the norm with 1080p for lower spec machines, 720p was fine in 2005 and 17/19" monitors with 1280x1024 or 1440x900.
> But to each his own, use whatever you want.



uh, this year is 2018 but steam survey said that only 3.5% steam user play on 1440p
and yet 1080p majority in steam survey, and followed by 1366*768 as 2nd highest for almost how long? 3-4 years now. So what is that mean?
it is mean that 1440p* NOT *a norm yet.

CRT is bulky, heavy,  consume much more power than LCD panel, and constant flickering why would I play games on CRT panel?
you joined this forum on 2012 and I surprised on how much ignorant you are on display technology.


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 14, 2018)

You totally missed my sarcasm.
Back to the point, since 2012 i had the following monitors Dell U2412M, BenQ 2713, U2913, U2713HM and now Asus MG279Q do you see a trend here ? going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 to 2560x1080 and now 2560x1440, always forward.
1080p is the norm since most of the Steam survey is based on Chinese people, at least 52% of that statistic.
1366x768 is a laptop resolution we are discussing PCs here.


----------



## chaosmassive (Apr 14, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> You totally missed my sarcasm.
> Back to the point, since 2012 i had the following monitors Dell U2412M, BenQ 2713, U2913, U2713HM and now Asus MG279Q do you see a trend here ? going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 to 2560x1080 and now 2560x1440, always forward.
> 1080p is the norm since most of the Steam survey is *based on Chinese people*, at least 52% of that statistic.
> *1366x768 is a laptop resolution* we are discussing PCs here.



first off, how do you know if 1080p norm is because of chinese people? elaborate more with your source
even deducted with your imaginary 52% chinese user there are still roughly 20% user on that resolution
second, if 1366*768 based is a laptop resolution which made up to 9.86% in steam user
it didnt matched on iGPU marketshare, as most of laptop on that resolution tend to have iGPU/low-end graphic chip which is odd because it doesn't ADD UP

if you making up 'trend' resolution based on your monitor panels purchase/usage history, you are simply *too ignorant*.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Apr 14, 2018)

For ultra settings, even at 720p I think the 1060 is basically a requirement. I've got a laptop with a full 1050 and it can't even try for ultra 30fps with Witcher 3 at 1080p, and 720p still isn't smooth. I'd guess under 45fps most of the time, even with hairworks off. The 1050ti is just 20% faster, so not quite enough to always get 60fps, so I'd say a 1060 with the full shader count (1280 vs 1152 IIRC) is basically a requirement.
Adding to the resolution debate, whatever resolution you choose is obviously up to you, but you do miss out on so much detail. While messing around in the Witcher i just noticed how much more you can see in the armor and trees. I'd say 1080p is worth looking at at least.

Also wow this game is gorgeous. I'd forgotten how nice it looked.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 14, 2018)

Ultra settings include ultra high textures and at 720p you don't see any of those nice textures even if you stick your nose to the wall in some FPS ... all the glory of extra pixels gets filtered out for 720p framebuffer


----------



## bubbleawsome (Apr 15, 2018)

Well sadly I can't upload my photos here because they're too large. I'll upload them to imgur, but that tends to destroy quality so I'd like to upload a .zip or something but everything is too big. Don't want to link off site for a download though.


http://imgur.com/a/pYV0L


Honestly I'm not sure Ultra textures are worth it at 720p.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 15, 2018)

I game at 900P on my LAN PC, its just a little computer and screen so I don thave to carry a big ass system around when going to LAN Parties. Its a 20" Samsung and the system that powers it is a i7-2600, 8GB RAM and a GTX 650 Ti 1GB Card and this plays all the games I play pretty much maxed out apart from DOOM, Doom kills the poor card. But I know I will need to upgrade the card very soon to be able to play modern titles and I was looking at a GTX 1050 Ti or a second hand Mini GTX 970 and those cards would power any game at 900P. 

So my vote would go for the i3 and the GTX 1050 Ti. The i3 would power your games better at 900P I would think and the GPU would cover everything with out fail, no point spending more when you dont need to and anything more would be over kill.


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 15, 2018)

chaosmassive said:


> first off, how do you know if 1080p norm is because of chinese people? elaborate more with your source
> even deducted with your imaginary 52% chinese user there are still roughly 20% user on that resolution
> second, if 1366*768 based is a laptop resolution which made up to 9.86% in steam user
> it didnt matched on iGPU marketshare, as most of laptop on that resolution tend to have iGPU/low-end graphic chip which is odd because it doesn't ADD UP
> ...


Don't yell.
Enjoy playing games at old generation console resolution with ultra settings on a 1050Ti/GTX1060, now that is i call a waste of money and lack of common sense.

720p video (even on Youtube) is not the same as 1080p/1440p or 4K anyone with 20/20 vision can see it.

52% of the people in Steam Survey use Simplified Chinese.
1366x768 is a laptop resolution, how many desktop monitors have it ?



> Primary Display Resolution
> 1920 x 1080
> 72.01%




HP 2009f  is this you monitor ? coupled with a RX480 ? than i can imagine why you don't know how a 27", 2560x1440, 144Hz, calibrated IPS monitor looks like in native resolution, try it and then see if you can go back to 900p TN at 60Hz with or without "ultra" omg, ftw, yolo settings.
Even the cheapest 1920x1080 VA or IPS panel is a huge improvement over that crappy old 20" TN HP.


----------



## chaosmassive (Apr 15, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> Don't yell.
> Enjoy playing games at old generation console resolution with ultra settings on a 1050Ti/GTX1060, now that is i call a waste of money and lack of common sense.
> 
> 720p video (even on Youtube) is not the same as 1080p/1440p or 4K anyone with 20/20 vision can see it.
> ...



there is no such of 'waste of money' and 'lack of common sense' in choosing resolution vs ultra settings
I tried game on 1440p display, heck even 4K display and you know what? I prefer longevity investment in my GPU over eye candy in games
I play on low resolution, so what? I still able to play on ultra setting with finest detail that game has to offer.

lower resolution tend to much GPU headroom in term of FPS and future games performance.
people like me who play on 'console' resolution on 'crappy old TN HP' tend to upgrade GPU less, hence saving money in the long run
1440p? running games for 1-2 year and then complain can no longer play future games with " "ultra" omg, ftw, yolo settings"

I see now, so you are that one of PC elitist, huh?
no wonder you're full of ignorance and insult on other people setup.


----------



## Vya Domus (Apr 15, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> 1366x768 is a laptop resolution, how many desktop monitors have it ?



There used to be a time not too long ago when shops used to be filled to the brim with 1366x768 monitors , someone must have bought them. That's a common resolution even on desktops.



droopyRO said:


> than i can imagine why you don't know how a 27", 2560x1440, 144Hz, calibrated IPS monitor looks like in native resolution, try it and then see if you can go back to 900p TN at 60Hz with or without "ultra" omg, ftw, yolo settings.



What kind of logic is that ? Have you tired a Titan V ? How can you stand that 980ti ?

Everyone uses what they think fits their needs best. 1440p has been around for way over a decade and it's still a very uncommon resolution. That can't because we are idiots that don't know what is better , it's because it's disadvantages far outweigh the advantages for the majority of people. Most of us would be far more willingly to buy a 500$ GPU , and game at 1080p, that spending the same kind of money on a new monitor. It just doesn't have the same priority or importance , I suggest you stop with this PC mustard race elitist tendency.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 15, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> Quality is directly tied to resolution and pixel density, together with how colors and brightness/contrast are set for the monitor.
> 
> Ultra with 720p makes as much sense as wearing a Hugo Boss suit and taking a bus to work during summer time in India.
> It boggles my mind how people can buy 300+ $ GPUs and use crappy 900 or 720p monitors. For about 150$ you can get a nice 1080p 75Hz monitor with VA or IPS panel. http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24MP59G-P-gaming-monitor for example



I will correct you here on some vital points that also shed light on why one would use a lower res without suffering any drawbacks:

- Quality is directly tied to *viewable* pixel density; detail that you render but you can't discern because you sit too far away, is essentially performance lost for no reason
- Games can have a higher *internal* render resolution and/or use AA techniques to still provide the detail levels of a higher res and even remove the jaggies as well. And: a lower res leaves more performance to use high levels of AA. And custom internal render resolutions are quickly gaining ground in regular game settings because the consoles now employ similar methods to cater to the performance gap between the different versions of a PS4 and PS4Pro for example.
- The human eye gets accustomed to a specific resolution when it is used for longer periods of time. In the same way, 'moving up' in resolution is a temporary strain on our brain and our eyes

There is nothing wrong with a lower res and there is still a visible improvement with the highest settings. Textures being a great example. From a distance, I may not be able to resolve all the detail an Ultra texture provides, but when I move closer, it remains full of detail, sharp and crisp.

If you would talk about common sense, resolution and processing power I would be much more inclined to say 'going up in resolution should take some careful consideration'. Right now there are people moving up to 4K panels that are way too small to even make out the detail, they then proceed to run their games at 1080p because the FPS is shit, and they are forced to use scaling on the desktop because they can't read anything proper. Or, they force themselves to bend over forward and stick their nose right in the panel to resolve detail, ergonomics be damned. A low res has none of these problems.


But ehh more importantly, why are we deciding for OP to move up to 1080p in the first place? He's asking for 720p/900p


----------



## DRDNA (Apr 15, 2018)

As i see it everybody here has made valid and sound arguments on the res and quality but there really is no reason to be insulting nor down talking towards others of a different opinion on what is really just a personal preference.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 15, 2018)

bubbleawsome said:


> Honestly I'm not sure Ultra textures are worth it at 720p.


Witcher 3 is a bad example, there's no special texture level for ultra ... that's why HD mod exists, for example that wall on your screenshot, these are the textures, first vanilla then the same one from HD mod:


So only with HD mod in Witcher 3 you could judge how much less of a wall detail you can see at 720p than 1440p

Today 2k textures are the norm (2048x2048), and 4k textures for first person shooters because you often hide behind the cover and have to look at a wooden crate filling the 4k screen


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 15, 2018)

chaosmassive said:


> I see now, so you are that one of PC elitist, huh?


I`m the kind of person that balances things. Like for instance i would not buy a new car and put cheap 50$ winter tires on it because "it works for me". That is why i always tie the monitor to the GPU i use or recommend.


Vya Domus said:


> I suggest you stop with this PC mustard race elitist tendency.


If you tell me a crappy TN 10 year old panel looks as good like that LG IPS 1080p panel i recommended, then yes i'm an elitist, especialy since we are not talking a GT 1030 budget here but a GTX1060 (with inflated prices).
Oh and i use my ears while gaming too, always had decent 20-30$ sound card like an SoundBlaster/Audigy/XtremeMusic, not integrated ALC codecs, very elite, much wow.


Vayra86 said:


> Quality is directly tied to *viewable* pixel density;


Not when you use interpolation, i know not a of a desktop monitor with native 1280x720 resolution.
It is not smartphone territory where things scale well to whatever resolution that gadget has.

It is your money, spend it the way you want, it is you right. Save some money on your monitor, it is not like eye fatigue and health are concern too 

PS: where is OP ?


----------



## chaosmassive (Apr 15, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> i know not a of a desktop monitor with native 1280x720 resolution.


really?
I told ya, you are completely ignorant, five seconds of google could've save you from embarrasment


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 15, 2018)

> 1366 x 768 maximum resolution 60 Hz maximum refresh rate Twisted nematic (TN) panel technology


From your link.
Further proof https://www.manualslib.com/manual/233093/Acer-P186h-Series.html?page=12#manual
720p is 1280x720 pixels.


----------

