# Cheapest graphics card for 1080P 144HZ Monitor?



## Staskw09 (Jan 18, 2017)

I need minimum 144 fps

will a gtx 1060 6gb be enough?


----------



## hat (Jan 18, 2017)

Minimum 144? What games? Not even gtx1080 can do 144 minimum in recent titles...


----------



## Staskw09 (Jan 18, 2017)

hat said:


> Minimum 144? What games? Not even gtx1080 can do 144 minimum in recent titles...



ok thats all I wanted to know


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 18, 2017)

You could have answered some questions yourself if you took some time to search/read/compare some reviews on the net.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 19, 2017)

Titan X Pascal SLI. lol

If you mean "for high Hz gaming" simply, then go with a RX 470.


----------



## doel (Jan 19, 2017)

it's also depend of grapich preset


----------



## Nergal (Jan 19, 2017)

Really, 144Hz on 1080P; and not even the best cards out there can handle it....thou the GTX1080 should come close on 1080P.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4r38v9/gtx_1080_for_1080p_gaming_is_not_overkill/

It shows how slow the speed increase each gen of GPU has become and how fast the Screen-Technology is evolving.

Next step is 5K...ow wait, no, stupid me, its 8K!

7680×4320 res; run away screaming everyone!

OP: if you want the FPS, you can always lower your details. 
And you can console yourself with the fact that NO-ONE out there can play games on max res with max settings, for YEARS to come.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 20, 2017)

Nergal said:


> Really, 144Hz on 1080P; and not even the best cards out there can handle it....thou the GTX1080 should come close on 1080P.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4r38v9/gtx_1080_for_1080p_gaming_is_not_overkill/
> 
> ...


I'm playing high hz on very high to ultra with a 780ti so your statement is a bit off. 1080 is a 1440p 144hz card not more and not less than that.


----------



## hat (Jan 20, 2017)

He's talking 144 _minimum_. Depending on the title, that's just not going to happen, even at 1920x1080. You could come close with GTX1080 SLI, but then, you inherit the headaches of SLI...


----------



## Komshija (Jan 20, 2017)

Two Radeon Pro Duo GPU's should be enough for "minimum" 144 FPS at 1080p and even at 1440p. That's might be well over your budget, so I recommend staying at very nice 50-60 FPS with RX 480 or GTX 1060 at 1080p in most demanding games and, in accordance with that, well over 80 FPS in less demanding games.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 20, 2017)

hat said:


> He's talking 144 _minimum_. Depending on the title, that's just not going to happen, even at 1920x1080. You could come close with GTX1080 SLI, but then, you inherit the headaches of SLI...


Is senseless anyway, a smart target for fps is around 100 and high min fps thats not under 80. 144 is utterly senseless - that's just a bragging number nothing more. 1080 SLI isn't needed for 1080p though, simply take one 1080 or even lower card and set everything as low as its needed for the FPS to be that high.


----------



## Laurijan (Jan 20, 2017)

I can game on a gtx 1080 4K with about 60Hz so 1080p 144Hz should be no problem since it has 4 times less pixels than 4K imho


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 20, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Titan X Pascal SLI. lol
> 
> If you mean "for high Hz gaming" simply, then go with a RX 470.


I'd like to see that card hit 144 fps in any game at 1080p....

I'm thinking gtx 1080 peeps. And even that won't do it in many titles..


----------



## Nergal (Jan 20, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Is senseless anyway, a smart target for fps is around 100 and high min fps thats not under 80. 144 is utterly senseless - that's just a bragging number nothing more. 1080 SLI isn't needed for 1080p though, simply take one 1080 or even lower card and set everything as low as its needed for the FPS to be that high.



My statement stands, if he wants to fully use his 144Hz ALL AT THE TIME, a GTX1080 won´t do on 1080P. 

And senseless? 
This is TPU, tech-savvy all the way. Whatever people do with OC´ing and such can also be viewed as "senseless" 


If this is what he was asking for, we need to give the correct reply.

"I need minimum 144 fps" = The lowest(average even?) drops in FPS are to 144FPS; on 1080P
A GTX1060 won´t cut that, not even a GTX1080.

Let alone on 2K,4K or 8K

Our Videocards have a looong way to go before we can truly 100% have "Max res settings"


----------



## Olle P (Jan 20, 2017)

Kanan said:


> ... a smart target for fps is around 100 and high min fps thats not under 80...


I'm perfectly happy as long as my frame rates stay above 30fps most of the time. To me that's "fluent".

High frequency monitor is just to have it "flicker free", which again for me is good enough at 60 Hz.

Anybody seen a movie at a cinema? They show the films at 24fps/48Hz (each frame being shown twice), unless they've switched to digital.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 20, 2017)

Olle P said:


> I'm perfectly happy as long as my frame rates stay above 30fps most of the time. To me that's "fluent".
> 
> High frequency monitor is just to have it "flicker free", which again for me is good enough at 60 Hz.
> 
> Anybody seen a movie at a cinema? They show the films at 24fps/48Hz (each frame being shown twice), unless they've switched to digital.


The reason why movies look fine at 24 FPS is because of natural motion blur which, obviously, games do not have. If you looked at a game around there, its choppy..

RPG's are OK at 30 FPS but First Person Shooters, no way could I hadnle that...


----------



## Kanan (Jan 20, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I'd like to see that card hit 144 fps in any game at 1080p....
> 
> I'm thinking gtx 1080 peeps. And even that won't do it in many titles..



It does hit 144hz, but not all the time and certainly not always on Ultra. I'm speaking about reasonable settings, no fancy hype settings. 



Nergal said:


> My statement stands, if he wants to fully use his 144Hz ALL AT THE TIME, a GTX1080 won´t do on 1080P.


What he wants is still senseless, my point stands as well. 



> And senseless?
> This is TPU, tech-savvy all the way. Whatever people do with OC´ing and such can also be viewed as "senseless"


Don't start a general debate just because I said one thing is senseless, and I'm still on that opinion. 



> If this is what he was asking for, we need to give the correct reply.
> 
> "I need minimum 144 fps" = The lowest(average even?) drops in FPS are to 144FPS; on 1080P
> A GTX1060 won´t cut that, not even a GTX1080.
> ...


That's why I said 2x Titan XP. It was a joke, but only partly as it's true and serious too. 



Olle P said:


> I'm perfectly happy as long as my frame rates stay above 30fps most of the time. To me that's "fluent".
> 
> High frequency monitor is just to have it "flicker free", which again for me is good enough at 60 Hz.
> 
> Anybody seen a movie at a cinema? They show the films at 24fps/48Hz (each frame being shown twice), unless they've switched to digital.


What Earthdog said. Also 60 Hz is fluent, yes, but over 100 Hz is way more fluent, you simply see more pictures and can play and react better (to enemies or anything else).


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 21, 2017)

Kanan said:


> It does hit 144hz, but not all the time and certainly not always on Ultra. I'm speaking about reasonable settings, no fancy hype settings.


I suppose we'plan agree to disagree...

But, I'm sure the OP is talking about range of titles. So, while in minecraft/counter strike and many older titles you would be right. But the majority wouldnt be close. Reasonable settings to me is Ultra/High and whatever AA that naturally brings. I prefer to have my PC games look better than a console. 

No way in hell would I get a 480 for these (albeit unrealistic) goals. 

And I wouldn't do get a 480 for 100 fps/hz either.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 21, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I suppose we'plan agree to disagree...
> 
> But, I'm sure the OP is talking about range of titles. So, while in minecraft/counter strike and many older titles you would be right. But the majority wouldnt be close. Reasonable settings to me is Ultra/High and whatever AA that naturally brings. I prefer to have my PC games look better than a console.
> 
> ...


144hz is a stupid target anyway, as it's inefficient price wise as well as in the use of it (no you can't see the difference between 100 and 144 or 120 and 144), so yes we disagree. I'm sporting a 780 Ti atm and it's a formidable high Hz/high FPS cards in any game atm, I can hit over 100 FPS in any game with very high settings, and that's easily enough for me. And therefore RX 470 and 480 are easily good enough GPUs for 1080p gaming at high Hz/high fps.

That's my opinion.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 21, 2017)

Stupid target.. agreed. 

Just not sure how you define "any" when you say, "I can hit over 100 FPS in 'any' game with highest settings". When the entire internet of reviews on that card disagree. I mean, how many titles in the TPU review hit over 100 FPS? Not many. Add 10% or so for their driver improvements, and that doesn't change a thing. Sorry, I must have missed something.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 21, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Stupid target.. agreed.
> 
> Just not sure how you define "any" when you say, "I can hit over 100 FPS in 'any' game with highest settings". When the entire internet of reviews on that card disagree. I mean, how many titles in the TPU review hit over 100 FPS? Not many. Add 10% or so for their driver improvements, and that doesn't change a thing. Sorry, I must have missed something.


That's true, I'll correct "highest" to "very high" then. Does it look like console graphics then, as you stated? No, and far from it. Very very far. Not only is the resolution a lot higher in average (consoles range from 720p to 900p to 1080p), also the IQ settings are much higher. Just buy a console and connect it to your monitor (note: not TV), then you can see the differences pretty good. Generally spoken, a RX 470 or 480 is not comparable to a HD 7770 or HD 7850 which is Xbox One and PS4 graphics.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 21, 2017)

Not even v.high in many(most) titles will a 480 reach 100 fps constant...

Look at tpu's reviews for 1080p on that card. Lowering settings a notch may yield 10- 15 fps... maybe? Depends on how high they are to start. It's a midrange card...not a 100fps+ ultra/v.high 1080p card.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 21, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Not even v.high in many(most) titles will a 480 reach 100 fps constant...
> 
> Look at tpu's reviews for 1080p on that card. Lowering settings a notch may yield 10- 15 fps... maybe? Depends on how high they are to start. It's a midrange card...not a 100fps+ ultra/v.high 1080p card.


Midrange is just a word. The same card would be semi highend last gen and pc games didn't suddenly increase their requirements over night. However you call it I would be able to achieve high settings with the card, tweaking and figuring out optimal settings for looks and for fps is possible. Worst case I'd settle with 80-100 fps, that's still a awesome experience coupled with a high hz monitor and world's better than console gaming.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 21, 2017)

Im not gong to split hairs. The results speak for themselves. If you want 80-100 fps constant (now it's 80+.....?) at 1080p with ultra/v.high settings (note im thinking AA, like 4xMSAA since that would be needed to match/be better than a console) a 480 isn't going to do it. No AA, it's worse than a console.

If you look at the msi 480 gaming x review here, an overclocked part mind you, there are THREE titles where it would reach 100 fps. FOUR that would hit 80. One of those was from like 2011 in BF3. Also, that's giving the card another 10% on top of it for driver improvements. 

It's just not there man. Unless you want to run without AA and lower settings high on down... but again, it's no better than a console at those settings. Even then many titles still won't hit 80 or 100 fps.


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Jan 22, 2017)

I play game at lowest setting and have minimum 144 fps in bf1, bf4 and league of legends. Why you have to turn the setting to High or Ultra? You want to dominate other player or you just want to see how beautiful the game engine is?


----------



## Toothless (Jan 22, 2017)

mrthanhnguyen said:


> I play game at lowest setting and have minimum 144 fps in bf1, bf4 and league of legends. Why you have to turn the setting to High or Ultra? You want to dominate other player or you just want to see how beautiful the game engine is?


Some people don't want their games looking like crap.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 22, 2017)

mrthanhnguyen said:


> I play game at lowest setting and have minimum 144 fps in bf1, bf4 and league of legends. Why you have to turn the setting to High or Ultra? You want to dominate other player or you just want to see how beautiful the game engine is?



This might be only applicable to competitive games where performance is priority over image quality.


----------



## FYFI13 (Jan 22, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I'm sporting a 780 Ti atm and it's a formidable high Hz/high FPS cards in any game atm, I can hit *over* *100 FPS in any game with very high settings*


I call this BS as good few of your other statements Sir. Just a very first game review i could find on TPU, i didn't have to search for something "special".







Not going to dig any deeper, no point.


----------



## Toothless (Jan 22, 2017)

FYFI13 said:


> I call this BS as good few of your other statements Sir. Just a very first game review i could find on TPU, i didn't have to search for something "special".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose the "high" part might look like powder sugar.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Im not gong to split hairs. The results speak for themselves. If you want 80-100 fps constant (now it's 80+.....?) at 1080p with ultra/v.high settings (note im thinking AA, like 4xMSAA since that would be needed to match/be better than a console) a 480 isn't going to do it. No AA, it's worse than a console.
> 
> If you look at the msi 480 gaming x review here, an overclocked part mind you, there are THREE titles where it would reach 100 fps. FOUR that would hit 80. One of those was from like 2011 in BF3. Also, that's giving the card another 10% on top of it for driver improvements.
> 
> It's just not there man. Unless you want to run without AA and lower settings high on down... but again, it's no better than a console at those settings. Even then many titles still won't hit 80 or 100 fps.


I'm settling this now as you're unable to understand, no even unable to properly read what I write. Suffice to say I stay with my opinion, the RX 470/480 is easily enough for high spec gaming in 1080p. I'm not into repeating, and I already brought up strong points you are not able to counter and therefore youre trying to downplay them and ignore them. Nah man, forget it.



> I call this BS as good few of your otherstatements Sir. Just a very first game review i could find on TPU, i didn't have to search for something "special".


Since when do I care about jerks that don't understand squat about my posts, calling me out. I simply don't.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2017)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> This might be only applicable to competitive games where performance is priority over image quality.


So glad someone is thinking.


As to Kanan, we typically agree in things, but, I can't help you here. I posted up a link that shows THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL "all" titles hit 100fps... even after you back tracked and said 80-100fps.

I didn't buy into a pc to run games on low with no AA. Clearly, if I was a competitive gamer, that would be a different story. But the OP hasn't said that. There was just some abhorrent claim of "100fps on any game with a 480" which has since been disproven with links. Now you are even saying a 470... lol.

Your posts are clear as day. Your opinion is just flat out wrong except for extenuating conditions/very very few titles.

All that's happening now is you are getting upset and lashing out (why I don't know. I simply showered you with facts)... so I'll just let the facts speak for themselves. My job is done here.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> So glad someone is thinking.
> 
> As to Kanan, we typically agree in things, but, I can't help you here. I posted up a link that shows THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL "all" titles hit 100fps... even after you back tracked and said 80-100fps.
> 
> ...


Yeah I know it's rare we are in disagreement. But the thing is I don't do it out of egoistic reasons it's just I can pull it off with a 780ti on my system and I know the 470 and 480 are both faster than my card or comparable, that's why I'm so sure it can do the same.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2017)

Just handing out facts for the OP. If you cant reply in kind and continue to shell out these passive agressive barbs, well.. I won't play that. 

If you are "so sure" prove it...


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Just handing out facts for the OP. If you cant reply in kind and continue to shell out these passive agressive barbs, well.. I won't play that.
> 
> If you are "so sure" prove it...


Nah im over this thread. You were passive aggressive yourself btw. Not gonna debate behaviour with someone who's not perfect himself.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2017)

I will be more than happy to concede you are correct if you show us something. As it stands it's your word against my links which clearly show otherwise. I mean, if it's "all" titles as you say, it shouldn't take but a few minutes to show some examples, no?

I'm sorry you think I'm egotistical (I am), I'm sorry you think I'm tossing out barbs by not agreeing with you.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I will be more than happy to concede you are correct if you show us something. As it stands it's your word against my links which clearly show otherwise. I mean, if it's "all" titles as you say, it shouldn't take but a few minutes to show some examples, no?
> 
> I'm sorry you think I'm egotistical (I am), I'm sorry you think I'm tossing out barbs by not agreeing with you ... That doesn't change the facts that are on the table at this time. And I didn't call you a jerk.


I didn't call you a jerk either. I can tell you some out of my head if you like and if you're willing to believe me.

GTA online 80-100 fps, very high to ultra settings, grass very high as it's bad for performance, msaa 2x.

Bf1 80-90 fps in mp at ultra  (ultra preset).

Payday 2 with dsr to 2x (2715x1668 or so) and ultra settings apart from AA that's only set at post aa, 120 fps  (cap).

Metro 80-100 fps on highest settings

I don't have more atm, these are the games I played in the last months. Crysis 3 was about 80 fps afaik but it's a long time since I played it so I'm not sure. Mostly playing the first three games I mentioned atm.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2017)

There something... but, screenshots of settings and fps would be about the only way.

You can test metro last light with its benchmark on highest settings... I review that title and with an overclocked 480 (gaming x) it managed 50 fps on 1080p with the highest settings. Not sure how yours is 60%+ faster...
https://www.google.com/search?q=rx+...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

BF1 I'd believe...depends on settings...

Payday 2, last I saw on you tube, at very high, it was a ~65fps game using a 480.

Crysis 3.. no.. again, review that title, see link above and it's 35 fps... on very high default.

I think the biggest issue here is with your initial statement of "very high, all titles, 100 fps" and again, it's not close, or even in the majority can it do that without significant IQ changes for the worse. If you play competitive lime the one dude that chimed in does, it makes sense to jack the settings down. Otherwise, you run with it looking as best you can without game play sacrifice for the average person. Those are "reasonable" settings. I don't find it reasonable, at 1080p, running without 4x AA.. at least 2x. Those jaggis bother me and then you have console quality.


Just now catching this... you said a 470 initially.


Kanan said:


> Titan X Pascal SLI. lol
> 
> If you mean "for high Hz gaming" simply, then go with a RX 470.





Kanan said:


> I can hit over 100 FPS in any game with very high settings, and that's easily enough for me. And therefore RX 470 and 480 are easily good enough GPUs for 1080p gaming at high Hz/high fps.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 22, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You can test metro last light with its benchmark on highest settings... I review that title and with an overclocked 480 (gaming x) it managed 50 fps on 1080p with the highest settings. Not sure how yours is 60%+ faster...


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> There something... but, screenshots of settings and fps would be about the only way.
> 
> You can test metro last light with its benchmark on highest settings... I review that title and with an overclocked 480 (gaming x) it managed 50 fps on 1080p with the highest settings. Not sure how yours is 60%+ faster...
> https://www.google.com/search?q=rx+...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
> ...


I concur with the 2x msaa thing or at least a sort of post aa unless it's GTA O, because there you're fucked without msaa.

Well bf1 I use ultra as stated but I'll post Screenshots of other games later and also retest Metro because it seems my brain tricked me there, well I played it many weeks ago that would be why.
Anyway pd2 I run at 120fps but again I only use post aa there because I don't need proper aa there with 2715x resolution. Also I'm only playing with one other player if that makes a difference at all compared to four.

Anyway wait for my upcoming post with more substantial data.


----------



## Toothless (Jan 22, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I concur with the 2x msaa thing or at least a sort of post aa unless it's GTA O, because there you're fucked without msaa.
> 
> Well bf1 I use ultra as stated but I'll post Screenshots of other games later and also retest Metro because it seems my brain tricked me there, well I played it many weeks ago that would be why.
> Anyway pd2 I run at 120fps but again I only use post aa there because I don't need proper aa there with 2715x resolution. Also I'm only playing with one other player if that makes a difference at all compared to four.
> ...


Should've had the data ready to begin with before the forum had to watch and old couple bicker for a page and a half.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 22, 2017)

Toothless said:


> Should've had the data ready to begin with before the forum had to watch and old couple bicker for a page and a half.


Chill bra, I'm on mobile atm. Lol at the "old couple" thing.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 22, 2017)

Let's just be honest here... I'm sure you are going to find a few titles where it works as you say. The concern was how 'easy' it is and "in all titles". I admitted in a few titles it's possible. But it isn't happening with all...easily.

Can we agree to that? A simple overzealous statement started us chasing our tails? Or, our marital bickering?!


----------



## Kanan (Jan 24, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Let's just be honest here... I'm sure you are going to find a few titles where it works as you say. The concern was how 'easy' it is and "in all titles". I admitted in a few titles it's possible. But it isn't happening with all...easily.
> 
> Can we agree to that? A simple overzealous statement started us chasing our tails? Or, our marital bickering?!


Well I corrected my statement later anyway, you still want to see those settings? I didn't really had time to log on the last days, but I can still do it if you want. My original statement was in the sense that the RX 480/470 are decent 1080p cards for high FPS gaming, that's all (and yes, without going down too much on settings either), you should be able to do at least 80+ FPS with them in all decent running games, I'm not talking about games like City Skylines or so.


----------



## Toothless (Jan 24, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Well I corrected my statement later anyway, you still want to see those settings? I didn't really had time to log on the last days, but I can still do it if you want. My original statement was in the sense that the RX 480/470 are decent 1080p cards for high FPS gaming, that's all (and yes, without going down too much on settings either), you should be able to do at least 80+ FPS with them in all decent running games, I'm not talking about games like City Skylines or so.


I'd like to see some high fps gaming in The Division's dark zone pvp/pve.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 24, 2017)

Toothless said:


> I'd like to see some high fps gaming in The Division's dark zone pvp/pve.


I don't own the game, gift it to me if you like. hahaha /jk Games I offered in the other posts are probably the best I can do, plus Crysis 3.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 24, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Well I corrected my statement later anyway, you still want to see those settings? I didn't really had time to log on the last days, but I can still do it if you want. My original statement was in the sense that the RX 480/470 are decent 1080p cards for high FPS gaming, that's all (and yes, without going down too much on settings either), you should be able to do at least 80+ FPS with them in all decent running games, I'm not talking about games like City Skylines or so.


Naa, I'm good. I mean, we are still going to have to agree to disagree in the end, LOL! It was a moving target after the first post was shot at(down)...concession after concession in each successive post. Nothing we can do about it now.


----------



## basco (Jan 24, 2017)

i dont want to interrupt you 2 but i find dirt rally is a perfect example.
if you go advanced blending + 8xmsaa you are in the 40+fps range and the best gpu´s are going down but turn that off+4xmsaa and you have 100+fps
everything else max,

but its a goal you will never achieve in every game when not playing(going down) with graphical settings. even with 1080


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 24, 2017)

Ffs going round in circles here let me break it down people. 

One person saying for gaming at 1080p and you don't have to run ultra settings, something in the region of 480 will be fine for 80fps 

Someone else saying for 1080p gaming at ultra settings and  144fps you need at the least 1080/1080 sli...  

Both different bloody statements and arguments yet both keep going round and round repeating themselves. Both are true depending on how you look at them and didn't need 2 pages to figure that out.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 24, 2017)

It was over well before you posted.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 25, 2017)

basco said:


> i dont want to interrupt you 2 but i find dirt rally is a perfect example.
> if you go advanced blending + 8xmsaa you are in the 40+fps range and the best gpu´s are going down but turn that off+4xmsaa and you have 100+fps
> everything else max,
> 
> but its a goal you will never achieve in every game when not playing(going down) with graphical settings. even with 1080


Well I didn't say I achieve those FPS always using highest settings, I stated at the very beginning, with "smart tweaked settings its possible" and it is, I see it every day on my rig. Games that are poorly programmed are not my problem, I don't seem to play them anyway, so what I said holds true at least for the majority of games or at least the games I play, which would be AAA titles where the company put in the effort to maximise efficiency of the game engine. That said, a 1080 still isn't needed for high FPS 1080p, that's just laughable. GTX 1080 is a 1440p+ card, not 1080p, surely not. The 1070 is the card, for when you want absolutely no compromises in 1080p with stupidest settings, everything set to Ultra and still high FPS, as it is comparable to the 980 Ti or faster, and the 980 Ti still is a nice 1440p card.

I'm not counting AMD in here, because they show strange behaviour, bottlenecking here and there at 1080p on their high performance cards like 390 Series or Fury Series. But their true potential shows here and there, the newest Resident Evil is a example of how fast they can be, if the game actually works nice with them, which is pretty rare. Of course Doom is another example in Vulcan mode.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 25, 2017)

At the op. It boils down to your budget. You cant go wrong either way but I'm thinking the 1060 is already being crippled. You might aswell go 4GB-8GB on the V. memory now.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 25, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Yeah I know it's rare we are in disagreement. But the thing is I don't do it out of egoistic reasons it's just I can pull it off with a 780ti on my system and I know the 470 and 480 are both faster than my card or comparable, that's why I'm so sure it can do the same.



I think a good part of what is happening here with you (and I recognize this behaviour with myself being on the same card at this time) is that you start to twist reality to cater to 'our' current rig.

If I look very objectively at the performance of my 780ti, I can safely say that in newest titles the card struggles even at 'high' settings, let alone Very High/Ultra ballpark settings. At the same time the investment to really get noticeable gains is not relative to the actual gain, so I'm not upgrading. That's kinda where the 780ti is in the market currently. It's a 'just-fine' card for 1080p with 3GB being sufficient and great balance + OC capability across a large amount of shaders keeps it close to current midrange.

When I launch World of Warcraft (literally ancient game, heavily optimized, there are no excuses here except network/latency impact and cpu loads!), I don't hit 120 fps on the 780ti when I max out settings and coat it with SSAA x4 - I see 90 FPS *max*, and whenever I'm in real gameplay with a bunch of other players I drop to 50-60 because that is what the engine is optimized for. Meanwhile at SSAA x4 I see 99% utilization in optimal situations (in instances for example) - only very rarely does this ancient title hit 120fps.

So what do we, poor gamers do? We drop the SSAA x4 and put CMAA. 780ti now chillin' at 40% utilization in the same game. And from that simple tweak, that is hardly visible to the naked eye at 1080p 'while in motion' and not monitoring FPS, we conclude that the 780ti is still doing more than fine today.

The fact is, if you literally want 100+ FPS everywhere the current day midrange cards still won't cut it, but neither will a 1080, or a Titan XP. It's always been that way, and I think we adjust our view on what is acceptable to our wallet, our current financial situations, the marketplace, and the people around us (peer pressure), and any serious PC gamer would then consider the best GPU they can fit in that budget. If the budget is limitless, then you start seeing threads like 'I want 144hz ultra goodness everywhere and screw everything you say'. If the budget is limited, you start seeing threads like 'cheapest card for 1080/144hz' - clearly the OP is looking at limitations.

When it comes to this topic, we need to insert a dose of realism, but it needs to be adjusted to the budget of the OP, not our own budgets. All we can do is shed light on how gaming works with our current rigs and put it forward for consideration/perspective to OP.


----------



## Kanan (Jan 25, 2017)

That's your opinion and nothing more. Youre just another guy that's not really understanding my point.  And as this discussion bores me off now as I have to repeat myself over and over, I'm out. Don't even bother to waste your time for another wall of text I won't be reading it or responding to it.


----------

