GPUs: what is enough?

[JAB Creations]

The prices are going up (actually, the value of the monopoly-equivalent fiat currency that is not money is losing it's value) with high inflation. We all hate the higher prices. So I was thinking, what is actually enough?

I have a 32" 4K monitor though it only does 30hz at that resolution and I only game after I finish work and I don't always have time to do so. So I game at the same resolution I work at: 2560x1440 at 60hz.

I recently upgraded from my old 290X with 4GB of video memory to an RX 6800 with 16GB. The performance is way better and I'm not longer running out of video memory which was my primary complaint. That being said I had to go down to 1600x900 to play Borderlands 3 at playable FPS. Now I easily get 90FPS in BL3 if I don't limit the FPS in the game (I do, set to 80). For me, 1440p at 60hz is enough for now and my RX 6800 is giving me plenty of extra FPS for when I eventually replace my aging monitor. I work mostly so I'm not in high school on summer vacation playing games 10+ hours a day. That being said we all have our given situations. Some have thousands for their PC, some use shoe boxes because they can't afford a $30 on Newegg.

I've been watching the AMD 7000 series CPU benchmarks from Gamers Nexus and some of the games are 400FPS+ which I think most monitors top out at 240Hz maybe a couple at 360hz? But can you tell the difference at that point? I'm not looking for purchasing advice, I'm just saying that at some point the excess performance doesn't matter. I do want to upgrade to the Gigabyte 42" 4K screen because I don't like the goofy ultra-wides and I'd like to have 120hz at 4K though I'm content with what I have at the moment.

So what is enough for you? At what point is the excess performance just wasting electricity and driving up your electric bill? Are you happy with a potato? Are you frustrated with only 400FPS at 4K?

 

[Toothless]

Where the "other" for ultrawides?

 

[Dr. Dro]

4K 60, but I'm aiming for 4K 120 for the next generation. That will be like having my cake and eating it, too. Then I'm going to settle for some time.

 

[R0H1T]

A 4090Ti x2 with 10TBps NVlink, sipping 1500W of power & running a prototype 12bit SAMOLED+ 54.9" Samsung 16k display @360Hz

Spoiler

For what is enough right now, I guess 3080 the 12GB variant?

 

[cvaldes]

What I game on and what is enough are in fact two separate things for me.

It's a shame this poll isn't multiple choice since I game on several displays. There's a Nintendo Switch which is usually in console mode (1080p@60Hz), and two gaming PCs (the primary one is listed in my System Specs).

A lot of my PC gaming is done on the 55" LG OLED TV (4K@120 Hz) in my living room, this display also hosts my Switch and upscales the 1080p output. I tend to play games that use a gamepad in this setup since using a keyboard and mouse is pretty awkward on the sofa.

There's also a 32" 1440p@165 Hz monitor in the house; I use this setup when I'm playing with keyboard and mouse and often if I need to wear a headset.

I don't really need to game at 4K resolution by why not since the television set is already there in my living room?

In the end it really comes down to the content. There are some really wonderful exclusive titles on Switch and great gameplay trumps super crisp graphics. Heck, I even have a Super NES Classic. That's fun too and all of that content was created for CRT-based televisions running at NTSC and PAL resolutions.

So in the end I game at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p and have fun with all of those resolutions. I'd say 1080p is "good enough" where the lower quality visuals aren't so jarring as to distract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

[JAB Creations]

Where the "other" for ultrawides?

There are only so many options allowed for poles, just pick whatever vertical resolution yours is closest to I suppose. You can share ultra-wide stuff, I mean if you like it you do you. It's just not something for me personally since I prefer the 16:10 ratio. ︀

4K 60, but I'm aiming for 4K 120 for the next generation. That will be like having my cake and eating it, too. Then I'm going to settle for some time.

Same, video memory is very important to me and I'd like to get an RX 7000 card with 24GB of memory at some point. I think 120hz at 2160p would be sufficient for me.

A 4090Ti x2 with 10TBps NVlink, sipping 1500W of power & running a prototype 12bit SAMOLED+ 54.9" Samsung 16k display @360Hz

Spoiler

For what is enough right now, I guess 3080 the 12GB variant?

Yeah I've seen the tech reviewers say that SLI is basically dead and Crossfire has been dead for a generation or two itself.

What I game on and what is enough are in fact two separate things for me.

It's a shame this poll isn't multiple choice since I game on several displays. There's a Nintendo Switch which is usually in console mode (1080p@60Hz), and two gaming PCs (the primary one is listed in my System Specs).

Yeah 1440p and I'd like to get to 2160p at some point. Also I updated the poll to allow unlimited choices; I use one rig to do everything so just the perspective I'm coming from. I suppose I could have said, "What is your PRIMARY gaming resolution?" - that may have been reconcilable.

 

[Zach_01]

I've been watching the AMD 7000 series CPU benchmarks from Gamers Nexus and some of the games are 400FPS+ which I think most monitors top out at 240Hz maybe a couple at 360hz? But can you tell the difference at that point? I'm not looking for purchasing advice, I'm just saying that at some point the excess performance doesn't matter.

Dont forget that all those first benchmarks are set in a way to produce (if possible) CPU bottleneck.
All of them are at 1080p at the low/lowest graphic settings.

This way GPU is out of the way, does the job easy and the CPU takes "all" the (as the highest possible) weight of the game.
Leaving aside those games that was giving 300~600FPS, others with a more "common" FPS count (<200) if you run them on 4K or ultrawide high res with high/ultra settings you can easily drop to low-100 or even 2-digit FPS. Of course then the CPU takes the lesser role.

And there are players on some specific games (online battles type) that are pursuing the highest possible FPS with the minimum lag. Makes a difference on those games.

Wait until we see what kind of scaling these CPUs will have with higher resolutions and higher settings.
Even better...
Wait until we see what kind of scaling these CPUs and 13th Intel's will have with the new generation of GPUs from nVIdia and AMD.

Personally I'm ok with 60 FPS as a minimum.
Right now my old monitor is a 1920x1200 60Hz but my next will be an ultra wide one, most likely a 3440x1440 120~180Hz.
Not that I will pursue an equivalent FPS count of 120+.

 

[INSTG8R]

Where the "other" for ultrawides?

This! 34” 3440x1440 UW Gang checking in. This will be my resolution for the foreseeable future. I already have the Alienware OLED on order at the identical size and res. I just can’t wait for them to come back in stock!

 

[Dr. Dro]

Same, video memory is very important to me and I'd like to get an RX 7000 card with 24GB of memory at some point. I think 120hz at 2160p would be sufficient for me.

I'm on an RTX 3090 currently, the 24 GB of VRAM is nice but I must admit, currently very few games can take meaningful advantage of it, those that can tend not to run at a nice frame rate anyway (RT overload games basically. 16 GB will be quite alright for most use cases at 4K for the foreseeable future, imo, though, AMD should match the 24 GB using a 384-bit bus in Navi 31. We'll have to wait and see. That's also what I want to upgrade to.

 

[cvaldes]

Yeah 1440p and I'd like to get to 2160p at some point. Also I updated the poll to allow unlimited choices; I use one rig to do everything so just the perspective I'm coming from. I suppose I could have said, "What is your PRIMARY gaming resolution?" - that may have been reconcilable.

I believe someone else created a "what is the primary resolution you are gaming on?" poll at some point.

I voted once you made multiple answers available. I did include a vote for potato to accurately reflect that I do in fact game on the Switch and Super NES Classic.

A lot of polls here don't include multiple answers. I guess those pollsters think that everyone does everything on one device always the same way.

As mentioned before, there really should be at least 1440p and 1080p widescreen options. And I don't even own any widescreen displays. I don't know if polls here have a maximum number of choices though.

The funny thing is that the poll title is about GPUs but the actual poll choices are display resolutions not GPUs.

 

[Toothless]

There are only so many options allowed for poles, just pick whatever vertical resolution yours is closest to I suppose. You can share ultra-wide stuff, I mean if you like it you do you. It's just not something for me personally since I prefer the 16:10 ratio. ︀

Same, video memory is very important to me and I'd like to get an RX 7000 card with 24GB of memory at some point. I think 120hz at 2160p would be sufficient for me.

Yeah I've seen the tech reviewers say that SLI is basically dead and Crossfire has been dead for a generation or two itself.

Yeah 1440p and I'd like to get to 2160p at some point. Also I updated the poll to allow unlimited choices; I use one rig to do everything so just the perspective I'm coming from. I suppose I could have said, "What is your PRIMARY gaming resolution?" - that may have been reconcilable.

Iunno, my GTX690 still works with both GPUs kicking in. Actually works best with BOINC.

 

[Night]

Basically for most people, 'enough' is what they can afford at the moment. I bought a 1440p 144 Hz monitor last year thinking of making a new build, lots of things went downhill since then so I stopped at the monitor upgrade. Even though RX 480 8GB isn't capable of running new and demanding games close to 60 fps using 1080p, I can still enjoy older titles that also look quite good with over 100 fps on 1440p. Far as fps is concered, a 144 Hz upgrade over 60 Hz is considerate, though it makes most sense for competitive mp games.

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

Yeah I've seen the tech reviewers say that SLI is basically dead and Crossfire has been dead for a generation or two itself.

Driver ran SLI and /crossfire are mostly gone, however mGPU on AMD side can use Driver flags from DX11 on DX12 games
mGPU works better on AMD RDNA2 and supports more games than Nvida does on mGPU.

 

[Sithaer]

Potato/entry level UW user here with a 2560x1080 29" 75Hz monitor and this is actually enough for me since 2019 and I have no plans to upgrade anytime soon.
Pretty much only play single player games and casual MMOs if theres one that interests me.

Over the years I've used this monitor with a RX 570 and a GTX 1070 and now a RTX 3060 Ti.
Tbh this 3060 Ti is the max I was willing to go for, in some games its overkill but in newer games I just crank up the eye candy 'RT included if the game has it' and call it a day.
I really don't mind playing at ~50 FPS average, it doesn't bother me at all so I prefer higher settings as long as my GPU is capable enough.
As games become more demanding I will drop/lower settings ofc, like I always did but I don't like to play on Low settings. 'Thats when its upgrade time'

I also have ~1k+ hours in BL 3 since the launch day and most of that was done with my RX 570 with dips to sub 40 FPS when playing end game content with a finished build char. 'Takedowns,etc'
I'm not saying that I didn't notice it but it wasn't that much of a deal to stop me from playing/enjoying the game, now its pretty much staying at my capped 73 FPS on max settings.

 

[AusWolf]

1080p 60 Hz. I briefly thought about upgrading to 1440p last year, but looking at prices (not just hardware, but everything in life), I'm glad I didn't. At least I don't have to spend huge amounts of cash on a high-end graphics card for fluid gameplay.

 

[Sithaer]

1080p 60 Hz. I briefly thought about upgrading to 1440p last year, but looking at prices (not just hardware, but everything in life), I'm glad I didn't. At least I don't have to spend huge amounts of cash on a high-end graphics card for fluid gameplay.

Also this, forgot to mention that one of the reasons why I don't want to step up my monitor upgrade is cause I don't feel like buying high end GPUs just to drive it properly. 'Can't afford it either..'
This way I can last 2-3 years with ~mid range cards just fine.

I've checked out some 3440x1440 UW monitors but nah, rather buy another 2560x1080 if this one kicks the bucket. 'I wouldn't say no to a better panel but higher res/refresh is not important to me'

 

[xtreemchaos]

i run at 3440x1440 UW 34inch @100Hz so picked the nearest. with a gtx1080. my other rig is 4k 60 Hz RTX2080 and built for VR which i havnt a clue what res a quest 2 is.

 

[P4-630]

1440p @ 165Hz G-Sync

 

[Vayra86]

1440p is really a sweet spot for desktop environments. Enough height, great real estate and perfect PPI at 27 inch. I voted that even though I use an ultrawide variant of it. I dont see a point in going higher than 3440x1440 and 120~144Hz. In fact even at 100 fps/hz Im already super comfy.

And in use case with greater view distances (TV/living) I would nudge back to 1080p before pushing for 4K.

4K and huge refresh hz is pure marketing bs.

 

[INSTG8R]

1440p is really a sweet spot for desktop environments. Enough height, great real estate and perfect PPI at 27 inch. I voted that even though I use an ultrawide variant of it. I dont see a point in going higher than 3440x1440 and 120~144Hz. In fact even at 100 fps/hz Im already super comfy.

Couldn't have said it more perfectly. I absolutely love 34" 3440x1440 but 1440p 27" is definitely the "sweet spot"until you actually experience UW then you can't go back I also agree about the FPS my monitor can do 165 but I more than happy at 100fps, basically as long as I'm doing 70-80 in something demanding I am satisfied

 

[Flanker]

60Hz Vsync @ 1080p is what I'm happy with. Any upgrade is for epeen

 

[gffermari]

You should include the 3440x1440 screen resolution. It's more common these days than most of the ones you've included. And picking the closest, gives incorrect results.

I game on 3440x1440 but I plan to move to 4K.
For gaming this resolution and aspect 21:9 is the sweet spot.
But for movies it's not ok because none of the stream services(Prime, Disney,Netflix etc.) allows you to stream 4K in the pc.

A 2080Ti has been more than enough for UW 1440p gaming. A couple of games though require to adjust their graphics in order to achieve 60-70fps (Cyberpunk RT Ultra for example).
Although it remains capable, it's time to move on, even a gen further to like a 3080Ti.

 

[P4-630]

60Hz

GTA V looks horrible @ 60 fps, a slideshow imo, doesn't matter what resolution, tried them all...

Games like Forza Horizon 5 looks fine @ 60fps.

 

[AusWolf]

1440p is really a sweet spot for desktop environments. Enough height, great real estate and perfect PPI at 27 inch. I voted that even though I use an ultrawide variant of it. I dont see a point in going higher than 3440x1440 and 120~144Hz. In fact even at 100 fps/hz Im already super comfy.

And in use case with greater view distances (TV/living) I would nudge back to 1080p before pushing for 4K.

4K and huge refresh hz is pure marketing bs.

I agree. I have a 55" 4K TV, and honestly, I don't see much difference between 4K and 1080p content.

I forgot to add to my previous post that my monitor is a 24" curved panel. If it was any bigger, I'd consider 1440p, but at this size, 1080p is OK. In fact, when I bought this, it was also available as a 27" version, but I thought I'd rather have smaller pixels. I don't regret my decision one bit.

GTA V looks horrible @ 60 fps, a slideshow imo, doesn't matter what resolution, tried them all...

Games like Forza Horizon 5 looks fine @ 60fps.

I haven't seen a single game that doesn't look butter smooth at 60 FPS. Most of them are OK even at 30 (to me at least).

 

[P4-630]

Most of them are OK even at 30 (to me at least).

Point and click games yeah....