I would prefer a Radeon 580 8GB, since the favorite in this thread (gtx 970) was crippled from the get go with the meager 3.5 gb of vram. I struggled like crazy with that one from day one because of that stupid limitation.
Does it really matter that much in terms of real life performance though? Because I know for a fact higher res were performance itself would be an issue, it matters. At 1440p I've definitely maxed out my 8gb VRAM. But does it really struggle that much at 1080p?
I just had the lanbox up and running after reading this thread, i7 4790, 16gb DDR3 1600 and the 970, there's still games this thing can do high settings 1080p60+, and can stay over 100fps on OW2 on competitive settings, not bad at all for an 8+ year old bit of tech. Honestly this thing is a little 1080p beast. As unaffordable as the highest top end gear is, you really don't need it for 1080p gaming, not even close. Certainly cuts the mustard for a little lanbox / yuzu for switch games for my son.
And I tend to agree, I almost never run ultra everything, I prefer the balance of higher framerate against ultra visuals that you need to compare stills to see. With the caveat of AA/shimmering like I said in that graphics thread, can't stand a jaggy image and shimmer in straight edges.
Yeah this is true you really don't need high end tech for modern gaming. It's 100% about running ultrahigh resolutions basically. Most games are still being optimised for running on GTX 970/1060 RX 470/290x etc. at 1080p. A 970 I think is about the absolute cutoff limit for today, although the main issue is drivers. IIRC you may run into some DirectX issues on Maxwell. This is the one reason I'd say consider a 1050ti, just because iirc Pascal had better drivers for DirectX etc.
The OP is asking about mid-range or high-mid range video cards with a certain consumption and purchase price. There was a proposal for a high-end graphics card, which is probably above the purchase budget and consumes more power. In the topic, there was no question about the power supply of the computer that will be upgraded. If, along with the GTX 980 or RX 580, you also have to spend money to replace the current power supply because it is weak or worn out, this can lead to a price that is not foreseen and not accepted.
Also a valid concern/point
In that Instance grab a 7970 6G
The 580 2048 and 570 are just a 580 with shaders dyked off.
In this instance instead of risking a used gpu just save some dough and Get a RX 6400
Eh depends I guess, 7970 and 970 are getting old enough it becomes questionable what DirectX versions you can run and longevity at all with DirectX 12/2 issues. Depends how much each cost. 6400 was a bit steep MSRP on release, but for pretty basic 1080p should be perfectly fine (although idk how well it plays with PCIe 3.0 vs the other cards, I saw someone asking about PCIe 2.0 and for that a 6500XT or 6400 aren't a great idea).
Oh yeah the guy saying he didn't play ultra, well...that's not saying much good. I play all ultra (because I can) and man you can burn through VRAM. It's funny seeing older games and having to manually edit files because the max VRAM at the time was 1.5gb so it gets confused with a modern card. I can't stand the direction Steam went in and yes, absolutely, having this stupid f'ing thing I HAVE to have running in the background, sapping that much VRAM and RAM? NO. THANKS.
This is but one of the big reasons I hate Valve so much at this point. It's because it forces me to have Steam running in the background, and they pretty much told every poorer gamer to F themselves because running on a 8gb system with an HDD and older processor with some 2-4gb graphics card is next to impossible with the bloatware that is Steam open. Steam itself hogs so much system resources it's incredible. Another reason to use GOG instead.
