720p/900p 60 fps, Ultra Settings Gaming

[vc92]

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]

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]

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

 

[Toothless]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Toothless]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.