RX 480 w/ 1080p 144Hz Freesync Monitor or GTX 1070 w/ 1080p 60Hz Monitor

[JrRacinFan]

IRL, take in account of the newest games you play. If you deem it worthwhile to move up for 1 or 2 titles then go for it in either case.

I plan on doing a mini-ITX upgrade though with a new case, i5-7600k, MB, RAM and HD.

Are you hunting to save space? Going to uni and need to travel? I'd opt against trying for mini itx and going full atx instead if those arent factors.

 

[Tallencor]

One issue that keeps coming up is aaa titles and max settings not getting 60 frames at 1080 with the rx 480.
The thing is it really depends on the games a person actually is interested in playing.
Out of all the bench results shown on the previous page I have played 1 of them the Whicher 3. And actually disabled the hair, viginette chromatic a and one or two other settings.
So I get 60 to 70 frames with freesync and enjoy it more than the eye candy anyway. Not to mention I didn't spend double on a 1080 or titan. Cdn pricing.

 

[phanbuey]

monitor is the biggest upgrade you can make to your PC experience - deff the 120Hz freesync 1440 p if you can swing it.

It's how apple pcs still sell. Awesome shiny displays powered by crap and wrapped in stylish aluminum.

 

[aameghoo]

IRL, take in account of the newest games you play. If you deem it worthwhile to move up for 1 or 2 titles then go for it in either case.

Are you hunting to save space? Going to uni and need to travel? I'd opt against trying for mini itx and going full atx instead if those arent factors.

Well the main thing driving me doing an upgrade is my best friend is finally interested in doing a pc after all these years but is tight on cash. So the the savings he'll get from me selling him my old parts for cheap vs him having to buy all new stuff will allow him to finally put something decent together so it's kind of a win win.

The reason for doing mini itx is I'd like to have everything as compact as possible, I'm currently eyeing the Corsair Obsidian 250D combo deal at newegg. I've always dreamed of having a solid mini-itx build. I really like the aesthetics of a compact case and also being able to have it sit next to me on the desk without it being overwhelming is a big win. I have absolutely no desire to ever Crossfire or SLI again, hated the micro-stutter, heat, noise, and compatibility issues. I pulled my 6950s out of my PC months ago due to these issues and have been exclusively gaming on my ps4 since then. I actually need to put them up for sale, they've just been collecting dust. Also even better is we've gotten to the point now that a single card solution can more than handle my gaming preferences without breaking the bank. So needless to say I should never need a large case again, the 250D has more than enough drive slots for my needs and by watercooling the 7600K and with the Twin Frozr on the card, heat shouldn't be an issue, plus I really love the look and compactness of mini-itx.

One issue that keeps coming up is aaa titles and max settings not getting 60 frames at 1080 with the rx 480.
The thing is it really depends on the games a person actually is interested in playing.
Out of all the bench results shown on the previous page I have played 1 of them the Whicher 3. And actually disabled the hair, viginette chromatic a and one or two other settings.
So I get 60 to 70 frames with freesync and enjoy it more than the eye candy anyway. Not to mention I didn't spend double on a 1080 or titan. Cdn pricing.

Yeah see that's the thing for me too, I really value smoothness much more than eye candy

 

[JrRacinFan]

@aameghoo do what you will. They were rhetorical questions and dont need to justify them to me. Again, opt out of the mini itx build if budget is tight

 

[aameghoo]

@aameghoo do what you will. They were rhetorical questions and dont need to justify them to me. Again, opt out of the mini itx build if budget is tight

Curious, why the vote against mini itx? Would like to see if there's a negative I haven't considered.

 

[JrRacinFan]

Curious, why the vote against mini itx? Would like to see if there's a negative I haven't considered.

Longevity.

 

[EarthDog]

One issue that keeps coming up is aaa titles and max settings not getting 60 frames at 1080 with the rx 480.
The thing is it really depends on the games a person actually is interested in playing.
Out of all the bench results shown on the previous page I have played 1 of them the Whicher 3. And actually disabled the hair, viginette chromatic a and one or two other settings.
So I get 60 to 70 frames with freesync and enjoy it more than the eye candy anyway. Not to mention I didn't spend double on a 1080 or titan. Cdn pricing.

I guess my thinking is if I'm playing on a pc, I want to make sure it looks better than the consoles i dont own (well, we have them.. but my kids play them).

 

[kruk]

I guess my thinking is if I'm playing on a pc, I want to make sure it looks better than the consoles i dont own (well, we have them.. but my kids play them).

TBH, in Witcher 3, if you focus on gameplay, there is no way you will notice visual differences between Medium (or High) with highest textures and Ultra, but the FPS difference should be huge:

It's similar in other games. Tweaking games to run faster was once a integral part of PC gaming, now a lot of enthusiasts just buy a new GPU when their current one can't run the game at ultra (even if it's only one generation newer). Where is the fun in that?

 

[EarthDog]

I get that. But I notice it enough personally that, I won't run much less than Ultra/High if I can help it. There is a reason I have higher than a 1080p IPS monitor... I like the image on the screen.

EDIT: Just watched the vid.. its a HUGE difference from L to Ultra... even Med/High to Ultra I can clearly see...

 

[kruk]

EDIT: Just watched the vid.. its a HUGE difference from L to Ultra... even Med/High to Ultra I can clearly see...

We probably didn't watch the same video . I can extract some frames for comparison, but a better way is direct screenshot comparison: http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/05...s-medium-vs-low-detail-screenshot-comparison/

Medium + Max textures will probably double your FPS, but the visual difference should be minimal. You are only seeing the differences as huge, because you know that there are some differences ...

 

[EarthDog]

I watched what you posted..

I can see distinct changes in it.

 

[phanbuey]

There are definitely differences, but between high and ultra is almost nothing. I would definitely sacrifice some of the post processing for more fluidity.

 

[EarthDog]

Textures are one thing.. AA is another. At 1080p, I'd like 8xMSAA for the most part. 4x surely.

I personally don't like to sacrifice IQ for fps I guess is all. Many others certainly may, of course.

 

[toilet pepper]

I've gone to 3 graphics card and used the same monitor. 120/144hz even while browsing is different. Get the monitor and rx480. You never know somewhere down the line you would upgrade to a gpu where you can push the frames for it in gaming.

Edit:typo

 

[phanbuey]

I've gone to 3 graphics card and used the same monitor. 120/144hz even while browsing is different. Get the monitor and rx480. You never know somewhere down the line you would upgrade to a gpu where you can push the frames for it in gaming.

Edit:typo

So true... the whole machine is more responsive, everything is smoother. Monitor is how you interact with the machine. Way more important....

Also games are just more fun at 120 FPS - even if they are slightly lower settings.

 

[medi01]

and you can always buy a 1440p later-on.

After you sell part of your body to pay for overpriced g-sync that is actually inferior to freesync as tests have shown (both fps and lag)