• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

The best price v performance GPU out of these four

Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
Ahh, it has an Ultra setting!!!

Sweet. One title that can't be run at 60 FPS with an RTX 2060. :)
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,396 (4.31/day)
lower mid range cards should all be able to hit 60 fps at ultra settings in all games..
Nobody here suggested that. THere will always be a one off title/one that is poorly optimized where a midrange card can't do it. But you can't go based off the one offs. On a whole, we have linked you well over 20 titles from TPU testing that show how the games perform at their highest canned settings. ALL games is a misleading statement (that I don't think anyone said).

but only a fool would insist on ultra settings on all the machines.. i say no more..
YOu are right... buuuuuuuuuuuuut again, nobody said that dude. What about all the other 1000 games that WILL run nicely on all that midrange+ hardware? Come on trog, are you seriously splitting that hair even with the words we posted in the thread? Are you trolling or.... that's all I'm going say.

And you are going to continue posting the few exceptions...golf claps all around! :)

Forest through the trees boys. Forest.......through the trees.


EDIT: Just a reminder of what was said, peeps:
I could care less about RTX. That really has little to do with the overall talking point that both AMD and NVIDIA mid-range cards can run Ultra settings at 1080p and reach that 60 FPS average in most titles (depends on the card and what we are calling mid-range too). Your assertion that ultra is for ultra cards is patently false considering the facts.
And with that... a parade of (two) one offs... trying to prove ultra is for ultra... LOL
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
804 (0.52/day)
Location
Romania
System Name RYZEN
Processor R5 2600 OC @4.0 GHz
Motherboard MSI B350 GAMING PLUS
Cooling GAMAMAX 300
Memory CORSAIR LPX 16GB DDR4 3000
Video Card(s) RX 570 XFX 4GB
Storage ST1000DM003
Display(s) Dell S2719DGF 2K 155Hz
Audio Device(s) ALC892/Z533
Power Supply EVGA 650 GQ 80+ Gold
Mouse Genesis Krypton 770
Keyboard Logitech G910
Software W10 Pro x64
I had 1070 and is good gpu and nowdays u find it cheap,also look for 1080 or Vega 64

Edit: I will say skip the 6GB variants of any other gpu's ..just because is good to have more 8GB :)
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
13 (0.05/day)
Processor I7 4930k @ 4.4 Mhz
here is your answer
 

rtwjunkie

PC Gaming Enthusiast
Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
12,410 (3.03/day)
Location
Louisiana -Laissez les bons temps rouler!
System Name Bayou Devil
Processor Core i7-4790k 4.4Ghz @ 1.18v
Motherboard ASUS Z97 Deluxe
Cooling All air: 2x140mm Fractal exhaust; 3x 140mm Cougar Intake; Enermax T40F CPU cooler
Memory 2x 8GB Mushkin Redline DDR-3 1866
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X
Storage 1x 500 MX500 SSD; 1x 2TB WD Black; 2x 4TB WD Black;1x 2TB WD Green (eSATA)
Display(s) HP 27q 27" IPS @ 2560 x 1440
Case Fractal Design Define R4 Black w/Titanium front -windowed
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Z
Power Supply Seasonic X-850
Mouse Coolermaster Sentinel III
Keyboard Logitech G610 Orion mechanical (Cherry Brown switches)
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (Start10 & Fences 3.0 installed)
SO you need at least a Vega 64 for 60 FPS @ 1080P wow!! That is a terribly optimized game.
It’s actually pretty well optimized. The graphics on the game are what make it so taxing on GPU’s. It’s one of today’s best looking games.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
Nobody here suggested that. THere will always be a one off title/one that is poorly optimized where a midrange card can't do it. But you can't go based off the one offs. On a whole, we have linked you well over 20 titles from TPU testing that show how the games perform at their highest canned settings. ALL games is a misleading statement (that I don't think anyone said).

YOu are right... buuuuuuuuuuuuut again, nobody said that dude. What about all the other 1000 games that WILL run nicely on all that midrange+ hardware? Come on trog, are you seriously splitting that hair even with the words we posted in the thread? Are you trolling or.... that's all I'm going say.

And you are going to continue posting the few exceptions...golf claps all around! :)

Forest through the trees boys. Forest.......through the trees.


EDIT: Just a reminder of what was said, peeps:

And with that... a parade of (two) one offs... trying to prove ultra is for ultra... LOL
no,you got me confused with trog.
I never said it ultra is for ultra.
I'm not making a statement.
I'm pointing out ultra settings is a mirage.
you can't have a card that will run ultra at a given res for a given period of time.
what you have is cards that deliver good,better and the best performance.and it's usually the best ones that deliver the smallest perf increase for the price premium.

I pulled the plug on chasing ultra years ago in favor or chasing smoother,real life-like experience when it comes to motion smoothness.I thought many people that are smarter than me would too,but no.


you buy a card,that's your baseline.you either keep it or buy a new one.with each purchase you know better and better what you're after.
 

rtwjunkie

PC Gaming Enthusiast
Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
12,410 (3.03/day)
Location
Louisiana -Laissez les bons temps rouler!
System Name Bayou Devil
Processor Core i7-4790k 4.4Ghz @ 1.18v
Motherboard ASUS Z97 Deluxe
Cooling All air: 2x140mm Fractal exhaust; 3x 140mm Cougar Intake; Enermax T40F CPU cooler
Memory 2x 8GB Mushkin Redline DDR-3 1866
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X
Storage 1x 500 MX500 SSD; 1x 2TB WD Black; 2x 4TB WD Black;1x 2TB WD Green (eSATA)
Display(s) HP 27q 27" IPS @ 2560 x 1440
Case Fractal Design Define R4 Black w/Titanium front -windowed
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Z
Power Supply Seasonic X-850
Mouse Coolermaster Sentinel III
Keyboard Logitech G610 Orion mechanical (Cherry Brown switches)
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (Start10 & Fences 3.0 installed)
you can't have a card that will run ultra at a given res for a given period of time.
You’ve gone off the rails on graphics the last couple weeks. I’m not sure what happened to you.

Your statement is completely false. A card absolutely can only run ultra at the FPS you desire at a given res for a period of time. Eventually newer, more taxing games come along that make it so you cannot run that same res and FPS at the same settings.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
You’ve gone off the rails on graphics the last couple weeks. I’m not sure what happened to you.

Your statement is completely false. A card absolutely can only run ultra at the FPS you desire at a given res for a period of time. Eventually newer, more taxing games come along that make it so you cannot run that same res and FPS at the same settings.
yes,if you go overkill in the first place and see the performance deplete over the years until it reaches the point where you switch.
 

rtwjunkie

PC Gaming Enthusiast
Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
12,410 (3.03/day)
Location
Louisiana -Laissez les bons temps rouler!
System Name Bayou Devil
Processor Core i7-4790k 4.4Ghz @ 1.18v
Motherboard ASUS Z97 Deluxe
Cooling All air: 2x140mm Fractal exhaust; 3x 140mm Cougar Intake; Enermax T40F CPU cooler
Memory 2x 8GB Mushkin Redline DDR-3 1866
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X
Storage 1x 500 MX500 SSD; 1x 2TB WD Black; 2x 4TB WD Black;1x 2TB WD Green (eSATA)
Display(s) HP 27q 27" IPS @ 2560 x 1440
Case Fractal Design Define R4 Black w/Titanium front -windowed
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster Z
Power Supply Seasonic X-850
Mouse Coolermaster Sentinel III
Keyboard Logitech G610 Orion mechanical (Cherry Brown switches)
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (Start10 & Fences 3.0 installed)
yes,if you go overkill in the first place and see the performance deplete over the years until it reaches the point where you switch.
Actually, the problem is more pronounced at the midrange cards, not overkilling on your purchase. In the midrange arena you notice very quickly that your card gets owned by newer games. “Overkill” higher end and you prolong that point in time.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,396 (4.31/day)
yes,if you go overkill in the first place and see the performance deplete over the years until it reaches the point where you switch.
Such are GPUs, period. No matter if I am chasing 60 FPS Ultra 1080p, or 144 FPS Ultra 2560x1440 that is the way things work. Either you will have to lower settings to maintain your preferred FPS as new and more demanding titles release, or you get a new card.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
while what you're saying is true,it's a dead end in my opinion anyway.

rtx 2060 can handle 1440p high refresh monitor,I had gtx 1080,I know it can.but you wanna keep it for 1080p60 so that it "lasts longer" it's your choice.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
7,153 (1.42/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
lets say 60 fps is a minimum desirable average.. why the f-ck should game writers limit their pretties to what mid range cards can play in ultra...

should there be no reward for higher end hardware.. of course there should and game writers should (and sometimes do) take this into account..

you really have been brainwashed here dog.. time you admitted it.. he he

game reviewers are not doing potential buyers a service when they quote mid to lower end cards at ultra setting.. take that struggling to make 60 fps 2060 at 1080.. its bollocks and with a few a sensible tweaks its capable of far better than that even in the most demanding games.. :)

trog
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
what sense does using terms like ultra even make if I tweak all my settings manually anyway.
well,I don't when I turn all the sliders to the max and the game spits out 150 fps anyway but more often than not I do. don't you ? No,cause you bought a futureproof "ultra" card :rolleyes:

I mean,you gotta know what the ultra slider does,right ? cause if you're just sliding the all the way and then say your card is getting old when it doesn't stay at 60 then



I'm much more devoted to comparing cards themselves,it's me that decides what that card does in the end.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,396 (4.31/day)
lets say 60 fps is a minimum desirable average.. why the f-ck should game writers limit their pretties to what mid ranges can play in ultra...
They shouldn't really... it is what it is though. We see mid-range cards run 60 FPS at highest preset in most games (all except one TPU tested). Again, we know there will be exceptions...but the whole here many are capable.

should there be no reward for higher end hardware.. of course there should and game writers should (and sometimes do) take this into account..
Mmmhm... your point though?

you really have been brainwashed here dog.. time you admitted it.. he he
WTH are you talking about??? Mofo, I'm WOKE, you's a JOKE! lol, joke aside, I'm not brainwashed in the least. Surely one can get more FPS by lowering settings, but then you lose IQ.. be it a bit or plenty to notice. Why would I do that unless I HAD TO? If I want a better gaming experience FPS wise, I have to get a better card.
game reviewers are not doing potential buyers a service when they quote mid to lower end cards at ultra setting.. take that struggling to make 60 fps 2060.. its bollocks and with a few a sensible tweaks its capable of far better than that even in the most demanding games..
Opinions are like buttholes...everyone has one, right? That is your take on how it should be tested. The problem is that nobody has time to test xx amount of cards in xx amount of games at xx resolutions on xxx and yyy systems to please everyone. Testing for most reviews show how devs feel the game SHOULD be played with reasonable hardware with a preset maximum.

My only point here, and this is my mention of it as this has droned on WAAAAAAAAAAAY too long already... (literally posting and unsubscribing so I don't return, LOL).

You said Ultra is for Ultra and that, is utter garbage. You WANT ultra to be for ultra, but it surely isn't as you would completely alientate those who can't afford ultra hardware for the ultra settings.

Cucker - enough with the trolling images man.... seriously. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
there are games where smoothness is a lot more important to one's experience than settings.and there's a whole lot of them.for me it's majority.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,038 (5.42/day)
Location
Too Long to fit in a single line here.
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
ftfy


This does have Turf Effects on which is a rather useless yet heavy setting. Its a bit similar to Hairworks in that sense, very expensive and also visibly inaccurate, there are loads of inconsistencies and graphical errors if you use it. But the gist of your example(s) is of course very clear.

I get minimums of 55 ish FPS in GR: W with all settings @ maximum minus blur and DoF (and Turf FX) on a GTX 1080 with OC. Averages around 75-80, but when the action happens, I hover right around 60. Its clear the game is optimized to work like this, and this is the same engine as AC uses.

But anyway... I giggled when people told me buying a 1080 was overkill for 1080p. Here we are and no, its not 'bad optimization' - its called progress in gaming. Because honestly, the visuals of GR:W are pretty damn sweet in every way. High detail, immense view distance, and fully interactive & simulated open world.

This is why I've been recommending 2060 from the get-go. Its no luxury at all if you want your FPS fixed and your settings high. One point of interest: Ghost Recon Wildlands takes up a healthy 4.8 GB of VRAM with my settings (which is not maxed in everything). 6GB is no luxury either, and 8GB may future proof you just a tiny bit better - if it were an option at this point ;)

As for @trog100 ... we get it, you like turning down settings on your SLI setups and 1200 dollar card. Enjoy that. Stop the missionary work. The irony couldn't be greater here, too - you're the guy with overkill setups that is suggesting OP 'to tone it down a bit'... Find a mirror and reflect.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
This does have Turf Effects on which is a rather useless yet heavy setting. Its a bit similar to Hairworks in that sense, very expensive and also visibly inaccurate, there are loads of inconsistencies and graphical errors if you use it. But the gist of your example(s) is of course very clear.

I get minimums of 55 ish FPS in GR: W with all settings @ maximum minus blur and DoF (and Turf FX) on a GTX 1080 with OC. Averages around 75-80, but when the action happens, I hover right around 60. Its clear the game is optimized to work like this, and this is the same engine as AC uses.
turf looks great but the impact is pretty big.
in a game like this it does add a lot to immersion imo.
dense grass adds a lot,lot more in a jungle shooter than volumetric clouds do in ac:eek:dyssey.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,038 (5.42/day)
Location
Too Long to fit in a single line here.
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
turf looks great but the impact is pretty big.
in a game like this it does add a lot to immersion imo.
Turf looks great at first glance... once I noticed the errors, I disabled it. It kills the immersion for me. Just like that pop-in that does still happen from time to time, with Turf Effects that gets much worse. The physics it uses are super inaccurate.

But offtopic :p I notice we're at page 5 here :D

good enough for me.
once in motion it enhances the overall visuals a lot while not breaking your experience in any way.
To each his own ;) I just don't think its fair to judge that as a basic setting that says anything about 'overall' performance of cards in games. Its unique to GR:W, its Nvidia based and its one of the few settings in that game that is clearly not optimal for performance.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
4,639 (5.81/day)
Location
Poland
Processor i7 5775c @4.3GHz/1.385v/EDRAM @2GHz
Motherboard Z97X Gaming 5
Cooling Noctua D15S
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP 1600 CL8 @2133 9-9-9-27 1T
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super Gaming X Trio
Storage SU900 128 (OS)/850 PRO 256+256+ 512,860 EVO 500,XPG SX950U 480,M9Pe(Y) 512 (games)/4TB HDDs (3+1)
Display(s) Acer XB241YU+Dell S2716DG dual monitor setup
Case Full tower
Audio Device(s) W830BT headphones
Power Supply Superflower Leadex Gold 850W
Mouse G903 lightspeed+powerplay,G403 wireless + Steelseries DeX + Roccat rest
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores A LOT
Turf looks great at first glance... once I noticed the errors, I disabled it. It kills the immersion for me. Just like that pop-in that does still happen from time to time, with Turf Effects that gets much worse.
good enough for me.
once in motion it enhances the overall visuals a lot while not breaking your experience in any way.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
7,153 (1.42/day)
System Name money pit..
Processor Intel 9900K 4.8 at 1.152 core voltage minus 0.120 offset
Motherboard Asus rog Strix Z370-F Gaming
Cooling Dark Rock TF air cooler.. Stock vga air coolers with case side fans to help cooling..
Memory 32 gb corsair vengeance 3200
Video Card(s) Palit Gaming Pro OC 2080TI
Storage 150 nvme boot drive partition.. 1T Sandisk sata.. 1T Transend sata.. 1T 970 evo nvme m 2..
Display(s) 27" Asus PG279Q ROG Swift 165Hrz Nvidia G-Sync, IPS.. 2560x1440..
Case Gigabyte mid-tower.. cheap and nothing special..
Audio Device(s) onboard sounds with stereo amp..
Power Supply EVGA 850 watt..
Mouse Logitech G700s
Keyboard Logitech K270
Software Win 10 pro..
Benchmark Scores Firestike 29500.. timepsy 14000..
vayra.. i have four machines in my house that can play games.. 1650 power.. 1060 power.. 1070 power and 2080ti power..

i tune them all to give me a steady frame capped 75 fps..

i am happy with a steady 75 fps but i am not happy with less and i dont need more.. pretty simple really..

frame rates are a bit like memory to me.. you need enough but for me at least having more achieves very little.. its just wasting power and generating heat and noise for nothing..

two of my machines are gaming laptops.. one is a small from factor desktop with 16 x 10 screen and other a normal sized desktop with 27 inch 1440 monitor..

i think monitor size plays a big part with settings quality.. the bigger the monitor the higher the hardware requirements needed to drive it..

no one size fits all..

trog
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
2,126 (1.27/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 4770K @ 4.4
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 1TB SSD, forgot which one. Evo maybe?
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake T81
Power Supply Seasonic 750 Watt Gold
what sense does using terms like ultra even make if I tweak all my settings manually anyway.
Because ultra is a lot easier than spelling out every setting. If you tell someone ultra, they have a pretty good idea what that means. If you start saying txaa at 4x, af at 16xx, HBAO, shadows at medium, water at medium - it gets really annoying pretty quick.

i am happy with a steady 75 fps but i am not happy with less and i dont need more.. pretty simple really..
That's great for you but other people have different preferences. Why is this so hard to grasp? Others won't do anything less than 100fps and want ultra settings. They obviously are going to need a beefier graphics card.

There is (sub|ob)jectively no such thing as overkill in the computing world. 'Overkill' simply means prolonging the lifespan of your desired settings/preferences. Buying higher means lasting longer. Buying at what you need now means you are going to buy again as early as next year. It is likely cheaper to 'buy once, cry once' and buyer over your need for, say, $325 instead of buying $200 in two consecutive years. Obviously, budgets at the time will affect these decisions.

Also, I don't buy for average fps, I buy for minimum fps.
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
2,945 (1.03/day)
System Name Zimmer Frame Rates
Processor Intel i7 920 @ Stock speeds baby
Motherboard EVGA X58 3X SLI
Cooling True 120
Memory Corsair Vengeance 12GB
Video Card(s) Palit GTX 980 Ti Super JetStream
Storage Of course
Display(s) Crossover 27Q 27" 2560x1440
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Don't be silly
Power Supply XFX 650W Core
Mouse Razer Deathadder Chroma
Keyboard Logitech UltraX
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores Epic
I need to upgrade, the GTX 1080 and Vega 64 offer mid-range performance now o_O
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
2,819 (2.17/day)
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard MSI B450 Tomahawk ATX
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu with AM4 bracket
Memory PNY Anarchy-X XLR8 Red DDR4 3200 MHz C15-17-17-17-35
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 2060 GAMING Z 6G
Storage Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 500 GB, SanDisk Ultra II 480 GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster C27H711 OC refresh rate 110Hz
Case Phantek Eclipse P400S (PH-EC416PS)
Audio Device(s) On-board dead - Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy Rx
Power Supply EVGA 850 BQ
Mouse SteelSeries Rival 310
Keyboard Logitech G G413 Silver
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit v1903
performance is identical to 1070 Ti
Performance of the 2060 usually matches a 1080.

No. Plenty of games can run ultra settings at 60 fps with mid-range gpus and 1080p (isnt it odd that is the predominant class of card being sold and most common resolution?).
So far running at Ultra settings in any game at 2560x1440 with refresh rate pegged at 75 Hz/FPS with a RTX 2060 although it's running above the factory OC.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,038 (5.42/day)
Location
Too Long to fit in a single line here.
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
vayra.. i have four machines in my house that can play games.. 1650 power.. 1060 power.. 1070 power and 2080ti power..

i tune them all to give me a steady frame capped 75 fps..

i am happy with a steady 75 fps but i am not happy with less and i dont need more.. pretty simple really..

frame rates are a bit like memory to me.. you need enough but for me at least having more achieves very little.. its just wasting power and generating heat and noise for nothing..

two of my machines are gaming laptops.. one is a small from factor desktop with 16 x 10 screen and other a normal sized desktop with 27 inch 1440 monitor..

i think monitor size plays a big part with settings quality.. the bigger the monitor the higher the hardware requirements needed to drive it..

no one size fits all..

trog
Which is, again, just fine, but this topic isnt about your peculiar preferences. OP is looking for advice on what is sufficient for a stated use case and or what is a good buy taking into account a specific game.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
106 (0.04/day)
Location
Australia
System Name Gladiator
Processor i7 7700k (Kaby Lake) 4.2-4.4ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte Z270m-D3H
Cooling Exhaust fan: Noctua NF-P12 PWM - CPU: Coolermaster Hyper H114R
Memory Kingston Hyper-X Fury 16GB DDR4 @3200mhz
Storage WD 1TB
Display(s) Philips 22" @1080p
Case A case
Audio Device(s) Logitech 5.1 Stereo
Power Supply Antec VPF550w
Mouse Logitech G300S
Keyboard Logitech G213
Software Windows 10 64bit
Well I see this discussion has certainly blown out :D. But it's good to see the many different opinions, although some are more valued than others. I've currently ruled out the 2060 for now as the price is far too inflated. Considering these things out here are more costly, with gst and tax on top, I'm going to probably 'bide my time' and wait because I've heard at the moment Nvidia are 'milking' the market with their new line of RTX and GTX cards without the amd competition until the new cards are released.
I'm still considering a 1070 or 1660ti but I'm going to throw a dagger in the dark and ask would a Vega 56 be worth it? Pre-owned at $400 but I'm not too sure on the output, another thing is the power consumption. Would my 550w psu be enough? Just another option, that is all.

Nobody here suggested that. THere will always be a one off title/one that is poorly optimized where a midrange card can't do it. But you can't go based off the one offs. On a whole, we have linked you well over 20 titles from TPU testing that show how the games perform at their highest canned settings. ALL games is a misleading statement (that I don't think anyone said).

YOu are right... buuuuuuuuuuuuut again, nobody said that dude. What about all the other 1000 games that WILL run nicely on all that midrange+ hardware? Come on trog, are you seriously splitting that hair even with the words we posted in the thread? Are you trolling or.... that's all I'm going say.

And you are going to continue posting the few exceptions...golf claps all around! :)

Forest through the trees boys. Forest.......through the trees.


EDIT: Just a reminder of what was said, peeps:

And with that... a parade of (two) one offs... trying to prove ultra is for ultra... LOL
yes,if you go overkill in the first place and see the performance deplete over the years until it reaches the point where you switch.
They shouldn't really... it is what it is though. We see mid-range cards run 60 FPS at highest preset in most games (all except one TPU tested). Again, we know there will be exceptions...but the whole here many are capable.

Mmmhm... your point though?

WTH are you talking about??? Mofo, I'm WOKE, you's a JOKE! lol, joke aside, I'm not brainwashed in the least. Surely one can get more FPS by lowering settings, but then you lose IQ.. be it a bit or plenty to notice. Why would I do that unless I HAD TO? If I want a better gaming experience FPS wise, I have to get a better card.
Opinions are like buttholes...everyone has one, right? That is your take on how it should be tested. The problem is that nobody has time to test xx amount of cards in xx amount of games at xx resolutions on xxx and yyy systems to please everyone. Testing for most reviews show how devs feel the game SHOULD be played with reasonable hardware with a preset maximum.

My only point here, and this is my mention of it as this has droned on WAAAAAAAAAAAY too long already... (literally posting and unsubscribing so I don't return, LOL).

You said Ultra is for Ultra and that, is utter garbage. You WANT ultra to be for ultra, but it surely isn't as you would completely alientate those who can't afford ultra hardware for the ultra settings.

Cucker - enough with the trolling images man.... seriously. :rolleyes:
This does have Turf Effects on which is a rather useless yet heavy setting. Its a bit similar to Hairworks in that sense, very expensive and also visibly inaccurate, there are loads of inconsistencies and graphical errors if you use it. But the gist of your example(s) is of course very clear.

I get minimums of 55 ish FPS in GR: W with all settings @ maximum minus blur and DoF (and Turf FX) on a GTX 1080 with OC. Averages around 75-80, but when the action happens, I hover right around 60. Its clear the game is optimized to work like this, and this is the same engine as AC uses.

But anyway... I giggled when people told me buying a 1080 was overkill for 1080p. Here we are and no, its not 'bad optimization' - its called progress in gaming. Because honestly, the visuals of GR:W are pretty damn sweet in every way. High detail, immense view distance, and fully interactive & simulated open world.

This is why I've been recommending 2060 from the get-go. Its no luxury at all if you want your FPS fixed and your settings high. One point of interest: Ghost Recon Wildlands takes up a healthy 4.8 GB of VRAM with my settings (which is not maxed in everything). 6GB is no luxury either, and 8GB may future proof you just a tiny bit better - if it were an option at this point ;)

As for @trog100 ... we get it, you like turning down settings on your SLI setups and 1200 dollar card. Enjoy that. Stop the missionary work. The irony couldn't be greater here, too - you're the guy with overkill setups that is suggesting OP 'to tone it down a bit'... Find a mirror and reflect.
Which is, again, just fine, but this topic isnt about your peculiar preferences. OP is looking for advice on what is sufficient for a stated use case and or what is a good buy taking into account a specific game.
 
Top