@@mattiaskollnitz9794 Why do you say that? I play resident evil 2 at high settings and get around 144 frames consistently. Modern warfare same scenario everything maxed out and never drops below 144. I havwe Ryzen 5 3600 and 2060 super running it on the vg27aq at 144hz.
When I moved to 1440p gaming earlier this year, I built a machine that could handle 1440@60 Ultra settings with no discernible drops on AAA games. I went with an RX 5700 XT and a Ryzen 5 2600X CPU (Got the CPU on sale for $99. Couldn't pass it up). My monitor puts out 60Hz at 1440p so I turn on Vsync in games and it stays locked at the 60 FPS I wanted while taxing my GPU less. Simple. I monitor my GPU usage in games. If I get to a point where the games I want to play are requiring my GPU to work at near 100% in order to maintain my standards, in this case 1440@60 Ultra, I look at upgrading the GPU. Don't compromise your standards and don't settle for bare minimum. Bare minimum means you have to upgrade far sooner than you want to. Don't get caught in a continuous bare minimum upgrade cycle.
Just swapped mine out for a 2080 Super. 970 was a great card for me in "real world" gaming as opposed to all these reviews that demand you get something you really don't need for everyday gaming. Reason I've got the 2080 Super (similar to when I bought 970 new) is so that it lasts some years.
This video just helped cement in my mind that, at current GPU prices, I can wait another gen to upgrade my 970, medium settings won't kill me. Doesn't seem like a lot of difference for nearly 6 years of progress. Plus, after the new consoles finally launch, I expect the PC market will suddenly start getting much better graphics performance for their money, including performant & cheaper raytracing if the PS5 including an AMD raytracing solution is to be believed. Perhaps AMD is looking to establish their standard in the console space so that over the next 5-10 years these advanced effects will favour their architecture.
The 3000 series is rumored to be 40-50% more powerful than the 2000 series, have more Vram, and be cheaper with less energy used. Thats what im waiting for and to see. If you alreeady have a PC your better off spending the $500 on a nee card than a new console which will be very limited in comparison.
you speak truth. I have the same card. I know a couple friends with 4k monitors and 2080's. Trey paid insane money, especially with consoles starting to blur the lines for sensible gamers. That kind of coin to play video games is just not my cup of tea, plus when does the price gouging and excuses stop. Blaming bitcoining and other BS. They have convinced gullible (so very gullible) easy wallet gamers that it's just right to pay $1000 for a vid card that will still be relevant in 8 years. I like buying my hardware new with a 3 or more year warranty. New cards 2 generations old sometimes cost more than they did when they were released lol. I love my 970.
I really wish that I could stand that, it would have saved me a lot of money. I can deal with high settings, but anything lower than that (or 60fps) just makes games unplayable for me. First world problems at its finest
@Keelan Before I upgraded to 2060, I had 970 with 1440p165. Honestly not many games where the 970 struggled, medium settings are quite surprisingly good nowadays. Don't get fooled by shiny ultra presets.
@@billclay2701 970 is cool, but it's really getting old in the tooth. I moved on from a 780 Classified to a 1080 Classified for $500 and upgraded to 144hz/1440p. 4K gaming is for suckers.
Same! Going to see what happens with Ampere. Hoping we have another Pascal like situation (price/performance ratio). If so I'll definitely get one, if not then the 1080 will have to keep being a champ until I see what AMD has planned.
This is amazing good sir, no bullshit intro showing yourself and talking about random nonsense for 5+ minutes. Almost every other youtuber does this and makes you have to skip forward to see results. Glad you shown them right away and didn't beat around the bush. Have earned my like and sub .
These games came out at the time of the older cards, giving them a boost in optimisation. If you tested the same older cards on newer games.....RDR2 / Control / Jedi Fallen order you would see a bigger jump in GPU Generation models. ( I Do Benchmarks on my channel, Feel free to check it out )
The bottleneck in those games are from the raw shader capacity, which is what Nvidia intends that games rely upon so people buy their cards. Go DX12 and Vulkan and those requirements are thrown out the window, but they won't, because it's not as profitable. The whole point of DX9 to DX10 was feature, and DX10 to DX11 was feature and optimizations. DX12 is essentially mainly optimizations, so developers and hardware providers basically go "Meh, it doesn't show you anything differently, so why bother wasting money on it". Stagnation of the tech industry is why. Stagnation in game programming is why. As game industries grow, the average skill levels of programmers DOES NOT. They just throw more programmers at the problem rather than producing expensive and talented programmers. In fact compared to the 90s and 2000s, the average of game programming is at really 'dumb' levels that it's probably not even programming anymore, just scripting languages that is prebuilt to be linguistic as possible for newbies. These aren't self-taught programmers polishing their skills like what hackers do, in making games from scratch and from coding alone... These are 'students' of game design/programming courses or people picking up pre-built engines or development kits and following tutorials. Pure programming is mainly english comprehension and mathematic, letters and numbers you see. Some countries (especially Asian) don't rely on latin based lingual text and sometimes even numbers even.
@@franciscoandrada412 Lol, you picked probably the 3 best looking games Rdr2, Control and Jedi fallen order, Name 3 better looking games than these 3..
@@Rationalific I've had the same setup since 2016 but once I saw 1440p on a quality gaming monitor I knew that was going to be my next upgrade. So I recently bought a 27" 1440p 144 Hz freesync monitor and paired it with a 5700 XT. Well worth the upgrade! And on the days where I hook up my PC to the 4K TV, the upscaled 1440p to 2160p resolution looks even better.
@@Daerana I've learned that 1 byte are 8 bits. If 8 bits have an Resolution of 256 and we want to get to 1440, we need 5,625 of 8-bit Cards, but the Voodoo 5 has 32 bits. So we can divide the Need by 4 and get to 1,4 Cards. But modern Machines are running by 64 bits! So we have to calculate that and so we need 2,8 Voodoo 5 Cards! Sic Sic is a liar!
I bought my 980ti because it was deemed to be "overkill" for 1080p at the time. That's why it's still a great card even today. I'm not going to upgrade until I see an equivalent at a decent price. A 2060 is still so expensive here in Australia, and only just provides 60fps at 1440p.
Can confirm the 980ti has aged surprisingly well for an almost 5 year old Nvidia card. It doesn't exactly crush 1440p anymore but in my experience you can tweak the settings to a pretty stable 60 fps most of the time. This probably doesn't apply to very demanding stuff like Star Citizen or the latest Ubisoft performance killer like Ghost Recon Breakpoint, but I don't play those games anyway. Definitely not optimal for 1440p anymore though, but as you say the price to basically side grade to a 2060 seems like a waste, you'd want to go up to a 2080 to really see a substantial, appreciable leap for 1440p ultra. It'll also just get by for 4k support at 30 fps across the board with some tweaking, though some games will need you to lower the resolution to 1800p for stable performance (AssCreed Odyssey comes to mind). Anyone serious about 4K should've bought a 2080ti in 2018, at this point it's best to wait for the new 3000-series cards or a price drop on the 2080ti. For 1080p there's basically no need to upgrade yet at all for a stable 60 fps at high/ultra.
@@Mogura87 you hit the nail on the head. A 2060 side grade is just not worth it. If the 3070 has 11-12gb Vram and provides a hefty performance upgrade over my 980ti, it'll have my interest for sure.
Absolutely. There are a lot of games coming out, using UE4, and the settings can be heavily tweaked outside of the game. No matter how baron the settings menu is. You're right, that much less hardware is needed in MANY cases. Also, the tweaked version can be an improvement across the board, and not just frame rate.
Yep, the visual difference is barely noticeable, compared to the hit you receive. However if you notice on PC, the visual gap widens between each graphic setting, the more and more, you drop them. For example, the difference between Low > Medium settings, are huge and a world apart, in comparison to Very-high > Ultra
Watch Dogs 2, Anthem, and all recent AC games (to name a few) struggle to hit a steady 60 fps @ 1440p with even a GTX 1080 and tweaks. Thus ‘YMMV’ depending on the game
@@Keivz Some of that is thread bottlenecking of the CPU. Especially AC. Put it down to 1080p, and the minimums will only improve slightly. Not the amount you would expect it to scale. Then try 720p.
yeah that what i thought.. all pc game are port now.. so you going need at least RTX with 8gb or ram for 2020 to 2023... and more than 10 for 2024 to 2026 and 20gb for 2030... if i still going to be a alive..
I run games with a 2060 Super at 1440p on medium settings holding average on games of over 100fps. I can say that ultra settings in 1080p to me is not as good looking at medium settings at 1440p on most fames
No such thing exists. That's why. You get various tiers of performance from the various GPU makers, and within those tiers you have 1 or 2 OEM models, each with various VRAM configurations and Clock Speed configurations, then the various aftermarket variations of those OEM models let's say 20 models (Often it is a high as 40+ models, sometimes less than 3). So just for the RX 5500 for example, you could have roughly 80 different options to choose from, and even more if you include the RX 5500XT......
@@longnamedude3947 He keeps going from an rx 5500 xt, to a pre bios update rx 5600 xt, and a bios updated rx 5600 xt. I can't even blame him for the different 5600 xt bios, AMD thoroughly fucked up with that one. Either ways, a pre bios updated rx 5600xt would be 10~15% slower than what reviews showed on launch day.
I love this upgrade path concept! One can get quite tired of seeing benchmark charts over and over again. I would have loved to see it explored more, e.g. medium settings
This video is so coincidental for me. Yesterday I finally moved on from 1080p/144hz Gsync to 1440p/144hz Gsync and just upgraded my entire machine the day before that to a 3700X and 2070 Super from a 4770K and GTX 1070
@@mynameiswho6650 I bought the Acer Xv272U, it was on sale for 299. Recently I've been trying to find a second one but they are cleared out just about everywhere.
The silliest time to be thinking about upgrading GPU's must be when we're on the brink of a new generation of games. And GPU price to performance still seems to be the worst it's ever been. I'm happy with 1080p/60+ locked/Very High for now.
Is it really the worst its ever been? We are paying GTX1060 prices for a 5600XT OC module, except we are getting 1440p instead of 1080p. I agree prices are still about 50~100 USD too much but its not the worst its ever been, just two years ago we were paying $400+ for a 1080p card during the mining craze
@@imo098765 I did say "seems" to be the worst it's ever been. In past generations (6th and 7th) mid range cards would cost £150-£200 ($200-$260) and would play almost anything at the high resolutions, great frames and on the higher settings. I don't think when people say "graphics cards are expensive these days" anyone would argue.
@@yvindvego9404 I use my 1070 for 4k gaming (technically its UHD not 4k but you know what i mean) and never really have an issue. I'm not one of these people who are obsessed with framerate, and i dont play competitive games so it still does the job for me.
But for real, it’s nice because on ultra settings over 60 is easy to reach but for competitive games where FPS matters you can get a few hundred frames
@@ipotato95 not always. My 2700x and 2070 rig couldn't hold 60 fps on nfs heat 1440p on medium settings. I'm mostly convinced the CPU is the bottleneck
@@XxWarmancxX It has such low recommended settings for that game I'm surprised. Maybe you have an entirely different issue going on with your build. Did you check for thermal issues? How much RAM does it have? Is the RAM set for over clocking?
My 1070 died recently so I upgraded to 2060 Super. I am pretty satisfied with the performance under FHD so far with last year's hardware-intensive titles--Metro Exodus, Control. DLSS can look messy in some scenarios on Control but the overall presentation is still solid. For Metro Exodus I resorted to Ultra RT and 1600*900 resolution and got mostly 75fps+, still the most photo-realistic title I have seen.
I have been gaming on a 1440p monitor for 4 or 5 years now and I have from the start worked at getting 144 fps in 1440p as that was my main goal. I went from 2x 980ti's to a 2080ti. Out of maybe 20 games I randomly swap around on and play 3 or 4 don't go above 80 fps, 2-3 don't go above 100 fps, and the rest are 144 and above. I know that this don't give much information but it really does depend on the game you play. I would still say tho that if you simply lower shadows to medium and AA on a reasonable setting that you can normally play most titles at or above 100 fps with the rest of the settings maxed. So while some of these gpu's can run games like BF at 144 fps in 1440p these same cards will struggle to run other games at above 60 fps maxed in 1440p. I feel like if you want true ultra settings 1440p at 144fps then you do need a 2080ti or possibly the new 3070 that's about to come out. I would also wait to upgrade your gpu right now....
I saw an advertisement for a Samsung Odyssey a 1440p240Hz monitor. I'm wondering if the 3080 will be able to handle it. I've had my XF270HU for years now on a GTX 1080, it's been keeping me satisfied. But if the 3080 cant hit 240Hz at 1440p, I'm just going to stick with 1440p144hz for awhile.
I wish they had covered the GTX 1080 and 1080Ti here. I've had my 1080 for 3 years now and while I haven't really felt the need to upgrade it, I'd be interested in hearing DF's thoughts on how long I have until the 1080 is obsolete. Especially for 144hz gaming.
It all depends on the game, its settings and your resolution. You mention none of them, and what each of them demand of your GPU varies wildly. In many situations, it might still do fine for a decade. In some others it's already a gonner.
1080 user too playing on a 3440x1440@120hz and frankly outside of competitive games I'm often more limited by my 3600x to hit the 120 fps than by the GPU. So I usually target 80-90 fps with few visual compromises for the best experience.
I've had my 1080 ti for 3 years now too and aside from missing out on acceptable ray-tracing performance, I haven't felt the need to upgrade to the 20 series cards at all. The 1080 ti performs wonderfully for my current 3 favorite games: Witcher 3 = 3440x1440/max settings+mods/60 fps, Metro Exodus = 3440x1440/high settings+HDR/60 fps, Alien Isolation = 4k/max settings+Alias Isolation mod&ReShade/100 fps. I will however be getting a 3080 ti asap. One look at ray-tracing in Metro Exodus and Control and the thought of playing those games maxxed out at 4k with RT is too enticing to ignore.
I use a GTX 1080 at 1440p, 165hz. Most of the time I'm playing on high to ultra settings. Obviously depends on the game but I usually get over 100fps in most games, and much higher in more optimised or older titles (ie. maxed out 200fps in DOOM 2016) and I know that my bottleneck is my old i7 4790, but I have no plans to upgrade the GPU until it either dies or isn't able to give me the current performance. I'll be upgrading my CPU, board and RAM before that happens which will give me even longer to enjoy this card.
I'm still amazed that I can run so many games at 1440p/60 with my RX580 8GB. I have to lower a few settings to high but the majority of the time it's rarely visible.
Yeah literally drop the settings from ultra to high an gain so much. All you need is a mixture of medium/high with 1 or 3 ultra settings that barely affect performance. I never use presets
@@longnamedude3947 sometimes, but the majority of the time I stay at a native 1440p. I play most modern games, but at the moment I'm playing BF5, Resident Evil 2 and Kingdom Come - getting this particular game to run properly at 1440p was the biggest challenge though.
The RX 580 8gb will go down in history as a legendary card. It's cheap, it's powerful and the last couple updates have brought a ton of features to it.
I’m still using my 1080Ti and I’m playing most games on ultra settings on 1440p ultrawide. I haven’t noticed any real issues. Everything plays beautifully. There are times where I want to upgrade to a new GPU just because I want something more powerful but then I have to stop myself and remember that I don’t really need it, I just want it. I’m thinking MAYBE my Intel 6700K CPU could use an upgrade but again, seeing as how I’m having no issues gaming on the settings I desire, I have to exercise restraint and not upgrade when I don’t need to. It is hard sometimes because you want all the new tech.
Still running the good old overclocked 1080 Ti here. It perfectly suits my 1440p needs. Not too fuss on missing out RTX effects/DLSS so I'm really content with the card.
@@ZackSNetwork They were until the 2080 Ti lmao. But seriously, I feel like they jacked it up because of how good the damn 1080 Ti still is. It won't happen but I wish they'd price the next one to be $800-ish
Great video guys, thanks. As I've suspected for the last 6+ months it makes most sense for everyone GTX970 through 1060, RX580, Vega 56 and beyond to just wait another year. Wait for the consoles to come out and shake up the market, then get something which represents a true leap.
Completely agree... there's currently no point to upgrade (unless a component breaks down and you need to replace it), because of the next gen consoles the requirements will increase by quite a lot.
I sold my i5 2500K system today, including my MSI GTX 970. My new rig got today a 2070 Super, which matches better to my 3900X. I doubt that I will upgrade to 3000 series. Maybe 4000 series in 2 or 3 years.
You need an RTX 2070 Super. A 2060 doesn't cut it, skimming across the water, occasionally dipping below until you prematurely sink beneath the surface is no way to live.... If you think you can live with 30-60fps in old games now, then you will want another GPU within a year (and with 30-45fps you do not get a smooth experience anyway).
I own a GTX1070 and when I upgraded from 1080p to 1440p I kept the same card. I haven't found a game yet that it struggles with so you should have no problem upgrading your monitor now and then waiting a year or two before getting a new graphics card.
It's stuff like this that got me hooked to DF content, more please. Would love to see a high fps one, like what cards you need for 1080p 240fps, 1440p 144fps and 4k 60fps? In games like COD MW 2019, OuterWorlds, RDR2, Borderlands 3 and other top 2019/2020 games. Your the only ones I can count on to answer all the questions I could think of and ones I either didn't think of or didn't think mattered 😅
non of those games are competitive games. so why do you care for those games what you need for 1080p 240fps? its pointless. play those games at 1440p or 4K and get done with it.
Just got a deal on a 1440p monitor and I’m planning to build a pc soon - perfect video and provided exactly the information I wanted! Amazing channel with a brilliant, knowledgeable host!
I7-9700K and a 2080 super is working wonders for my rig. I use a 1440p monitor because of the refresh rates and switch to my tv if I want a little 4k 60fps goodness
Bless you Richard. I'm personally one of those people who'd like to move into High Refresh 1440p gaming in the near future. As for 4K, can still wait a few years for that resolution to be mainstream in terms of demanding gaming scenarios.
I'm running a 1070 at 1440... no problem at all. Sure I never have modern games on ultra. I always optimize my settings to be the best visual output or framerate (depending on game). Generation Zero is terribly demanding on ultra setting. I have adapted the full range of low, medium, high and ultra on different options. With screenshots side-by-side, and pixel-peeping I'm having a really hard to spot any major difference... yet I go from 35-45fps to 62-70fps at 1440p. GTX1070 is a good 1440p-performer even today.
@@justvid366 To be honest, I just think Generation Zero is misunderstood. It's a game developed by around 60 people at a price tag of 29$ (not 59$). With in-house technologies. Still, even with these constraints it's a showcase title in terms of scale and graphical fidelity. I don't actually feel that it is badly optimized, everything on display is pretty darn impressive. volumetric fog, volumetric lights, global illumination, tessellated details, post processing effects, high quality AA etc. I have played a lot of modern games, but the game has some pretty amazing graphics. My partner even thought it was nature photographs rather than in-game screenshots. It's a great looter shooter, I love it and have spent over 120hours in-game. It's actually a great game. I just think people expected a lot of different things from the game. survival, story etc. it wasn't much of those. but as a looter shooter it actually holds up really well.
@@justvid366 It's just that Avalanche have different divisions. Generation Zero was made by a smaller Swedish division. About the same team size as Ubisoft had for Child of Light. (and the scope of this project is A LOT bigger) But sure, I'm in the game development industry myself, I understand the budget constraints, but I think it's harsh by the gaming community to expect a 500M$ - 1B$ title out of a 30M$ team. Especially since they sell it for 29$. But they did a couple of things wrong. the game should've been early access from the beginning... and around today they should've gone live with the retail product. They should've also communicated what the game was about. there was a lot of unknowns, and the lack of communication during the marketing phase disappointed a lot of players in the end (who expected the game to be something it was not). The game isn't bad, Today the game actually has a very active community with people loving it. :) myself included. And the reviews have definitely skyrocketed over time. And well, if you think a basement indie group could pull off Generation Zero, I don't necessarily think you understand the amount of work required to make such a game.... :) I have spent the last 3 years working on a hi-res 2D platformer. I still have at least 3 years left... these things take time. And we don't do "bad games" to screw with players. We make games because we love it and we want to make products that entertain people. The industry would thrive with less hate and more love towards developers, who are basically pouring their souls into projects with minimum wage or lower.
I have always gone for the philosophy of buying the most powerful card I can possibly afford. The more powerful the card, the more you "future proof" you PC's ability to render games in the years to come.
I would love to see a video like this with 4K, considering Resolution Scale and high settings as well. By my own experience, even sth like a 1070ti can handle even modern games really well with 80 percent resolution scale (while looking great even on a 40 inch 4k TV)
how far you from the 40inch 4k tv? If its at 5-6 feet+ youre losing the benefit of 4k anyway. Right now im running 2x 2560*1080 and 2x 2560*1440p monitors in a quad setup, but im tempted to shelf the lot and buy a single, large, 4k screen. Just a shame you cant get an affordable one with high refresh yet.
@@Styreta I can't tell you the exact distance, but it's my main PC monitor (even did art/graphics design on it for a long time) and it's mounted to a wall with a small desk between me and the screen. So not much distance. Trust me 80 percent of 4k looks great. And even 1440p is better looking than you would think.
Depends on the game. You generally want something to cover all/most ‘eventualities’. I used to rock a GTX 1080 on my 4K set but added to a 1080 ti because the 1080 could cut the mustard even with an 70% resolution scale (which is 1800p).
I've recently changed out my 24 inch 144hz monitor to a 43 inch 4k TV. Honestly, desktop use the extra real estate is very welcome, but even with a sensible viewing distance I see no benefit to 4k gaming, sure if I stop and look at a texture it's clearer but in motion it doesn't match 144hz. The TV is pretty good response time for IPS, games play more comfortably at a windowed 1440p or windowed 1080p 120hz, but it's been a couple months now and I'm going to switch it back out for my 24 inch 1080p 144hz in time for doom eternal. I could justify £280 on a TV that can do pc use, but I can't justify £550 for the lg 850 1440 144hz, my current 1080p is fine unless pixel peeping and it lets me easily continue to max any game without worrying about framerate
Since my 1070 is in my Laptop, I have to keep using that anyway. Good for me since there is almost no improvements aside of the RTX in the past 4 years
Temp Burner Sounds like you are a good customer for Nvidia. And people with a RTX 2080 Ti laugh about your RTX 2080S. You may think that your RTX 2080 is close to a RTX 2080 Ti because its "super" (good marketing) but a RTX 2080 Ti blows your RTX 2080 to hell.
This video is partly tailored for me as I have been running 1440p for a few years now and I could never go back to 1080p on my main monitor nor do I want to go to 4k either. Single player games I am ok with 60fps and above. MP games, especially FPS games, I want 144hz locked. And when I bought my 1440p monitor i quickly found out that if I wanted to run native resolution I would need a card that could handle it. So, I bought an GTX1080. It's been doing great for me...but I am on the lookout for something that will come along at the middle tier that will be a substantial improvement so I can keep pace with new games. Especially with the new console gen coming up and that directly impacting PC requirements as well. In short, thank you for the work on this as it's rare to even find 1440p benchmarks consistently anywhere that I can trust.
amerika* you’re in for a great 2020 when the next gen cards from Nvidia and AMD drop. Highly recommend you look at AMD’s RDNA 2.0 cards coming out in the summer. Above all else, please wait until Q2 is done.
I agree, A serious in depth test of this would be great. I would love to se a test with valve index as well at 80,90,120 and 144hz as well. Is 144hz with reprojection better than say sunning it at 80 or 90 hz.
@Machine Mechine are you one of those "the eye only sees 30fps" people? LOL 40hz is absolutely terrible- 60hz is the bare minimum for a good experience and even that feels a little sluggish. Refresh is more important than resolution.
@Machine Mechine you also have to remember HL Alyx is VR. 30fps in VR is a great idea if you want to projectile vomit, but if you want to play the game, you need whatever is the refresh rate in your headset (80/90/120hz)
@Machine Mechine, Apparently you haven't experienced >= 120 Hz refresh before. If a game is slow movement enough I'll sacrifice frame rate for higher quality visuals... but there is a definite difference in smoothness from 60 to 120, and for certain 30 to 120. I have a 4k 60Hz 75 inch TV (so I can tell 4k from my seating distance) but I run it at 1440p 120Hz as it's a good compromise between resolution and smoothness. It's not about a pissing contest, games just feel considerably smoother at double the refresh (240Hz is pushing it for me though, I don't notice that large of an increase when I tried such a monitor, diminishing returns I suppose). You also reduce your visual and input latency. 30Hz gives you a maximum of 33.33 ms frame to frame latency, and since input is tied to the frame rate in the main game loop, if your input hits between the frame transition of visual info to input action, you're looking at 66.66 ms latency with visual and input summed together. Combined with other sources of latency, like if your TV isn't in a game mode or doesn't have one (likely if it is cheaper and designed for 2160p at 30-60 Hz) , you could easily be looking at 100-250ms added on top of that. Leading to as much as a 316 ms latency, almost a 3rd of a second. You may think that is small, but that is well within the rubber band territory, where controlling something like a mouse cursor feels like a wave moving through a rubber band, move it left and you get a response a 3rd of a second later. So, aside from the visual argument, there is a general functional argument as well for going higher end on both your display and your GPU.
I am running my RTX 2060 on a 1080p monitor and have no plans to upgrade to 1440p. I am safe for at least 5 years. :) Also my monitor have adaptive sync 165 hz refresh so its silky smooth gaming for 5+ years. 1080p is still the top of the charts on steam and its not going away anytime soon.
Been wanting to buy a desktop gaming pc for a while now. This is hands down the most informative video I've seen on what gpu and resolution I should be gaming on. Subscribed.
It depends on what types of games you want to play at what settings and at what refresh rate. For example, I think 16:9 is the past now on PC and I don't ever want to go back to it. 21:9 is way better and immersive. And 1440p is the sweetspot, so 3440x1440 is the optimal resolution for me. But even with a 1080Ti, I have to make some compromises to hit a steady 60FPS.
I've still got a 390X, and it still crushes 1080p. I am looking to get one of those SUPER ultrawide moniters though, so im gonna need more graphics horsepower real soon.
I would honestly suggest a 120hz tv at this point if you want a bigger screen. I've had an ultrawide for years and game compatibility is a pain in the ass. Extremely happy with tv as a monitor now.
@@rushnerd I dont want to stretch the image. I know how bad it is, i've got a 21:9 moniter. What I want is a 32:9 aspect ratio moniter running at a resolution of 5120x1440 @144hz so that I can have my games and anything else I want open all at once, and I dont have to tab through screens to find what i'm looking for. think of it like a blend of gaming and productivity.
I recently bought 2x EVGA SC GTX 980s second hand at £150 for the pair. Sold them to my mates who were rocking 750Ti / 960 and they have really noticed the difference and for 1080P / 1440P (on reasonable settings) they are loving them. Second hand market is great for buying used older gen flagship cards, but I'd rarely buy them new due to diminishing returns anmd eye watering cost. Great to see the GTX970 is still rocking 1080P and performing well at that resolution.
This is,by far, the most interest and informative be GPU video, on the internet. It hits the nail in the head. "Performance on par or better". Excellent.
@@CaveyMoth I am beyond confused. I see a person who looks fimilar on Twitter by random chance, just wanted to make sure it is so and say hi. And get weird responses. What the heck man. Seriously.
My monitor took a crap. So, now I game exclusively on my 49-inch 4K flatscreen. Tbh games still look pretty good at 1440p. I have a 1060 and with a mix of settings I can still squeeze 1440p out of most of my pre-2018 games. I just got into PC gaming a few years ago. Having come from PS4 such sacrifices don't feel as pronounced.
@@Doc_Valparaiso nice dude, I only just got into pc gaming but 1440p is just the right resolution 1080 is abit rubbish now I've played 4k games on oled and it's nice
If you can game at 4K 60, why in the hell wouldn't you use 1440p for high refresh? I do with my 4K OLED, but in that case it's not possible to get 120hz on anything but 1440p until the new cards come out.
@@00DaNnY000 1440p is still pretty sharp for most games even on a 4K monitor/tv. The jump from 1080p to 1440p is much larger to me than 1440p to 4K. Don't get me wrong, anyone with decent vision can tell the difference right away. But, I'd take 1440p w/a higher refresh over 4K. But, I'm really looking forward to the necessary hardware for 4K/120 becoming more prevalent and affordable. This next generation of consoles will hopefully help usher this in at a faster rate. ...Now those claims of 8K on PS5 and Series X🙄
1440p is not a plausible choice for a big part of the world. For reference, what they cite as "the best 1440p monitor" isn't even available in south america. Not only that, the prices of available 1440p monitors are abhorrently high. Best bet right now for most of the world (excluding the almighty US and Europe) is 1080p 144hz.
Oh my God thank you so much for uploading. I'm getting a new gpu on Tuesday cause it's my birthday then and I have an under £300 budget. Currently I think the best thing I can get is an RTX 2060. I know AMD has better price to performance but the 2060 is £280 for the windforce oc version and I use blender a lot so being able to use optiX would help a lot lol. Also just wondering if the 2060 FE will ever be back in stock because I love the way it looks.
Honestly stick to the 2060 I've been dealing with random lockups left and right and while the 5700 XT is a better overall performing card the 2060 has better overall compatibility and more stable drivers.
@A World Under A Spell You'd think, but even after the 20 series debuted, the 10 series cards didn't drop much in price. Probably has something to do with bitcoin farming.
I had a GTX 1070 for 1080p and when I overclocked it, found it was a bit overkill for most games and upgraded to 1440p. It has started to not be sufficient so I upgraded to a GTX 1070 Ti for just a $40 difference. The 1070 ti overclocked keeps me comfortable at 75 Hz on most games, though it isn't enough for newer (and sometimes less optimized) games coming out (like cyberpunk and rdr2). I'm now going to go for the RTX 3060 / 3060 Ti when they come out. Will go nicely with my Ryzen 3600.
I bought my 1660 Ti last summer for my new 1440p monitor, I guess I did a good job. Prior to this video I was bit unsure if I made a good choice (rtx 2060 was too much for my budget).
@@koolkendall9204 Yep, my thoughts were "i just need a 1440p medium to high 60lock", nothing more. Currently it is like that, but some games are giving me trouble, RDR2 and metro for example. Thats why Im a little bit worries if I should have got a little bit more money to get 2060.
@@ivanmikulicic3676 Both those games aren't really optimised to run at 60 fps anyway. Hell you need an RTX 2080 or better to run Metro consistently over 60fps at 1440p ultra and that's just barely.
I've been on 1440p since 2013. 60hz at first, then I got one of the originals ROG Swift monitors. It was and is a great sweet spot for detail and framerate.
@@InnuendoXP This.Looking to upgrade from my 1080p 144hz Benq monitor later this year to an ultrawide but it needs to at least have hdr10+ and 120hz or more with adaptive sync.Problem is the price lol I bet something will come out with similar specs if the rumor websites are correct anyway but price might be way too high for me.I'm not bothered too much if it's between 1-2k AUD (australian dollar) but if it's any more than that then idc really lol.
@@InnuendoXP Haha yeah true.I'm sure i'll be able to find something really good either later this year or some time next year.I'm not really in a huge rush though to spend allot of money on a new screen as my 144hz 1080p Benq monitor does just fine right now for all my needs really I just want to upgrade to something amazing some day that I will keep for multiple generations of computers without wanting to upgrade again :).Like just recently I did the same thing with headphones and amp/dac so I won't even be thinking about upgrading those for another 10 years or more if they even end up lasting that long.Would just be nice to have my version of an end game monitor that isn't extremely expensive but that might be a pipe dream for a few years who knows though amazing stuff might come out this year at a decent price but probably not haha.
@Raul Because it's the best looking PC game out there right now. Regardless of performance, which is pretty great. Sure the bugs are bad, but there aren't that many.
I think I'll stick with my 1060 6gb at 1080p for now since I'm only looking forward to a handful of games this year and it works well in most games. Except for Metro Exodus for lack of graphics options and RDR2 for obvious reasons. Plus, new cards may be announced later on so it makes sense to wait for something better.
Yeah, I’ve been using my 1060 6GB at 1440p for about a year now and I’ve actually been really surprised how well it handles it. Only the most taxing games really require major tweaking to get to 60fps. RDR2 is an example. It’s runs about 30fps at Ultra settings at 1440p, but can get up to 45-60fps by making minor changes that don’t really effect fidelity in any meaningful way. Frankly, most games, even brand new games, will run at 60+ right out of the box on Ultra setting or with just 1-2 obvious settings (shadow quality, volumetrics, etc.) moved to Very High or whatever. I’ll probably upgrade when the 3000 series cards come out, but I’m in no huge hurry tbh.
I've just built a new PC there in November and I've got the 5700XT that runs most games at 1440P with over 100+FPS at max settings. 1440P 144hz is better than 4K60HZ IMHO.
Nice what cpu did you pair with it. My i7 3770 is bottlenecking my gpu and I'm thinking about upgrading to an r7 3700x or an r5 3600 (and in a few years an r9).
I've still got a 390X, and it still crushes 1080p. I am looking to get one of those SUPER ultrawide moniters though, so im gonna need more graphics horsepower real soon.
@@ChaotiX1 I only have 8GB DDR3 RAM which is giving me random framedrops in some games. Gonna upgrade my CPU and motherboard & ram this year but won't need to upgrade GPU yet.
It just occurred to me, all this is, is an addiction.
A compulsive obsession.
Goes for every material thing.
Self-knowledge Is the key to self-improvement. Take care and get a healthy life!
Absolutely! That's why I started a business in this field. To fuel my addiction.
No matter what you buy today, in about year or so, you won't be satisfied with it.
Richard may _talk_ calmly, but in sign language he's screaming violently.
Lolz
That cracked me up. Good job
Hahahaha
Duded is as old as me and wears glasses, no way he's needing more than 1080p from here on out. It's great.. Saves money
Wichard 3 - Wild Hands
I played my whole life at 25-30 FPS so i think its time for an upgrade xD
30 fps is waste....i have got a desktop with ryzen 3600 + gtx 2070 super
You'll need 3080ti
@@Chinmaya536 your CPU Ryzen 5 3600 is too weak for your GPU GTX 2070 Super. You have to upgrade your CPU
@@mattiaskollnitz9794 Why do you say that? I play resident evil 2 at high settings and get around 144 frames consistently. Modern warfare same scenario everything maxed out and never drops below 144. I havwe Ryzen 5 3600 and 2060 super running it on the vg27aq at 144hz.
I have i9900k and gt210 can play Roblox at 1440p
When I moved to 1440p gaming earlier this year, I built a machine that could handle 1440@60 Ultra settings with no discernible drops on AAA games. I went with an RX 5700 XT and a Ryzen 5 2600X CPU (Got the CPU on sale for $99. Couldn't pass it up). My monitor puts out 60Hz at 1440p so I turn on Vsync in games and it stays locked at the 60 FPS I wanted while taxing my GPU less. Simple.
I monitor my GPU usage in games. If I get to a point where the games I want to play are requiring my GPU to work at near 100% in order to maintain my standards, in this case 1440@60 Ultra, I look at upgrading the GPU. Don't compromise your standards and don't settle for bare minimum. Bare minimum means you have to upgrade far sooner than you want to. Don't get caught in a continuous bare minimum upgrade cycle.
Him calling the GTX 970 a classic is making me feel old, since I've had it since launch, just before upgrading last year.
same
Just swapped mine out for a 2080 Super. 970 was a great card for me in "real world" gaming as opposed to all these reviews that demand you get something you really don't need for everyday gaming. Reason I've got the 2080 Super (similar to when I bought 970 new) is so that it lasts some years.
970 here too.
@@draiguk I just got a 2070 super for the same reason, I'll maybe upgrade before you but I'm only playing in 1080p, okay for me.
@@draiguk Did the same exact upgrade
The legendary hands.
The hands just distracting from the missing legs. UA-camrs don't have legs.
@@thingsiplay Not true, Steve at GN has legs lol.
Great hands of a great man!
I love his wedding ring’s showing off 😍
This video just helped cement in my mind that, at current GPU prices, I can wait another gen to upgrade my 970, medium settings won't kill me. Doesn't seem like a lot of difference for nearly 6 years of progress.
Plus, after the new consoles finally launch, I expect the PC market will suddenly start getting much better graphics performance for their money, including performant & cheaper raytracing if the PS5 including an AMD raytracing solution is to be believed.
Perhaps AMD is looking to establish their standard in the console space so that over the next 5-10 years these advanced effects will favour their architecture.
The 3000 series is rumored to be 40-50% more powerful than the 2000 series, have more Vram, and be cheaper with less energy used. Thats what im waiting for and to see.
If you alreeady have a PC your better off spending the $500 on a nee card than a new console which will be very limited in comparison.
you speak truth. I have the same card. I know a couple friends with 4k monitors and 2080's. Trey paid insane money, especially with consoles starting to blur the lines for sensible gamers. That kind of coin to play video games is just not my cup of tea, plus when does the price gouging and excuses stop. Blaming bitcoining and other BS.
They have convinced gullible (so very gullible) easy wallet gamers that it's just right to pay $1000 for a vid card that will still be relevant in 8 years. I like buying my hardware new with a 3 or more year warranty. New cards 2 generations old sometimes cost more than they did when they were released lol. I love my 970.
I really wish that I could stand that, it would have saved me a lot of money. I can deal with high settings, but anything lower than that (or 60fps) just makes games unplayable for me. First world problems at its finest
@Keelan Before I upgraded to 2060, I had 970 with 1440p165. Honestly not many games where the 970 struggled, medium settings are quite surprisingly good nowadays. Don't get fooled by shiny ultra presets.
@@billclay2701 970 is cool, but it's really getting old in the tooth. I moved on from a 780 Classified to a 1080 Classified for $500 and upgraded to 144hz/1440p. 4K gaming is for suckers.
Still use my gtx 1080 for 1440p. Works great.
Watchtv atmyplace same!!!
@@AveryCope yea man keeping it for another year maybe 2 😃 no need to upgrade.
It’s a 1000 card from the last gen of cards of course it is....
Same! Going to see what happens with Ampere. Hoping we have another Pascal like situation (price/performance ratio). If so I'll definitely get one, if not then the 1080 will have to keep being a champ until I see what AMD has planned.
I am running 3440x1440 and there is no complaints here
This is amazing good sir, no bullshit intro showing yourself and talking about random nonsense for 5+ minutes. Almost every other youtuber does this and makes you have to skip forward to see results. Glad you shown them right away and didn't beat around the bush. Have earned my like and sub .
These games came out at the time of the older cards, giving them a boost in optimisation.
If you tested the same older cards on newer games.....RDR2 / Control / Jedi Fallen order you would see a bigger jump in GPU Generation models.
( I Do Benchmarks on my channel, Feel free to check it out )
The bottleneck in those games are from the raw shader capacity, which is what Nvidia intends that games rely upon so people buy their cards.
Go DX12 and Vulkan and those requirements are thrown out the window, but they won't, because it's not as profitable.
The whole point of DX9 to DX10 was feature, and DX10 to DX11 was feature and optimizations.
DX12 is essentially mainly optimizations, so developers and hardware providers basically go "Meh, it doesn't show you anything differently, so why bother wasting money on it".
Stagnation of the tech industry is why. Stagnation in game programming is why.
As game industries grow, the average skill levels of programmers DOES NOT. They just throw more programmers at the problem rather than producing expensive and talented programmers.
In fact compared to the 90s and 2000s, the average of game programming is at really 'dumb' levels that it's probably not even programming anymore, just scripting languages that is prebuilt to be linguistic as possible for newbies. These aren't self-taught programmers polishing their skills like what hackers do, in making games from scratch and from coding alone... These are 'students' of game design/programming courses or people picking up pre-built engines or development kits and following tutorials.
Pure programming is mainly english comprehension and mathematic, letters and numbers you see. Some countries (especially Asian) don't rely on latin based lingual text and sometimes even numbers even.
RDR2 gonna burn this cards @ 1440p@ Higher Settings. EG with Control with raytracing
Well said. I have to compromise here and there with a GTX1080 on this year's bleeding edge titles.
Those games are just unoptimized garbage. They don't have that amazing graphics to justify their requirements
@@franciscoandrada412 Lol, you picked probably the 3 best looking games Rdr2, Control and Jedi fallen order, Name 3 better looking games than these 3..
wish i could upgrade my eyes and reaction time
I think there are drugs that can do that.
Reaction time is like a muscle. The more you train it, the better you get.
@@Sevendogtags the more i train the more older i get 😄
My first opinion was that someone responded with "git gud" shit.
This
My GTX 1080 has served me well up to this day and still going strong
i have a 1080 max-q and i was getting 120+ frames on high settings, 1080 series entirely is a beast.
Same here.
LMAO GTX 1080 still ain't even that old. You're humble bragging here
I play at 1080p, and my GTX 1070 has no problems, and I don't feel any need to upgrade anytime soon. It will be used for many years to come.
@@Rationalific I've had the same setup since 2016 but once I saw 1440p on a quality gaming monitor I knew that was going to be my next upgrade. So I recently bought a 27" 1440p 144 Hz freesync monitor and paired it with a 5700 XT. Well worth the upgrade! And on the days where I hook up my PC to the 4K TV, the upscaled 1440p to 2160p resolution looks even better.
You need the power of nine voodoo 5's to get one graphics.
But how many graphics do I need?
@@Daerana You can always download more graphics if 5 Voodoos isn't enough.
@@Daerana I've learned that 1 byte are 8 bits.
If 8 bits have an Resolution of 256 and we want to get to 1440, we need 5,625 of 8-bit Cards, but the Voodoo 5 has 32 bits.
So we can divide the Need by 4 and get to 1,4 Cards.
But modern Machines are running by 64 bits! So we have to calculate that and so we need 2,8 Voodoo 5 Cards!
Sic Sic is a liar!
@@Daerana 7
Sir Sic I love your channel. Didn’t expect to see you here
It’s been a decade we still can’t run Crysis at 144 FPS
Shows how unoptimised it is, for the graphics which aren't revolutionary anymore, and by far.
A Titan should suffice, btw.
@@DamianSzajnowski Or you could argue it's Intel's awful IPC and frequency improvement over a decade.
Of course, it only uses 2 cores
You can at 144p!
I got an RTX 2060 Super, and get ultra 1440p@60hz, on basically everything. It's a joy.
I bought my 980ti because it was deemed to be "overkill" for 1080p at the time. That's why it's still a great card even today. I'm not going to upgrade until I see an equivalent at a decent price. A 2060 is still so expensive here in Australia, and only just provides 60fps at 1440p.
Can confirm the 980ti has aged surprisingly well for an almost 5 year old Nvidia card. It doesn't exactly crush 1440p anymore but in my experience you can tweak the settings to a pretty stable 60 fps most of the time. This probably doesn't apply to very demanding stuff like Star Citizen or the latest Ubisoft performance killer like Ghost Recon Breakpoint, but I don't play those games anyway. Definitely not optimal for 1440p anymore though, but as you say the price to basically side grade to a 2060 seems like a waste, you'd want to go up to a 2080 to really see a substantial, appreciable leap for 1440p ultra. It'll also just get by for 4k support at 30 fps across the board with some tweaking, though some games will need you to lower the resolution to 1800p for stable performance (AssCreed Odyssey comes to mind). Anyone serious about 4K should've bought a 2080ti in 2018, at this point it's best to wait for the new 3000-series cards or a price drop on the 2080ti. For 1080p there's basically no need to upgrade yet at all for a stable 60 fps at high/ultra.
@@Mogura87 you hit the nail on the head. A 2060 side grade is just not worth it. If the 3070 has 11-12gb Vram and provides a hefty performance upgrade over my 980ti, it'll have my interest for sure.
@@etho86
Save now and go balls out with a 3080Ti and it will seem a monster upgrade.
@@wing0zero id love to, but it will retail for over 2000 AUD here. Ridiculous.
@@etho86 Im sure the 3070 will be a massive upgrade from your 980ti. If leaks are true about Turing the 3070 should be on par with the 2080ti.
ultra settings are so overrated with some effect like volumetric clouds in ACO. i play with a gtx 1070 at 1440p60 in all recent games with some tweak.
Absolutely. There are a lot of games coming out, using UE4, and the settings can be heavily tweaked outside of the game. No matter how baron the settings menu is. You're right, that much less hardware is needed in MANY cases. Also, the tweaked version can be an improvement across the board, and not just frame rate.
Yep, the visual difference is barely noticeable, compared to the hit you receive. However if you notice on PC, the visual gap widens between each graphic setting, the more and more, you drop them. For example, the difference between Low > Medium settings, are huge and a world apart, in comparison to Very-high > Ultra
Watch Dogs 2, Anthem, and all recent AC games (to name a few) struggle to hit a steady 60 fps @ 1440p with even a GTX 1080 and tweaks. Thus ‘YMMV’ depending on the game
Not in red dead
@@Keivz Some of that is thread bottlenecking of the CPU. Especially AC. Put it down to 1080p, and the minimums will only improve slightly. Not the amount you would expect it to scale. Then try 720p.
Trick question... you need ALL THE POWER!
laughs in my CX550
*pathetic*
Tech Deals Quote :D
yeah that what i thought.. all pc game are port now.. so you going need at least RTX with 8gb or ram for 2020 to 2023... and more than 10 for 2024 to 2026 and 20gb for 2030... if i still going to be a alive..
hi kermit
I run games with a 2060 Super at 1440p on medium settings holding average on games of over 100fps. I can say that ultra settings in 1080p to me is not as good looking at medium settings at 1440p on most fames
This boosts my confidents to buy a 1440p montitor. 1660 Ti owner.
Way playing on medium settings when you get over 100 fps... I can't handle this.
I have a hard time playing anything at 1080p after buying a 2k monitor. I rather play mid settings 2k than ultra 1080p.
@@paolamariapreite1159 what do you even mean?
Finally an answer to my question about 2060 super for 1440p. Which gpu brand you're using if you don't mind guys?
A while ago I decided to put togegher a table with RX 580's performance in games in 1440p, and was surprised how fine it was doing for its price/tier.
How does it do? I have one and was thinking of upgrading tbh
Rx 580 is the one of the best bang for your buck cards still, i think it's still got plenty of life in it.
Not going to lie, this "Equivalent Performance" style took me a second to get on board with.
No such thing exists. That's why.
You get various tiers of performance from the various GPU makers, and within those tiers you have 1 or 2 OEM models, each with various VRAM configurations and Clock Speed configurations, then the various aftermarket variations of those OEM models let's say 20 models (Often it is a high as 40+ models, sometimes less than 3).
So just for the RX 5500 for example, you could have roughly 80 different options to choose from, and even more if you include the RX 5500XT......
An excuse to do some nvidia advertising as always XD
@@longnamedude3947 He keeps going from an rx 5500 xt, to a pre bios update rx 5600 xt, and a bios updated rx 5600 xt. I can't even blame him for the different 5600 xt bios, AMD thoroughly fucked up with that one. Either ways, a pre bios updated rx 5600xt would be 10~15% slower than what reviews showed on launch day.
I have GTX 970 since November 2014 and still play evrything at max settings 1440p 30+ fps. See my videos i play all action games and most fighters!
I'm probably gonna wait for the 3070 or see how RDNA2 is
Save some money for Switch Pro
do you yourself a favor and buy a soulja console you can install graphics cards from google bro wassup
I have GTX 970 since November 2014 and still play evrything at max settings 1440p 30+ fps. See my videos i play all action games and most fighters!
Same or wait til people are selling 2070 supers for like 350 to 400
Do you guys not have phones?
Richard saying 'let's get into the meat and drink of this' really threw me off guard for some reason lmao
PrezidentTrump literally why are mad?
@@prezidenttrump5171 Dude you are... seriously having a Moment™️
@@prezidenttrump5171 >Lurks on 4chan once
@@prezidenttrump5171 You talk about a 12 year old and then mention everything like a teenager would 🤦
I thought the saying was "the meat and veg of this"
I love this upgrade path concept!
One can get quite tired of seeing benchmark charts over and over again.
I would have loved to see it explored more, e.g. medium settings
This video is so coincidental for me. Yesterday I finally moved on from 1080p/144hz Gsync to 1440p/144hz Gsync and just upgraded my entire machine the day before that to a 3700X and 2070 Super from a 4770K and GTX 1070
What monitor did you buy for 1440p 144hz? I have same set up and I'm doing the rounds trying to find a monitor that's not mental money
@@mynameiswho6650 I bought the Acer Xv272U, it was on sale for 299. Recently I've been trying to find a second one but they are cleared out just about everywhere.
mynameis who?;?!!? If you are on a budget I’d say go for viewsonic vx258 mhd
The silliest time to be thinking about upgrading GPU's must be when we're on the brink of a new generation of games. And GPU price to performance still seems to be the worst it's ever been. I'm happy with 1080p/60+ locked/Very High for now.
Xander Crease yeah, you’re right. I’d wait a year
Xander, I’m rocking 1080P @ 144hz for destiny 2, div 2! GTA V etc and I’m loving it! I had a 950 and upgraded to 2070 super btw.
Is it really the worst its ever been?
We are paying GTX1060 prices for a 5600XT OC module, except we are getting 1440p instead of 1080p.
I agree prices are still about 50~100 USD too much but its not the worst its ever been, just two years ago we were paying $400+ for a 1080p card during the mining craze
@@imo098765 I did say "seems" to be the worst it's ever been. In past generations (6th and 7th) mid range cards would cost £150-£200 ($200-$260) and would play almost anything at the high resolutions, great frames and on the higher settings.
I don't think when people say "graphics cards are expensive these days" anyone would argue.
@@XanderCrease just an example the 760 was console settings 1080p 30fps.
today midrange above console settings 1440p
Remember the 1070? That used to be for 1440p at just about 60fps without lots of quality preset decreases
Just wait for next-gen games impact.
the 1070 was for 4k. i remember a tech youtuber saying that it could run games in 4k 60fps on medium or high settings.
Its can barely run 60 fps 1080p now. Ridiculous how useless tbese GPUs become.
@@AJ-xv7oh Lol..then you got some flaws on the 1070..
@@yvindvego9404 I use my 1070 for 4k gaming (technically its UHD not 4k but you know what i mean) and never really have an issue. I'm not one of these people who are obsessed with framerate, and i dont play competitive games so it still does the job for me.
Move on from 1080p?
NO. MY PRECIOUS 200FPS!
But for real, it’s nice because on ultra settings over 60 is easy to reach but for competitive games where FPS matters you can get a few hundred frames
@@ipotato95 not always. My 2700x and 2070 rig couldn't hold 60 fps on nfs heat 1440p on medium settings. I'm mostly convinced the CPU is the bottleneck
@@XxWarmancxX It has such low recommended settings for that game I'm surprised. Maybe you have an entirely different issue going on with your build.
Did you check for thermal issues? How much RAM does it have? Is the RAM set for over clocking?
@@IrelandVonVicious gpu heats up tons in nfs heat.its the only game I've had that issue with too.
Ram is 3200mhz.
My 1070 died recently so I upgraded to 2060 Super. I am pretty satisfied with the performance under FHD so far with last year's hardware-intensive titles--Metro Exodus, Control. DLSS can look messy in some scenarios on Control but the overall presentation is still solid. For Metro Exodus I resorted to Ultra RT and 1600*900 resolution and got mostly 75fps+, still the most photo-realistic title I have seen.
I have been gaming on a 1440p monitor for 4 or 5 years now and I have from the start worked at getting 144 fps in 1440p as that was my main goal. I went from 2x 980ti's to a 2080ti. Out of maybe 20 games I randomly swap around on and play 3 or 4 don't go above 80 fps, 2-3 don't go above 100 fps, and the rest are 144 and above. I know that this don't give much information but it really does depend on the game you play. I would still say tho that if you simply lower shadows to medium and AA on a reasonable setting that you can normally play most titles at or above 100 fps with the rest of the settings maxed. So while some of these gpu's can run games like BF at 144 fps in 1440p these same cards will struggle to run other games at above 60 fps maxed in 1440p. I feel like if you want true ultra settings 1440p at 144fps then you do need a 2080ti or possibly the new 3070 that's about to come out. I would also wait to upgrade your gpu right now....
I saw an advertisement for a Samsung Odyssey a 1440p240Hz monitor. I'm wondering if the 3080 will be able to handle it.
I've had my XF270HU for years now on a GTX 1080, it's been keeping me satisfied.
But if the 3080 cant hit 240Hz at 1440p, I'm just going to stick with 1440p144hz for awhile.
I wish they had covered the GTX 1080 and 1080Ti here. I've had my 1080 for 3 years now and while I haven't really felt the need to upgrade it, I'd be interested in hearing DF's thoughts on how long I have until the 1080 is obsolete. Especially for 144hz gaming.
It all depends on the game, its settings and your resolution. You mention none of them, and what each of them demand of your GPU varies wildly. In many situations, it might still do fine for a decade. In some others it's already a gonner.
1080 user too playing on a 3440x1440@120hz and frankly outside of competitive games I'm often more limited by my 3600x to hit the 120 fps than by the GPU.
So I usually target 80-90 fps with few visual compromises for the best experience.
I've had my 1080 ti for 3 years now too and aside from missing out on acceptable ray-tracing performance, I haven't felt the need to upgrade to the 20 series cards at all. The 1080 ti performs wonderfully for my current 3 favorite games: Witcher 3 = 3440x1440/max settings+mods/60 fps, Metro Exodus = 3440x1440/high settings+HDR/60 fps, Alien Isolation = 4k/max settings+Alias Isolation mod&ReShade/100 fps. I will however be getting a 3080 ti asap. One look at ray-tracing in Metro Exodus and Control and the thought of playing those games maxxed out at 4k with RT is too enticing to ignore.
I use a GTX 1080 at 1440p, 165hz. Most of the time I'm playing on high to ultra settings. Obviously depends on the game but I usually get over 100fps in most games, and much higher in more optimised or older titles (ie. maxed out 200fps in DOOM 2016) and I know that my bottleneck is my old i7 4790, but I have no plans to upgrade the GPU until it either dies or isn't able to give me the current performance. I'll be upgrading my CPU, board and RAM before that happens which will give me even longer to enjoy this card.
1080Ti owner and it still rocks at 1440P 144Hz, skipped 2080Ti but I'll grab a 3080Ti when that drops for a bit of RT action.
I'm still amazed that I can run so many games at 1440p/60 with my RX580 8GB. I have to lower a few settings to high but the majority of the time it's rarely visible.
Do you use Resolution scaling at all?
And what games are you playing?
The RX 580 is roughly equivalent to the Xbox One X GPU, it’s more powerful than people give credit.
Yeah literally drop the settings from ultra to high an gain so much. All you need is a mixture of medium/high with 1 or 3 ultra settings that barely affect performance. I never use presets
@@longnamedude3947 sometimes, but the majority of the time I stay at a native 1440p.
I play most modern games, but at the moment I'm playing BF5, Resident Evil 2 and Kingdom Come - getting this particular game to run properly at 1440p was the biggest challenge though.
The RX 580 8gb will go down in history as a legendary card. It's cheap, it's powerful and the last couple updates have brought a ton of features to it.
I have a 1070Ti that's working great in all of the latest games. I don't intend on upgrading any time soon.
Couldn't agree more. I think the 1070Ti is under rated to be honest.
Chollingsworth it is not if you buying second hand, 5700 can crash 1070ti with cheaper price (i saw 5700 from xfx for$299)
@@qupeter1224 oh no I completely understand that, I meant like for it's time it was under rated and today it still performs really good that's all.
My 1070 is still going very strong too.
Really? I had a 1070ti and with an 8700k it was ASS for 1080p gaming lol
We need a refresh of this video in 2022 considering new game releases.
I’m still using my 1080Ti and I’m playing most games on ultra settings on 1440p ultrawide. I haven’t noticed any real issues. Everything plays beautifully. There are times where I want to upgrade to a new GPU just because I want something more powerful but then I have to stop myself and remember that I don’t really need it, I just want it. I’m thinking MAYBE my Intel 6700K CPU could use an upgrade but again, seeing as how I’m having no issues gaming on the settings I desire, I have to exercise restraint and not upgrade when I don’t need to. It is hard sometimes because you want all the new tech.
Don't overspend on stuff you don't need.
Still running the good old overclocked 1080 Ti here. It perfectly suits my 1440p needs. Not too fuss on missing out RTX effects/DLSS so I'm really content with the card.
The TI cards are always amazing value. I don't care what anyone says.
really only the 980 and 1080, all other Ti cards are rubbish for the release AND current price
@@ZackSNetwork Ti cards have terrible value. maybe you don't know what value means
@@ZackSNetwork They were until the 2080 Ti lmao. But seriously, I feel like they jacked it up because of how good the damn 1080 Ti still is. It won't happen but I wish they'd price the next one to be $800-ish
@@ZackSNetwork A $700 GPU is a terrible value.
Great video guys, thanks. As I've suspected for the last 6+ months it makes most sense for everyone GTX970 through 1060, RX580, Vega 56 and beyond to just wait another year. Wait for the consoles to come out and shake up the market, then get something which represents a true leap.
just bought a rx580 for 140
Completely agree... there's currently no point to upgrade (unless a component breaks down and you need to replace it), because of the next gen consoles the requirements will increase by quite a lot.
I've got an R9 380 and I'm gonna be doing a whole new build. Probably just best for me to go with the 5600XT rather than wait. It's a great value
I sold my i5 2500K system today, including my MSI GTX 970. My new rig got today a 2070 Super, which matches better to my 3900X. I doubt that I will upgrade to 3000 series. Maybe 4000 series in 2 or 3 years.
@@PhreakDarkSoul no one cares
1440p has been a great resolution for me for the lasy 7 years. Editing and gaming.
good choice.
You need an RTX 2070 Super. A 2060 doesn't cut it, skimming across the water, occasionally dipping below until you prematurely sink beneath the surface is no way to live....
If you think you can live with 30-60fps in old games now, then you will want another GPU within a year (and with 30-45fps you do not get a smooth experience anyway).
Why pay for a 2060 when you can get a 5700 right now on sale?
No. You dont. A 2070 is more than enough on its own.
1070 owners: That's... why I'm here.
Ma boi, same
I own a GTX1070 and when I upgraded from 1080p to 1440p I kept the same card. I haven't found a game yet that it struggles with so you should have no problem upgrading your monitor now and then waiting a year or two before getting a new graphics card.
(ULTRA RARE) Dual [EVGA] GTX-1070 SC in SLI
Paired w/ The [Intel] I7-6850K
What processor have you paired with it?
@@Dark17731 Mine is paired with an i5-8400 which tbh struggles more than the graphics card does.
me: *looks at my gtx 750ti
also me: "hang in there buddy"
I got 670 gtx
@@rytiskurcinskas7179 lol ive got the blower fan edition gtx 660
@IhateECHOES i don't think you can
still rocking a 770 Classified
GTX 980 here.
I have the RTX 2060 and it is fine, runs everything on High, Ultra. ; )
Very pleased so far.
i want to sell it and get 3070
Got mine for a steal. Just waiting on a couple parts to finalize my build.
In 1440p? What framerates do you get and wich processor?
It's stuff like this that got me hooked to DF content, more please.
Would love to see a high fps one, like what cards you need for 1080p 240fps, 1440p 144fps and 4k 60fps?
In games like COD MW 2019, OuterWorlds, RDR2, Borderlands 3 and other top 2019/2020 games.
Your the only ones I can count on to answer all the questions I could think of and ones I either didn't think of or didn't think mattered 😅
non of those games are competitive games. so why do you care for those games what you need for 1080p 240fps? its pointless. play those games at 1440p or 4K and get done with it.
Just got a deal on a 1440p monitor and I’m planning to build a pc soon - perfect video and provided exactly the information I wanted! Amazing channel with a brilliant, knowledgeable host!
Josh L you’re doing it right. A lot of people buy a monitor as an afterthought.
Josh L you’re doing it right. A lot of people buy a monitor as an afterthought.
When I am Half Asleep, I See Everything 60 FPS>
Bruh i swear, same.
Really liked this format of review
I7-9700K and a 2080 super is working wonders for my rig. I use a 1440p monitor because of the refresh rates and switch to my tv if I want a little 4k 60fps goodness
Yep my 1060 6gb must live another year..... still playing on 1080p i hop the new 30xx midrange get a much bigger boost than 1060 / 2060 get
Jay Dee he should get 144hz
Bless you Richard. I'm personally one of those people who'd like to move into High Refresh 1440p gaming in the near future. As for 4K, can still wait a few years for that resolution to be mainstream in terms of demanding gaming scenarios.
a million and one gpu reviews on youtube, and this is the only one that really cuts to the heart of what's important! nicely done sir
I'm running a 1070 at 1440... no problem at all. Sure I never have modern games on ultra. I always optimize my settings to be the best visual output or framerate (depending on game). Generation Zero is terribly demanding on ultra setting. I have adapted the full range of low, medium, high and ultra on different options. With screenshots side-by-side, and pixel-peeping I'm having a really hard to spot any major difference... yet I go from 35-45fps to 62-70fps at 1440p. GTX1070 is a good 1440p-performer even today.
@@justvid366 To be honest, I just think Generation Zero is misunderstood. It's a game developed by around 60 people at a price tag of 29$ (not 59$). With in-house technologies. Still, even with these constraints it's a showcase title in terms of scale and graphical fidelity. I don't actually feel that it is badly optimized, everything on display is pretty darn impressive. volumetric fog, volumetric lights, global illumination, tessellated details, post processing effects, high quality AA etc. I have played a lot of modern games, but the game has some pretty amazing graphics. My partner even thought it was nature photographs rather than in-game screenshots. It's a great looter shooter, I love it and have spent over 120hours in-game. It's actually a great game. I just think people expected a lot of different things from the game. survival, story etc. it wasn't much of those. but as a looter shooter it actually holds up really well.
@@justvid366 It's just that Avalanche have different divisions. Generation Zero was made by a smaller Swedish division. About the same team size as Ubisoft had for Child of Light. (and the scope of this project is A LOT bigger) But sure, I'm in the game development industry myself, I understand the budget constraints, but I think it's harsh by the gaming community to expect a 500M$ - 1B$ title out of a 30M$ team. Especially since they sell it for 29$. But they did a couple of things wrong. the game should've been early access from the beginning... and around today they should've gone live with the retail product. They should've also communicated what the game was about. there was a lot of unknowns, and the lack of communication during the marketing phase disappointed a lot of players in the end (who expected the game to be something it was not). The game isn't bad, Today the game actually has a very active community with people loving it. :) myself included. And the reviews have definitely skyrocketed over time. And well, if you think a basement indie group could pull off Generation Zero, I don't necessarily think you understand the amount of work required to make such a game.... :) I have spent the last 3 years working on a hi-res 2D platformer. I still have at least 3 years left... these things take time. And we don't do "bad games" to screw with players. We make games because we love it and we want to make products that entertain people. The industry would thrive with less hate and more love towards developers, who are basically pouring their souls into projects with minimum wage or lower.
My OC’d 1070ti is still kickin’ hard at 1440p.
Mine too!
Yeh with everything set to low.
You could get away with 4K as well with resolution scale at 80% on games that support it.
Me too, I upgraded from GTX 1060 6GB to 1070 Ti, even with the 1060 I was using a 4K monitor
My og 1070 with a Gsync monitor is still doing great.
I have always gone for the philosophy of buying the most powerful card I can possibly afford. The more powerful the card, the more you "future proof" you PC's ability to render games in the years to come.
the more you buy the more you save.
1070 is doing alright, rarely hits 120 fps on my monitor but it rarely goes under 60 either. Its smooth gaming, so its hard to complain.
i was honestly playing 1440p 144hz with gtx 1060 6gb. sure i had to turn the setting to medium, but games still looked good and ran great
This is the kind of video I’ve been waiting on and just stumbled across.
I would love to see a video like this with 4K, considering Resolution Scale and high settings as well.
By my own experience, even sth like a 1070ti can handle even modern games really well with 80 percent resolution scale (while looking great even on a 40 inch 4k TV)
how far you from the 40inch 4k tv? If its at 5-6 feet+ youre losing the benefit of 4k anyway. Right now im running 2x 2560*1080 and 2x 2560*1440p monitors in a quad setup, but im tempted to shelf the lot and buy a single, large, 4k screen. Just a shame you cant get an affordable one with high refresh yet.
@@Styreta I can't tell you the exact distance, but it's my main PC monitor (even did art/graphics design on it for a long time) and it's mounted to a wall with a small desk between me and the screen. So not much distance. Trust me 80 percent of 4k looks great. And even 1440p is better looking than you would think.
Depends on the game. You generally want something to cover all/most ‘eventualities’. I used to rock a GTX 1080 on my 4K set but added to a 1080 ti because the 1080 could cut the mustard even with an 70% resolution scale (which is 1800p).
I've recently changed out my 24 inch 144hz monitor to a 43 inch 4k TV.
Honestly, desktop use the extra real estate is very welcome, but even with a sensible viewing distance I see no benefit to 4k gaming, sure if I stop and look at a texture it's clearer but in motion it doesn't match 144hz.
The TV is pretty good response time for IPS, games play more comfortably at a windowed 1440p or windowed 1080p 120hz, but it's been a couple months now and I'm going to switch it back out for my 24 inch 1080p 144hz in time for doom eternal.
I could justify £280 on a TV that can do pc use, but I can't justify £550 for the lg 850 1440 144hz, my current 1080p is fine unless pixel peeping and it lets me easily continue to max any game without worrying about framerate
For 4K IMO for NVIDIA you need either a 1080 ti, 2080, or 2080 ti.
Since my 1070 is in my Laptop, I have to keep using that anyway. Good for me since there is almost no improvements aside of the RTX in the past 4 years
Temp Burner Sounds like you are a good customer for Nvidia. And people with a RTX 2080 Ti laugh about your RTX 2080S. You may think that your RTX 2080 is close to a RTX 2080 Ti because its "super" (good marketing) but a RTX 2080 Ti blows your RTX 2080 to hell.
@Benjamin Cutts ikr xd
@Temp Burner Hahahahahahahahaha
10/10 would laugh again
I went from a 970 at 1080p to a 2060 at 1440p and do well for the cost of the gpu I'm happy tbh
Bro u got 2060 super?
This video is partly tailored for me as I have been running 1440p for a few years now and I could never go back to 1080p on my main monitor nor do I want to go to 4k either. Single player games I am ok with 60fps and above. MP games, especially FPS games, I want 144hz locked. And when I bought my 1440p monitor i quickly found out that if I wanted to run native resolution I would need a card that could handle it. So, I bought an GTX1080. It's been doing great for me...but I am on the lookout for something that will come along at the middle tier that will be a substantial improvement so I can keep pace with new games. Especially with the new console gen coming up and that directly impacting PC requirements as well.
In short, thank you for the work on this as it's rare to even find 1440p benchmarks consistently anywhere that I can trust.
amerika* you’re in for a great 2020 when the next gen cards from Nvidia and AMD drop. Highly recommend you look at AMD’s RDNA 2.0 cards coming out in the summer. Above all else, please wait until Q2 is done.
Great point made here! It makes me want to keep my 5700 for many years to come! Cheers
When Half-life: Alyx comes out, you should definitely test to find out what's the best minimum requirement card. Let's say 90hz at lowest settings :)
A lot of people will be playing at 72hz, thanks to the Oculus Quest link cable. Poor souls.
I agree, A serious in depth test of this would be great. I would love to se a test with valve index as well at 80,90,120 and 144hz as well. Is 144hz with reprojection better than say sunning it at 80 or 90 hz.
@Machine Mechine are you one of those "the eye only sees 30fps" people? LOL 40hz is absolutely terrible- 60hz is the bare minimum for a good experience and even that feels a little sluggish. Refresh is more important than resolution.
@Machine Mechine you also have to remember HL Alyx is VR. 30fps in VR is a great idea if you want to projectile vomit, but if you want to play the game, you need whatever is the refresh rate in your headset (80/90/120hz)
@Machine Mechine, Apparently you haven't experienced >= 120 Hz refresh before. If a game is slow movement enough I'll sacrifice frame rate for higher quality visuals... but there is a definite difference in smoothness from 60 to 120, and for certain 30 to 120. I have a 4k 60Hz 75 inch TV (so I can tell 4k from my seating distance) but I run it at 1440p 120Hz as it's a good compromise between resolution and smoothness. It's not about a pissing contest, games just feel considerably smoother at double the refresh (240Hz is pushing it for me though, I don't notice that large of an increase when I tried such a monitor, diminishing returns I suppose). You also reduce your visual and input latency. 30Hz gives you a maximum of 33.33 ms frame to frame latency, and since input is tied to the frame rate in the main game loop, if your input hits between the frame transition of visual info to input action, you're looking at 66.66 ms latency with visual and input summed together. Combined with other sources of latency, like if your TV isn't in a game mode or doesn't have one (likely if it is cheaper and designed for 2160p at 30-60 Hz) , you could easily be looking at 100-250ms added on top of that. Leading to as much as a 316 ms latency, almost a 3rd of a second. You may think that is small, but that is well within the rubber band territory, where controlling something like a mouse cursor feels like a wave moving through a rubber band, move it left and you get a response a 3rd of a second later.
So, aside from the visual argument, there is a general functional argument as well for going higher end on both your display and your GPU.
I upgraded from a 1070 to a 2080 and play at 1440p looks like I chose wisely
I upgraded from 1050ti to rtx 2070 super
I am running my RTX 2060 on a 1080p monitor and have no plans to upgrade to 1440p. I am safe for at least 5 years. :) Also my monitor have adaptive sync 165 hz refresh so its silky smooth gaming for 5+ years. 1080p is still the top of the charts on steam and its not going away anytime soon.
Been wanting to buy a desktop gaming pc for a while now. This is hands down the most informative video I've seen on what gpu and resolution I should be gaming on. Subscribed.
It depends on what types of games you want to play at what settings and at what refresh rate. For example, I think 16:9 is the past now on PC and I don't ever want to go back to it. 21:9 is way better and immersive. And 1440p is the sweetspot, so 3440x1440 is the optimal resolution for me. But even with a 1080Ti, I have to make some compromises to hit a steady 60FPS.
Not sure what you’re playing but I can get over 100 FPS with my 1080ti if I lower settings on a lot of games
I've been considering upgrading to ultrawide for a long time, how is it for you?
No. 16:9 is the best
@@Cheatman5 Nonsense. 1080 ti isn't really a 1440p card anymore
@John Doe Me too.
I've still got a 390X, and it still crushes 1080p. I am looking to get one of those SUPER ultrawide moniters though, so im gonna need more graphics horsepower real soon.
I would honestly suggest a 120hz tv at this point if you want a bigger screen. I've had an ultrawide for years and game compatibility is a pain in the ass. Extremely happy with tv as a monitor now.
@@rushnerd I dont want to stretch the image. I know how bad it is, i've got a 21:9 moniter. What I want is a 32:9 aspect ratio moniter running at a resolution of 5120x1440 @144hz so that I can have my games and anything else I want open all at once, and I dont have to tab through screens to find what i'm looking for. think of it like a blend of gaming and productivity.
@@ChaotiX1 Two 16:9 monitors are much better suited to that, if you don't intend to use it all for gaming.
@@Whizzer Dont try to kill my dreams. I'm not doing that shitty double moniter setup that everyone else has beaten to death.
I'm a sim racer, I need triple monitors, so I'm sticking with 1080p for now.
even assetto corsa can run on a gtx 1050 at 100 fps lol, so triple monitors with an rtx 2060 should be enough
I recently bought 2x EVGA SC GTX 980s second hand at £150 for the pair. Sold them to my mates who were rocking 750Ti / 960 and they have really noticed the difference and for 1080P / 1440P (on reasonable settings) they are loving them. Second hand market is great for buying used older gen flagship cards, but I'd rarely buy them new due to diminishing returns anmd eye watering cost. Great to see the GTX970 is still rocking 1080P and performing well at that resolution.
This is,by far, the most interest and informative be GPU video, on the internet. It hits the nail in the head. "Performance on par or better". Excellent.
Its like horsepower in a car, you can never have TOO MUCH
Background music:
Wez Devine - Go Beyond
Oh crap. Aren't you in the Halo community? I've see you on Twitter a few times.
How is your day so far?
@@CmoIsDaNam3i okay sycophant
@@byebye1813 ???
I just scrolled down to see this classic comment.
@@CaveyMoth I am beyond confused.
I see a person who looks fimilar on Twitter by random chance, just wanted to make sure it is so and say hi. And get weird responses. What the heck man. Seriously.
Imagine having a gamer dad like him with the house full of expensive graphics cards.
This is such an informative video. Just what I have been looking for to inform my 1080 - 1440 upgrade. Thanks!
Thank you for this sir. One of the best benchmark videos out there. Very informative and extremely well put together.
its a shame i cant watch this in 1440p.
Good point aha
1440p on a GTX 970 over here! Runs COD at 60fps low settings. Fine for me :P
Graphics > 4k
I dont really care for 1440p, either I game at 1080p 120-144 fps or 4k 60. I have two monitors for that exact reason.
1440p is the sweet spot for performance and visuals.
My monitor took a crap. So, now I game exclusively on my 49-inch 4K flatscreen. Tbh games still look pretty good at 1440p. I have a 1060 and with a mix of settings I can still
squeeze 1440p out of most of my pre-2018 games. I just got into PC gaming a few years ago. Having come from PS4 such sacrifices don't feel as pronounced.
@@Doc_Valparaiso nice dude, I only just got into pc gaming but 1440p is just the right resolution 1080 is abit rubbish now I've played 4k games on oled and it's nice
If you can game at 4K 60, why in the hell wouldn't you use 1440p for high refresh? I do with my 4K OLED, but in that case it's not possible to get 120hz on anything but 1440p until the new cards come out.
@@00DaNnY000 1440p is still pretty sharp for most games even on a 4K monitor/tv. The jump from 1080p to 1440p is much larger to me than 1440p to 4K. Don't get me wrong, anyone with decent vision can tell the difference right away. But, I'd take 1440p w/a higher refresh over 4K. But, I'm really looking forward to the necessary hardware for 4K/120 becoming more prevalent and affordable. This next generation of consoles will hopefully help usher this in at a faster rate. ...Now those claims of 8K on PS5 and Series X🙄
1440p is not a plausible choice for a big part of the world. For reference, what they cite as "the best 1440p monitor" isn't even available in south america. Not only that, the prices of available 1440p monitors are abhorrently high. Best bet right now for most of the world (excluding the almighty US and Europe) is 1080p 144hz.
Thumbs up that this guy is still reviewing. Great stuff
DF: *Talks about 1440p. Uploads video in 1080p.*
Me: ???
They like to say that they saved the high quality for the folks that pay em.
youtube 4k is basically 1080 anyway
@@MysteryD gotta check the patreon
@@MysteryD fair enough, UA-cam channels gotta get the dough in creative ways somehow
Mystery D and that’s how the channel survives.
Oh my God thank you so much for uploading. I'm getting a new gpu on Tuesday cause it's my birthday then and I have an under £300 budget. Currently I think the best thing I can get is an RTX 2060. I know AMD has better price to performance but the 2060 is £280 for the windforce oc version and I use blender a lot so being able to use optiX would help a lot lol. Also just wondering if the 2060 FE will ever be back in stock because I love the way it looks.
Keep that £300 and save up a bit for another 8 months or so for an RTX 3060/70.
Honestly stick to the 2060 I've been dealing with random lockups left and right and while the 5700 XT is a better overall performing card the 2060 has better overall compatibility and more stable drivers.
@A World Under A Spell You'd think, but even after the 20 series debuted, the 10 series cards didn't drop much in price. Probably has something to do with bitcoin farming.
@@phrozac nah I cant wait 8 months hahaha
@@SpeedsterBlur really? One of my friends has a 5700xt and has never experienced any problems:/ that's weird.
Almost all of these games are highly CPU bound. Maybe play some not open world games, like FPS to see a much bigger difference between 1080P and 1440P
I fucking love digital foundry. All these years. They feel like old friends now
I had a GTX 1070 for 1080p and when I overclocked it, found it was a bit overkill for most games and upgraded to 1440p. It has started to not be sufficient so I upgraded to a GTX 1070 Ti for just a $40 difference. The 1070 ti overclocked keeps me comfortable at 75 Hz on most games, though it isn't enough for newer (and sometimes less optimized) games coming out (like cyberpunk and rdr2). I'm now going to go for the RTX 3060 / 3060 Ti when they come out. Will go nicely with my Ryzen 3600.
I bought my 1660 Ti last summer for my new 1440p monitor, I guess I did a good job. Prior to this video I was bit unsure if I made a good choice (rtx 2060 was too much for my budget).
Same here,i avg 40-60 FPS on every game I play in 1440P with ultra settings on so far with my GTX 1660 TI.Good enough for me for a couple more years.
@@koolkendall9204 Yep, my thoughts were "i just need a 1440p medium to high 60lock", nothing more. Currently it is like that, but some games are giving me trouble, RDR2 and metro for example. Thats why Im a little bit worries if I should have got a little bit more money to get 2060.
@@ivanmikulicic3676 Both those games aren't really optimised to run at 60 fps anyway.
Hell you need an RTX 2080 or better to run Metro consistently over 60fps at 1440p ultra and that's just barely.
I've been on 1440p since 2013. 60hz at first, then I got one of the originals ROG Swift monitors. It was and is a great sweet spot for detail and framerate.
Now I just need a 1440p OLED HDR10+ 144Hz ultrawide, with eye-tracked foveated rendering at a price I can afford and all my dreams can come true.
@@InnuendoXP This.Looking to upgrade from my 1080p 144hz Benq monitor later this year to an ultrawide but it needs to at least have hdr10+ and 120hz or more with adaptive sync.Problem is the price lol I bet something will come out with similar specs if the rumor websites are correct anyway but price might be way too high for me.I'm not bothered too much if it's between 1-2k AUD (australian dollar) but if it's any more than that then idc really lol.
@@WyattOShea I'm sure it'll all be more affordable in 5-10 years time by the time something much cooler comes out.
@@InnuendoXP Haha yeah true.I'm sure i'll be able to find something really good either later this year or some time next year.I'm not really in a huge rush though to spend allot of money on a new screen as my 144hz 1080p Benq monitor does just fine right now for all my needs really I just want to upgrade to something amazing some day that I will keep for multiple generations of computers without wanting to upgrade again :).Like just recently I did the same thing with headphones and amp/dac so I won't even be thinking about upgrading those for another 10 years or more if they even end up lasting that long.Would just be nice to have my version of an end game monitor that isn't extremely expensive but that might be a pipe dream for a few years who knows though amazing stuff might come out this year at a decent price but probably not haha.
Why isn't the 1080ti included in this lineup?
a_Bob_Unseen. It’s very expensive. I was surprised they didn’t include a 1070ti though
Why no 980ti ? It was originally marketed as 4k & VR ready . Later , touted as the 1440p card to have ...
I can say this, the jump from 1440 to 4k is a lot less of a noticiable jump, but the perfomance needed for it is a lot more.
Seeing these games in a benchmark video makes me feel like I'm back in 2016
I love it
Stop using Crysis 3 and start using Red Dead Redemption 2
They would if it wasn't such a buggy mess I suppose.
Crysis 3 makes for an excellent historical benchmark and this video proves it.
@Raul the RDR 2 port in my experience was still much better than the oh so praised GTA V port (which was and is hot garbage)
@Raul hopefully dan houser finally can make games without taketwos thumb up his a$$
@Raul Because it's the best looking PC game out there right now. Regardless of performance, which is pretty great. Sure the bugs are bad, but there aren't that many.
I think I'll stick with my 1060 6gb at 1080p for now since I'm only looking forward to a handful of games this year and it works well in most games. Except for Metro Exodus for lack of graphics options and RDR2 for obvious reasons. Plus, new cards may be announced later on so it makes sense to wait for something better.
1060 6gb go to settings lower hbao, shadows and reflections be carefull with anti aliasing and you are good to go, very small visual impact
FXAA gang
francisco andrada _imagine gaming with half of the framerate just because you activated MSAA_
*This comment was made by the FXAA gang*
Yeah, I’ve been using my 1060 6GB at 1440p for about a year now and I’ve actually been really surprised how well it handles it. Only the most taxing games really require major tweaking to get to 60fps. RDR2 is an example. It’s runs about 30fps at Ultra settings at 1440p, but can get up to 45-60fps by making minor changes that don’t really effect fidelity in any meaningful way. Frankly, most games, even brand new games, will run at 60+ right out of the box on Ultra setting or with just 1-2 obvious settings (shadow quality, volumetrics, etc.) moved to Very High or whatever. I’ll probably upgrade when the 3000 series cards come out, but I’m in no huge hurry tbh.
Been rocking 1440p for years and the 1070 was the best choice I could have made.
It's such a smart idea to use 4-7 year old games as a reference for the next gen games... amazing logic.
Big woosh.
I've just built a new PC there in November and I've got the 5700XT that runs most games at 1440P with over 100+FPS at max settings. 1440P 144hz is better than 4K60HZ IMHO.
5700xt 360 us 👌
@@FAHRENHEITDELIO I got the Sapphire Nitro+ model back in November for roughly £380 ($400).
How often do you drop under 60fps at 1440p in games?
Nice what cpu did you pair with it. My i7 3770 is bottlenecking my gpu and I'm thinking about upgrading to an r7 3700x or an r5 3600 (and in a few years an r9).
What cpu
Audio seemed really low on this video...great watch, nonetheless.
"Back in the day"?? I'm still running a 970! (that specific MSI model too!)
Same here, it's only like 5 years old now
I've still got a 390X, and it still crushes 1080p. I am looking to get one of those SUPER ultrawide moniters though, so im gonna need more graphics horsepower real soon.
@@ChaotiX1 I only have 8GB DDR3 RAM which is giving me random framedrops in some games. Gonna upgrade my CPU and motherboard & ram this year but won't need to upgrade GPU yet.
one of the greatest gpus I've bought ever but once I've upgraded to 1440p @144 Hz even its successor for me (1080) wasn't enough
This is a really awesome video! Real-world comparisons and a good way to plan an upgrade path! Thank you for all your work... subbed!
Upgraded to a 2060 during a sale mid summer last year just so I can play Cyberpunk on PC and really just aiming to run it at 1080p with raytracing.