2070 for 4k@60fps?

[ramm]

Probably has been asked before alot but I haven't really kept track of the GPU news lately.

 

So is this do-able?

 

Unfortunately gtx1080's and gtx1080ti's are unavailable in my country, or they are very sketchy (2nd hand miner cards) or they go for more money than an rtx2080. And a rtx2080 is like over 800 euros and far too expensive for me otherwise I would've gotten that.

 

So is a 2070 the bare minimum for 4K @ 60fps for the coming years? Or would a 2060 maybe do this too?

[Skiiwee29]

2070 will do 4k/60fps with a combination of medium and high settings. You wont be able to max out settings in AAA games like Shadow of Tomb Raider, Witcher 3 etc.. As newer games come out, I could see this card getting bumped quickly from that category. 

[Origami Cactus]

GTX 1080ti/ rtx 2080 is barely 4k 60fps ultra, in most games you have to play at high settings.

rtx 2070 / gtx 1080 is a tier below that, so if you want to play 4k 60fps in every title, be prepared to play at medium/high, but in upcoming games even at low settings, maybe even lowest.

 

rtx 2060? In AAA games be prepared to play at lowest, and in some cases you wont still get 60fps. 4k is 4 times the pixels than 1080p.

[ramm]

Hmmm I guess I would have to make use of lower settings then or maybe play a downscaled resolutin of lets say 2k or something. Cause €800+ is just too much for me.

[Stefan Payne]

12 minutes ago, ramm said:

So is a 2070 the bare minimum for 4K @ 60fps for the coming years? Or would a 2060 maybe do this too?

a) You ever thought about VEGA?!

They are on sale often. VEGA 64 for less than 400€, 56 for less than 300€

 

b) Only at Medium, maybe High.

[ramm]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

a) You ever thought about VEGA?!

They are on sale often. VEGA 64 for less than 400€, 56 for less than 300€

 

b) Only at Medium, maybe High.

I'm not a big fan of AMD, have been using Nvidia for the past 10 years. Also wasn't AMD weaker?

[Stormseeker9]

5 minutes ago, ramm said:

Hmmm I guess I would have to make use of lower settings then or maybe play a downscaled resolutin of lets say 2k or something. Cause €800+ is just too much for me.

Even the 2080Ti doesn’t push 4K @60hz on ultra.

 

I’m Using the 2070 on 1440p, ultra settings and it works very well. Depending on game 75-120fps (280-350ish in CSGo)

[ramm]

Just now, Stormseeker9 said:

Even the 2080Ti doesn’t push 4K @60hz on ultra.

 

I’m Using the 2070 on 1440p, ultra settings and it works very well. Depending on game 75-120fps (280-350ish in CSGo)

well my screen is only 32" so I guess I could play on a slight lower resolution without even noticing it, but I dont really play the newest games only. Just sometimes maybe 1 a year or something. I play alot of older games which I enjoy at 4K aswell and of course non-gaming stuff on 4K

[PlayStation 2]

People seem to think that 2160p gaming is more demanding than it really is. 

So long as you aren't running everything at full ultra (honestly, I'd just argue adjusting your settings well enough would do the trick), you could probably get away with pretty much any game at 2160p at 60fps with attractive visuals.

[Stormseeker9]

3 minutes ago, ramm said:

well my screen is only 32" so I guess I could play on a slight lower resolution without even noticing it, but I dont really play the newest games only. Just sometimes maybe 1 a year or something. I play alot of older games which I enjoy at 4K aswell and of course non-gaming stuff on 4K

I find 32” to be large haha. 

 

I think witb older, less demanding games it should be ok 

[ramm]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

People seem to think that 2160p gaming is more demanding than it really is. 

So long as you aren't running everything at full ultra (honestly, I'd just argue adjusting your settings well enough would do the trick), you could probably get away with pretty much any game at 2160p at 60fps with attractive visuals.

Yeah i'm kinda surprised people are very negative about 4K on anything less than a 2080ti here... I mean I guess if you play the newest games every time on ultra it's gonna be difficult but I enjoy alot of other games as well. Usually the most demanding games are single player games anyway with alot of story and not something you do everyday, at least this is the case for me.

 

2 minutes ago, Stormseeker9 said:

I find 32” to be large haha. 

 

I think witb older, less demanding games it should be ok 

Oh I am used to 1080 on 27" so I guess it's a step up, maybe I wont even notice the difference between 2K and 4K on 32"

[Stormseeker9]

Just now, ramm said:

Yeah i'm kinda surprised people are very negative about 4K on anything less than a 2080ti here... I mean I guess if you play the newest games every time on ultra it's gonna be difficult but I enjoy alot of other games as well. Usually the most demanding games are single player games anyway with alot of story and not something you do everyday, at least this is the case for me.

 

Oh I am used to 1080 on 27" so I guess it's a step up, maybe I wont even notice the difference between 2K and 4K on 32"

At 27 inch 1440p is the sweet spot I find 

[ramm]

Just now, Stormseeker9 said:

At 27 inch 1440p is the sweet spot I find 

Yeah you can see the pixels if you move very close to the screen on 27" on a 1080p screen, but usually if you sit a little further back you don't notice it. I use it as a second monitor now and it's only since i've had a new 4K screen that it's starting to show when you move something from the 4K screen to the 1080p screen.

 

But 32" is definately good enough for 1440p too aswel as 4K. But I think i pretty much will have to go with a 2070 because the other thing is just too damn expensive here in my country. I said 800 but it's getting closer to 900 now. I just wish I bought a 1080ti last summer, it was on sale for 600 but that was before everybody knew that RTX would fail. Now a days a new 1080ti costs the same as a new 2080ti here.

[Stefan Payne]

28 minutes ago, ramm said:

I'm not a big fan of AMD, have been using Nvidia for the past 10 years.

So you rather pay more than even look at the other side?!
Why?

Quote

Also wasn't AMD weaker?

Have you looked at actual Benchmarks/Reviews??

[xAcid9]

1080 Ti/Radeon VII/2080 is the bare minimum for 4k60 imo.

[jones177]

It will not be a good experience.

 

My GTX 1080 failed at 4k. It was great at 1440p and 3440 X 1440 60hz. The problem is you can get games running and looking better with much higher 1440p settings.

 

It is only when I got the GTX 1080 ti that I could play all currant(2017) games at 4k. I consider it the first true 4k gaming GPU.

 

The RTX 2080 ti can run 60fps on ultra if you drop AA settings. They are not needed at 4k. I do it with Assassin's Creed Odyssey averaging 61fps. It does have to have its power target set to max and it is noisy even with a EVGA FTW3 Ultra.

 

For 1440p 27" is the sweet spot. I bought a 32" 1440p monitor and put it beside my 32" 4k monitor. It looked terrible. I ended up giving it to my Son. He uses it in a 3 monitor setup and it works good since it is set further back in that configuration.

[ramm]

Would a Asus ROG STRIX RX-VEGA64 O8G GAMING be on par with a 2070 then? It's roughly €50 cheaper here. Not alot of AMD cards here btw, they are all order only