Advice Needed: 2080 Super for 1080p Gaming

[Okkin]

Hi all, I am looking to upgrade my gpu from a 1070 to the best possible card for 1080p gaming, & I am looking into the 2080 Super or 2070 Super. A few things to note:

 

1.my goal is to max every single setting (including anti aliasing & volumetric fog/lighting) & still hit a constant 144 fps at 1080p in demanding AAA games.

2.I play mostly single player games - AAA & a fair amount of non-intensive indy games.

3.I may be looking to jump to 1440p at some point in the future with this card, but not anytime soon.

4.my current specs: i7-7700k, 16gb ram, 700w psu, and a 144hz g-sync ultrawide monitor.

5.money is not a limiting factor.

 

Just by pure specs, I am leaning toward the 2080 Super, but I am not sure how much a gpu with this much horsepower will bottleneck my cpu at 1080p - the last thing I want is stutter due to an under-performing cpu / over-performing gpu. In the same manner, I would be really disappointed if I loaded up Red Dead Redemption 2 and had a sub 60 frame rate... In your opinion, will a 2080 Super be too strong a card to use for 1080p? Are there any potential down sides to buying this card?All input is appreciated, thanks.

[Statik]

It shouldn’t really bottleneck, but I would say a 2070S would be plenty for 1080p 144hz.

 

in most games if you back down a few settings from ultra to high you’ll get a huge performance boost and like zero visual change.

[martward]

Well if money really is no factor then go for the 2080 so you'll be more than fine when you move to 1440p. It's a bit overkill IMO but if nothing is stopping you I sure won't.

[Sorenson]

I have the 2080 super and I would say it’s pretty overkill for 1080p gaming. I get 100-144 FPS in most of my 1440p games. The games where I get below 144 FPS are rpg games where the 144 doesn’t matter anyways. since you have gsync I would just go for the 2070 super. 

[Midnitewolf]

12 minutes ago, Statik said:

It shouldn’t really bottleneck, but I would say a 2070S would be plenty for 1080p 144hz.

 

in most games if you back down a few settings from ultra to high you’ll get a huge performance boost and like zero visual change.

 

This isn't exactly true.  Metro Exodus and RDR2 for example will struggle.  For example, in RDR2 on a 9900k with a 2070 Super using Ultra Quality settings and 1080p only manages an average of 63 fps.  Heck even a 2080 ti only gets around 80 fps which is well short of the 144 fps you would need/want to take advantage of a 144 hz display.  Even dropping the settings to High only gains you like 15-20 fps which is still well short of the 144 fps goal on either the 2070 Super or even the 2080 ti.

 

Link to article with Benchmarks:

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review.html

 

Now, honestly aside from these two game and maybe a few others, for the most part you can get over 100 fps on most other games but you have to consider that while the two games I mention might be the most demanding games we have now, this goes to give you a glimpse of what the future holds.  More and more games will be like this and if your not breaking 100 fps now with a 2070 Super, your sure as hell not going to be breaking 100 fps demanding AAA titles a year or two from now. 

 

The sad truth is that if you want to be able to handle high refresh, 144 hz 1080p gaming for the average life of a PC, roughly 3 years, your going to need a 2080 ti.  For this reason, I would recommend he go with the 2080 Super just to give him ever edge he can muster.  Alternatively he could do what I am currently doing, which is holding off on my video card update until the next gen cards come out in 2020.  I mean within 6 months we will likely see the new AMD Navi 20 cards which are rumored to be able to at least match 2080 Super or even 2080 ti performance with hardware ray tracing, a 2080 ti Super to counter the new AMD Navi 20 card and toward the end of that length of time, the new Nvidia Amphere cards.   All and all I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a 2080 ti or equivalent card for around $800 if you just have a little patience. 

[Statik]

54 minutes ago, Midnitewolf said:

 

This isn't exactly true.  Metro Exodus and RDR2 for example will struggle.  For example, in RDR2 on a 9900k with a 2070 Super using Ultra Quality settings and 1080p only manages an average of 63 fps.  Heck even a 2080 ti only gets around 80 fps which is well short of the 144 fps you would need/want to take advantage of a 144 hz display.  Even dropping the settings to High only gains you like 15-20 fps which is still well short of the 144 fps goal on either the 2070 Super or even the 2080 ti.

 

Link to article with Benchmarks:

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/red-dead-redemption-2-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review.html

 

Now, honestly aside from these two game and maybe a few others, for the most part you can get over 100 fps on most other games but you have to consider that while the two games I mention might be the most demanding games we have now, this goes to give you a glimpse of what the future holds.  More and more games will be like this and if your not breaking 100 fps now with a 2070 Super, your sure as hell not going to be breaking 100 fps demanding AAA titles a year or two from now. 

 

The sad truth is that if you want to be able to handle high refresh, 144 hz 1080p gaming for the average life of a PC, roughly 3 years, your going to need a 2080 ti.  For this reason, I would recommend he go with the 2080 Super just to give him ever edge he can muster.  Alternatively he could do what I am currently doing, which is holding off on my video card update until the next gen cards come out in 2020.  I mean within 6 months we will likely see the new AMD Navi 20 cards which are rumored to be able to at least match 2080 Super or even 2080 ti performance with hardware ray tracing, a 2080 ti Super to counter the new AMD Navi 20 card and toward the end of that length of time, the new Nvidia Amphere cards.   All and all I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a 2080 ti or equivalent card for around $800 if you just have a little patience. 

I suppose. You make some good points, but I think at this point buying a 2080S for 1080p seems quite overkill. To me atleast. The 2070S should kill most games. I also must say that the lifespan of a PC is definitely over 3 years if you want. I’ve had the rig in my sig for like 7 years, and to be honest it still does fine, and it was only a mid tier rig at the time

[Mick Naughty]

I’d say it’s above 1080 right now but give it time.

id still prefer to use a 1080ti for 1080p. 

So if I needed rt and a better card that would be the choice. 

 

As far as bottle neck goes, depends on the rig. Most of the time I experience it, the cpu is maxed out and I have to deal with stuttering. Which makes it unplayable being FPS games. I try to avoid it for that reason alone. Then adding the FPS cap does the same thing. But with a stronger card you may not notice. 

 

Only reasons I got an 8700k and it barely handles a midrange card. 

[Princess Luna]

17 hours ago, Okkin said:

1.my goal is to max every single setting (including anti aliasing & volumetric fog/lighting) & still hit a constant 144 fps at 1080p in demanding AAA games.

You'll need the RTX 2080 Ti then... and a Coffee Lake i7/i9 overclocked to 5ghz with a good memory setting.

 

Some Triple A games are just too demanding for this unrealistic graphical settings desire.

[Envit0]

13 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

You'll need the RTX 2080 Ti then... and a Coffee Lake i7/i9 overclocked to 5ghz with a good memory setting.

 

Some Triple A games are just too demanding for this unrealistic graphical settings desire.

Thiiis sums it up perfectly.

[Midnitewolf]

16 hours ago, Statik said:

I suppose. You make some good points, but I think at this point buying a 2080S for 1080p seems quite overkill. To me atleast. The 2070S should kill most games. I also must say that the lifespan of a PC is definitely over 3 years if you want. I’ve had the rig in my sig for like 7 years, and to be honest it still does fine, and it was only a mid tier rig at the time

I does depend on the games you want to play, however if you look again at the OP's post and what performance level he desires, the only card capable of doing what he wants right now without making sacrifices is the 2080 ti.  He also stated money is not an object so if he doesn't want to buy a 2080 ti, then the 2080 Super is going to be his best bet. 

 

Honestly I am stuck on this point as well with my new build and you do bring up some good points.  You can definitely see a difference between 60-70 fps and 120+ fps on any game, if nothing else, it is just easier on the eyes with less strain involved so being about to hit those higher refresh rates is very nice.  However your talking a minimum of $1000 for a GPU and it still won't get you 120 fps 1080p on very demanding AAA titles but it will get you close.  On the other hand I can buy a good 5700 XT right now for $400 which will get me 100+ fps at ultra or high settings on 95% of the games currently out and probably be able to get 100+ fps on 70-80% of the games out even a year or two down the road, however I would have to sacrifice visuals and/or fps on the most demanding titles.  It comes down to what is more important, saving $600 or getting a better visual experience on maybe 10-30% of the games I play.  Considering that better visual experience is only about 20-30% better for a relatively small amount of titles and the fact that your paying 250% of the price of the 5700 XT to get it, well I am not so sure that the value is there. This kinda of makes for a compelling reason to buy the 5700 XT or even the 2070 Super so I don't think your advice is wrong.  Still he did say money isn't an object so bang for buck doesn't appear to matter for him.

 

As far as the longevity of your computer, honestly it depends on how much your willing to give up.  If you want to use utlra or worst case, High settings, generally speaking I find most of my builds, using a $400-ish card will last me around 2-3 years before I have to start looking at an upgrade.  Sometimes I can get by with just a video card upgrade but I still have to invest in an upgrade.  However, that doesn't mean I couldn't play AAA titles for longer, it just means I would have to lower the setting down to medium or lower and if I am willing to do that, then yeah sure, I could probably stretch it out to 5+ years.

[Sorenson]

@Midnitewolf I totally get the attraction for ultra settings, but I disagree that going down to High constitutes a noticeable drop in quality for most settings. For me, I Usually leave textures and anti-aliasing at ultra, then drop settings like filtering, lighting, or shadows down to high. If you were to get really close and do a side by side comparison you would be able to spot the difference, but just playing the game at a normal distance it isn't noticeable.  

[Midnitewolf]

13 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

@Midnitewolf I totally get the attraction for ultra settings, but I disagree that going down to High constitutes a noticeable drop in quality for most settings. For me, I Usually leave textures and anti-aliasing at ultra, then drop settings like filtering, lighting, or shadows down to high. If you were to get really close and do a side by side comparison you would be able to spot the difference, but just playing the game at a normal distance it isn't noticeable.  

Yeah I usually consider high setting acceptable and often times there are some settings I am willing to move down to medium in order to get ultra on other settings as well.  However, it does all come down to how much graphic eye candy your willing to sacrifice.

 

Still even going down to high settings doesn't get easily get you 144 fps gameplay out of RDR2.  Here is a link to another article that is doing some benchmarking.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1939-red-dead-redemption-2-benchmarks/

 

Even at High settings, the 2080 ti is only achieving 114 fps.  I will argue once you get up past 100 fps that your not going to probably notice much difference between 100 fps and 144 fps but your still not at or near 144 fps with a crazy expensive 2080 ti.  The 2070 Super is only getting 86 fps so on what is currently probably the most demanding game out at the moment and does not achieve the necessary frame rates needed for 144 hz gaming.   Then when you consider that games are only going to get more demanding, well you start seeing very quickly how the 2070 Super isn't good enough if your goal is high refresh 1080p gaming.   

 

Don't get me wrong, if your not hyper focused on hitting that magic 144 fps on ALL games, there is nothing wrong with a 2070 Super.  In fact as long as your OK with just being able to play most games at or near 144 fps but still having to play the most demanding titles at 60 fps, the 2070 Super is an excellent card that can last most people a good long time.  It is not a bad card at all, rather it just isn't good enough for high refresh gaming in the most demanding titles.