2080ti is not enough for 1080p gaming

[DarkSmith2]

Ive bought my 2080ti 6Month ago and yet wanna upgrade as fast as possible.

 

The Situation:

I want to play with the lowest input lag possible regardless of my Monitor refreshrate, but when 360hz Monitors come out ill probably buy one.

I mainly play shooters, most of them with the lowest settings available and maybe even configs on top of it to reduce lag and increase FPS.

 

So i tested alot around with Apex Legends, CoD Modern Warfare and CSGO.

You should think most of these games you would be in a CPU bottleneck anyways. But thats kinda a false assumption.

No matter how hard i try, no matter how much i lower the video settings or edit config files the 2080ti isnt enough.

 

Why do i think so?

Well GPU load will spike up to 95-100% and if i lower the resolution there is a ton of fps gain. 

 

Playing f.e. in 1280x720 in Apex legends makes the game run at its engine cap 300fps all the time, even in fights and in cities. Which isnt possible on 1080p at all.

Playing 1280x720 in Modern Warfare is a boost of about 100-150FPS up to 500fps in some area's

in Both cases the input lag and mousefeel dramatically improves.

 

The biggest problem in csgo are FPS drops when smoke grenades are present, those are always rendered in the resolution of the game so turning down the games res greatly improves FPS when Smoke grenades are present. besides some drops on certain spots on certain maps.

 

I know that people always say a 2080ti is overkill for 1080p i dont see anything of it, tbh. And the same poeple said a 780ti or 980ti is overkill for 1080p.

My conclusion is that there really isnt any overkill and that tech hasnt come far enough for real competitive gaming unless you play on lower than 1080p resolutions.

[Jurrunio]

Did you overclock the card in any way?

[GDRRiley]

It is more than enough if you aren't trying to hit 500 FPS in game engines built for 144 or 240/.

the jump from 144-240 really only makes sense for pros

240+ will make almost 0 difference.

 

[WereCat]

What you're saying is that it's not enough for your specific needs. It's more than good enough for 1080p gaming at reasonable refresh rate. 

 

I would actually go as far as to say that 1080p240Hz is more demanding than 4k60Hz as you need a similar graphics power but also a way more powerful CPU. 

[PineyCreek]

:: shrug :: everything's subjective.  I think your expectations aren't tempered with the proper viewpoint.

 

The prior statements about older cards being good enough for 1080p are perfectly valid within the realm of reason...just like my 1080Ti handles 1440p on a 144Hz monitor just fine at the highest available graphical settings on everything I've used it with.

 

Since they're all general guidelines, treat them as such.  If it turns out to not be good enough for you, go further.

[DarkSmith2]

23 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Did you overclock the card in any way?

a well i fiddled alot but i wasnt confident in flashing a xoc bios on air cooling.

21 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

It is more than enough if you aren't trying to hit 500 FPS in game engines built for 144 or 240/.

the jump from 144-240 really only makes sense for pros

240+ will make almost 0 difference.

 

I know that video very well, but i guess you missed the whole point of it. The one with the biggest improvement from higher refreshrates was the casual (Paul).
The pro's did just well/same as good on lower refreshrates because they had mitigation strategies. This is what pros do, they try to adapt to the situation.

 

18 minutes ago, WereCat said:

What you're saying is that it's not enough for your specific needs. It's more than good enough for 1080p gaming at reasonable refresh rate. 

 

I would actually go as far as to say that 1080p240Hz is more demanding than 4k60Hz as you need a similar graphics power but also a way more powerful CPU. 

Thats the point, the refreshrate doesnt even matter. More frames win games, thats how it is, im more advanced than limiting my pc performance to my monitors refreshrate.

 

17 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

:: shrug :: everything's subjective.  I think your expectations aren't tempered with the proper viewpoint.

 

The prior statements about older cards being good enough for 1080p are perfectly valid within the realm of reason...just like my 1080Ti handles 1440p on a 144Hz monitor just fine at the highest available graphical settings on everything I've used it with.

 

Since they're all general guidelines, treat them as such.  If it turns out to not be good enough for you, go further.

okay, well my 2080ti cant handle 1080p but im sure your 1080ti can do 1440p well enough that you are pleased. Not everyone is a competitive gamer, and going even beyond 1080p is absolutely unreasonable for me. But ill take your advice, thank you.

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

I know that video very well, but i guess you missed the whole point of it. The one with the biggest improvement from higher refreshrates was the casual (Paul).
The pro's did just well/same as good on lower refreshrates because they had mitigation strategies. This is what pros do, they try to adapt to the situation.

I think we took different points. you went with pros compensate and I went with the jump doesn't make as much of a difference. espcially from 120/144 to 240 or 280

 

[Neftex]

feels to me like youre trying to blame the hardware for your performance in games?

apart from game engines where fps significantly alters physics in the game (like cod4 for higher and longer jumps to get to places you wouldnt normally get) i dont see any real reason to push it so high

[DarkSmith2]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

I think we took different points. you went with pros compensate and I went with the jump doesn't make as much of a difference. espcially from 120/144 to 240 or 280

 

well for paul the difference in monitor refreshrate directly impacted the results he had in the tests, so no matter how small the difference is, there is one.

Ofc the difference gets smaller the higher you go with it, thats correct.

[DarkSmith2]

Just now, Neftex said:

feels to me like youre trying to blame the hardware for your performance in games?

apart from game engines where fps significantly alters physics in the game (like cod4 for higher and longer jumps to get to places you wouldnt normally get) i dont see any real reason to push it so high

Not really its not about the performance i deliver in the games, i do mostly quite well. Its about the joy i have while playing, and i like it just as responsive and fluid as possible. Its not about anything else, you get good in games when you play them alot and are able to analyze your mistakes and correct them.

[WereCat]

Just now, DarkSmith2 said:

well for paul the difference in monitor refreshrate directly impacted the results he had in the tests, so no matter how small the difference is, there is one.

Ofc the difference gets smaller the higher you go with it, thats correct.

Also have in mind that capping the FPS can actually lower the input lag. 

Input lag actually gets worse when the GPU is at 100% load, if you cap the FPS just so that the GPU is at around 95%-98% you will actually have less input lag. It's not always best to just chase the highest FPS available. 

[DarkSmith2]

Just now, WereCat said:

Also have in mind that capping the FPS can actually lower the input lag. 

Input lag actually gets worse when the GPU is at 100% load, if you cap the FPS just so that the GPU is at around 95%-98% you will actually have less input lag. It's not always best to just chase the highest FPS available. 

im aware thanks for pointing out for others tho, i actually do alot of things that normal people wouldnt do, im running a custom OS, tweaked the shit out of it thanks to my fellow Fr33thy on Youtube. And i also do alot of research through the web, i know blurbusters and all the techchannels and brians fortnite video from techyescity im into it. Its just some stuff on the web is a little flawed, like yes ingame FPS limiter can improve input lag, but other options are out of the question, and its not that it is helping in every title, there are some titles where ingame FPS limiter can help but not all of them, and battlenonsesenses assumptions are not really replicable for other tech channels which got pointed out by f.e. Hardware unboxed so i see this with a grain of salt.

[Mick Naughty]

My 1080 hits 200+ frames on 1080p with the settings down on mw. Its pretty nice and much better than playing at 120-150.

Got a 1080ti so it could sit at the 240fps range to make proper use of this 240hz monitor.

I don't have enough cpu for more frames so keeping it 1080 or higher is my only option.

Id like those frames and be able to turn the settings up but id need a much nicer card for that.