2080 super

[HardStroke]

Is a gigabyte 2080 super gaming oc really worth the extra 125 dollars comapre to a gigabyte AORUS 2080(non super) in terms of 1080p 144/165 or even 240hz gaming and future proofing my joint

[Letgomyleghoe]

 

17 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

future proofing my joint

Don’t know why your putting a graphics card in a joint?
 

but I don’t think it will make much difference, and the amount that it will make will not be worth 145, I would just buy another ssd for that money

[e22big]

https://www.gpucheck.com/th-thb/compare-multi/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-super

You can just check it out using this website. Yes, it worth it overall since cost per fps is lower but for practical purpose, it's depend on the resolution and monitor you expect to hook the card up with.

 

6 - 7 fps is nothing on 1080p and may be even 1440p but if you are gaming on 4k, 1440p ultrawide, or expected to use the card way longer than it's intent, 7 fps may be all that need to make the game playable. 

 

 

[HardStroke]

2 hours ago, e22big said:

6 - 7 fps is nothing on 1080p and may be even 1440p but if you are gaming on 4k, 1440p ultrawide, or expected to use the card way longer than it's intent, 7 fps may be all that need to make the game playable. 

Planning on getting the benq xl2546 1080p 240hz monitor down the road

I dont do that 2k, 4k and ultrawide shit

[HardStroke]

2 hours ago, e22big said:

https://www.gpucheck.com/th-thb/compare-multi/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-super

You can just check it out using this website. Yes, it worth it overall since cost per fps is lower but for practical purpose, it's depend on the resolution and monitor you expect to hook the card up with.

 

6 - 7 fps is nothing on 1080p and may be even 1440p but if you are gaming on 4k, 1440p ultrawide, or expected to use the card way longer than it's intent, 7 fps may be all that need to make the game playable. 

 

 

Paired with a 10900k im sure there will be a bigger fps differnce, no?

[e22big]

9 hours ago, HardStroke said:

Paired with a 10900k im sure there will be a bigger fps differnce, no?

perhaps, but from all the benchmark I have seen, CPU will make a ten something differnet FPS at most, in the website I posted, you can create a comparison yourself and select whatever CPU you want to compare the result differences

 

 

[LOST TALE]

12 hours ago, e22big said:

https://www.gpucheck.com/th-thb/compare-multi/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-super-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-super

You can just check it out using this website. Yes, it worth it overall since cost per fps is lower but for practical purpose, it's depend on the resolution and monitor you expect to hook the card up with.

 

6 - 7 fps is nothing on 1080p and may be even 1440p but if you are gaming on 4k, 1440p ultrawide, or expected to use the card way longer than it's intent, 7 fps may be all that need to make the game playable. 

 

 

if cost per fps is lower on the super, then for sure get the super. Usually there's a fall in fps/$ as u go higher, so if it's opposite, I would always pay more. We're still some time from 144hz 4k. Maybe after that we'll relax. maybe that's why Nvidia is doing rtx, to differentiate themselves for when gpu power will not matter as much anymore.

[e22big]

5 hours ago, LOST TALE said:

if cost per fps is lower on the super, then for sure get the super. Usually there's a fall in fps/$ as u go higher, so if it's opposite, I would always pay more. We're still some time from 144hz 4k. Maybe after that we'll relax. maybe that's why Nvidia is doing rtx, to differentiate themselves for when gpu power will not matter as much anymore.

I am fiarly sure that with Nvidia 3000 series, 4k high refresh rate will be possible, 4k 60fps already become feasible in a lower tier GPU like RTX 2060S or 5700XT - the next generation GPU from both Nvidia and AMD should bring about 4k high refresh rate (at least 75 - 90 fps) to a wilder market.

 

Or if not, there's always DLSS. 4k is future is closer to us than most realised imo.

[jones177]

The best way to compare cards is by boost/core clock.

They have the same(1845mhz).

 

There is no future proofing with video cards.  All you can do is get the fastest one you can afford.

 

[HardStroke]

3 hours ago, jones177 said:

The best way to compare cards is by boost/core clock.

They have the same(1845mhz).

 

There is no future proofing with video cards.  All you can do is get the fastest one you can afford.

 

I am still using a leadtek 650 hurricane ii 2GB

Back in the day it was on of the best and its still wotking its just that the vram is not enough now days, the clocks are very low and the whole technology and architecture are very very old compared to a 2080 or a 2080 super

[HardStroke]

Just now, HardStroke said:

There is no future proofing with video cards.  All you can do is get the fastest one you can afford.

 

My card is still holding well but my cpu does work harded and i also overclocked both of them but i checked online and i saw that my 650 is too slow for my i5 3550 and when ill be upgrading to a 10900k i need a strong card to go with it

650 is still decent on 1080p just on non demending games like valorant or gta

But in csgo for example i get very low fps on the lowest setting on 1280x1024 75hz