RTX 3070 OR 3080

[mexashe]

so, i want to upgrade my RX 570 to RTX 3080 in september and i am worried about bottlenecking it here is my pc specs:

 

i5-9600kf

 

16GB of DDR4 Memory ( Dual channel 2666mhz)

 

Motherboard: PRIME B360-PLUS

 

PSU: GIGABYTE GP-G750H GOLD

 

SSD: M.2 Samsung SSD 970 EVO 500GB

 

MONITOR: I have 240hz samsung monitor with gysnc its 1920x1080p tho ( main reason why i am worried about blottlenecking )

 

I don't want to upgrade my gpu for next few years so im looking for something future proof, tempted getting 3080 ( i know I'm getting bottlenecked either way )

[Moonzy]

Even with 2070 super it's already pretty overkill on 1080p

I'm CPU bound in most scenarios

[mexashe]

Just now, Moonzy said:

Even with 2070 super it's already pretty overkill on 1080p

I'm CPU bound in most scenarios

You have same cpu?

[MadPistol]

At 3080 at 1080 is utter overkill. A 3070 would be a good match, but even then, you probably won't reach the card's potential for a couple of years.

[Moonzy]

Just now, mexashe said:

You have same cpu?

Nope, a 3900x

I tried running shadow of tomb raider on ultra, still CPU bound in some situations, absolutely overkill, and no one should set graphical setting to ultra anyways

[mexashe]

1 minute ago, MadPistol said:

At 3080 at 1080 is utter overkill. A 3070 would be a good match, but even then, you probably won't reach the card's potential for a couple of years

How about 1440p 144hz monitor with 3070?

[MadPistol]

Just now, mexashe said:

How about 1440p 144hz monitor with 3070?

That sounds like a match made in heaven.

[mexashe]

1 minute ago, MadPistol said:

That sounds like a match made in heaven.

Have to wait till October for 70 and also have to buy new monitor 

[BTGbullseye]

2 hours ago, Moonzy said:

Even with 2070 super it's already pretty overkill on 1080p

I'm CPU bound in most scenarios

 

2 hours ago, MadPistol said:

At 3080 at 1080 is utter overkill. A 3070 would be a good match, but even then, you probably won't reach the card's potential for a couple of years.

You're both forgetting that running at 200% renderscale will require the same amount of GPU power as 4k when displaying at 1080p. This is a use case that I myself am planning on doing, so it's not like it's going to be ultra niche to do it.

[Moonzy]

2 minutes ago, BTGbullseye said:

You're both forgetting that running at 200% renderscale will require the same amount of GPU power as 4k when displaying at 1080p. This is a use case that I myself am planning on doing, so it's not like it's going to be ultra niche to do it.

i mean, if you find ways to utilise it, you'll be able to do it yes

 

but is it worth it tho? that's up to the individual

100% more processing for close to not noticeable difference while running around

 

maybe for screenshots, but idk bout gameplay

[BTGbullseye]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

100% more processing for close to not noticeable difference while running around

 

maybe for screenshots, but idk bout gameplay

It very clearly visible. You're probably too young to remember when games weren't a fuzzy mess because of shader-level aliasing hiding system. Instead they were sharp enough to hurt your eyes. Then 2xSSAA came along, which is the same thing as renderscale at 200%. Now those jagged lines were much smoother. Then they made 4xSSAA, and there was nothing smoother. (that's 8k rendering if displaying at 1080p) These antialiasing options were available back in the Windows 95 days. They all but disappeared by the 2000's because no GPU could handle that quality when the games were in their prime. MSAA only does this for select triangles, so it's better, but not as good. It's also a massive GPU processing drag, so was not common to find after the 2010's when FXAA and the shader-level antialiasing craze began. Now we're getting GPU power that is able to do 2xSSAA again, and you're ignoring it completely, as if it's not as big of a deal as it actually is.

 

TL;DR: This is a MUCH bigger deal than you give it credit for.

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, BTGbullseye said:

This is a MUCH bigger deal than you give it credit for.

thing is, i wont notice a blade of grass is that much smoother when im busy shooting bad guys and aiming at my scope

 

it does make a difference, i know that, but it's not noticeable to me while im running around in the game

but hey, to each their own, some people might enjoy details of the game and sight see everyhing, if that's the case then you can consider if it's worth it.

[BTGbullseye]

5 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

thing is, i wont notice a blade of grass is that much smoother when im busy shooting bad guys and aiming at my scope

 

it does make a difference, i know that, but it's not noticeable to me while im running around in the game

but hey, to each their own, some people might enjoy details of the game and sight see everyhing, if that's the case then you can consider if it's worth it.

Yes, but your standard response of "not worth it at 1080p" is flat wrong to use. Present them with at least 1 use case (like mine) where it would be worth it. Don't just assume they don't care about the visual fidelity of their games.

[Moonzy]

8 minutes ago, BTGbullseye said:

Yes, but your standard response of "not worth it at 1080p" is flat wrong to use. Present them with at least 1 use case (like mine) where it would be worth it. Don't just assume they don't care about the visual fidelity of their games.

You could always justify the use of anything if that's the case, there's always something that doesn't apply to the general rule. But it's not a common use case, so I would assume op wouldn't go that route, as if he did he would probably mention it.

But I see your point.

[mexashe]

10 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

 

You're both forgetting that running at 200% renderscale will require the same amount of GPU power as 4k when displaying at 1080p. This is a use case that I myself am planning on doing, so it's not like it's going to be ultra niche to do it.

hmm thats actually smart. u think i wont be bottlenecked if i buy 3080 and use 1080p monitor?

[BTGbullseye]

8 hours ago, mexashe said:

hmm thats actually smart. u think i wont be bottlenecked if i buy 3080 and use 1080p monitor?

Only if not running everything with maximum settings, including rendering at higher resolution. (or SSAA if it's available in game)

[mexashe]

57 minutes ago, BTGbullseye said:

Only if not running everything with maximum settings, including rendering at higher resolution. (or SSAA if it's available in game)

Yeah i will set everything to highest untill gpu reaches 99-100 mark

[BTGbullseye]

Just now, mexashe said:

Yeah i will set everything to highest untill gpu reaches 99-100 mark

Yeah, 3080 would be just fine for that.

[charlie_c137]

I game at 1080 and have decided on the 3070. I don't think your going to get too much more performance from the 3080 than the 3070 at that resolution. If you decide to upgrade to a higher res than 3080 would be the way to go. Reviews are showing that's where it shines.

[Zenith_X1]

I posted this in another forum but it's worth posting it here as well.  JayZ2cents had a good summary in his 3080 review.  He points out that in many titles he found it harder to recommend the 3080 to gamers that aren't willing to also upgrade their CPU and GPU.  The other issue, however, is this image.  1080p AND 1440p getting bottlenecked in a CPU-intensive game by the current top tier 10900k...

 

If the games you run at high FPS have good CPU optimization then you might be okay, but if you're worried about bottlenecking for all games at 1080p...well you might want to hold off on any 3000 series purchases until Intel 11th gen and Ryzen 3 are announced.