I don't really see the point in high end GPUs

[dylan43270]

I understand wanting higher FPS for 144hz monitors, or running multi monitors, but for 1080p with one monitor there is no real reason for needing a better card than a r9 270x. I have 2 r9 270x's crossfired, and honestly I do not even need to use the second one on most games to get 60 fps on ultra for games. I guess its okay for bragging rights and if money is no option, but it kinda seems like a diminishing return after you are already getting 60 fps on ultra settings.

[Jodomcfrodo]

Thats why you don't use a 1080p 60Hz monitor on a high end card. A new monitor is my next upgrade after a surface 3.

[Excon]

Get a monitor more fitting. Also some people like to go longer without upgrading

[Dude]

Because they last longer than mid and low range cards and as such they suit entheusiasts better. Also, I see much more value in paying a large sum for something that will last me several years as opposed to paying a smaller sum for something that will last me four years tops.

[Bogica]

Buying high end means it will run for 3 years before it's due for an upgrade at 1080p for sure. I mean my 465 ran fine for 3 years maxing out most games at 1080p and it's not even high end. So you either have a high res monitor or you need the horsepower for rendering purposes or as you said braging rights.
For 1080p maxed out a R9 270/x is more than good enough, I confirm.

[silberdrachi]

The card you get is more directly proportional to the games performance on your monitor set up than how "hard" a game is to run.

 

There is no point in getting 200fps on a 60hz screen, but you must be mindful that adding more screens or increasing the resolution will cause a non-linear increase in graphics power needed to run the set up.

 

In short: you are right that for most people a 270x on a 1x1080p60fps setup is enough, but i have 2 or 3x 1440p screens, and so need my 290x

[jezza39]

Because E-peen, higher FPS, better graphical fidelity and longer upgrade cycles

[AlwaysFSX]

If have the the money to but four Titans, why the hell not? It pushes the industry to make better looking games and better performing hardware. If everyone went by your logic then games would be "enough" instead of "the best" as they should be.

[dylan43270]

Thats why you don't use a 1080p 60Hz monitor on a high end card. A new monitor is my next upgrade after a surface 3.

I don't really see a noticeable difference between 1080p and 1440p. I haven't personally seen a 4k monitor so I can't judge for the superior quality of it, but until the prices come down, and more games support it it seems like 1080p is still the best way to go.

[Jodomcfrodo]

I don't really see a noticeable difference between 1080p and 1440p. I haven't personally seen a 4k monitor so I can't judge for the superior quality of it, but until the prices come down, and more games support it it seems like 1080p is still the best way to go.

You're just saying whats the point in buying better stuff...

[ShadowCaptain]

I understand wanting higher FPS for 144hz monitors, or running multi monitors, but for 1080p with one monitor there is no real reason for needing a better card than a r9 270x. I have 2 r9 270x's crossfired, and honestly I do not even need to use the second one on most games to get 60 fps on ultra for games. I guess its okay for bragging rights and if money is no option, but it kinda seems like a diminishing return after you are already getting 60 fps on ultra settings.

 

Please go play Crysis 3, BF4, Watch Dogs, Arma 3, Max Payne 3, Metro at 1080p Ultra and tell me what FPS you get on a single 270x

 

No way can a single R9 270x Max out AAA titles on ultra even at just 1080, and its utterly useless above that!

 

I have a 780ti so I can play games on Ultra at 1440p at 60fps

[silberdrachi]

I don't really see a noticeable difference between 1080p and 1440p. I haven't personally seen a 4k monitor so I can't judge for the superior quality of it, but until the prices come down, and more games support it it seems like 1080p is still the best way to go.

 

This depends what you are using it for, as someone who programs all day the increased screen real estate is amazing. I am not buying it because of the supposed increase in fidelity or PPI or whatever, the density doesnt increase enough going from 1080p to 1440p at 27in to matter that much.

[dylan43270]

Because they last longer than mid and low range cards and as such they suit entheusiasts better. Also, I see much more value in paying a large sum for something that will last me several years as opposed to paying a smaller sum for something that will last me four years tops.

On AMD's side I can see a 270x lasting longer than a 290x since 290x's are more prone to overheating.

[lachyman]

Tell that to Witcher 3, Crysis 3, Star Citizen, AC Unity, The Division, maybe GTA V and BF4 in some situations.

[ShadowCaptain]

On AMD's side I can see a 270x lasting longer than a 290x since 290x's are more prone to overheating.

 

What? that is stupid, the 290.290x have better coolers than the 270x, they are built to the same standards and quality and should last the exact same amount of time

 

I don't see the point of low end hardware, its only there because people cannot afford better hardware, (basically what you are saying just the other way around)

 

EDIT:

 

Please tell me what games you are getting 60fps on Ultra on a single R9 270x?

[Trik'Stari]

I'm more than willing to admit I want a quad sli setup just because it looks cool.

[m_tieu]

I run games at high or ultra with a 4k monitor and without 2 780ti in sli, it wouldn't be able to run at 60fps. There are also other uses for high end graphics cards apart from gaming such as hardware accelerated video encoding. Plus higher quality parts are often used when manufacturing higher end cards.

[dylan43270]

What? that is stupid, the 290.290x have better coolers than the 270x, they are built to the same standards and quality and should last the exact same amount of time

 

I don't see the point of low end hardware, its only there because people cannot afford better hardware, (basically what you are saying just the other way around)

 

EDIT:

 

Please tell me what games you are getting 60fps on Ultra on a single R9 270x?

Crysis 3 is different subject when it comes to a single 270x. It is possible to get 60fps in Ultra in both BF4 and Metro as long as your AA is at 4x instead of 16x. Watch Dogs I am still having dips in FPS when crossfired and is not very optimized.

 

I guess I am looking at it in the best bang for the buck perspective, but that does not mean that I am looking at it in a way that is most cheap. If you are running a game at 60fps at it's highest settings, why would someone spend double that price for for the few games that don't? Most people are still using 1 1080p monitor, and for that I do not see the point in a higher card than a 270x.

[ShadowCaptain]

 

Crysis 3 is different subject when it comes to a single 270x. It is possible to get 60fps in Ultra in both BF4 and Metro as long as your AA is at 4x instead of 16x. Watch Dogs I am still having dips in FPS when crossfired and is not very optimized.

 

I guess I am looking at it in the best bang for the buck perspective, but that does not mean that I am looking at it in a way that is most cheap. If you are running a game at 60fps at it's highest settings, why would someone spend double that price for for the few games that don't? Most people are still using 1 1080p monitor, and for that I do not see the point in a higher card than a 270x.

 

 

I agree if you are getting 60fps at 1080p, then you do not need to spend more, but I stand by saying a single r9 270x will not max out all current games at at 1080p 60fps on Ultra, and there is a long list of games that it cannot run on max settings

 

half the games on here do not run at 60fps 1080p Ultra

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_270X_Gaming/20.html

 

Generally higher end cards guarantee every single game will run with the highest fidelity at smooth frame rates, they are necessary for higher resolutions, high refresh rates and multi-monitor setups, and help with video/photo editing work loads

 

That is why higher end cards exist, plus as far as longevity goes a card like a 270x will run out of steam very quickly and will have to be replaced sooner compared to a higher tier card

 

IMO a single r9 270x is enough enough for 1080p, I would say An R9 280x or GTX 770 would be the sweet spot where performances are maxed out at 1080p

 

You will see this recommended many times on the forum

[silberdrachi]

Most people are still using 1 1080p monitor, and for that I do not see the point in a higher card than a 270x.

 

 

That right there is the whole story though. The average user ISNT buying those high end cards, and i think you might be skewing your perspective by seeing what people on a tech blog use and think.

 

On average most people arent buying 780tis and 290xs, they are enthusiast parts that enthusiasts buy. And yes some people do stupid stuff and buy gpus that are way over powered for what they need, but thats more often because they dont know better than any other reason.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Game engines are not always 100% working effectively to get the power from your hardware.

So more = better

Experienced FPS drops in your time with your 270x? <- this is why IMO MINFPS above 50fps is important for so many people.

MP games, I'd rather it NEVER go below 50fps, I like em fast and fluid at ALL times.

 

1080p can be overkill, but the worse a game is (ported) the higher GPU's come into play.

Games will only ever become more demanding in time also. Which is why 1080p and a 290/780 isn't actually overkill, its a perfect sweet spot for framedrops and maintaining higher average fps.

If your comfy with 60fps at ultra with framedrops below it then thats good for you, but I don't like it under 50fps EVER.

And of course, every person has different feels on what they are comfy with.

[Kryptyx]

I don't see how you can't see the difference between 1080p and 1440p. I can tell the difference between a 1080p and 1440p on my phone (barely, but still) and that is only 5.5 inches!

[dylan43270]

I don't see how you can't see the difference between 1080p and 1440p. I can tell the difference between a 1080p and 1440p on my phone (barely, but still) and that is only 5.5 inches!

 

1440p has been nothing but scaling issues and lower framerates for my ultrabook. 

 

Maybe I just don't have an eye for seeing the difference.

 

I thank you all for your feedback, but I personally will stick to my setup until decent 4k monitors are more affordable.

[I/O]

The point is that with high end you can crank the setting to ULTRA ULTRA with super sample AA plus edge detect for AMD cards and have a flawless looking game with virtually perfect crispness with no jaggies @ 60fps min and 1080P.

[Briggsy]

I don't see a reason to pay 1000-2000 dollars a year at a coffee shop every morning, instead of making my own coffee. some people do. I personally would rather put that money aside and build a new rig every year or two, but most people could care less.

 

perspective is a bee with an itch.