165Hz 1440p gaming gpu?

[Darkseth]

1080 is good, as a bang for buck solution. Price is very appealing right now (1070 is too expensive because of Mining, 1080 ti is a good 200-250 bucks more. But well, it delivers 30-40% more performance), and 1080 is perfectly fine, if you can reduce Settings a bit.

 

I use a GTX 1080 with a similar Monitior (just TN and 24"). But yea, if you expect 165 fps in Ultra settings, not even 2 GTX 1080 ti will be enough

In GR Wildlands i have to turn settings DOWN, in order to reach around 60 fps~. In Ultra my GTX 1080 only manages about 45-50 fps by just walking around in the woods. A 1080 ti would have 30-35% more fps then... 70-85 fps maybe... if very Lucky. still VERY far away from 165 fps.

However: Thanks to G_Sync, no problems. No Tearing/Stuttering --> perfectly smooth.

 

Thanks to G-Sync you donÄt need 144 fps, or 165 fps. find your own sweet spot for every game, between Graphic quality and fps.

 

For example, i play Witcher 3 in Ultra in 75-80 fps, because that's more than enough. I could reduce settings and get more fps. But i want the eyecandy more (since it's a beautiful game), and it doesn't benefit that much from 140 fps, instead 80 fps.

 

So yea, to answser your questions:

 

- a 2nd 970 would be the most stupid choice you could do. You only get the shitty Sli experience, with bad scaling, alot of heat, driver problems, and you keep 3.5gb Vram, which will be very VERY limiting in 1440p.

Sli with older / weaker cards was a stupid idea 15 years ago, and it's still a stupid idea ;-) It's NOT cost efficient, it was never. You are more likely to waste more money, than you save. Because you might hold on for a few more years, and then you have to sell 2 970s instead of 1. And then, 2 will be worth less, than 1 today --> Wasted Money, and only Problems.  In Worse case, you get negative performance gains, because sli scaling is so bad.

 

- GTX 1070... Only 50-60% faster than a 970. And in 1440p / high/ultra settings, more a 60 fps Card for that resolution~.

 

- You should go with a  GTX 1080 (which should double your fps). Nice 8gb Vram, good performance, and price at the moment. Should fit well with your Monitor (if you don't need the absolute max fps you could ever get, or you don'Ät mind tweaking settings a bit).

 

- If you have the Money, and are a Graphic whore, get a good 1080 ti. You can't have too much Graphic power, that is simply NOT possible (unless you paly extremely Old games).

However, with a high Refresh Monitor, and a GTX 1080 - 1080 ti, your i7 2600k will probably bottleneck the max fps.

 

- Overclock your i7 2600k as much as you can. And see if it delivers enough fps. If it does, get GTX 1080 or 1080 ti, depending on your Budget.

You might not be able to reach constant 165 fps, with that CPU, and depending on the Game (in some games, even an i7 7700k @ 5 ghz will NOT hold 165 fps stable, no matter what), but thanks to G-Sync that doesn't matter at all.

If your CPU bottlenecks your GPU (in case you take the super strong GTX 1080 ti), you can simply give the GPU more work --> higher settings, or simply DSR.

 

For any hard CPU Bottleneck, just go max DSR with x4.00 Factor, which will simulate a 5k Resolution (if native is 2560x1440).

My GTX 1080 can still deliver 150-160 fps in Bioshock 1 Remaster, when using 5k DSR on my WQHD Monitor. ^^ Great for older games.

[r3loAded]

10 hours ago, JaegerB said:

Read the discussion between stratguy and I (^above^) before saying things that have already been said please.

I did read that, right after I quoted your VEGA recommendation.

 

On ‎24‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:06 AM, JaegerB said:

I just mentioned the Vega since it's an alternative, and I don't want it to look like I'm giving a biased recommendation

There is no biased recommendation when a G-Sync monitor is present.

 

On ‎24‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:06 AM, JaegerB said:

So yeah, any day I'd recommend nvidia if you've got a g-sync monitor

There is no "if". He does have and he already stated that. So why making the VEGA recommendation in the first place?

 

Yeah, I might sound like a freak but I don't get people on this forum, not just you, why they need to be so off topic and feedback so far away from the topic's matter. Which in this case there is no other manufacturer to recommend than NVidia as the monitor is a g-sync one and that's the only manufacturer to be recommended. It's like someone has an AMD card you need a monitor and you recommend him a g-sync monitor just because of the other specs.

 

ON TOPPIC: OP, if you have the money go for GTX 1080Ti, go for it.So the you can have the best experience at this moment. If not just start to step down the tier but personally I wouldn't recommend going lower than GTX 1070. including.

As for the CPU, I would recommend something newer so it can keep up with the high refresh rate of your monitor.

 

Enjoy using that monitor. I got the same one as previously stated and it's a joy. Also it's a good "futureproof" monitor IMO.

[xsimplyjosh]

15 hours ago, JaegerB said:

Read the discussion between stratguy and I (^above^) before saying things that have already been said please.

Vega is crap imo i cant recommend it as an option. Expensive even for reference card, given most aib partners refusing or reluctant to release 3rd party ones

 

a 1080ti better imo like it or not. Im running the exact same monitor as him and im averaging 130-160fps on most of my games  on max settings as long >100fps im happy to be honest lol any lower and i start to cringe a tiny bit.

[xsimplyjosh]

That being said the pg279q is amazing. I love that monitor to death and it wont be changing anytime sooner... Considering hdr might hurt my eyes abit its a welcomed change.

 

i will also consider it futureproofing to the extent that my setup will follow also for a long time. imo the 1080ti is the only card you should pair with this monitor... given he had change for two nice monitors im sure the 1080ti is better off for him in the wrong one

 

i would be pissed if he handicapped himself with a 1070 or 1080 just to save a bit and lose some performance because the 1080ti is freaking amazing at 1440p, imo the SWEET SPOT now afaik... especially if he wants high framerate gaming.. theres no other option.

[Jon Jon]

2 hours ago, xsimplyjosh said:

That being said the pg279q is amazing. I love that monitor to death and it wont be changing anytime sooner... Considering hdr might hurt my eyes abit its a welcomed change.

 

i will also consider it futureproofing to the extent that my setup will follow also for a long time. imo the 1080ti is the only card you should pair with this monitor... given he had change for two nice monitors im sure the 1080ti is better off for him in the wrong one

 

i would be pissed if he handicapped himself with a 1070 or 1080 just to save a bit and lose some performance because the 1080ti is freaking amazing at 1440p, imo the SWEET SPOT now afaik... especially if he wants high framerate gaming.. theres no other option.

I agree with you here.

 

He will also be pushing his i7 2600k to it's limits here as well.

 

I think the 1080ti will last him for the remainder of this system's life. An upgrade passed a 1080ti will probably require a new CPU as well.

[pyrojoe34]

If you want to play at 1440p Ultra settings on modern games you need at least a 1080Ti or 2x1080. My 1080 (at Ultra settings) gets like 110fps in BF1, like 45fps in GR Wildlands, 60fps on PUBG, and like 80fps on Battlefront 2 beta. I turn a few settings from Ultra to high in Wildlands and PUBG to get a consistent >60fps but there's no way you'll max out most modern games at Ultra settings in 1440p and get 165Hz, even with a 1080Ti.

 

Having said that, a monitor with G-sync makes 60-100fps feel perfectly adequate and smooth imo. The G-sync really makes slower framerates feel a lot smoother than without g-sync. Even dropping to like 50fps still feels fine with G-sync.

[JaegerB]

12 hours ago, xsimplyjosh said:

Vega is crap imo i cant recommend it as an option.

I agree, it is total crap. I didn't really recommend it, just pointed it out as an option, as in some places it is cheaper/more available than nvidia cards.

[Princess Luna]

On 10/24/2017 at 3:03 AM, JaegerB said:

No. The i7 2600k with a slight overclock will still level or beat the 8600k. No need to buy a new one yet.

It no longer beats it but being fair in gaming they really still are very close.

[xsimplyjosh]

On 25/10/2017 at 10:49 PM, Jon Jon said:

I agree with you here.

 

He will also be pushing his i7 2600k to it's limits here as well.

 

I think the 1080ti will last him for the remainder of this system's life. An upgrade passed a 1080ti will probably require a new CPU as well.

Hmm see how first. Im running stock speed with auto boost i7 7700k (4.2ghz to 4.5ghz) on a game like destiny 2 and i get approx 165 frames average with High settings (120-140fps avg with HIGHEST settings ie graphics overkill) without much issue with a 1080ti. See how high he can oc his 2600k and monitor the frames if there isnt much change as the settings drol then most likely bottleneck of cpu but then again

 

if he maintains an average of 100fps min he will be utmostly fine. As the bare minimum i would say thats acceptable and amazing for some intensive games

 

good luck hope he gets the 165hz with a modest overclock with the new rig  if not >100hz is also fine in most cases