gtx 970 enough for 144hz 1080 p ?

[kage65]

I want to get a 1080p 144 hz monitor. My pc is a i7 2600 with a gtx 970. Is this enough for 144hz playing pubg ? I would build a brand new pc but can't with the shortage of the new graphics cards. Tks

[AnalogCanavity]

It should do fine, make sure temps are good (below 70 C) and try overclocking

[RAM555789]

No, even with a 1080Ti and i7-8700l overlocked its average is 141. The 970 should be able to hit around 50-60fps.

 

[dizmo]

Not at max settings. At low? Maybe.

144hz isn't easy to run, even at 1080p unless you're trying to run something like CS:GO or some potato title like that.

Welcome to the forum.

[Shreyas1]

On low settings maybe

 

my 1070 can barely keep up in less demanding games at 144 hz

 

[JoostinOnline]

5 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

On low settings maybe

 

my 1070 can barely keep up in less demanding games at 144 hz

 

Upgrading to a 6700k would do a lot more for you.

[Canada EH]

Who really cares about 70fps vs 100+ fps

Its all the same to me.

970 is fine!

[Shreyas1]

2 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Upgrading to a 6700k would do a lot more for you.

K series processors would be useless as my mobo does not support ocing 

[Shreyas1]

1 minute ago, Canada EH said:

Who really cares about 70fps vs 100+ fps

Its all the same to me.

970 is fine!

70-100 maybe...

 

but you clearly have never seen 144hz

[Canada EH]

5 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

seen

my eyesight is bad

 

 

 

[CostcoSamples]

Your setup will do OK.  A lot of people think you have to be pinned at 144 fps to fully enjoy your display.  Not true.  You'll adjust settings to get a satisfying balance of quality and speed.  

 

Your next upgrade should probably be CPU

 

[JoostinOnline]

18 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

K series processors would be useless as my mobo does not support ocing 

A 6700k is still a hell of a lot better than a 6700.   So no, it wouldn't be useless.  But I was just making an upgrade suggestion.  Even if you had 1080 Ti SLI, an i5-6500 will still prevent you from getting a steady 144hz.  Unless you turn down a lot of physics settings of course.

[Shreyas1]

1 hour ago, Canada EH said:

my eyesight is bad

 

 

For me I can only really notice the effects in loading and menu screens, in the actual game I'm too focused on what's going on. 

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Shreyas1 said:

For me I can only really notice the effects in loading and menu screens, in the actual game I'm too focused on what's going on. 

I wish I'd never bought a 144hz monitor.  Like seriously, I'm angry about it.  When I got it, I couldn't tell a difference except in side by side tests.  Then my eyes got used to it.  30fps used to look decent to me.  Now it looks like a flipbook, and makes me sick at my stomach.  60fps looks okay, but it doesn't look entirely fluid anymore.

[kage65]

Tks in this case can you alll make a recommendation on a build that will run a 144 hz 1440p monitor well?

[Streetguru]

2 hours ago, kage65 said:

I want to get a 1080p 144 hz monitor. My pc is a i7 2600 with a gtx 970. Is this enough for 144hz playing pubg ? I would build a brand new pc but can't with the shortage of the new graphics cards. Tks

High end systems struggle to get 60fps in PUBG lol

But it''ll be fine, just don't waste money on G-sync, your CPU is more of a "bottleneck" for 144hz gaming

[Streetguru]

3 minutes ago, kage65 said:

Tks in this case can you alll make a recommendation on a build that will run a 144 hz 1440p monitor well?

What budget/country? Because you can't buy a GPU that will do 1440p 144hz well right now, new GPUs are coming soon

[kage65]

USA. I'm willing to spend up to 3k

 

[Roman848]

8 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I wish I'd never bought a 144hz monitor.  Like seriously, I'm angry about it.  When I got it, I couldn't tell a difference except in side by side tests.  Then my eyes got used to it.  30fps used to look decent to me.  Now it looks like a flipbook, and makes me sick at my stomach.  60fps looks okay, but it doesn't look entirely fluid anymore.

I had this with 60fps. I used to play with gtx 960 4gb and was very keen on having very high/ultra graphics than targeting on 60fps, when i got my 1070 60fps on every game on ultra was at least for me pretty badass, now when i try to go for 60 fps on Kingdom Come Deliverance on Ultra, i cant, i just need those 60FPS !!!

[Darkseth]

Well, even with an Intel IGP you can run ANY Game in ANY resolution in 144 Hz. Where is the Problem? Just set the Monitor to 144 Hz, and start the game.

 

Hz and fps are 2 entirely different things.

 

Is your GTX 970 enough for a 144 Hz Monitor? Sure. But what is enough for you? 30 fps? 60 fps? 144 fps? At what settings?

 

 

 

Before you buy a new PC, first find out of your CPU is even a significant Bottleneck? Does your CPU deliver not enough fps somewhere? (use 640p Resolution without anti aliasing and ambient occlusion. That's how much fps your CPU can deliver kinda. Easy trick to find out what your CPU is capable of).

Anything else with higher settings is for the GPU then.

 

I would just upgrade to a GTX 1080~ (if decent price. Maybe 1070 ti), both are a solid upgrade. And then see how it runs your games. Then see where your biggest bottleneck lies, and if you can work around that.

 

If you NEVER get enough fps, then you can think about spending more for a CPU upgrade.

 

9 hours ago, Streetguru said:

High end systems struggle to get 60fps in PUBG lol

But it''ll be fine, just don't waste money on G-sync, your CPU is more of a "bottleneck" for 144hz gaming

And i say, save up for a G_Sync monitor. It's not a waste, it's the by FAR best invention for gamers in the past decade. G-Sync is the reason your Games will look perfectly smooth, no matter if you have 144 fps or 80 fps. Who cares, if fps aren't as high, or don't hit 100. You have G-Sync. You won't have any tearing or stuttering. Just clean, smooth motions.

For me, i can't play without G-Sync anymore, as none of my Games can be made smooth at all. they ALL have some micro stuttering / tearing going on, it's not possible to get it away. Except 145+ min-fps and V-Sync on. GL with that.

 

The CPU beeing more a bottleneck in high fps / high refresh situations has NOTHING to do with what G-Sync is, and how it works.

 

If even, that is another reason to get G-Sync. Because if your CPU struggles to maintain 144 fps at all times, G-Sync smoothes out the fluctuating frametimes alot.

[Streetguru]

2 hours ago, kage65 said:

USA. I'm willing to spend up to 3k

 

Just wait until April for Ryzen 2 chips, and by that time new GPUs should be announced or released.

 

Or buy a 1950X now if you just want to have fun with a 16 core chip.

[Streetguru]

1 hour ago, Darkseth said:

 

You could just save a bunch of money with free-sync generally. And at 144hz screen tearing is less noticeable.

Also depends on the person if you ever even notice screen tearing in the first place.

[Darkseth]

21 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

You could just save a bunch of money with free-sync generally. And at 144hz screen tearing is less noticeable.

Also depends on the person if you ever even notice screen tearing in the first place.

Depends.

Freesync Monitors do cost less than G-Sync, that's true.

However, G-Sync is the higher quality technology. Higher quality standards / guidelines, can hold high refresh rates more stable, and gives a similar overall experience, no matter what model.

With Freesync, you can have a bad Freesync Implementation or better one. Some problems, and of course, often a not very optimal Min-max Freesync Range.

G-Sync works down to 1 fps without problems, because Frame doubling (basicly LFC) is included in every single G-Sync monitor. The 30 Hz is wrong, because it 100% does work below that^^"

 

And, the main point at the Moment: AMD Cards are much more expensive. Example a few Weeks ago: A GTX 1080 did cost in germany 650€. A similar speed Vega 64 did cost 950€. Both as cheapest in stock custom model.

And on top of that, Vega consumes MUCH more power.

 

With this, a GTX 1080 + G-Sync is like 150-200 bucks cheaper than Vega 64 + Freesync. And consumes much less power.

 

So it's always worth comparing prices, at least as long Mining isn't over.

 

right now btw:

GTX 1080: 680-690€~

Vega 64: 899€

That's over 200€ difference. G-Sync is usually less than 200€ extra.

 

 

 

And agree. In 144 Hz Tearing is much less noticeable compared to 60 Hz.

And it depends on the person.

I can still see it. It's not very distracting anymore, and everything is playable. But with G-Sync, it's still noticeably smoother for me.

[BarackOBatman]

13 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

Upgrading to a 6700k would do a lot more for you.

13 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

K series processors would be useless as my mobo does not support ocing 

FYI,

 

You would need a new motherboard and RAM to upgrade to this anyhow, so even if you 'did' want to upgrade, you w

ould want to be sure to get a Z170 board (which supports OC)