Ryzen 5 2600+1080ti vs 8700k+1080?

[Queen Chrysalis]

9 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

yea ofc, if you are a gamer thats prioritizing cranked up visual effects and image quality only while standing still instead of while moving, 60hz and the highest resolution possible are your go to. On which resolution are you playing? A 8150 should bottleneck a GTX1080 quite alot unless you are playing at 4k.

 

Everyone has its own favourites. I would prefer 1080p240hz gaming, unfortunately pubg is fps capped. So for this specific game i would use something like DSR if i would have a capable GPU. But this is only one game. 

Standing still?  Come on now.  60 frames looks great.  I've used my roommates 144hz and while it looks great, I prefer visual effects and see a lot more value vs barely noticeable improvements in smoothness. Also, 240?  Most monitors only go up to 144 (160 OC'd).  My monitor bottlenecks me to 60 frames anyway, so I'll go for the best image possible at 60 frames. But for most gamers coming from 30 fps consoles, 60 looks fantastic.  And if you read my signature I'm no longer using the 8150, that was just used as a reference.  I play at 1080p but I use my computer for a lot more than gaming.

[Biggerboot]

2 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

I mean, 60 frames looks great.  I've used my roommates 144hz and while it looks great, I prefer visual effects and see a lot more value vs barely noticeable improvements in smoothness. Also, 240?  Most monitors only go up to 144 (160 OC'd).  My monitor bottlenecks me to 60 frames anyway, so I'll go for the best image possible at 60 frames. But for most gamers coming from 30 fps consoles, 60 looks fantastic.  

  I agree with the visual argument, but it's latency too.  Not so important on every game but in some highly competitive shooters it may make a difference.  You don't need the high refresh rate monitor to get the benefit from the higher frames.

[Jumper118]

It is a very hard choice. It is a difficult choice for sure. I think I would lean more towards the 2600+1080ti just because I don't want to upgrade for a while and I think the performance of the gpu in the games will outweigh the loss from the cpu. 

 

I think 75hz is a nice jump over 60hz and manageable for the ryzen I think if it was 120 or 144hz I would consider the 8700k more.

 

Thanks for the advice people and thanks for not starting a fanboy war. This has been a sensible discussion compared to some other places I have posted this same topic!

[DarkSmith2]

2 minutes ago, Queen Chrysalis said:

I mean, 60 frames looks great.  I've used my roommates 144hz and while it looks great, I prefer visual effects and see a lot more value vs barely noticeable improvements in smoothness. Also, 240?  Most monitors only go up to 144 (160 OC'd).  My monitor bottlenecks me to 60 frames anyway, so I'll go for the best image possible at 60 frames. But for most gamers coming from 30 fps consoles, 60 looks fantastic.

Well every console game just looks blurry regardless of FPS/Hz just because they use alot of motion blur in those. Its low Hardware in consoles.

I get motion sick of console games, i cant even watch streams of people playing console.

 

1 minute ago, Biggerboot said:

  I agree with the visual argument, but it's latency too.  Not so important on every game but in some highly competitive shooters it may make a difference.

Low input lag always makes fun, does it always give you an advantage? -> no,

but for me its fun regardless of advantage. If i press a button or move a character and it moves when i press it instead of felt 0,5seconds later with blur its worh it for me.

[Biggerboot]

13 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

Low input lag always makes fun, does it always give you an advantage? -> no,

but for me its fun regardless of advantage. If i press a button or move a character and it moves when i press it instead of felt 0,5seconds later with blur its worh it for me.

For me I can't really tell the difference above 100fps, but it just may be my crappy reaction time.  That being said, I totally get the satisfaction of having things happen immediately as you do them.

[DarkSmith2]

16 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

For me I can't really tell the difference above 100fps, but it just may be my crappy reaction time.  But I totally get the satisfaction of having things happen immediately as you do them.

yea well, there are alot of diminishing returns when it comes to Hz/FPS, you might not notice the difference between 100FPS and 144FPS on a 144hz Monitor, but you'll for sure notice a difference between 200FPS+ instead of 100FPS on a 240Hz panel. Its a huge jump but still not as significant as from 60 to 144hz because 100Hz/fps+ does already remove a huge amount of blur and a decent amount of input lag.