• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

This is why titans and TI's are not 'overkill' for 1080p

saintdefender

saintdefender

saintdefender

Associate
Joined
7 Dec 2008
Posts
757
Check out these benchmarks http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/

GTA V minium 46fps
The Witcher 3 Minimum 46FPS

Two of the most recent PC titles, and the next generation of games has only just begun.

It does grind my gears when people looking to get the best performance possible ask what card is recommended for 1080p, and people respond that the Titan or the 980TI is overkill for that resolution and to get a lesser card. There is no such thing as overkill and if these 2 recent games have shown, even the best single cards out there right now are struggling to reach a consistent, MINIMUM FPS of 60fps at 1080p of recent titles.

Problem is, because technology and graphics are constantly improving, we will never have a single card solution that can handle every single game that is thrown at them, with a minimum of 60fps.

So my advice in this situation? Get what you can afford based on what you want out of your games and if you can stretch to the more expensive cards, no reason not to, because it appears that not even the 970s and R9 290's are safe when it comes to maxing out these beastly titles. I understand that some people don't mind playing at 30fps, however if what your looking for is a solid 60fps then take my advice.


.
 
Last edited:
I believe the 980 Ti's are limited @ 1080p due to it's increased memory bandwidth. 2K upward is the way to get better performance from these cards? (Or so I read)

Could this be a factor?
 
Valenni said:
I believe the 980 Ti's are limited @ 1080p due to it's increased memory bandwidth. 2K upward is the way to get better performance from these cards? (Or so I read)

Could this be a factor?
Click to expand...

GPUS are coming with more memory out of the box as standard now, while this is a factor for higher resolutions, these higher end cards are still coming with more rops and higher texture rates then than the lesser ones, which will help at all resolutions.
 
Minimums at that res are CPU bottlenecked.

46fps minimums aint exactly bad though especially if you're using gsync or freesync, I prefer benchmarks that test the amount of time spent at that fps though.
 
saintdefender said:
Check out these benchmarks http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/

GTA V minium 46fps
The Witcher 3 Minimum 46FPS

Two of the most recent PC titles, and the next generation of games has only just begun.

It does grind my gears when people looking to get the best performance possible ask what card is recommended for 1080p, and people respond that the Titan or the 980TI is overkill for that resolution and to get a lesser card. There is no such thing as overkill and if these 2 recent games have shown, even the best single cards out there right now are struggling to reach a consistent, MINIMUM FPS of 60fps at 1080p of recent titles.

Problem is, because technology and graphics are constantly improving, we will never have a single card solution that can handle every single game that is thrown at them, with a minimum of 60fps.

So my advice in this situation? Get what you can afford based on what you want out of your games and if you can stretch to the more expensive cards, no reason not to, because it appears that not even the 970s and R9 290's are safe when it comes to maxing out these beastly titles. I understand that some people don't mind playing at 30fps, however if what your looking for is a solid 60fps then take my advice.


.
Click to expand...

The problem with your analysis is that you seem to think 4xMSAA should be standard.
 
Ayahuasca said:
Minimums at that res are CPU bottlenecked.

46fps minimums aint exactly bad though especially if you're using gsync or freesync, I prefer benchmarks that test the amount of time spent at that fps though.
Click to expand...

Newer CPUS are only improving so much, even a 2500k is still ranked as one of the top CPUS for gaming and thats how old now?

60-46 is a big drop, something you will feel. Whereas I don't know much about G Sync, not everyone has it and if it does help reduce the slow down you feel during these drops, that is pretty decent. Though again, many without this.
 
saintdefender said:
I just analyse it based on maximum settings. Not GPU Control Panel trickery.
Click to expand...

Trickery? Their benchmarks of GTA V were using 'Max' settings and 4x MSAA. C'mon bro.

That said, I do agree that a 980 Ti isn't a bad buy at all for 1080p, purely for even more eye-candy along with increased longevity.
 
I think they probably are overkill considering the price of them compared to lower end cards and multi gpu setups for a similar cost. I expect that new amd fury thing will probably be very good for high frame rates with low minimums at 1080p though. Even the colour of it matches those 144hz monitors :D
 
Mayh3M said:
Trickery? Their benchmarks of GTA V were using 'Max' settings using 4x MSAA. C'mon bro.

That said, I do agree that a 980 Ti isn't a bad buy at all for 1080p, purely for even more eye-candy along with increased longevity.
Click to expand...

I know, I am saying if games are giving us the option for 4x MSAA then that is standard in my opinion. People want to max these games out, not fiddle about trying to find the sweet spot. Just proves our point, these cards are not overkill.
 
To be fair GTAV does look very rough at 1080p without 4xMSAA though. At 4K FXAA does me fine on GTAV. It's strange because GTAIV had no AA but 5 looks a lot rougher without it.
 
At 1080p you need more than 4xMSAA to remove the jaggies. Depends on monitor size as well.

4xMSAA is not a standard, it depends entirely on the game, some allow even higher, some have better or worse jaggies with the same setting as another game.
 
Last edited:
saintdefender said:
It does grind my gears when people looking to get the best performance possible ask what card is recommended for 1080p, and people respond that the Titan or the 980TI is overkill for that resolution and to get a lesser card. There is no such thing as overkill and if these 2 recent games have shown, even the best single cards out there right now are struggling to reach a consistent, MINIMUM FPS of 60fps at 1080p of recent titles.

Problem is, because technology and graphics are constantly improving, we will never have a single card solution that can handle every single game that is thrown at them, with a minimum of 60fps.
Click to expand...

Whilst I generally agree that enough is a feast for a fool, it does still seem a little bit of a waste sticking £550+ worth of GPU hardware onto a comparatively low resolution monitor. Additionally, I feel that the 'everything at maximum settings' is something of an affectation as it's invariably one or two settings that cause a huge hit on the GPU. If you drop these settings from 'super dooper mega ultra' down to merely 'super dooper', then the fps shoots up and you have to be really squinting with the game on pause to see any difference.

If you have a 1080p monitor, you're really *are* wasting money getting a Titan X as you'll see much better visual results spending a little bit more on a 980ti and a decent 1440p monitor. Even if you have to run one setting a couple of notches from max.
 
There are multiple settings in GTA V that you can turn down one notch and gain 5-10fps though, without sacrificing any noticable degree of visual fidelity. I agree that if you simply must have every slider all the way up and can't live with yourself otherwise then you can bring a Titan X to its knees at 1080p, but it's not necessary. You can get 90% of the experience for 25% of the price.
 
mulpsmebeauty said:
Whilst I generally agree that enough is a feast for a fool, it does still seem a little bit of a waste sticking £550+ worth of GPU hardware onto a comparatively low resolution monitor. Additionally, I feel that the 'everything at maximum settings' is something of an affectation as it's invariably one or two settings that cause a huge hit on the GPU. If you drop these settings from 'super dooper mega ultra' down to merely 'super dooper', then the fps shoots up and you have to be really squinting with the game on pause to see any difference.

If you have a 1080p monitor, you're really *are* wasting money getting a Titan X as you'll see much better visual results spending a little bit more on a 980ti and a decent 1440p monitor. Even if you have to run one setting a couple of notches from max.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and its invariably anti-aliasing. Turn down x4 MSAA to x2 and suddenly your minimums should increase by 10 FPS+.

It's interesting though others saying 1080p doesn't look good without 4x MSAA in GTA V. Playing at 3440x1440 with FXAA looks superb. I guess you take things for granted once you play at a higher resolution for any long period of time.
 
This is what I just got on a stock EVGA SC TX
The Witcher 3 maxed
1080p

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
14274, 220094, 53, 80, 64.854

I don't think I would like to play the game maxed @1080p as it looks very rough compared to 2160p maxed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom