• 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.

Can we let the overkill logic die? (Rant)

saintdefender

saintdefender

saintdefender

Associate
Joined
7 Dec 2008
Posts
757
EDIT: This was mean't for the graphics card section, sorry for the miss post.

It bothers me a touch when I see someone ask a simple question such as "is 1080 or 1080ti" good enough for 1080p and the replies are "Overkill, go much lower". Why does it bother me? Because only 2 years ago (if that) were people saying the 980ti is overkill for 1080p and now those same people recommend it!

Fact is, not even the 1080ti can handle above 100 fps in ALL games on ULTRA settings, just to name a few:

  • Ghost Recon Wildlands
  • Shadow of War
  • Destiny 2

These games, while run very very decent and well above 60fps in MOST instances these games can STILL choke even the best cards such as 1080 and 1080ti when theres a lot of action going on screen at the most ultra settings, let alone 144fps.

I guess what i'm getting at here is there are games out there right now, and many more to come that will and do struggle to run games at ultra settings at high fps 100% of the time, even if it just means the odd drops every now and then. So to call a graphics card overkill for 1080p resolution I think is ignorant. I guarantee you this time next year there will be people saying that the latest and greatest is overkill and the 1080ti is sufficient for 1080p.

I am sorry for this rant, I just think if someone requests to run games at 144hz fps in 1080p and wants to know if x card will do that, I don't think its fair for us to say that's overkill and you should drop down, because at the end of the day it simply isn't true. 144hz 1080p is extremely difficult to hit in modern games at 1080p, nothing is overkill.
 
Depends on budget, if you have money to burn then sure a ti is fine, but a 70 or 80 is great too, a 970 still kicks butt at 1080p :-D
 
Because most gamers don't care if their game runs at over 60FPS at 1080p,by the fact most have 60HZ screens,and with FreeSync and GSync as they become more popular also compensates for framerate drops to a degree. Also plenty of gamers don't mind dropping settings,so even if they want better FPS they can drop settings if required.

PC gaming is NOT expensive,but trying to run games maxed out at 100FPS+ is expensive in comparison,as you will need to invest in a decent CPU too.
 
saintdefender said:
It bothers me a touch when I see someone ask a simple question such as "is 1080 or 1080ti" good enough for 1080p and the replies are "Overkill, go much lower". Why does it bother me? Because only 2 years ago (if that) were people saying the 980ti is overkill for 1080p and now those same people recommend it!
Click to expand...

Whenever an arbitrary marker of performance is reached another will be created to replace it.

The perfection of reaching the new target will be defended more heavily than the old one.

And repeat.
 
I get your point (just about). Would it be acceptable to you if instead of saying "it's overkill", the answer would be, "sure you could spend £700, but the noticeable difference in games will be tiny in comparison to a £400 option"? For most people, that can be summed up as overkill ;)
 
Isn't it purchase rationalisation that normally means that we accept the e.g. 1080Ti once a new thing comes along, as by then loads of people have already bought expensive cards? :D

Honestly, overkill is a reasonable term to describe very high-end GPUs for people interested in a good playing experience. For those interested in maxing every possible option then they can be pushed hard though. (Even the term 1080p stops having meaning given you can choose to render things at much higher res then downscale if you want!)

If someone asks to run games at high refresh rates at a given res it's better to give them an idea of what card might do this most of the time and then talk about the exceptions, rather than say only the fastest possible card is worth considering because there are some odd exceptions where ultra has some silly settings.
 
Last edited:
So I think we've decided that overkill is totally subjective, just like every other opinion, so all "recommend me..." threads should also be killed off ;)
 
Hotwired said:
Whenever an arbitrary marker of performance is reached another will be created to replace it.

The perfection of reaching the new target will be defended more heavily than the old one.

And repeat.
Click to expand...
Indeed, 100 FPS at ultra settings is a bit of an arbitrary goal and most people aren't willing to spend £700+ on a GPU. Only until very recently, 1080p 60 FPS was the goal for most semi-serious gamers. It's only because of monitor technology finally moving on from that to 144-240 Hz, 1440p, 2160p, and ultrawide that current GPU technology is a bit lacking. If we still had the 1080p 60 Hz goal, which let's face it is still by far the most popular monitor type out there, then all the higher end GPUs would indeed be "overkill", at least for the next couple of years.

Personally, when playing FPSs I notice "slowdown" below around 70 FPS. If you asked me whether the current FPS was 80 or 120 I'm not sure I could tell.
 
While I would say overkill isn't really a thing.

A 1080Ti for 1080p is a bit of a waste as it's very likely you will be getting near on identicle performance at 1440p due to cpu bottlenecks.

Destiny 2 for example goes from 170fps to 152fps (1080p-1440p) and that's while using a heavily overclocked 7700k as best scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom