144hz 1080p Overwatch gaming. Looking for video card and display recommendations

[IEC]

1080p need more aa than 1440p or 4k.

My 143.2 fps avg run was using the default Ultra preset of High - SMAA Medium. Which is perfectly fine for 1080p.

A RX 480 will almost certainly beat my R9 290 in performance, so OP could maybe even raise that setting if he wanted to and still hit his FPS target.

Now if he wants to do Epic settings with max everything, then he'll need a pair of 1080s, but the OP does appear to have a budget, so a 1080/Ti recommendation is pretty silly unless you are in the 1% of no compromise, must-have-the-absolute-best-now benchmarkers.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

My 143.2 fps avg run was using the default Ultra preset of High - SMAA Medium. Which is perfectly fine for 1080p.

A RX 480 will almost certainly beat my R9 290 in performance, so OP could maybe even raise that setting if he wanted to and still hit his FPS target.

Now if he wants to do Epic settings with max everything, then he'll need a pair of 1080s, but the OP does appear to have a budget, so a 1080/Ti recommendation is pretty silly unless you are in the 1% of no compromise, must-have-the-absolute-best-now benchmarkers.

no, the point is that there is not on the market a single overkill card for 1080p 144hz.

if you want 144 min fps.

there are tons of overkill cards for 1080p 60hz : all above the gtx 980 are OVERKILL for 1080p 60hz



to me: i can use a single 7970ghz on 1080p without any problem, great gaming experience with great visuals in OW and all BFs

 

[IEC]

Considering a RX 480 will likely have a min FPS of >120 fps at the settings I listed, he would literally be spending 3.25x the amount of $ for negligible performance gains at a negligible difference in graphical settings. That's definitely "overkill" in the context of the OP.

 

[sm625]

Considering a RX 480 will likely have a min FPS of >120 fps at the settings I listed, he would literally be spending 3.25x the amount of $ for negligible performance gains at a negligible difference in graphical settings. That's definitely "overkill" in the context of the OP.

It is overkill in any context, except the NVDA shareholder context. I swear it feels like 2006 mortgage bubble around here sometimes. Buy that 3500 sq foot mansion now! Even if you dont need the space, you can just flip it. A single 480 is all that is needed, but buying only what you need is out of style.

 

[kawi6rr]

BF1 will be using DX12, so I'd go for 480 at this point with a nice freesync monitor.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009910 maybe?

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync for the full list

+1 this here!

 

[Nhirlathothep]

amd bias here.
out

 

[IEC]

amd bias here.
out

If there was a comparable $200 nVidia card releasing in the next few weeks I would definitely recommend that card. However, there isn't.

I've presented objective facts, data, and reasoned speculation as to why a RX 480 will meet the OP's stated desires while costing him 3.25x less than the GTX 1080.

If money was no object, then sure, get the 1080. It is the best single GPU solution out there, bar none at the moment.

To write all of this off as "AMD bias" is laughable.

For the record, I am an NVDA shareholder and I *love* what nVidia has done for their shareholders with the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080. Not only must their profit margins be high due to the increased pricepoints vis-a-vis GTX 970 and 980, they are in a performance bracket that is currently uncontested by AMD. I'd expect a great couple of quarters in their GPU business simply from that.

However, that will not stop me from recommending the best fit for a particular OP. This is strictly an optimization problem and as we say in engineering, pick any two: good, fast, or cheap.

 

[sirmo]

@IEC +1

can't argue with anything you wrote.

 

[Headfoot]

amd bias here.
out

lol

Yes, not buying a 1080 for the best running 2016 game so far is definitely AMD bias. Next you'll say buy a 1080 for CS GO. Or CS Source

 

[Midwayman]

I have a r9 290 and get 90-120ish typically on ultra settings with overwatch. RX 480 should be faster.

 

[Face2Face]

Yeah I totally forgot, during AMD's computex stream, they actually showcased BF1 as a premium DX12 game.

https://youtu.be/fBHYdoSYMZk?t=16m43s

Featuring Async Compute & DX12 mGPU support.

Noice!

So I'll be able to use my GTX 970 + RX 480 together in this game?

 

[Bacon1]

Noice!

So I'll be able to use my GTX 970 + RX 480 together in this game?

Probably, assuming they get it working well (DICE engine support is usually great, hell they pushed and helped create Mantle!)

Ashes is the first game with it working, sounds like Total War Warhammer will have MGPU support with its DX12 patch as well.

 

[ul256]

We don't know what settings AMD "considered" as "Max". acording to their numbers a 270X is doing 76, when according to other benches a 7950 (~ 270X in performance at stock give or take) is doing 40-50FPS, so we don't know how really the 480 will do, you need a 980 Ti to run it at max settings with locked 144FPS.

Meant to say ultra, not max. I was using the Techspot benchmarks as a reference and they are using ultra settings. Their results are very similar to AMD. Everything beyond a 970 is getting 140+ FPS in Overwatch. I guess your results are using the "epic" settings but this still seems like a huge difference.

 

[arandomguy]

Meant to say ultra, not max. I was using the Techspot benchmarks as a reference and they are using ultra settings. Their results are very similar to AMD. Everything beyond a 970 is getting 140+ FPS in Overwatch. I guess your results are using the "epic" settings but this still seems like a huge difference.

The problem with the Techspot results is that http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/

Benchmarking Overwatch accurately is a real problem because it's exclusively an online multiplayer game. Getting more than a dozen co-operative players on a map at the same time to carry out a series of benchmarks over two days isn't realistic. Therefore, we decided to test GPU performance using a custom map with no other players.
This saw me walk around an empty map for 60 seconds taking the exact same path each time using the same character. The Hollywood map was used though it wasn't selected for any particular reason.

This is the problem with a lot of gaming benchmarks and especially MP gaming benchmarks in that it is not at all representative of how the game actually is played.

For Overwatch in particular you need to consider the common and critical scenario of what happens to performance once you get all 12 players in one area firing off abilities all of which have effects.

 

[IEC]

The problem with the Techspot results is that http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/

This is the problem with a lot of gaming benchmarks and especially MP gaming benchmarks in that it is not at all representative of how the game actually is played.

For Overwatch in particular you need to consider the common and critical scenario of what happens to performance once you get all 12 players in one area firing off abilities all of which have effects.

Which was already answered by the data in my post from an actual 6v6 Temple of Anubis run:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38320315&postcount=23

Anything 290 class or higher (which the RX 480 should handily beat) should meet the required performance criteria.

 

[tracerit]

Appreciate all the responses, gave me some ideas on what to research more on.

I've stilled narrowed down the video card to an AMD card, just purely because all the Nvidia cards are out of my budget. So the 480 is still the one I'll be getting

Now onto the display. I ditched the idea of getting the ASUS 144hz VG248QE in my original post since it's an older display. I was set on the Nixeus VUE24A 144hz FreeSync but I just found out that FreeSync only works in Full Screen mode. Since I have dual monitors, I've been r unning Overwatch in borderless window mode since Overwatch can't handle dual monitors and alt tabbing back in and out which sucks.

Knowing that, I'll still benefit from the 144hz and the +100fps I'll get running Overwatch in borderless window mode right?

This is a bit of a side question but would running 1440p Freesync with 80fps yield similar gameplay experience as 1080p 144hz (non variable sync) with 130fps? Woujld The Freesync at 80fps will smooth out gameplay just like a playing at 1080p 130fps/144hz?

 

[Bacon1]

For overwatch you want maximum FPS, because the game simulation speed is directly tied to FPS.

https://youtu.be/nilBzupE4Cc?t=340

1000ms / fps = simulation value

I'd definitely go with a 1440p freesync monitor though, you can always lower settings / resolution, but you can't get better desktop resolution nicely