GPU for Gaming at 144Hz 1080p High Details

[Thinker_145]

You own a i7 for 1080p with a 1070. Why didn't you buy an i5 instead?

The games OP plays most are made for wide availability and low end systems, so there is no need to spend so much more on a system that won't even be running @ 100% because its CPU bound by the game.

I listed both a 4GB and 8GB 480, 8GB is ~16% more expensive and it will provide almost no performance difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjTUtUF6gxg

OP doesn't need to run "max" settings, which means he can save a ton of money and have almost no IQ hit and won't have issues with a 4GB card @ 1080 for the type of games he plays.

A 1060 6GB would be a perfectly fine option for the OP (downside is losing freesync), but a 1070 just doesn't make sense for his use case.

I bought it because a high end CPU pays itself in the long run so whoever can afford it should buy it.

OP has already made it clear he would like to run at higher settings if he can.

The 1060 is the one which makes zero sense since you are giving up on free sync and gain nothing. With the 1070 you get to play at higher FPS and/or settings. Please show me how much limited the 6500 is at 1080p. The 1070 is already barely maxing out the latest AAA games with AA. One could always use SSAA if a CPU bottleneck presents an FPS cap. That way at least you get to enjoy immaculate IQ.

I am pretty certain the 6500 is capable of 100+ FPS in most current games so your point is moot anyways.

 

[Thinker_145]

Alternative , Sapphire Fury at 9200

More than enough for 1080p 144hz , spend the rest for a nice 24/27" 144Hz FreeSync monitor

A max OC 8GB 480 is barely slower than a max OC fury so it makes zero sense to give up on 100% more VRAM for 5-10% less performance.

 

[RussianSensation]

He's not going to only play those games, as he plainly said. So if he wants to get even close to 144hz in Witcher 3 he'll need a 1070 or faster. Not even mentioning new games that come out.

You cannot get 120-140 fps in The Witcher 3 on a single 1070 anyway. It's a pointless argument in this case. For a stock i5-6500 and desire to hit 120-144 FPS, GTX1070 is a waste of $ for the games described.

Your CPU is fine. Get a 1070, high refresh rate monitor and enjoy.

What? For those games, outside of The Witcher 3, a GTX1060 3GB or RX 480 4GB is more than enough. His CPU is actually going to bottleneck the GTX1070 when it comes to "144Hz gaming". Ideally he would need to overclock it via BCLK to 4.5-4.6Ghz.

Overkill? GTX 1070 is not overkill for 1080p144hz. With a free game the 1070 actually offers better pure value for money right now than the RX 480 so what hundreds of dollars he is saving?

Absolutely not. MSI Gaming RX 480 is only $180. There is no GTX1070 that even comes close to the price/performance. TPU has 1070 45-50% faster than RX 480. That means GTX1070 would need to cost $270 to have similar price/performance for 1080p. In OP's case, it's even worse since the extra performance of GTX1070 on an i5-6500 in those light games will NOT be noticed compared to the RX 480. So the 1070 is actually akin to flushing $ down the toilet.

 

[frowertr]

Buy a 1070 and be done with it. That is a massive upgrade from your 960 and it will handle 1080 with ease.

 

[Justforcause]

I have to step in. You just started arguing among each other and all I wanted was advice The games I play are just a short list of what I currently play. I am into wow now, or overwatch etc. but I can switch in 2-3 months to something completely else. There are new games coming out. What I want is as someone already stated to be ready for the future. And with 1070 I though I would be. As 1080 is almost double the price of 1070 and the performance boost is not weighted out by the increase in price so I thought 1070 would be the best price/perf ration and also serve me well in the future. Now I am honestly confused AF as I have no idea what is necessary what is overkill what is useless...

Edit: regarding settings, of course I want the best I can get so even Ultra if I can. But I am willing to give up settings in favour of high refresh rate.

 

[Bacon1]

The 1070 is already barely maxing out the latest AAA games with AA.

He isn't playing the latest AAA games with AA. He is playing mostly MOBA / ESport games. He clearly stated he doesn't need max settings in the OP.

Games that I play are Witcher 3, Xcom2, Overwatch, WoW, HOTS, and possibly other AAA games that are worth the time and are well optimised. But most my time I spend in WOW, HOTS and Overwatch. I would like to play on high details (ultra is not necessary).

I threw in the 1060 to show I'm not AMD biased, I'm trying to give him the best performance for the price and not have him needly waste money when he won't be gaining performance from it. Obviously the 480 is better buy over the 1060 since he wants a freesync monitor. 1070 is waste of money for him and will likely provide a worse experience since he won't have freesync available and he won't be using 100% GPU usage on the 1070.

http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2015/game-bench/fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-1080-u.png

https://youtu.be/s42gvVS77dU

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1180/bench/CPU_01.png

Yes OCing helps, but he is still starting way behind

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1180/bench/CPU_02.png

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/1180/bench/1080p.png

Overwatch isn't demanding game @ 1080p

 

[Thinker_145]

You cannot get 120-140 fps in The Witcher 3 on a single 1070 anyway. It's a pointless argument in this case. For a stock i5-6500 and desire to hit 120-144 FPS, GTX1070 is a waste of $ for the games described.



What? For those games, outside of The Witcher 3, a GTX1060 3GB or RX 480 4GB is more than enough. His CPU is actually going to bottleneck the GTX1070 when it comes to "144Hz gaming". Ideally he would need to overclock it via BCLK to 4.5-4.6Ghz.

So if the 1070 is not good enough for desired outcome imagine how much worse the 480 will be. You are talking as if one can either play at 144FPS or 60FPS and nothing in between lol.

So again you think these are the only games he will ever play? Seriously just stop....

 

[RussianSensation]

I have to step in. You just started arguing among each other and all I wanted was advice The games I play are just a short list of what I currently play. I am into wow now, or overwatch etc. but I can switch in 2-3 months to something completely else. There are new games coming out. What I want is as someone already stated to be ready for the future. And with 1070 I though I would be. As 1080 is almost double the price of 1070 and the performance boost is not weighted out by the increase in price so I thought 1070 would be the best price/perf ration and also serve me well in the future. Now I am honestly confused AF as I have no idea what is necessary what is overkill what is useless...

1070 is also double the price of the RX 480 and is only 50% faster. Your CPU is too weak for 144Hz gaming. Do you realize the bottleneck you will have with a stock i5-6500 and a GTX980Ti/1070 level card? Here look for yourself: i5-6400 vs. i5-6400 @ 4.66Ghz --> The bottleneck with a 980Ti/1070 level card is tremendous at 1080p for what you are trying to achieve "High FPS gaming"

i5-6400 vs i5-6400@4.66 in 10 games (980 Ti)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcDXfp095XE

GTA V
0:12 - 62 fps vs. 93 fps
0:15 - 49 fps vs. 70 fps
0:31 - 53 fps vs. 77 fps
etc.

Rise of the Tomb Raider
1:26 - 68 fps vs. 92 fps

The Witcher 3
1:51 - 59 fps vs. 75 fps
1:57 - 59 fps vs. 78 fps
2:31 - 57 fps vs. 79 fps
2:35 - 54 fps vs. 74 fps

Crysis 3
2:51 - 28-30 fps vs. 58-59 fps
2:52 - 26 fps vs. 60 fps (!)
2:57 - 39 fps vs. 65 fps
3:04 - 41 fps vs. 70 fps (!)
3:07 - 37 fps vs. 61 fps (!)
3:12 - 39 fps vs. 71 fps (!)
etc.

Arma 3
3:24 - 55 fps vs. 89 fps
3:32 - 58 fps vs. 89 fps
3:36 - 55 fps vs. 86 fps
3:37 - 47 fps vs. 71 fps (!)
3:39 - 68 fps vs. 115 fps

Batman AK
3:45 - 77 fps vs. 99-100 fps

Far Cry Primal
4:06 - 55-56 fps vs. 79-82 fps (!)
4:09 - 51 fps vs. 75 fps (!)

World of Tanks
4:30 - 68 fps vs. 107 fps
4:35 - 68 fps vs. 109 fps
4:45 - 69-70 fps vs. 110-114 fps
4:48- 67 fps vs. 106 fps
4:55 - 64 fps vs. 104 fps

Battlefield 4
5:11 - 115 fps vs. 145 fps
5:22 - 116 fps vs. 155 fps
5:25 - 108 fps vs. 162 fps

Rome 2
5:41 - 74 fps vs. 121 fps
5:42 - 70 fps vs. 110 fps
5:44-5:45 - 53-59 fps vs. 103-106 fps (!)
5:47-5:49 - 59 fps vs. 99-103 fps (!)
5:55 - 60-61 fps vs. 100 fps
6:11 - 60-61 fps vs. 93-98 fps
6:14 - 57 fps vs. 89 fps (!)
6:17 - 54 fps vs. 82 fps (!)
6:18 - 51 fps vs. 81 fps (!)
6:19 - 48 fps vs. 75 fps (!!)
etc.

In the context of GTX1070 and 100-144Hz 1080p gaming, i5-6500 is a MAJOR bottleneck. i5-6500 isn't even fast enough to maintain 60 fps minimums in many titles with a GTX1070/980Ti level videocard at 1080p.

So if the 1070 is not good enough for desired outcome imagine how much worse the 480 will be. You are talking as if one can either play at 144FPS or 60FPS and nothing in between lol..

No, you need to stop ignoring hard data. Because his CPU is a bottleneck, he will not see average 50% faster performance on 1070 against RX 480 on a 144Hz monitor. I linked a professional review proving this fact, now you need to provide hard data, instead of opinions. i5-6500 stock is not fast enough for 120-144Hz 1080p gaming with a GTX1070. In fact, it's such a bottleneck, that it's not even fast enough for 60 fps gaming. Your constant defense and pushing of GTX1070 while ignoring all the CPU bottlenecking is not an objective advice.

 

[Thinker_145]

You cannot get 120-140 fps in The Witcher 3 on a single 1070 anyway. It's a pointless argument in this case. For a stock i5-6500 and desire to hit 120-144 FPS, GTX1070 is a waste of $ for the games described.



What? For those games, outside of The Witcher 3, a GTX1060 3GB or RX 480 4GB is more than enough. His CPU is actually going to bottleneck the GTX1070 when it comes to "144Hz gaming". Ideally he would need to overclock it via BCLK to 4.5-4.6Ghz.



Absolutely not. MSI Gaming RX 480 is only $180. There is no GTX1070 that even comes close to the price/performance. TPU has 1070 45-50% faster than RX 480. That means GTX1070 would need to cost $270 to have similar price/performance for 1080p. In OP's case, it's even worse since the extra performance of GTX1070 on an i5-6500 in those light games will NOT be noticed compared to the RX 480. So the 1070 is actually akin to flushing $ down the toilet.

Nobody cares about pure price/perf of 4GB cards. To compare price/perf of different VRAM configurations with flat numbers is disingenuous at best.

 

[Thinker_145]

Edit: regarding settings, of course I want the best I can get so even Ultra if I can. But I am willing to give up settings in favour of high refresh rate.

Hmm I think this is the end of the thread no more debate is necessary. I will warn you that the AMD brigade will try their best to sell you the 480 but you seem smart enough to see the numbers for yourself.

Your CPU may sometimes restrict you from getting 144FPS but in those situations you can simply dial in ultra settings which WILL remove the CPU bottleneck in most AAA games. You can also ofcourse upgrade your CPU in the future.

Remember don't buy a 4GB card no matter what anyone says because you WILL regret it. Good luck and happy gaming.

 

[Headfoot]

He won't hit 144hz on his CPU no, and some games you can't hit 144hz no matter what CPU you have altogether. But the 1070 is faster and so whenever he would be GPU limited it will pull ahead. i5 6500 is pretty dang fast still so that will be a good portion of games. That's also taking into account decreasing CPU requirements / increasing threading due to DX12 as lifting back up some of that CPU limitation as time goes on.

IMO at your budget -> 1070 + 144hz monitor without sync is the first choice. 480 8GB + FreeSync is the second choice. Anything else is below those two options, IMO.

 

[AtenRa]

I have to step in. You just started arguing among each other and all I wanted was advice The games I play are just a short list of what I currently play. I am into wow now, or overwatch etc. but I can switch in 2-3 months to something completely else. There are new games coming out. What I want is as someone already stated to be ready for the future. And with 1070 I though I would be. As 1080 is almost double the price of 1070 and the performance boost is not weighted out by the increase in price so I thought 1070 would be the best price/perf ration and also serve me well in the future. Now I am honestly confused AF as I have no idea what is necessary what is overkill what is useless...

Overwatch Core i5 4460 + RX 480 1080P EPIC settings = 80-90fps

Overwatch Core i5 6500 + GTX 1070 1080p EPIC settings = 80-90fps

 

[Bacon1]

Hmm I think this is the end of the thread no more debate is necessary. I will warn you that the AMD brigade will try their best to sell you the 480 but you seem smart enough to see the numbers for yourself.

Your CPU may sometimes restrict you from getting 144FPS but in those situations you can simply dial in ultra settings which WILL remove the CPU bottleneck in most AAA games. You can also ofcourse upgrade your CPU in the future.

Remember don't buy a 4GB card no matter what anyone says because you WILL regret it. Good luck and happy gaming.

You are 100% correct. We should ignore the hard data showing that the 1070 will be CPU limited @ 1080p in the games he plays.

8gb 480 for 7,543: https://www.alza.cz/EN/sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-480-8gb-oc-d4475727.htm?catid=18859406

1070 for 11990: https://www.alza.cz/EN/zotac-geforce-gtx-amp-1070-d4354712.htm?o=2

He should definitely spend ~60% more money for ~30-35% more performance while not CPU bound, even less when bound, while also losing out on freesync in the process.

Glad you are looking out for OPs best interests. OP could instead save that money and upgrade again next year for even better performance if he needs it.

 

[Thinker_145]

I have said what I wanted to. The OP is smart enough to make his decision so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[tg2708]

one of the main reasons I upgraded to the 6700k was due to increased performance in cetain games and as RS showed actual data I saw amongst certain reviews it was a good choice. But I guess I'll be kicking myself for not waiting on the 7700k.

 

[RussianSensation]

Nobody cares about pure price/perf of 4GB cards. To compare price/perf of different VRAM configurations with flat numbers is disingenuous at best.

Wow, what a flawed argument. So you made a blanket statement that GTX 1070 is superior value to RX 480 and when math proved you wrong, you jumped on the 4GB vs. 8GB bandwagon. Name 2 AAA 1080p games that runs poorly with 4GB of VRAM.

I have said what I wanted to. The OP is smart enough to make his decision so I'll just leave it at that.

All you have said is opinions based on lack of any facts. When questioned and provided hard data proving you wrong that a stock i5-6500 is a major bottleneck for 100-144Hz gaming in modern AAA titles when paired with a GTX1070/980Ti, you instead resorted to a red herring and discrediting $180 RX 480 4GB due to its lack of VRAM, which is frankly irrelevant for 1080p gaming. What you didn't address was how the OP would lose 40-50% of GTX1070's performance and never achieve his desired goal of having 100-144 FPS on a 144Hz 1080p monitor since his CPU is the wrong match for such a setup/videocard.

You also never addressed how the CPU bottleneck at 1080p would ensure that GTX1070's performance advantage of 45-50% would be eroded to half of that or sometimes to 0% due to the i5-6500 bottleneck hitting minimum FPS into the ground when compared to professional reviews which almost all use 4.4-4.7Ghz i7 6800K/6600K/6700K processors. You also ignored the fact that i5-6500 cannot even maintain 60 fps minimums but are recommending the OP buy almost a $400 videocard for 144Hz gaming? Using your logic, if GTX1080 cost $400, you'd recommend that too? I know you would. Let's just ignore the CPU bottlenecks, right?

 

[RussianSensation]

Hello,

Curretnly I have GTX 960. Intending to buy 144Hz Display in the upcomig month. Games that I play are Witcher 3, Xcom2, Overwatch, WoW, HOTS, and possibly other AAA games that are worth the time and are well optimised. But most my time I spend in WOW, HOTS and Overwatch. I would like to play on high details (ultra is not necessary). My question is what graphics card is required to run on high at 144Hz? GTX 1070?

Thanks, J.

Buy a GTX1060 3GB with a $25 MasterPass coupon or a $180 RX 480 4GB. Then, save up enough $ to upgrade your CPU to an i7 6700K or i7 7700K. Those 2 videocards should last you for 1080p gaming until 2018. In 2018, sell the i5-6500 CPU, upgrade to one of those i7s, sell the GTX1060/RX 480 and buy yourself a Volta/Navi videocard for 144Hz gaming. With your current processor, you are just going to waste $ on a $400 graphics card and 144Hz monitor.

one of the main reasons I upgraded to the 6700k was due to increased performance in cetain games and as RS showed actual data I saw amongst certain reviews it was a good choice. But I guess I'll be kicking myself for not waiting on the 7700k.

For 5-6 years, many PC gamers were giving advice that an i5 was just as good as the i7 for games. Not only was this myth spread for years (and any AAA game that showed otherwise was ignored on purpose), but it was also interchanged with various generations of stock i5 CPUs as if they also were as good as an 4.5-5Ghz i5s. If AMD users were gaming on FX CPUs, how bad can an i5 be even from 2nd or 3rd generation? What happened was a perfect storm of bad advice around i5 vs. i7 and around stock i5s "not bottlenecking" modern high-end GPUs. Now we are seeing half a decade of bad advice impact PC gamers who buy stock i5 rigs and expect 2016 $400 GPUs to not be bottlenecked by such CPUs when it comes to 100-144Hz gaming. Despite that fact that the vast majority of Steam users have 1080p and below monitors, it doesn't mean that 1080p itself is not CPU-limited gaming resolution in many AAA titles.

I wouldn't worry too much about the i7 7700K as early leaks are showing 5.1Ghz overclocks on 1.5V which is probably a death sentence on air over 4-5 years.

 

[Snarf Snarf]

RS he's limited to buying in Euros, think he linked his site he will be purchasing from on page one. Sound advice regardless, just the pricing isn't exactly what he's going to be dealing with.

 

[tg2708]

@rs very good points, when I said I wanted to upgrade my 4670k for use with a 1070/1080 people were saying I should not but after going through digital foundry's tests of how the 6700k performed against other i7s i knew I did not have the full story. The difference is fps was quite significant at times. Sure its not a worthwhile upgrade for every game but the ones where cpu makes a difference having a processor with hyper threading or more cores increases performance significantly. AtenRa posted a video comparison which is quite a shocker since like you said the 1070 is 50% faster but is nowhere to seen in those videos.

 

[Justforcause]

Alright guys. I feel like the games I play are even impossible to achieve 144Hz at anyway (with my CPU) - and I kind of aimed at that.
So then there is a second option which I would consider and that is 60Hz (FPS) at 1440p (24''/27'') high-ultra settings. The question states: Is this a better scenario to achieve with what we have in hands right now (my CPU)? Or it is even harder to accomplish?

PS.: Should I create a new thread for this new case or it is not necessary?

 

[Bacon1]

1440p vs 1080p @ 144hz takes similar GPU horsepower so either card will do fine. It really depends on what games you are looking at though. The ones you originally listed in the OP aren't very GPU heavy so either would do fine.

Fury really shows its power @ 1440p though so its definitely a contender.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-10...ramm-gears-of-war-4-auf-dem-fx-8370-2560-1440

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...attlefield-1-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1210394/

AMD cards gain a lot in DX12

480 goes from 75/78 to 84/87

Fury Air goes from 88/93 to 94/96.5

480 is very close to min 60 @ 1440p as well and perf will only increase as newer patches and drivers for BF1 come out.

For overwatch either should do very well as well: http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page3.html

I'd recommend either the 480 or Fury still as you'll be saving quite a lot over the 1070 and gaining the use of freesync on your monitor which is even more important when gaming closer to 60 than 90+.

If you just want the raw power and don't care about the expense then go 1070. If you want to save some money and have a great gaming experience still go either 480/Fury.

 

[Justforcause]

I am thinking what would be the best next step for the future. Purchase Great Gaming Display and then start saving money for better components? Or purchase great graphics card and save for display. Or purchase new CPU and MotherBoard and save for GPU and Display.

Edit: I have heard that next year generation of CPUs might have the same socket a i5 6500. Therefore why dont I simply go for gtx 1070 + 144Hz Display. And when new CPUs come out just replace my i5 for the newest one? Like that I wont have bottleneck anymore. What are your thoughts of that?

 

[Headfoot]

I am thinking what would be the best next step for the future. Purchase Great Gaming Display and then start saving money for better components? Or purchase great graphics card and save for display. Or purchase new CPU and MotherBoard and save for GPU and Display.

Edit: I have heard that next year generation of CPUs might have the same socket a i5 6500. Therefore why dont I simply go for gtx 1070 + 144Hz Display. And when new CPUs come out just replace my i5 for the newest one? Like that I wont have bottleneck anymore. What are your thoughts of that?

I think that is a very good plan. You end up with a faster system at the end of the day. That's what I would do, if I had the budget to do it.

 

[Snarf Snarf]

I am thinking what would be the best next step for the future. Purchase Great Gaming Display and then start saving money for better components? Or purchase great graphics card and save for display. Or purchase new CPU and MotherBoard and save for GPU and Display.

Edit: I have heard that next year generation of CPUs might have the same socket a i5 6500. Therefore why dont I simply go for gtx 1070 + 144Hz Display. And when new CPUs come out just replace my i5 for the newest one? Like that I wont have bottleneck anymore. What are your thoughts of that?

That probably is your best course of action to take. Get the 1070 and 144Hz display and enjoy it now, and when the 7700k comes out upgrade for maximum enjoyment.

I'd say that's /thread really. It's the best of both worlds, and if you have the money for it get the best set up you can and enjoy it. Arguing aside this is ultimately a hobby for enjoyment. You'll enjoy a 1070 with high refresh just as much as an RX480 before your CPU upgrade, and after the new CPU you'll enjoy the upgraded set up for years to come.

 

[RussianSensation]

I am thinking what would be the best next step for the future. Purchase Great Gaming Display and then start saving money for better components? Or purchase great graphics card and save for display. Or purchase new CPU and MotherBoard and save for GPU and Display.

Edit: I have heard that next year generation of CPUs might have the same socket a i5 6500. Therefore why dont I simply go for gtx 1070 + 144Hz Display. And when new CPUs come out just replace my i5 for the newest one? Like that I wont have bottleneck anymore. What are your thoughts of that?

I think the monitor upgrade is easily the hardest choice for you. That is because most 144Hz monitors are TN (poor IQ) or small in size (24"). I would probably spend more $ on a 27" 144Hz IPS/VA panel before dropping $ on a GTX1070 card, as I tend to keep my monitors for 5+ years. If you can afford both a nice 27" 144Hz VA/IPS monitor and a GTX1070, then go for it. If you cannot, I'd rather buy an RX 480/GTX1060 and a 27" 144-165Hz VA/IPS model and then upgrade the GPU again in 2-3 years. There is also the fact that G-Sync compatible 144Hz IPS/VA monitors cost significantly more than FreeSync ones. If you can, go into an actual store and compare the monitors in person to see if you care about 24" vs. 27", 1440p vs. 1080p and TN vs. IPS/VA. Some do, some don't. I personally would never build a high-end rig around a 24" 1080p 144Hz TN panel, but then I know others here would would never want a 32-35" 1440p VA/IPS monitor either.

http://www.144hzmonitors.com/best-gaming-monitor-2016/