Graphics card that will max out any game at 1080p 60fps?

[Daedurus]

Looking to get a card that can max out most, if not all games at 1080p.
I'm scared that i may get a card that would be overkill for the system i'm planning to buy.

The most demanding games that I play are pretty much just GTA V and Overwatch (especially Overwatch i would love to play it at Epic settings 60fps with a bit of headroom in fps)

Going to be pairing it with an i5 6600K.
Thanks in advance!

 

[ErikMcLeod]

1070 should be used for 1080p 144hz BARE MINIMUM. The 1070 is well suited for 1440p 144hz. It's not a 1080p card. The 1060, 970, 1050, and 960 are all great 1080p cards. A GTX 970 will run Overwatch at med/high settings at 1440p at 120fps, I can personally attest to this. The 1060 basically matches the 970, so you have flexibility between those two cards.

GTA V will be limited by your CPU's capabilities. For 60fps, though, your CPU (6600k) + a 4GB 960 will run without breaking a sweat. A 970 or a 1060 will only perform better. A 1070 is out of the question, it's unnecessary unless you plan on playing at 1440p at 100+fps. Hell, even a 970 will hit 70-100fps most of the time at 1440p in GTA V coupled with a 6600k, 6700k, or a 4790k. Science Studio on YouTube had an average FPS of about 133 at high settings on GTA V at 1440p with a 1070/simulated 6600k.

Honestly there's no reason to go higher than a 970/1060 for 1080p 60hz gaming.

 

[TehPenguin]

The 1060 matches the 980, not the 970. The 1060 can run Overwatch on Epic at 140 FPS.

 

[ErikMcLeod]

The 1060 matches the 980, not the 970. The 1060 can run Overwatch on Epic at 140 FPS.

You're probably right. I'd still consider it to be a good option for 1080p 60hz, especially considering its generous price tag

 

[Daedurus]

the GTX 1060 will let you play games at max setting @ 1080p @ 60Hz for the next 2 years. after that newer and more demanding games can be a problem for the 1060. to counter that problem you can buy the GTX 1070 instead of the 1060 if you can manage the bigger cost, but it will make your build future-proof. anyways the 1060 is a good card at the moment. consider getting the ASUS DUAL GTX 1060 6GB:
https://www.amazon.com/GeForce-Dual-Fan-Gaming-Graphics-DUAL-GTX1060-O6G/dp/B01JHQT1SE/ref=sr_1_8?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1473839691&sr=1-8&keywords=gtx+1060

If you can pay for it, get a 1070. Why buy the specs for only today when you will have the system for several years, unless you have a budget issue.

Sure a 1060 will run games great at 1080 now. What happens in 2 years when Crysis 4 or something comes out and you really really want to play that?

It's the same scenario I give to people that look for laptops that will barely run games now, you are keeping the system for a few years, may as well spend a bit more now than a lot more later to fully replace something. You aim where the target will be not where it's at now.

I don't like games like Crysis so i'm fine..

I don't have a problem with the 1070 but just saying that if i'm only going to be playing at 1080p then it's gonna be a waste especially on a 60hz monitor.. I mean i can stretch my budget but I honestly don't see the reason as to why i should as I don't play graphic demanding games like Crysis etc.

I'm just sayin', I have no problem going for a 3k computer (2.2k is like my max budget) but I don't play games like Crysis etc. I'm a casual gamer who just wants to play his games at the max settings with 60fps minimum at 1080p.

I mean, I could get a 144hz monitor, but if i'm gonna go for a 144hz monitor then I'd want to make a build that'll max out 1440p gaming with 60 fps minimum, I'm the type of guy that wants to max out any game that I throw at that i play.. And to max out 1440p with 60 fps minimum, that's gonna cost me more than an arm and a leg, so I want to stay with 1080p. The games I play are perfectly fit for 1080p.. My only problem is figuring out what graphics card can MAX out any game with 60 fps minimum.

If you won't be playing more demanding games, you don't need an i5-6600K either. That's pretty much the top tier in a gaming CPU, meant for overclocking. Those that pick that CPU also would be looking at a fast video card to pair it with. If you are happy with a high-mid card, then you can go down a tier or two in CPU also. And you said "a card that will max out any game at 1080p" in your post title, which is what I based a 1070 on.

1070 should be used for 1080p 144hz BARE MINIMUM. The 1070 is well suited for 1440p 144hz. It's not a 1080p card. The 1060, 970, 1050, and 960 are all great 1080p cards. A GTX 970 will run Overwatch at med/high settings at 1440p at 120fps, I can personally attest to this. The 1060 basically matches the 970, so you have flexibility between those two cards.

GTA V will be limited by your CPU's capabilities. For 60fps, though, your CPU (6600k) + a 4GB 960 will run without breaking a sweat. A 970 or a 1060 will only perform better. A 1070 is out of the question, it's unnecessary unless you plan on playing at 1440p at 100+fps. Hell, even a 970 will hit 70-100fps most of the time at 1440p in GTA V coupled with a 6600k, 6700k, or a 4790k. Science Studio on YouTube had an average FPS of about 133 at high settings on GTA V at 1440p with a 1070/simulated 6600k.

Honestly there's no reason to go higher than a 970/1060 for 1080p 60hz gaming.

The 1060 matches the 980, not the 970. The 1060 can run Overwatch on Epic at 140 FPS.

The 1060 matches the 980, not the 970. The 1060 can run Overwatch on Epic at 140 FPS.

You're probably right. I'd still consider it to be a good option for 1080p 60hz, especially considering its generous price tag

I'm willing to pay the extra money for a top-tier gaming cpu. Even though i'm not into overclocking (main reason stated before, I heard that it reduces the lifespan of your cpu, hence why i'm abit iffy with overclocking). I'm spending extra money to go with a 144hz 1080p monitor.

if the 1070 isn't suited to be a 1080p card then i'm guessing you're telling me to go with the 1060.

1070 If i want to play every game maxed out on 1080p itself without breaking a sweat.
1060 if i want to play every game maxed out on 1080p except a few triple A titles.

the 1070 makes the better choice here but it's a difficult conundrum when people are saying that It'll be a waste for 1080p..
Maybe later on down the road I'll grab myself a 1440p monitor, I guess i should extend the potency of the computer being future proof for like 4-5 years I guess, i'm guessing that's when 1440p will be the normal resolution for gamers/people in general.

 

[TehPenguin]

Bolded the quintessence of this long post.

There isn't such a thing like "a card that is not suited for set resolution". You can do whatever the f- you wish.

1070 is considered "overkill" at 1080p right now because it has so many horses under it's hood you'll have to cool down your monitor with liquid nitrogen so it doesn't burn from displaying all those frames each second. Figuratively speaking.

At this moment the GTX 1060 can topple any game that is available on the market. Depending on the game you'll get 50, 60, 80, 100, 200 FPS. It's like that with every GPU.

"Future-proof" is also a liable term. You can certainly try to make your components last longer by buying more expensive, faster parts that will not dwindle as quickly with the ongoing software development. You can't ascertain it will last an X amount of years.

Now to cut the chase:
If you want to stay at 1080p and play all the AAA titles and do not wish to worry whether or not you can enjoy a game at it's fullest in the next 2-3 years then my personal recommendation would be the GTX 1070. This card should also last you another 1 or 2 years with some details lowered.

Buying a 144Hz monitor is a risky business and is not advisable if you don't have the budget to upgrade regularly but still want to play at high and ultra presets.

What most 144Hz users do is just reduce some details to maintain the FPS. And do not be afraid. In games where 144Hz counts you do not care for the fine detail.
I play Battlefield myself and before I upgraded I had set everything to low to stay above 60FPS at all times.
After the upgrade to the 1060 I get 100FPS with everything set to ultra and 125% render scale.

I do not see a difference. Everything happens so quickly that I don't really see the grass and the bushes having all the more detail.

In games where visuals count I do not mind at all dipping to 50 fps at times because the gameplay is still fluid, it's not competitive so I don't have to outrun another player hence I just enjoy the visuals.

 

[TechBloke]

Get a gtx1060 and sell it in 2 years. Then put money towards next gen gpu which will trounce gtx 1080 and the rest.

 

[Daedurus]

Bolded the quintessence of this long post.

There isn't such a thing like "a card that is not suited for set resolution". You can do whatever the f- you wish.

1070 is considered "overkill" at 1080p right now because it has so many horses under it's hood you'll have to cool down your monitor with liquid nitrogen so it doesn't burn from displaying all those frames each second. Figuratively speaking.

At this moment the GTX 1060 can topple any game that is available on the market. Depending on the game you'll get 50, 60, 80, 100, 200 FPS. It's like that with every GPU.

"Future-proof" is also a liable term. You can certainly try to make your components last longer by buying more expensive, faster parts that will not dwindle as quickly with the ongoing software development. You can't ascertain it will last an X amount of years.

Now to cut the chase:
If you want to stay at 1080p and play all the AAA titles and do not wish to worry whether or not you can enjoy a game at it's fullest in the next 2-3 years then my personal recommendation would be the GTX 1070. This card should also last you another 1 or 2 years with some details lowered.

Buying a 144Hz monitor is a risky business and is not advisable if you don't have the budget to upgrade regularly but still want to play at high and ultra presets.

What most 144Hz users do is just reduce some details to maintain the FPS. And do not be afraid. In games where 144Hz counts you do not care for the fine detail.
I play Battlefield myself and before I upgraded I had set everything to low to stay above 60FPS at all times.
After the upgrade to the 1060 I get 100FPS with everything set to ultra and 125% render scale.

I do not see a difference. Everything happens so quickly that I don't really see the grass and the bushes having all the more detail.

In games where visuals count I do not mind at all dipping to 50 fps at times because the gameplay is still fluid, it's not competitive so I don't have to outrun another player hence I just enjoy the visuals.

That convinced me to get the 1070.
So you're telling me to save my money and just go with a 60hz/120hz or?

 

[TehPenguin]

If you're super competitive and want to be sure you have every advantage over your opponents possible - get a 120Hz and just lower the settings in the far future to maintain 120FPS. If you're a casual gamer stick with 60Hz. While there is a difference between 60 and 120Hz it will not suddenly make a better player out of you. Invest that money into a good chair as the way you sit affects your performance far more than the refresh rate.

In my opinion it's 75% placebo, 10% getting used to, 15% real advantage.

I play on a 60Hz monitor and my current KDR in Battlefield is 2.47 with nearly 23k kills. I think of that as a good example that you can do well with a 60Hz monitor.

 

[ErikMcLeod]

I wouldn't say buying a 144hz monitor is risky business. 144hz costs more than 60hz (generally), and that is all there is to "worry" about. The only difference between a 60hz panel and a 144hz panel is that a 144hz panel can display more frames per second. Thus, if you have the money for one, there's no reason not to get one, so long you're not greatly sacrificing pixel response (or contrast/color if those are important to you). Games will look more fluid across the board on a 144hz panel as compared to a 60hz panel, assuming you're gaming with VSYNC off. With VSYNC, it's a different story.

As TehPenguin said, if you want to absolutely max every single AAA game out and get over 60fps for years to come, get a 1070. Assuming engines keep developing at their current pace, a 1070 should last you a few years for 100% max settings.

But this brings me to another point - why not knock MSAA x8 to x2? Why not turn shadow resolution down from Ultra to High? Going for absolutely maxed settings will diminish performance relative to visual fidelity. In most games, you can find a couple settings that, when lowered, hardly (if at all) sacrifice visual fidelity and boost game performance considerably. These generally include but are not limited to MSAA strength, shadow resolution, particle quality, and effect(s) quality. I always turn these down (except I leave AA off because 1440p).

To bring this back to relevance, if you're willing to ever so slightly turn down a few settings, a 1060 will frankly be the best overall option. But, if lowering a couple settings here and there is a deal breaker, then a 1070 is what you're looking for. Whether you want to go with >60hz refresh is entirely up to you, but just know the 1060 and the 1070 will run most games at much higher than 60fps at 1080p when coupled with your CPU. Both are viable options that will serve you for at least 2 years (unless you're willing to gradually lower settings as games become more graphically intensive). If you're willing to spend that extra $200 to keep those few extra settings cranked to max, then all the power to you.

EDIT: Sorry for confusing you when I said "the 1070 isn't suited for 1080p 60fps." What I meant was the 1070 is overqualified for 1080p 60fps, and paying the extra $200 for it compared to the 1060's price tag won't pay off until we start talking about 1440p and 4k gaming.

 

[TehPenguin]

With "risky" I mean the occasional stuttering you can get when rendering a game under the refresh value of your monitor. It's counterproductive when you buy a 144Hz display for extra fluidity.

But as you mentioned: lowering insignificant settings can greatly boost your performance so you can keep the higher FPS values.

For me, lowering SSAA from x4 to x2 got me from 50 to 90 average FPS in Tomb Raider and I could not tell a difference.

EDIT: is it really $200 more for the 1070 in the us? It's more like €150 in Europe which makes the choice much easier, IMO.

 

[ErikMcLeod]

If you're super competitive and want to be sure you have every advantage over your opponents possible - get a 120Hz and just lower the settings in the far future to maintain 120FPS. If you're a casual gamer stick with 60Hz. While there is a difference between 60 and 120Hz it will not suddenly make a better player out of you. Invest that money into a good chair as the way you sit affects your performance far more than the refresh rate.

In my opinion it's 75% placebo, 10% getting used to, 15% real advantage.

I play on a 60Hz monitor and my current KDR in Battlefield is 2.47 with nearly 23k kills. I think of that as a good example that you can do well with a 60Hz monitor.

Word to this. What you should largely look for in a monitor is pixel response. I used to game on a 10ms 60hz monitor, but now I use 1ms 144hz and the difference in input response is massively noticeable in twitchy games like Overwatch and Rocket League.

But yeah, the most notable benefit of 144hz gaming is the reduction in screen tearing when gaming with VSYNC off as compared to 60hz. A lot of people don't care about screen tearing though, so it's a matter of weighing preference against budget. But lower pixel response rates are always better.

 

[TehPenguin]

10ms is really slow. Yeah, response times are important but I wouldn't stress too much about the 1ms, unless you're getting a new one anyway. I wouldn't upgrade just for the 1ms if your current one is at 5ms or lower.

EDIT: that is really the point where yes, technical data show clear and observable advantages but the extra $$$ is not always worth the small upgrade.

 

[ErikMcLeod]

With "risky" I mean the occasional stuttering you can get when rendering a game under the refresh value of your monitor. It's counterproductive when you buy a 144Hz display for extra fluidity.

But as you mentioned: lowering insignificant settings can greatly boost your performance so you can keep the higher FPS values.

For me, lowering SSAA from x4 to x2 got me from 50 to 90 average FPS in Tomb Raider and I could not tell a difference.

EDIT: is it really $200 more for the 1070 in the us? It's more like €150 in Europe which makes the choice much easier, IMO.

Those stutters only occur with VSYNC (or something similar) turned on. With VSYNC off, games look smoother on a 144hz panel across the board. Unfortunately, though, some (very few) games force VSYNC (which can still be forced off via NVIDIA Control Panel or Profile Inspector), so there's always that to consider. And yes, VSYNC'd 60fps to 144hz is microstuttery. Annoyingly so. But you can always turn down refresh rate in windows settings when you play those particular games IF you want to leave VSYNC on.

And yeah, 1060s run for about $250 and 1070s run for about $450+ on Amazon in US.

Note: I'll be absent from the forum for a few hours in about 20 minutes. My evening class begins shortly.

 

[Daedurus]

If you're super competitive and want to be sure you have every advantage over your opponents possible - get a 120Hz and just lower the settings in the far future to maintain 120FPS. If you're a casual gamer stick with 60Hz. While there is a difference between 60 and 120Hz it will not suddenly make a better player out of you. Invest that money into a good chair as the way you sit affects your performance far more than the refresh rate.

In my opinion it's 75% placebo, 10% getting used to, 15% real advantage.

I play on a 60Hz monitor and my current KDR in Battlefield is 2.47 with nearly 23k kills. I think of that as a good example that you can do well with a 60Hz monitor.

I'm just a casual gamer but i don't mind getting a 144hz monitor.

 

[bystander]

If you're super competitive and want to be sure you have every advantage over your opponents possible - get a 120Hz and just lower the settings in the far future to maintain 120FPS. If you're a casual gamer stick with 60Hz. While there is a difference between 60 and 120Hz it will not suddenly make a better player out of you. Invest that money into a good chair as the way you sit affects your performance far more than the refresh rate.

In my opinion it's 75% placebo, 10% getting used to, 15% real advantage.

I play on a 60Hz monitor and my current KDR in Battlefield is 2.47 with nearly 23k kills. I think of that as a good example that you can do well with a 60Hz monitor.

120hz isn't about being competitive for many people. For myself, 60hz and FPS in 1st person view gives me motion sickness, in the same way Virtual Reality does to most people. But 80Hz and up with 80+ FPS removes the motion sickness for me. This is why VR uses 90hz screens.

You'll also find that with 120hz and higher screens that tearing is far less noticeable, and latency feels noticeably reduced. Motion is more crisp with less blur.

I don't play games competitively, but I would not use a 60hz screen again. 85+hz for me is key to my enjoyment.

 

[Daedurus]

If you're super competitive and want to be sure you have every advantage over your opponents possible - get a 120Hz and just lower the settings in the far future to maintain 120FPS. If you're a casual gamer stick with 60Hz. While there is a difference between 60 and 120Hz it will not suddenly make a better player out of you. Invest that money into a good chair as the way you sit affects your performance far more than the refresh rate.

In my opinion it's 75% placebo, 10% getting used to, 15% real advantage.

I play on a 60Hz monitor and my current KDR in Battlefield is 2.47 with nearly 23k kills. I think of that as a good example that you can do well with a 60Hz monitor.

120hz isn't about being competitive for many people. For myself, 60hz and FPS in 1st person view gives me motion sickness, in the same way Virtual Reality does to most people. But 80Hz and up with 80+ FPS removes the motion sickness for me. This is why VR uses 90hz screens.

You'll also find that with 120hz and higher screens that tearing is far less noticeable, and latency feels noticeably reduced. Motion is more crisp with less blur.

I don't play games competitively, but I would not use a 60hz screen again. 85+hz for me is key to my enjoyment.

I'll still go with a 144hz regardless.. The only monitors that exist here that have actual good flow of stock are the 60hz and the 144hz, I haven't seen any proper 120hz monitors down here in Australia that are actually in stock for most of the time.

 

[ErikMcLeod]

I'm just a casual gamer but i don't mind getting a 144hz monitor.

Like I said, if you have the money and you're willing to spend it on one, I see no reason not to. Games will look smoother, have lower motion blur (as mentioned by bystander), and general desktop use will feel much smoother.

For $250, I recommend the ASUS VG248QE. It's a 24" 1920x1080 1ms panel @ 144Hz. Basically the best of every parameter for performance at the mid/high end level.

If $250 is too much for a monitor, you have tons of cheaper options. As I mentioned, the one thing you should look out for is pixel response (expressed in milliseconds [or ms]). Anything higher than 5ms is too high and won't save you any money. 1ms can sometimes cost a bit more, but there are monitors in the $120-$160 range with 1ms response times @ 60Hz, such as the 21.5" ASUS VX228H and the 24" ASUS VX248H. Both are great options, too.

If you have your eyes on a monitor (included or not included above) and want to run it by one of us, post it in the forum and we'll help you out.

 

[bystander]

If you're super competitive and want to be sure you have every advantage over your opponents possible - get a 120Hz and just lower the settings in the far future to maintain 120FPS. If you're a casual gamer stick with 60Hz. While there is a difference between 60 and 120Hz it will not suddenly make a better player out of you. Invest that money into a good chair as the way you sit affects your performance far more than the refresh rate.

In my opinion it's 75% placebo, 10% getting used to, 15% real advantage.

I play on a 60Hz monitor and my current KDR in Battlefield is 2.47 with nearly 23k kills. I think of that as a good example that you can do well with a 60Hz monitor.

120hz isn't about being competitive for many people. For myself, 60hz and FPS in 1st person view gives me motion sickness, in the same way Virtual Reality does to most people. But 80Hz and up with 80+ FPS removes the motion sickness for me. This is why VR uses 90hz screens.

You'll also find that with 120hz and higher screens that tearing is far less noticeable, and latency feels noticeably reduced. Motion is more crisp with less blur.

I don't play games competitively, but I would not use a 60hz screen again. 85+hz for me is key to my enjoyment.

I'll still go with a 144hz regardless.. The only monitors that exist here that have actual good flow of stock are the 60hz and the 144hz, I haven't seen any proper 120hz monitors down here in Australia that are actually in stock for most of the time.

I wasn't telling you to go for 120hz, just that is what I have, so I use that as my frame of reference. Monitors these days are 144hz, 165hz or 60hz.

 

[Daedurus]

I'm just a casual gamer but i don't mind getting a 144hz monitor.

Like I said, if you have the money and you're willing to spend it on one, I see no reason not to. Games will look smoother, have lower motion blur (as mentioned by bystander), and general desktop use will feel much smoother.

For $250, I recommend the ASUS VG248QE. It's a 24" 1920x1080 1ms panel @ 144Hz. Basically the best of every parameter for performance at the mid/high end level.

If $250 is too much for a monitor, you have tons of cheaper options. As I mentioned, the one thing you should look out for is pixel response (expressed in milliseconds [or ms]). Anything higher than 5ms is too high and won't save you any money. 1ms can sometimes cost a bit more, but there are monitors in the $120-$160 range with 1ms response times @ 60Hz, such as the 21.5" ASUS VX228H and the 24" ASUS VX248H. Both are great options, too.

If you have your eyes on a monitor (included or not included above) and want to run it by one of us, post it in the forum and we'll help you out.

I've currently got my eye on this monitor. I actually love everything about it from the response time etc to the finish of the monitor. Cheaper than the Asus one you've provided by like $20 in Australia, $250 US is like $400 AUD.

The AOC G2460PQU is the monitor im looking at, $379 AUD.

 

[ErikMcLeod]

I've currently got my eye on this monitor. I actually love everything about it from the response time etc to the finish of the monitor. Cheaper than the Asus one you've provided by like $20 in Australia, $250 US is like $400 AUD.

The AOC G2460PQU is the monitor im looking at, $379 AUD.

Solid monitor, love the red version. Meets every criterion I'd throw at it.

That monitor is pretty much perfect for the PC specs you're looking at. A 1060 (or a 1070), a 6600k, and that monitor will serve you quite well.

Not sure how familiar you are with monitors, but you'll need to use the DisplayPort jack on the monitor to get the 144Hz refresh rate, so check to see if that monitor and/or your GPU come(s) with a DP cable. Every GPU you're looking at comes with DisplayPort outputs, so nothing to worry about there.

 

[Daedurus]

I've currently got my eye on this monitor. I actually love everything about it from the response time etc to the finish of the monitor. Cheaper than the Asus one you've provided by like $20 in Australia, $250 US is like $400 AUD.

The AOC G2460PQU is the monitor im looking at, $379 AUD.

Solid monitor, love the red version. Meets every criterion I'd throw at it.

That monitor is pretty much perfect for the PC specs you're looking at. A 1060 (or a 1070), a 6600k, and that monitor will serve you quite well.

Not sure how familiar you are with monitors, but you'll need to use the DisplayPort jack on the monitor to get the 144Hz refresh rate, so check to see if that monitor and/or your GPU come(s) with a DP cable. Every GPU you're looking at comes with DisplayPort outputs, so nothing to worry about there.

Looks like i'm all set! Just abit downed since i gotta spend extra but it's all good, atleast I'm sure that my pc will max every game that is thrown at it with no sweat. Thanks guys!

 

[ErikMcLeod]

Looks like i'm all set! Just abit downed since i gotta spend extra but it's all good, atleast I'm sure that my pc will max every game that is thrown at it with no sweat. Thanks guys!

Awesome, glad to help

 

[TechBloke]

Once you play on a 144hz monitor, you'll never go back...recommended. I have the aoc G2460. Excellent.

 

[TehPenguin]

It's always a nice feeling getting the gear you want. Have fun!

 

[ErikMcLeod]

I'm actually really glad you brought up the AOC G2460PQU, I've been looking for a generously priced 144hz monitor as a secondary panel for a few weeks now... win win!