[SOLVED] Should I buy a Rtx 2070 instead of a 1080?

[Jpeixoto]

This is the PC I have currently picked out
https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/8dLtHh
(the monitor is just a secondary don’t worry)
I’m wondering if I should get the rtx 2070 instead as it’s about $10 more.
Is it worth it?

 

[volkgren]

$10 difference... yes.

 

[terry4536]

I would probably get the RTX 2070, but you could make an argument for the GTX 1080 too.

With the RTX 2070 you have newer tech and faster memory. With the 1080 you have more Cuda cores and higher core clock (but similar boost clock).

So really you could go either way, and still have a great graphics card. They have roughly similar performance.

Here is as comparison of MSI RTX 2070 & MSI GTX 1080. In this comparison the GTX 1080 IS $50 less.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?CompareItemList=48%7C14%2D127%2D950%5E14%2D127%2D950%2C14%2D137%2D363%5E14%2D137%2D363

 

[chemmajorp53]

For 1080p 60Hz I'd much rather just get a used 1070 if I were you, they're selling for $220 USD or so on eBay. Otherwise, the 1070 ti at $530 might be a decent deal too. That's just so much graphics horsepower for such an outdated resolution when it comes to higher end hardware.

 

[cryoburner]

That's just so much graphics horsepower for such an outdated resolution when it comes to higher end hardware.

I'm not sure I would consider 1080p to be an "outdated resolution" when according to the current Steam Hardware Survey, only a little over 5% of Steam users have a 1440p or higher display. : P

That said, I agree that these cards would be overkill for a 1080p 60Hz panel, and you would want a high refresh rate screen (like 144Hz) if at that resolution, to pair with hardware like that. You mention it being a "secondary" screen, but what kind of screen are you intending to use with this system?

As for the question, obviously if the 2070 were just $10 more, it should be the better choice. The main issue with the 2070 is that it typically costs notably more than a 1080, for only marginally better performance and some new features that are not yet available. At roughly the same price, it's clearly the better option though, as it should be able to run raytraced lighting effects and DLSS antialiasing in certain games eventually, which the 1080 doesn't have the hardware for. As far as new graphics card launches go, the 20-series has been a bit underwhelming so far, especially after 2 1/2 years, but that's more down to the performance gains being minimal at an increased cost, with the new functionality still not available in any form.

 

[chemmajorp53]

I said "outdated for higher end hardware." If you can afford a $600 graphics card, you can afford at minimum a $200 1080p 144hz screen. Now that 1440p 144hz is getting cheaper, might as well if you're only gonna use one screen. Most people don't meet the "higher end" criteria, so 1080p is fine for them. I'd wager that a fairly significant portion of those people are on 144hz with all the CS and Dota players on steam. Also, I don't know how that steam hardware survey actually works, for someone like me that plays most of the time at 1080p 144hz and sometimes at 4k on my 2nd monitor, is it going to mark me as 1080p or 4k? I know they're just trying to make a point but it's not that specific.

He did say the monitor was "just a secondary" though so I guess maybe he has a better primary monitor.

 

[volkgren]

(the monitor is just a secondary don’t worry)

What is your primary display/monitor?