Question What is the cheapest GPU that can run games at 1440p 100ish fps over the next 3 years?

Fusion1005

Great
Jan 15, 2020
145
7
85
0
I want to get a GPU that can last for 3-4 years playing games like the new COD, games like Apex Legends, etc. at 1440p 100ish fps. What is the least expensive GPU I can get that ticks all those boxes?

For now, I plan on pairing this GPU with a Ryzen 5 3600, but I have to wait until summer to get the parts for my PC, so by then I might be looking at Ryzen 4000 series CPUs.

I would really appreciate a response.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
RX 5700 XT or GTX 2070 would be the minimum cards you want to target. If you want to hit more than 100fps on anything highly demanding (Assuming you are intending for Ultra settings) then you will want to look at spending a little more on a 2070 Super, whatever comes out that is higher than the 5700 XT on the Big Navi side of things AND you might want to consider a higher end CPU. The additional bump in clock speed between the 3600 and 3600x could be a factor here if you don't have any intention of overclocking, or maybe even if you do. 4th Gen Ryzen might not be a bad choice either but we will likely not see anything in that regard until AT LEAST August, and maybe significantly longer than that. Right now it's basically guesswork but since AMD is killing Intel in the enthusiast sector there really isn't much reason for them to rush the release of Zen 3 at all so the timeframes we've seen before that might put it around August, might not be a likely thing this time around. Then again, it might.
 

Fusion1005

Great
Jan 15, 2020
145
7
85
0
If you want to hit more than 100fps on anything highly demanding (Assuming you are intending for Ultra settings) then you will want to look at spending a little more on a 2070 Super, whatever comes out that is higher than the 5700 XT on the Big Navi side of things AND you might want to consider a higher end CPU.
For me, high settings is good enough, but if there's enough performance for certain titles then I wouldn't say no to ultra.

The additional bump in clock speed between the 3600 and 3600x could be a factor here if you don't have any intention of overclocking, or maybe even if you do.
A lot of people say the 3600 is way better value though.
 

Phaaze88

Distinguished
Ambassador
A lot of people say the 3600 is way better value though.
It is.
That 'X' doesn't even equate to a 1% performance improvement over the regular model... but some people can't help but be drawn in by a letter...
And no, it doesn't overclock any better either, which Ryzen 3000 does very poorly with anyways - to be more specific, core clock OCs are terrible on them. Tweaking the memory has the greatest gains.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
A lot of people say the 3600 is way better value though.

It IS a better "value".

It is NOT a better "performer", because if it was, it would cost more than the 3600x and the 3600x wouldn't have the "x" in any case. Value has nothing at all to do with overall performance, and when you are trying to achieve something beyond 60FPS at any setting or resolution, then you are already past the point where "value" should even be part of the conversation. Instead, performance alone becomes the metric involved.

If bang for the buck is more important than ensuring you are able to feed the required number of FPS to your monitor, then certainly the 3600 is the better option. But if performance is key, and is ultimately the biggest prerogative, which it should be if you require 100+FPS, then value should only be a secondary consideration.

You've heard of "have your cake and eat it too"? Well, this is that kind of situation and the fact is that it truly IS very rare that you can have both. You can have pure performance or you can save money. You rarely can do both.

Which is not to say that you can't still save money by getting the 3600 and get good performance as well, but you may not achieve the goal you have set when it comes to some of the more demanding titles especially ones that are particularly CPU intensive. Lowering settings helps the graphics card, certainly, but it also puts MORE demand on the CPU, in which case you probably want the CPU to be more capable than the graphics card.

As I said before, even beyond the 3600x, if performance is really a requirement and necessity, then you might want to seriously consider revising your plan to include a 3700x or potentially waiting to see what else comes along.

Certainly though, both the 3600 and 3600x are pretty capable processors. The only question is whether they will be capable enough for 100+FPS if you plan to run pretty demanding games.
 
Last edited:

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
It is.
That 'X' doesn't even equate to a 1% performance improvement over the regular model... but some people can't help but be drawn in by a letter...
And no, it doesn't overclock any better either, which Ryzen 3000 does very poorly with anyways - to be more specific, core clock OCs are terrible on them. Tweaking the memory has the greatest gains.
I just built three Ryzen systems over the past five days. Two were 3600x and one was a 3600. All three were at the stock configuration, no overclocking. I tried with both PBO enabled and disabled, but with PB enabled at the stock configuration for all three sytems. All three were using the same B450 Tomahawk max. Both 3600x systems consistently maintained higher clocks than the 3600 did, and higher results in a variety of benchmarks. That held true even with PBO enabled or with it disabled, on both types of systems. So for me, the few dollars extra seems to be worth it for the extra 200-300mhz.

Probably of MUCH more importance though is the fact that boost clocks were significantly lower on all three systems when using the stock Wraith spire cooler than they were after I installed aftermarket cooling on them. Same for temperatures. Obviously, temperatures are a factor in achieving and sustaining boost clocks. With all of the recommended BIOS tweaks in place, these were still hitting about 84°C with the stock cooler running Prime95 Small FFT (AVX/AVX2 disabled) while afterwards, using the relatively small-ish Thermalright True Spirit direct 140 cooler, temps were uniformly 11°C cooler.

So whether you go with a 3600 or 3600x, better cooling than the stock option should absolutely be a high priority consideration.

This is something I already knew from feedback through the community, but having lacked any personal experience on a 2nd or 3rd Gen Ryzen build previously, it was satisfying to see that translated to a reality in personal testing. So I'm going to be even more adamant against people now who try to say the stock cooler is fine. It's not. It's loud. It's annoying. It's whiney. And it doesn't keep a stock non-PBO configuration below the recommended 80°C running a basic steady state thermal test, which tells me that it is insufficient for anything other than simply making sure the CPU doesn't reach throttle temp. That isn't the same thing as offering adequate cooling IMO.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
^^^So like I said, something beyond the 3600, or even the 3600x, is probably a good idea or even a necessity if you want to clear 100fps consistently and even then, looks like there will be a few titles that it won't manage to quite do that with without dropping some settings down. Thanks for the numbers DF.

What are those looking like without any RTX, across the board?
 
Mar 12, 2020
5
0
10
0
If your budget is tight, I just got an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with a GTX 1650 and it plays all the games I’ve tried at max.. GTAV / Rocket league / Assassins Creed Syndicate / Unity / Fortnite. all above 100fps
I am yet to try Warzone. I imagine I should get at least 60fps on high/max
 

Fusion1005

Great
Jan 15, 2020
145
7
85
0
If your budget is tight, I just got an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with a GTX 1650 and it plays all the games I’ve tried at max.. GTAV / Rocket league / Assassins Creed Syndicate / Unity / Fortnite. all above 100fps
I am yet to try Warzone. I imagine I should get at least 60fps on high/max
But that's at 1080p right?
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Resolution is really not a factor when it comes to FPS so long as the graphics card is capable enough to not be the limiting factor. If the GPU is not capable enough to avoid being GPU limited, then of course it IS a factor, but it also means that the CPU is NOT a factor because then it wouldn't matter WHAT CPU you had, it would still lack the ability to give you the FPS you were looking for.
 

Fusion1005

Great
Jan 15, 2020
145
7
85
0
Resolution is really not a factor when it comes to FPS so long as the graphics card is capable enough to not be the limiting factor. If the GPU is not capable enough to avoid being GPU limited, then of course it IS a factor, but it also means that the CPU is NOT a factor because then it wouldn't matter WHAT CPU you had, it would still lack the ability to give you the FPS you were looking for.
But if resolution isn't a factor, then why is it that in literally every benchmark the fps on 1440p is much lower than fps on 1080p?
 
Mar 12, 2020
5
0
10
0
But that's at 1080p right?
GTAV was tested on a 4K tv. Was flawless. I never tested any others at 4K as I use a 1360x768 display.
from what I’ve gathered though, all but Warzone should play fine at 4K 60fps+ at med- max depending on game. My only bottleneck at the moment is I’m using 8gb ram, where I really could do with 16gb minimum
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
You're nucking futs if you think that ANY of those games are going to play at 60fps on a GTX 1650 at high or ultra settings. Probably, not even at medium settings. I'm calling BS on that. Not happening. Complete nonsense. Maybe at low-med settings on 4k. Sure as hell not at high or ultra settings on 4k.

You show me the HARD PROOF, via reputable review that shows that, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you can take that crap right back to the farm with the rest of the BS. It's not even remotely believable. Pure troll.

That card gets like 35fps at 1440p on Division 2. 4K? Pffft. Right.


57FPS on GTA V, at very high quality. At 1080p. 4k? Pffft. C'mon man. If you're going to make up stats, at least TRY to be somewhat realistic about it.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14270/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-review-feat-zotac/10

Destiny 2 at the highest settings, at 1080p? 69FPS.

AC: Odyssey at 4k? 8, yes, EIGHT frame per second.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-gtx-1650-gaming-x/6.html

Even at 1080p that card only gets 32FPS on that game.

Seriously, IDK where you are getting the idea that card can do over 60fps, much less 100fps, on any of those games, at anything more than maybe low-medium settings, but it's simply not true.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: johnsoner13
Mar 12, 2020
5
0
10
0
You're nucking futs if you think that ANY of those games are going to play at 60fps on a GTX 1650 at high or ultra settings. Probably, not even at medium settings. I'm calling BS on that. Not happening. Complete nonsense. Maybe at low-med settings on 4k. Sure as hell not at high or ultra settings on 4k.

You show me the HARD PROOF, via reputable review that shows that, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you can take that crap right back to the farm with the rest of the BS. It's not even remotely believable. Pure troll.

That card gets like 35fps at 1440p on Division 2. 4K? Pffft. Right.


57FPS on GTA V, at very high quality. At 1080p. 4k? Pffft. C'mon man. If you're going to make up stats, at least TRY to be somewhat realistic about it.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14270/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1650-review-feat-zotac/10

Destiny 2 at the highest settings, at 1080p? 69FPS.

AC: Odyssey at 4k? 8, yes, EIGHT frame per second.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-gtx-1650-gaming-x/6.html

Even at 1080p that card only gets 32FPS on that game.

Seriously, IDK where you are getting the idea that card can do over 60fps, much less 100fps, on any of those games, at anything more than maybe low-medium settings, but it's simply not true.
Then I don’t know what to tell you... I loaded gtav on a 4K tv. Looked in the graphics settings all where highest possible and the resolution was at 4K.. running / driving / flying.. explosions.. nothing I did caused lag. It was smooth af.
as I clearly said, I never tried any other games but from what I gathered they would run just as good, all but Warzone. Rocket league would run on a toaster, I know because I was playing it on an i5 laptop intel hd4400u graphics before getting my new build. So I can see rocket league running 100+ FPS Maxes out at 4K.. I mean I get around 300fps on steams FPS counter are 1080p.. I can’t see it losing over 200fps at 4K.
I accept I could be wrong with the other games I mentioned as I know they’re demanding. Fortnite runs on my current setup at 200-270fps maxed out (motion blur off) at 1080p.
Get off your high horse fella.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
It's not about a "high horse". It's about misinformation and blatantly inaccurate facts. You just need to be able to back your position with facts, as I did, or you need to not post them when they are so outlandish because we have a pretty strict rule about not posting false or misleading information or opinions in a manner that makes them seem as though they are facts when they are not. Otherwise, we turn into a cesspool of falsehoods like LTT and Reddit and that's not happening.

If you are unable to understand the why of that, I'm sorry, but that's the way it has to be. It's one thing, and totally acceptable, to say "In my opinion, this and this etc." but to say, "it WILL be able to do X and Y" and you don't have the empirical or factual evidence to back it up. Nah, that can't fly here. Sorry. Nothing against you personally.
 
Mar 12, 2020
5
0
10
0
It's not about a "high horse". It's about misinformation and blatantly inaccurate facts. You just need to be able to back your position with facts, as I did, or you need to not post them when they are so outlandish because we have a pretty strict rule about not posting false or misleading information or opinions in a manner that makes them seem as though they are facts when they are not. Otherwise, we turn into a cesspool of falsehoods like LTT and Reddit and that's not happening.

If you are unable to understand the why of that, I'm sorry, but that's the way it has to be. It's one thing, and totally acceptable, to say "In my opinion, this and this etc." but to say, "it WILL be able to do X and Y" and you don't have the empirical or factual evidence to back it up. Nah, that can't fly here. Sorry. Nothing against you personally.
I understand exactly what you mean. Nowhere did I say it WILL and that it’s a fact. Read my comments and you will see that I used the word “should” what I said was not inaccurate at all. It was a direct explanation of my experience. I’m not arguing either. I offered a solution that works for me... end of.
 

Fusion1005

Great
Jan 15, 2020
145
7
85
0
I understand exactly what you mean. Nowhere did I say it WILL and that it’s a fact. Read my comments and you will see that I used the word “should” what I said was not inaccurate at all. It was a direct explanation of my experience. I’m not arguing either. I offered a solution that works for me... end of.
Either ur fps counter is lying or you got a 2080ti that's disguised as a 1650. Actually a 2080ti "only" averages around 160 fps on Apex Legends, so something better than that. There's no way a sub $200 GPU can average 300 fps on any game period. The 1650, at 1080p high settings on Apex Legends, averages about 60 fps. Something's clearly messed up here.
 
Last edited:

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Either ur fps counter is lying or you got a 2080ti that's disguised as a 1650. Actually a 2080ti "only" averages around 160 fps on Apex Legends so something better than that. There's no way a sub $200 GPU can average 300 fps on any game period. The 1650, at 1080p high settings on Apex Legends, averages about 60 fps. Something's clearly messed up here.
Clearly. I agree.
 
Mar 12, 2020
5
0
10
0
Either ur fps counter is lying or you got a 2080ti that's disguised as a 1650. Actually a 2080ti "only" averages around 160 fps on Apex Legends, so something better than that. There's no way a sub $200 GPU can average 300 fps on any game period. The 1650, at 1080p high settings on Apex Legends, averages about 60 fps. Something's clearly messed up here.
Did you actually read what I posted? I said ROCKET LEAGUE gives me 300fps. To be exact, I get 278-310 whilst in a match. That is the ONLY game I said will hit 300fps.
not apex, not fortnite or any of the games aforementioned.

I also said that I could be wrong about other games.
so as you say, steams FPS counter must be broken, huh?
or are my eyes deceiving me?

nothing I said, was presented as fact, again, if you read, I used the word should.
again, I accept I could be wrong on other games. But I’m not wrong with rocket league.
fortnite gives me 250fps min when maxed out with motion blur off.
Other than that I don’t know what else to say to you. If you don’t believe me then that’s down to you, I really couldn’t care less.
 

Fusion1005

Great
Jan 15, 2020
145
7
85
0
Did you actually read what I posted? I said ROCKET LEAGUE gives me 300fps. To be exact, I get 278-310 whilst in a match. That is the ONLY game I said will hit 300fps.
not apex, not fortnite or any of the games aforementioned.

I also said that I could be wrong about other games.
so as you say, steams FPS counter must be broken, huh?
or are my eyes deceiving me?

nothing I said, was presented as fact, again, if you read, I used the word should.
again, I accept I could be wrong on other games. But I’m not wrong with rocket league.
fortnite gives me 250fps min when maxed out with motion blur off.
Other than that I don’t know what else to say to you. If you don’t believe me then that’s down to you, I really couldn’t care less.
When I used Apex for the benchmark, I was saying that if it only gets around 60fps, there's no way Fortnite can run at over 200 fps.

Look up 1650 game benchmarks. Overwatch, one of the least demanding games out there rn, only averages 126 fps at 1080p high on the 1650. Fortnite, at 1080p high on the 1650, only averages 85 fps.

Look, I'm not straight up calling you a liar, but there's something wrong here, and it's not me cuz look up the benchmarks.
 
Reactions: Phaaze88

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Did you actually read what I posted? I said ROCKET LEAGUE gives me 300fps.
Actually, what you said was

If your budget is tight, I just got an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with a GTX 1650 and it plays all the games I’ve tried at max.. GTAV / Rocket league / Assassins Creed Syndicate / Unity / Fortnite. all above 100fps
I am yet to try Warzone. I imagine I should get at least 60fps on high/max
You said nothing at all about 300fps, and you certainly included a lot of titles that we've already established that there is no way you could achieve over 100fps with the mentioned hardware. You are trying to save face and change what you said, after the fact, and that isn't going to fly around here. At this point you should just admit that you made a mistake with your statement and move on. Simple as that.
 
Reactions: Fusion1005

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS