Which is the best Graphics Card for ULTRA 1440p@60FPS Gaming and ULTRA 1080P@60FPS Gaming?

[taimoorbaig382]

Hello. Heading explains all....... Start telling me the cheapest ones first... BUT THEY SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF ULTRA 1440P@60FPS Gaming And ULTRA 1080p@60FPS Gaming
Thanks

 

[RCFProd]

Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB SC GAMING ACX 3.0 Black Edition Video Card ($409.99 @ B&H)
Total: $409.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-10-10 03:29 EDT-0400

Video Card: Sapphire - Radeon RX VEGA 56 8GB PULSE Video Card ($419.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $419.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-10-10 03:30 EDT-0400

BUT THEY SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF ULTRA 1440P@60FPS Gaming!
Thanks

Not a single graphics card on the market is able to max all settings and always keep a super decent frame rate, not even the highest end one (GTX 2080 Ti). Some settings, usually volumetric lighning or anti-aliasing are meant to be disabled or set to lower in some games.

 

[taimoorbaig382]

What About a Manli Gallardo GTX 1070 8GB for 1080p@60FPS ULTRA gaming?

 

[taimoorbaig382]

Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB SC GAMING ACX 3.0 Black Edition Video Card ($409.99 @ B&H)
Total: $409.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-10-10 03:29 EDT-0400

Video Card: Sapphire - Radeon RX VEGA 56 8GB PULSE Video Card ($419.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $419.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-10-10 03:30 EDT-0400

BUT THEY SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF ULTRA 1440P@60FPS Gaming!
Thanks

Not a single graphics card on the market is able to max all settings and always keep a super decent frame rate, not even the highest end one (GTX 2080 Ti). Some settings, usually volumetric lighning or anti-aliasing are meant to be disabled or set to lower in some games.

Yes! That's why I said ULTRA not MAXEDOUT.

 

[RCFProd]

GTX 1070 would be great for 1080p@60fps, even 1440p@60fps it would still usually be fine.

 

[taimoorbaig382]

GTX 1070 would be great for 1080p@60fps, even 1440p@60fps it would still usually be fine.

Is Manli Gallardo a good brand?

 

[RCFProd]

That seems like a local brand, only sold in your area. It doesn't seem to be a globally known OEM so I have no idea.

 

[taimoorbaig382]

That seems like a local brand, only sold in your area. It doesn't seem to be a globally known OEM so I have no idea.

see this: http://www.manli.com/en/products/NVIDIA_Graphics_Cards/Discontinued_Products_/products/89

still a local brand?

 

[taimoorbaig382]

they also offer a RTX! http://www.manli.com/en/products/NVIDIA_Graphics_Cards/Gallardo_Series/products/131

STILL A LOCAL BRAND?

 

[RCFProd]

Not entirely sure really, however since it has no reviews and I'm not really familiar with the brand, I can't tell you if It's good or bad.

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

or 1080p, the 1070 should be able to get you average 60fps on ultra preset with things like AA turned down and maybe other things like AF turned down too, but a 1070ti would be better.

For 1440p 60fps ultra settings, with AA off and AF turned down, you would need at least a 1080. If you want balls to the walls no compromise though with guaranteed 60fps 99% of games then the 1080ti is your best bet.

For cheapest cards you can just use PCPartPicker to see that.

As for more recommended options in each category I present you these:

GTX 1070:

Gigabyte G1 Gaming $404.98
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/YpH48d/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-g1-gaming-video-card-gv-n1070g1-gaming-8gd

GTX 1070 Ti:

MSI Duke $432.99
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Yfs8TW/msi-geforce-gtx-1070-ti-8gb-duke-video-card-gtx-1070-ti-duke-8g

GTX 1080:

MSI Duke $489.99
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/49YWGX/msi-geforce-gtx-1080-8gb-duke-oc-video-card-gtx-1080-duke-8g-oc

GTX 1080 Ti:

MSI Gaming X $769.99
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/YNVBD3/msi-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-11gb-gaming-x-video-card-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-gaming-x-11g

 

[guanyu210379]

For 1440p 60hz gaming, 1070, 1070ti and 1080 are the best options.
Performance rough thumb comparison.
1070 = 100%
1070ti = 107%
1080 = 115%
Problems: prices for those cards are quite similar (some 1070 is sometime the same as mid-range 1080, so be careful), price comparison homework is needed!

If you can still afford 1080ti or 2080, this is also quite good with future proofing in mind.

Manli, I think this is known as Galax or KFA2 outside China. If that is the case, yes, it is a good brand. I had already 3 cards so far from KFA2, 2 970s and a 1080.

 

[boju]

Ultra = Ultimate settings and is assumed as so. There is no consensus for maxed out, maybe Uber?

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

For 1440p 60hz gaming, 1070, 1070ti and 1080 are the best options.
Performance rough thumb comparison.
1070 = 100%
1070ti = 107%
1080 = 115%
Problems: prices for those cards are quite similar (some 1070 is sometime the same as mid-range 1080, so be careful), price comparison homework is needed!

If you can still afford 1080ti or 2080, this is also quite good with future proofing in mind.

Manli, I think this is known as Galax or KFA2 outside China. If that is the case, yes, it is a good brand. I had already 3 cards so far from KFA2, 2 970s and a 1080.

I think you're mistaken about the 1070 at 1440p. I guess it depends on the games you're playing, but if it's a heavy hitter or the newest title, ultra settings at 1440p won't cut it at 60fps. You'll be getting around 40-45 and that's if you overclock. I should know, I have a Strix 1070 and it's overclocked and at 1440p I have to turn down a few major settings to get a little over 60 usually around 70 so that my lows and dips aren't going to make me want to gouge my eyes out.

Titles I refer to are ones like AC: Origins, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and The Division. Haven't tested much else to see what's what at 1440p with this card so that's all I can say for now game wise. But I'm sure there's some other titles for sure that are just as bad.

 

[guanyu210379]

For 1440p, even 970 can still do the job on most games.
You just have to adjust some settings to fit the FPS (mostly on low, I had a single 970 for 1440p at the beginning before I went for 2 and them moved to 1080).
1070 should be about 60-70% faster than 970.


The reason why 1070 up to 1080 the best option for 1440p :
1070, 1070ti and 1080 are not that different from one another, max 15-20% or something like that between 1070 and 1080, with 1070ti somewhere in between.
The prices from 1070, 1070ti and 1080 are overlapping each other.
The better option is actually 1080ti if you want more robust FPS and more future proofing but a single 1080ti cost on average about twice as a single 1070 (at least here where I live), which would be a problem for most people.

 

[RCFProd]

More importantly to mention, It's actually kind of recommended to turn your settings down to medium, as turning the settings over medium costs way more performance in comparison than there is being any perceivable difference in quality. If next to those you leave a few post-processing options enabled, like HBAO and FXAA/MSAA, those do make a very perceivable difference and It's what developers use on consoles by default to make their games look good, usually.

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

More importantly to mention, It's actually kind of recommended to turn your settings down to medium, as turning the settings over medium costs way more performance in comparison than there is being any perceivable difference in quality. If next to those you leave a few post-processing options enabled, like HBAO and FXAA/MSAA, those do make a very perceivable difference and It's what developers use on consoles by default to make their games look good, usually.

I would beg to differ. While I mostly agree with you I think there's quite a perceivable difference between medium and high. I feel that the high preset is the baseline since that's where developers recommend the game be played at for an optimal experience. It's also the preset they use when telling you recommended system requirements.

For lesser card like 1060 medium 1080p is obviously where you sit, but on a 1070 high 1080p is where you sit most comfortably. when going to 1440p though is obviously where things start to get finicky. depending on title most games at high 1440p is just fine and looks great, but obviously for those heavy weight champion games medium preset or more preferably a custom mix of medium/high with a couple of useless things turned down or off is where the sweet spot is for the most part.

 

[RCFProd]

People have done tests about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnluU-pV6cU

Even a reliable channel that really details graphics and performance comes to a similar conclusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8VrFUi79yo

A more detailed discussion that targets the right points about ultra graphics settings:
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/684da8/discussion_ultra_settings_has_lost_its_meaning/

I'm super nitpicky to graphics and frame times, I have noticed almost nothing in most of the games I played. In a lot of games, there truly is not even an incrementally worth mentioning amount of difference really. There will always be games that are an exception, but I'd say It's true for about 80% of all modern AAA flagships.

 

[guanyu210379]

More importantly to mention, It's actually kind of recommended to turn your settings down to medium, as turning the settings over medium costs way more performance in comparison than there is being any perceivable difference in quality. If next to those you leave a few post-processing options enabled, like HBAO and FXAA/MSAA, those do make a very perceivable difference and It's what developers use on consoles by default to make their games look good, usually.

No! Most games can be recognized if you are going for all high or all medium
but
ultra or maxed out is for most cases mo longer noticeable aside from FPS lost.
These are important:
Better shadow quality and more shadow
Lighting effects e.g. HBAO, GodRay, etc.
Better viewing distance
More things to see e.g. more grass, more people, etc.
Better texture

Those AA are not really that important if you are already playing on higher resolution and if your monitor pixel density is already good enough. At least my eyes can not really tell the different.

 

[RCFProd]

There are small differences in going from medium to high, I never really argued otherwise. It usually already isn't worth the amount of performance loss though, in my opinion atleast.

I'm also more about user defined settings rather than using presets (which people accomodate with high + post processing settings). In my experience, using a mixed of medium and high settings with post processing enabled usually delivered the best performance/quality ratio.

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

I think we can all agree this thread has been hijacked for long enough. This discussion can be continued in a new thread if need be.

Time to close this one down.

 

[boju]

More details are always better but not at the cost of shitty game play.

The graphics are there but the hardware isn't (Crysis moment), hence optimising for whatever detail preset that is currently achievable at the time. Obviously it'll be suicide for developers to configure games for anything but playable frame rates especially on console hardware so i can see how a game optimised for consoles can seem domineering over PC gamers if the game doesn't run so well.

There are probably other games that do the same but Ghost Recon for example has a side by side comparison between each detail setting and theres quite the difference when looking at it then and there. During game play wouldn't notice as much but i'd say you wouldn't know until you play in those settings quite a bit and then go back to normal details. Field of vision would get used to more details i would imagine.

 

[RCFProd]

I think we can all agree this thread has been hijacked for long enough. This discussion can be continued in a new thread if need be.

Time to close this one down.

Hijacked? The problem has been marked as solved by the user seeking help lol. The graphics argument seems pretty interesting to me.

 

[guanyu210379]

A bit off topic,
Cranking up details makes the visual better.
However, depending on the game type, even if you have the same FPS, on some games you do not have the time to look around and starring at the beauty of the graphic.
For RPGs e.g. Skyrim, Witcher 3, etc. you will sometime just stop and look around.
Now, try to do that on PUBG, BF1, CS:Go, etc. and let see how fast until you got shot at! hahahahahaha....
On some games, FPS is simply much more important

 

[guanyu210379]

ehem...
Back to the topic,
For 1440p 60hz monitor, 1070 to 1080 should be enough unless you can spend quite a lot more for 1080ti, 2080 or even 2080ti.
At the moment for some games, you have to make some compromises like turning down some settings to get good FPS, especially if you do not have that much money to get stronger cards.
As for me, the first options I turn-off are usually those AA stuffs. If the FPS is still bad, I will then start lowering the details and effects.