1080p is still great quality

hahaha i am using 768p monitor lol

***** Yeah ofc , but first you need a good GPU.

*****​​​ Woah woah, slow it down there! I was gaming on my old lcd 1280x1024 monitor up until two years ago when I finally moved up to a nice ips 1080p gaming panel, granted I would often hook up the gaming PC to my 55" TV during that time, but still, 4:3 gaming, big disadvantage when playing online first person shooters, like wearing horse blinders on lol

.

Yes and I understand their reasoning, as in to show the card with the minimum cpu bottleneck. However many people don't overclock, most people I know, even those with K series or AMD equivalents don't overclock, they chose the cpu (and their higher end GPU for that matter) for the high stock speeds, so for them especially things like this give a false indication of what they may get, especially as even if they do overclock there is no guarantee they will get the same overclock. I'm all for the overclocked and stock being on the charts. It gives you and idea of what to expect by default and what you will get if you choose to tinker with your system a bit. It is also one of the reasons why so many people I know don't overclock, they see the minimal boosts in most cases and see they can make a smaller quieter cooler system without missing much. Long story short, baseline should always be stock clocks in my opinion, then throw in overclocks and the like.

English is my main language and my grammar is usually awful, and don't get me started on my spelling, I have been spoiled with spell correct :D

Cards nowadays boost themselves automatically as long as their GPU loads and heat/fan speeds are within safe limits. Asus Strix 1070 in most PC's will go to 2ghz out of the box as mentioned above. This is making it rather difficult to assess benchmarks like this one that don't tell us what clock speed they ran the games at...

+Darkobssession "gpu twek" lmao

DED DOA I just don't get why you wouldn't overclock. A 980 ti stock is worse than a 1070 but when both are overclocked it comes close to a 1080.

yeah! me too bro

me tooooo

me 2 xD

Darkobssession i was gonna do that with my current 970, but i might do what you said get my 1070, then get another

can't wait to get my 1170

Darkobssession unfortunately i don't have time right now

Get a 144hz monitor because using a 1070 with a 1080 60hz monitor is overkill

On what settings?

Koncz Dávid lol he didn't reply. Can you smell that?

He is using the founders edition gtx 1070. Also, you definitely lowered some settings

1070 get 5 FPS less

Hex Bug what are you talking about??

OC would add about 10 to 15 percent more performance.

It lowers the framerate a lot

Its a Nvidia technology still in its infancy. Takes a big hit on fps and usually limited to the hair of the main character only (Geralt in Witcher 3 and Lara in Tomb Raider). On AMD cards a drop of 20 fps usually takes place by Hairworks alone. Nvidia cards get a hit of 10-15 fps with Hairworks. To keep an equal playing field its kept disabled on benchmarks for all Nvidia and AMD cards.

+aka vuuh but why? this is benchmark,benchmark is have a function so that we know how big the GPU performance.

I think the Hairworks should be turn on in benchmarks :)

I my self have a 1440p monitor, but if youre gonna game definetly pick the 1080p one.

At what graphics settings would like to play 1080p@144hz or 1440p@60hz at, and what GPU are you running? I'm going to assume you're running a single 1070, if you are then a single 1070 will not max all games out at 1080p and achieve 144FPS, you will have to lower settings to obtain that. If you decide to get a 1440p monitor then it will run games at relatively high settings in most games at a smooth 60FPS just fine. In the end its preference, 1440p will bring better picture quality, 1080p@144hz will bring smoother gameplay, possibly at the cost of graphics fidelity assuming you're running a single GTX 1070.

This is more of a driver issue which can easily be improved as more driver updates come out which will improve performance in DX12.

Márk Mózer Just get the 1070 the 1080 is overkill right now I have a 1070 and its SUPER good

You do not need the 1080 if you want to play 1080p/60fps/ultra. Get a 970 when it gets cheaper. But everything else would be overkill until you get a 144Hz or 1440p monitor to play on.

take 1070

George Watkins it can but is won't look as good as native 1440p on a 1440p monitor

George Watkins i have the same problen now;at the end,what monitor have you choose?

The image will be slightly blurry, but the jump from 1080 to 1440 isn't enough to become very noticeable. 4k to 1080 is a completely different story though.

yeah ill stick to 1080p

that i think definitely has to be because it is VERY cpu intensive, also. Remember, not all games run off of the GPU mainly lol, shit some even barely push GPUs and are all on the CPU. it's either the game engine or, seeing as that it's some sort of..RTS?.. Then there's A LOT of units to render, it will still be GPU intensive because of DX12 let alone lots of graphical fidelity, but there was a lot of stuff moving around. I mean, they put it in the video to showcase a GPU, but still..but yeh, just my educated guess.

+Loose Goose I guess that's true, it could be CPU intensive instead, but then it would still run slower on 1440p right? Because it would be more intensive? There's no way this game should be that unoptimized. Seems like a real issue when this rig can run Rise of the Tomb Raider at 90fps and some RTS can't even get to 60 most of the time on the same system...

TheShangryLlamas lol that's past the extent of my knowledge *shrug* lol but yeh, another example about CPU intensive games, if u have a gpu that's strong enough then u can literally run 1080p and 1440p at the same framerate XD LOL that happens to me in guild wars 2, u can cap out graphics easily but it has HUGE battles like in an RTS, and any CPU just chugs in world vs world or big PvE events...ridiculous

+Loose Goose I know that Dolphin is pretty CPU intensive but if you put more of a load on it it will run slower... That just doesn't make any sense for it to be the exact same amount of FPS with the a higher or lower amount of settings o.0

TheShangryLlamas xD i never had a problem with it. my i5 can more than handle it, even if it's more cpu intensive. There's games much more cpu intensive lol

Very little, it may improve you minimum FPS but other than that it won't effect your FPS too much excluding some CPU intensive games.

Zamorazone this was the answer I was looking for. Thanks

wtf 6700k bottleneck xD

maybea it is just witcher bro... or only nvdia...

yes you can it will however not look very nice at 1080 but you can change it like you want it within windows

1170 will be catered towards titan XP so probably a really capable 4k card

not max but High-medium in 6 years

Yeah you should with no problem. I just upgraded from the 970 to the 1070 and it runs so smooth im happy i did lol.

1440p would be better for 1070

Very little, you'll get just about the same FPS maybe with lower minimums.

ironically enough sometimes the 1440p resolution was performing better than the 1080p benchmark, weird :/

Zyad48 yeah i thought so too

Will not bittlenevk

+jorlexali Bottleneck

I overclocked it to 1315mhz/2120 mhz memory

i have the same set up my i5 is a 4.4ghz no lags here format your pc or reinstall drivers

Daevon Jackson okay thanks see if that works

Harrison Sloan lmk how it goes

Because it's shitty optimised and AMD's ass kisser game. That's why AMD showed it as the reference game where RX 480 CF beats GTX 1080 in FPS. We'll see that in other games.

+Ege Yılmaz Somebody's really eager to find Conspiracy Theory here

No, it's a fact that it's way more optimized for AMD cards. Most games optimize for Nvidea or both, but Ashes is definitely for AMD.

JZStudiosonline That doesn't mean it cripples Nvidia. Nvidia themselves have issues with the game because of their drivers "OHHH But MSAA Bug" thingy, or the fact that 1080 doesn't render everything. Also AMD went with AoS because this game is the only one that makes really good use of Dx12

Still does not explain why in many scenes it performs lower in 1080p than 1440p.

Depends if you're okay with 30fps.

I have seen some benchmarks where it goes to mid 40 in fps.

I don't doubt that at all. Personally, it irritates me jumping FPS constantly. For example, getting 40s to 50s and then dropping into the 30s would bug me. In that case, I would cap off at 30hz. Which is why I said, if you're okay with 30fps.

Ah fair enough. I would be okay with the fps jumping. But I might wait after and save up for a gtx 1080. I am also interested in the gtx 1060 that is coming out soon to replace my gtx 970 for 1080p gaming.

The jumping around hurts my eyes. I prefer consistency. I'd like a 1080, but to do anything more than 1080p60hz would require a complete pc upgrade. I've been debating for a minute now on building a new rig and I have a mediocre computer now. i5-4690k 8gb ddr3 1600hz gtx 960 4gb. Most games I do okay in. Been playing GTA V on a mix of High / Ultra settings and I've maintained 60fps for the most part, with the occasional mid 50s dip. However, I really want to move up to 1440p. Tom Brown

Well, the Titan X struggles to maintain a decent frame rate in 900p...

and with a r9 280 ad an i5 you can play the game maxed out 35-40fps

ciprianrobo There was a comparison a while ago and the GTX 970 couldn't get 30fps stable on lowest settings at 720p.

Dylan Soesman Yeah. Saw one video where the GTX 1080 was running QB at around 35fps at 1080p ... WOW! GTX 1080 Ti can't come fast enough!

R6ex I think that even 4 1080s in SLI won't run that game well, it's horrendously 'optimised', and is locked at 50FPS.

No way, you may notice a slight bottleneck at 1080p, but that will be only above 100 fps.

+randomstuff676 Thanks :)

You're gonna wait a long time for that, graphical fidelity will always improve so GPU's have to catch up every release

we aren't at 90fps at 4K ready.

Pascal is just shrunken down Maxwell. Not really that impressive really. You see all the benefits from the the new process. Higher clocks ect, but not really much more. I was hoping to upgrade my 980ti to whatever they replace it with,but i'm deff waiting on vega now.Or for an NEW architecture that isn't just a Maxwell/pascal shrink. Have they always done this?

Tyler Franks​ Pascal is a completly new chip. Butthurt AMD fans kep spewing this bullshit. Pascal actually gains FPS in DX12, so its not Maxwell at all mang. Also, Vega is releasing in Q2 2017. So basically wayyy to late

it is on a new process. Its not really a new technique. It's a shrunken Maxwell. It's as different as two twins can be. the shorter one is more athletic. I have a 980ti that's overclocked. So basically I have a stock 1080atm. That's plenty to get me through till vega releases. pascal is underwhelming so far. Unless you put your pc on a pedestal & that's the only thing you really have in your life....HEY! Is that a picture of a pc in your google+ picture??? :]

Running 1440p on a 1080p monitor is a waste of money. Better off with a cheaper gpu or a higher end monitor. Also I don't really think "Max graphics settings" are as important as they used to be. Look at a comparison of Low vs Very High settings on Crysis 1 compared to Crysis 3 (Reddit). It doesn't seem worth it to run maxed out settings unless you are using 1440p or higher to really take advantage of the fidelity. It becomes a very expensive game of spot the difference.

JayJapanB I have used monitors which can show much higher resolutions but are not considered standard because you have to go into the settings to access them. Windows 10 just opens them up for easier access. TV's have also been sold that were already 1080p but they were advertised otherwise yet the Specs showed if you used the HDMI port you got 1080p! If you knew this you could save money not getting the "Full HD 1080p" logo on the box when the cheaper model already had 1080p. Do ones homework, I have been doing mine since 1982.

TekReviews Why would a manufacturer advertise a product at a lower spec? What would they have to gain? If you are buying a 1440p monitor that is a BIG selling point of the monitor. They even use different cables to 1080p. We aren't talking about CRTs here. Where there were more trade offs between resolution and refresh rate. If you have been doing your research since 1982 you could probably do yourself a favour and go out and buy a 1440p monitor. Decent 1440p 4ms AHVA 8bit panels are like $230. A 1070 and a 1080p TN panel is just poor purchasing.

JayJapanB Because the "FULL HD 1080P" boxed model cost $100 MORE in the USA! I read the specs on the cheaper model "You get 1080p using the HDMI port, the Component ports only 1080i", people who aren't smart enough to research products pay more. The rest of us save money and who uses component anyway, HDMI was the standard by then. But I have to repeat what I said to you twice since you didn't listen. There are 720p TV's being sold that ALSO will do 1080p IF you use the HDMI port and not the Component ports.

Why would a manufacturer advertise a product at a lower spec? What would they have to gain?

you spent 2000 bucks right there

that's why dumb ppl buy Titans. they didn't learn from the original titan.

+AllyourBaseArebelongToUs it's because je buyed them before the 980ti fuckin idiots

lol i expect it to still look impressive for as long as Crysis 1 looked impressive way back in the day, tbh. i think Crysis 3's graphics are underrated, and i mean of course it will look superior because it released like 7 YEARS later lol but for it's time too, it looks incredible. Maybe not at the same level, because well crysis 1 couldnt even be run on a single GPU yet while crysis 3 was since it was released..my point still stands, though! haha

in my opinion, crysis 3 looks the best out of all PC games.

+AllyourBaseArebelongToUs Yes,. Crysis 3 still have the best FPS graphics

Trebla [Pλrenter] the vanishing of ethan carter is up there as well.

Fuck man CRYSIS still looks great and that game is old as shit

yes it is actually you should buy 1440p monitor for gtx 1070. believe me

Just bough the Asus ROG PG278q (found out about pg279q using IPS but can't refund my purchase anymore) to couple with 1070. Man it's darn expensive.

yeah dude

but I'm gonna buy 144 hz 1080p monitor for my gtx 1070

It'll be good enough for 1-2 years, as more demanding games will be released.

1070 is a bit bad at OC

+Hex Bug lol what? you still get 10% more performance...

not that true i made a +200 mhz computer rebooted xD

Hex Bug +150Mhz will get you around 5-10% more fps

Hex Bug like running the card around 2ghz will give you easily 5-10% more fps

wtf ?

VLAD URBAN Are you high?

Could be thermal throttling.

Glorious PC Master Race what's that?

Have you downloaded the latest drivers from Nvidia?

Always.

fixed it yet?

lol, i can easily tell a difference even between 50 and 60 fps

Dude,stop the bullshit,seriously. 60fps is a huge difference from the stuttery 30fps Hell i can even tell when my framerate goes from 60 to 55

You're just psyching yourself out to think there is a difference when there really isn't one. If some one had two separate videos one running at 50FPS and one at 60FPS with them unlabeled you wouldn't be able to identify which is which.

mate what you are saying is deffenently not true i just cant play games at 30 fps it hurts my eyes

Dude stop bullshitting there is NO difference 30FPS is not stuttery it doesn't look any different your just probably trying to justify that overpriced PC you bought lol.

most games doesn't support sli that's why I'm sticking with the 1070

+arsenalozil yeah but still having the performance of a GTX 980 fir 200 bucks man

kodemasterx true it's up to what you're are looking for. I'm looking for something as strong as the titan x

+arsenalozil ok me personally I'll stick to 1080p for a while... I got a good 144hz monitor that I won't get rid of for now

I am getting 480 as long as it's around the ball park of 980 because from whats reviewed on the GTX 1080 the SLI 980 defeats it (Even though they claimed otherwise). I will also go with AMD this time around because Nvidia is getting ARROGANT on pricing. Like 600 dollars? If you were to look at big pascal (Telsa) then you will see how much they are holding back on GTX 1080. Np I will speak with my wallet.

Because Australia has a shitty government with exorbitantly high tax on incoming or outgoing products. Unless it's made in Australia, you're paying for it. Try going down to your local post office and ask what the charge is to ship to America, or anywhere really.

***** Not really no, the exchange rate does not justify a $600 price increase, that is literally double to what America pays, the exchange rate would make it roughly $800-900 not $1,200, it's nothing but greed, they're assholes that try to squeeze as much money from us as possible. Australia gets ripped off for literally everything, we pay double and even more than double in many cases than America, even for our own bloody products made here they charge a fuckton. Australia may be considered one of the best countries in the world to live, but fuck me do we get ripped off the most.

Kitty Kat Who says Australia's one of the best countries to live in?

JZStudiosonline The majority of people in the world, Australia is ranked one of the highest for best and safest place to live in.

Kitty Kat Uh huh, sure.

I don't speak Russian so I had to translate, but I think you are referring to the frame-time graph. Its the length of time each frame stays on the screen for.

CPU limited

wow, with a fuck top I7

now.

lol xD

:(

Can u do sli on ur mono ?

Mobo

Hex Bug z97 gaming 5

- M1StakeS well i did the same you can upgrade your gpu in 2 years but your monitor will be future proof and in competetive games like cs go it makes difference

youre an idiot

i5 or i7 is post common

You mean 2k? (1440p)

+Stairwave 2.5k is 1440p. When we say K we count the horizontal amoun of pixels which is 2560.

2560X1440.

+Lasse Egebo 2.5k is just some Random Invention. There is enough names for resolutions. Call it WQHD If you want But 2.5k is just stupid imo

+Lasse Egebo 2.5k is just some Random Invention. There is enough names for resolutions. Call it WQHD If you want But 2.5k is just stupid imo

rip my 20k pc

kakakakakakkakakakkakakak Nice troll mate ;)

Jesus, could you have at least made the trolling A LITTLE less obvious?..I mean you may as well have said afterward "I'M JUST TROLLING, DON'T FALL FOR MY BAIT!" lol i mean i know I'm replying still but wow

You're right. DigitalFoundry just released a video of the PS4 Neo's specifications running 4K at 30 FPS. Imagine how well it would run without Windows bothering it and with it being specifically optimized for the console.

ExuberantKnack wtf??

Also 90fps in novigrad holy shit, my 970 gets 40-50. Gonna upgrade this shit.

AMD investors!