1080s seem like they’re almost out of stock and prices seem to have normalized. Might as well get a new 2070 for the same price and performance.
That 2060 looks very similar to the 1070ti I just bought. Side grades are lame but it doesn’t seem like you’re gaining anything from the old gen now that prices are better.
Yes, that is always what was going to happen. There’s usually an extremely small window to buy the old cards, this generation was unusual in that Nvidia built a ton of them for cryptominers so they took awhile to sell out.
Could Nvidia snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? The 2060 looks very capable, 1070 ti performance level, plus RTX and DLSS, and delivers supposedly 88 FPS in Battlefield with raytracing turned on at 1080, for $350. The ups and downs of this whole launch continue…
Since it’s using DLSS it’s basically running the game at 720p to achieve that performance. Given the limitations on games getting DLSS support and the fact that reconstruction techniques tend to work less well the lower the resolution, I’d be hesitant to call that a great result.
The 960 was about the same speed as the 770, but cheaper.
The 1060 was about the same speed as the 970, but cheaper.
The 2060 is about the same speed as the 1070ti, but… the same price.
Is that a victory for consumers?
Not so much.
Considering the absurd prices the 2080/Ti cards launched at? Yes kinda…I mean have to take what can get since we are living in essentially a one GPU maker controlled world now.
“Beggars can’t be choosers” is a long way from “victory for consumers” in my book.
But…
The other cards you compared against the 70s. The RTX card you compared against the 70ti. That would mean significantly faster than 1070, yes, thereby justifying the higher price?
Nope. It should be cheaper than the equivalent GPU from the previous generation. That’s how it always worked before. Otherwise it’s a sidegrade, which is the primary complaint here. And yeah, it is a sidegrade.
Got it. Price is same as 70ti which is why you used that one. You are correct sir. Carry on.
Now I have to hunt for a reasonably-priced 760-960 for MAME without a bunch of clueless sellers demanding hundreds.
I have a 750ti sitting around. Good enough?
I’m currently running a 4GB 970 for my 27" 1440p display, but am wanting to upgrade to a 32" screen.
What are the thoughts here? Is the pixeldensity of a 1440p 32" acceptable or should I rather look at a 4k display?
(If I need to go 4k, that’d probably be too much for my 970 and I’d need to upgrade that too. Whats the consensus on an affordable cost/benefit upgrade for that? A 1070? Or best just wait for that new 2060?)
That’s 86ppi, which is a bit low. “Standard” is 96ppi, and 27" 1440p is actually a bit higher than that at 109ppi. If you find yourself using larger fonts on your current 27" monitor you’ll probably like it just fine.
If you want to game at 4k you really need an RTX2080, which is an $800 videocard. Of course you could play games on a 4k monitor at a lower resolution, it just won’t be pixel-perfect. Doesn’t matter in motion.
The 730 will do MAME and most emulation just fine but the 750Ti would be PERFECT in that it doesn’t require a power connector and will be able to do the curved CRT scanline shaders some advanced emulators have. Let me know what you want for it, relative to its performance position nowadays.
Stupid Kijiji local users or local retail that aren’t computer stores with old stock still want outrageous sticker prices :(
Thanks for the input! An $800 card is a outside of my budget, especially if I’m buying new screens. Will try to check out a 1440p 32" monitor in a store somewhere to get a feeling for the ppi.
Depends on the game of course, but 2070 might get the job done at ~$500.
I think this is the sweet spot of this generation. It costs the same as a 1080 did and is slightly faster. With a lucky overclock you could hit close to 1080ti speeds.
Sure, if it’s an older game.
The real skinny is that the 1080ti/2080 aren’t great 4k gaming cards. They can do it, with some compromises to image quality and framerate, but not great. Think a GTX1050ti, GTX960, or GTX770 at 1440p. You can do it, but you might not want to, particularly without g-sync, because you won’t hit 60fps in many titles. And the 1080/2070 is substantially slower than that.
The 2080ti is the first true 4k gaming GPU.
About that 4k gaming thing…
I did just upgrade from a 970 to 2070 and played around a little. I’ve got a 46" 4k TV I use as a monitor. I have it on my desk and sit around 1 foot away.
Honestly 1440 with AA was crystal clear for me at this size/distance. I wonder if 4k is a major case of diminishing returns. Or maybe my eyes are getting older.
You just don’t notice lower resolutions in moving video and videogames. You can tell a difference if you freeze frame and compare, and small text is noticeably sharper so it’s better for browsing and office applications, but the resolution increase isn’t a big deal.
That’s why Nvidia’s focus on image quality with ray-tracing may make sense in 2 years when it’s affordable and well-supported.
Got to say 64ppi (1440p at 46") at only 1 foot away is a pretty extreme case, though. I would have expected that to be noticeable with normal eyesight.