GPU for 1440K 3D gaming from gtx1060

[Darkbluesky]

Hi,

Just as title says. I am looking to upgrade from a strix gtx1060 6Gb to something better that allows me to play in 3D in 1440p with just minimum 50fps. The 1060 was just fine up to 1080p but it is not enough, even for me, for 1440p. I have been looking around and I could get a second hand strix gtx1080 a8g for 300€, a rtx2070 is around 600€ here.

Looking reviews it seems that at 1080p and 1440p the rtx2070 only improves on average 10fps over the 1080 which to me seems really dissapointing, specially considering the ~300€ cost difference among both options. Am I missing something? What would be your recommendation? I am not willing to spend so much as ~600€ but I could consider (not sure I'll do, but I'd consider) a price tag like that if it would bring some clear benefits over other cheaper options…

Thanks!

[Obveron]

Normally I'd say the 2070 super, 2080, or 2080 super. But the super cards you can't run 425.31, and the 2080 is discontinued. That leaves you with 2080ti.

[Darkbluesky]

What do you mean when you say that the super can't use the 425.31? Do you mean that the super can't do 3D?

I didn't know that the rtx2080 has been discontinued...which one is the new that will replace it?

[whyme466]

Darkbluesky - suggest you review relevant discussions in this forum. For example, see https://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 05&t=23411.

[Darkbluesky]

Ok, I see, thanks. So the Super cards could be used in 3D too. A pity that they are still too expensive for the improvement vs 1080. I see still interesting a 2nd hand gtx1080, for the price...and it is too soon for a rtx2070super second hand...

[john105]

I would go with either the GTX 1080 Ti or non-super RTX 2080. They provide exactly the same performance. Both are discontinued, but it's possible to still buy them. The GTX 1080 (non-Ti) would also be fine as it's not too far behind in performance. I wouldn't buy the 2080 Ti because I think the minimal performance difference specifically in 3D doesn't justify the price (see https://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 89#p165626 you can ignore the SLI part, just look at single 1080 Ti vs 2080 Ti). I wouldn't buy a Super card because it's not supported by the last official driver with 3D Vision - 425.31. But if you're willing to risk, you can still get a Super card and use a modified version of newer drivers.

[bo3bber]

What are the details for the rest of your system? The bottleneck is not necessarily the video card for different setups.

Outside of other info, I'd say you would be well served by the used 1080 as the much better value than current cards. NVidia successfully jacked up the prices for 20xx generation cards, so we get to pay a premium for modest gains.

1080 should be OK with 1440p as long as you are OK turning down some settings on the handful of very demanding games. For even a little bit older stuff, this will work well.

[Darkbluesky]

Thank you , I have a i7 9700K @ 4.6GHz, 32Mb DDR4 RAM @3200MHz, Win10x64. I'll look and see if I can find the 1080 a bit cheaper… I saw a RTX2070 (NOT super) almost new at 450 € maybe 400€. Still in doubt, but you have reason, the 20xx gen cards are too expensive for the gain.

[Necropants]

Due to some issues with the 2080ti. (I think this is the reason things like 3dsurround doesn't work anymore.) and very retricted compatible drivers I would recommend a 1080ti if you can find one second hand. Hell I have even considered going back to it.
This was really a phenomenally good card, which may explain the huge delay in the successor....

Yeah in some titles you may need to turn down some settings...

[Darkbluesky]

I have seen that the 1080Ti performs the same as a RTX2070Super, and I can find the 1080Ti quite cheaper (second hand) than the RTX2070Super (or even the RTX2070). And it seems that a RTX2080 is currently above my budget (no wonder a RTX2080Ti).

I would have been preferred an RTX (because it has all the current features…) but I wonder… aside of some marginal (or perhaps more important, if 2080Ti) increase on fps, is there any other advantage to consider for the 20xx generation? I know about Raytracing, but it seems that it takes a hit of 50%, more or less, in fps (!). If that is true then I guess it is not an option for 3D gaming… Or raytracing or 3D but not both. Moreover it seems that the graphic improvement is somewhat subtle… Maybe people with a 20xx could confirm? Am I wrong?

Aside of raytracing, is there any other benefit?

[john105]

I have seen that the 1080Ti performs the same as a RTX2070Super, and I can find the 1080Ti quite cheaper (second hand) than the RTX2070Super (or even the RTX2070). And it seems that a RTX2080 is currently above my budget (no wonder a RTX2080Ti).

No, the GTX 1080 Ti is the same as the RTX 2080 for performance. Check https://www.pcworld.com/article/3307439 ... d-buy.html for example. The RTX 2070 Super is slightly slower than both.

[RAGEdemon]

When you say 50fps at 1440p, why?

The question doesn't quite make sense...

1. Different games perform differently at the same resolution. HL2 engine games might get you 4 times the FPS of say Metro Exodus with purely the GPU being the bottleneck.

2. Why 50fps? The vast majority of monitors are locked at 60; and the majority of 3D monitors work at 60fps. Playing at 50fps will give you huge microstutter and vsync/tearing issues.

Anyway, next year both PS5 and next gen XBox are launching with vastly superior graphics. Most PC games are ported console games, and next year onward, most new PC games will be ported PS5 / next gen XBox games.

Be very careful what you decide to purchase right now, as next year, it will be woefully underpowered for new games even at 1080p.

Some advice: I play ALL my games at 3DV ~1440p, and I have been doing so for the last 4 years. Having owned 970 SLi, 1080 SLi, and now a 2080 Ti, I can tell you this:

Even for current gen games,
-- a single 1080 is not enough
-- a single 1080 Ti is not enough for near max settings on most modern games.
-- a 2080 Ti is good for 3DV at mostly max settings for 60fps @ 1440p.

Caveat: Even thus, you will rarely get this mythical 3DV 60FPS in modern games due to the CPU bottleneck (3 core bug). However, if you play in compatibility mode, you can bypass the 3 core bug to get ~same performance as you would in flat 2D.

Even so, on an OC 2080ti in 3DV compatability mode, 5GHz CPU, 32GB 4GHz memory etc, I still can't play at 60fps in games like kingdom come deliverance without turning down settings a notch or two. Even proper 3DV with the community fix nets me ~40fps average, which to me, personally, is unplayable.

Summary - you are likely after something which is as yet quite impossible to attain, but you can get close if you throw enough money and tweaking time at it...

Edit:
As a comparison of how things might be if the 3DV 3 core bug was ever fixed: I played Fallout4 VR supersampled to 3200 x 2000, all maxed settings, 4k textures, and 127 mods. In VR 3D, I got 90FPS (limit of Oculus Rift CV1) more than ~97% of the time. This is how 3D gaming should be... I still reminisce about the fluidity of 90fps 3D in VR vs. our current 60fps in 3DV. It is an absolute shame that more AAA games don't make it to VR.