-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DF: [Budget 4k] Destiny 2 vs GTX 970/ GTX 1060: 30fps Is Easy, But What About 60?
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
a 970 at 4k 60fps? i doubt it. maybe with everything completely turned down.
i'd rather play at 720p 60fps than 4k 30fps or 4K ~60fps with lots of drops.
i'd rather play at 720p 60fps than 4k 30fps or 4K ~60fps with lots of drops.
Turin Turambar
Member
I couldn't do it with a gtx 1080, so I'm going to gout out on a limb and say No.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Lol, you should have been able to do.
Turin Turambar
Member
I meant 60 fps minimum, I think I could have 60 fps average, yeah.
In any case at 4K it needs a 1080Ti
I meant 60 fps minimum, I think I could have 60 fps average, yeah.
In any case at 4K it needs a 1080Ti
Pro tip: PC games don't always have to be played at the highest possible settings.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
I meant 60 fps minimum, I think I could have 60 fps average, yeah.
In any case at 4K it needs a 1080Ti
Change to SMAA, DoF and Shadow one notch down, 4k 60fps here we go!
Lister
Banned
Muskieratboi
Member
I have a 1060, and I'm running on an aging i5 4570K.
I went to FXAA, put DOF down a notch and used HBAO instead of 3d.
I could play this in VR at 4k. (90FPS minimum)
This game is optimised as *fuck* and I love it. Vicarious Visions know their shit.
I went to FXAA, put DOF down a notch and used HBAO instead of 3d.
I could play this in VR at 4k. (90FPS minimum)
This game is optimised as *fuck* and I love it. Vicarious Visions know their shit.
Dictator93
Member
You're playing 4k/60 with a 4570k/1060? Wow, maybe I need this (I have a 1060 and 4670k)
Zombegoast
Member
Does the FPS counter in Geforce not work in Destiny 2 Beta? Without touching the video settings and the game choosing 4k, it showed it running around 40fps
And couldn't the 1060 be OC'd to 140 Core Clock and 760 for Memory Clock?
And couldn't the 1060 be OC'd to 140 Core Clock and 760 for Memory Clock?
Eh, on the basis of RAM issues it does have problems from time to time. But it certainly isn't useless.
Well, yes, my reply back then was that you might have to step down texture settings a bit in some games, but could certainly go higher in other settings instead.
With that one caveat (which only applies to some games) it very clearly still outperforms PS4 across the board.
ISee
Member
At the beginning even RTSS worked.
Most 1060s are able to hit about 1.95-2GHz. vram mostly depends on the manufacturer. Samsung DDR5 seems to be able to hit higher speeds then DDR5 from micron.
720p and not 1080 p?
And to think that there are still people who really think that you need vastly more capable hardware on PC than what's in the consoles to get a similar experience because of that...
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I meant 60 fps minimum, I think I could have 60 fps average, yeah.
In any case at 4K it needs a 1080Ti
The trick is to ignore max settings. Often you can get surprisingly high resolutions and framerates on modest harware but you have to run at High instead of Ultra. The increased resolution and framerate is almost always better for the overall presentation and play-ability compared to maxed settings.
franklyshankly
Member
I have the same as yours and no there is no way anything close to 4K 60. 1440p 60 on high was about my max.
TatteredHat
Member
If you're not allergic to turning down some of your more demanding settings you can get a ton more mileage out of your PC components.
texhnolyze
Banned
I had it running at 60fps locked on max settings except for MSAA at 1080p & 130% internal resolution (which I believe somewhere close to 1440p, though not sure how it works compared to native 1440p). The cpu is i5 7600.
franklyshankly
Member
Right but that's not anywhere near 4K that the other person suggested they were running at 90 FPS.
texhnolyze
Banned
Well, true. 4K 90fps on that setup is simply impossible.
Polygonal_Sprite
Gold Member
It's more impressive considering I built a gaming PC with a 970 in it in 2015 which cost me £850 and the PS4 Pro was £350 in 2016. The Pro is great value for what it does imo.
1440p/165hz IPS + G Sync is where it's at
Agreed though. I'd rather play 1080/144 than 4k/60 in a shooter.
Even my old 670 was besting base PS4 games. (I own a PS4) Although to be fair it was like a $400 card on release. I'm expecting my replacement 1060 to last into the PS5/XB2 era (for 1080p).
LelouchZero
Member
I have not seen this at all, unless you're talking about having texture quality settings which exceed the console versions? Do you have any examples?
Sad Affleck
Member
I am so envious of people who bought a GTX 970 at launch. Such a beast of a card.
The "70" series is always the price/performance king. Certainly not for "budget" builds, but worth shelling out the extra cash for an upgrade.
I doubt we'll see another Pascal-like leap with Volta, but it was crazy how a 1070 outperformed the previous generations Titan considering the price difference.
Destiny 2 PC: What Does It Take To Hit 1080p 60fps?
They did a video on 1080/60, don't know about at "console settings" though.
Thanks!
Edit: Richard could have gone even lower but the Pentium being able to keep 60fps is really amazing. This should run on almost anything for 1080p30.
So the other guy was chatting rubbish?
Not me
franklyshankly
Member
I would prefer to think they were mistaken, but yes there is no way they were anywhere near 4k60, let alone 4k90 on that hardware.
My guess is 1080p
This gen, it may have actually been the 580/1060. At least early on, as the 1070 and 1080 were difficult to find at MSRP (early stock issues + founder's BS). The 1060 launch didn't suffer from the same magnitude when it came to supply and was generally available at the advertised $250-$330 for AIB cards. (The Asus Strix was $330...)
Plus from what I've read, it's a much better 60 card than the 960 was in both price and relative performance.