Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: BX80662I36100-thumb.jpg (19KB, 235x210px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 235x210px
how reductive can we get when discussing video game necessities with computer parts?
like right now everyone is saying that if you play at just 1080p 2GB is perfectly fine
but is that for ever? is that based on raw data of the resolution vs whats needed to display it on screen?
also the same goes for CPU, there doesnt seem to be a technical reason for why people say an i3-6100 is fine an can run almost every game, but then they say other games you should try to get atleast the i5-6500
both have 4+ threads and the same clock speeds
so is there an actual 1080p future proof CPU?
now that 4K and other resolutions are being pushed so hard shouldnt it make it easier to now literally purchase a 1080p build and never worry?
just like how the 750ti is still kicking on 720p resolutions
>>
if you plan to play at pleb resolutions forever you need a cpu heavy system
>>
>>58333047
why is that?
>>
>>58332895
for a future proof, max graphics settigs, 60hz, 1080p I think a gtx 1060 6gb, 16gb ram, i5 6400 would be good enough.
>>
>>58333181
>gtx 1060 6gb
Swap it for RX480 8Gb and it'll do.
>>
>>58333195
This
>>
>>58333195
why would 8GB be needed if 2GB is all we need now?
how much more polygons can they fit in a 1080p display to require that much more ram?
isnt that the raw reductiveness of discussing game graphics?
>>
>>58333181
>future proof
>recommends a card barely decent enough to run current gen without max utilization
If you want to future proof, buy something that's overkill now.
>>
>>58333231
i ran DEMD on a gtx670 at pretty much all low settings. used almost all of the 2GB. mircrostutter was pretty bad in some places. peak of 50fps down to sometimes less than 30fps. it's definitely noticeable when your frames go down almost 50%.
5 years is a good run for a vid card. got most of parts for my tower. waiting on vega/volta before i finally build it. funny because now i have little/no time to game.
>>
>>58333231
>2gb is all we need
from where did you get that? if you take a look at bf1 it's already using 3gb vram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxjABfWxu-o
>>
>>58333278
was that at the same resolution?
i would think the 670 was probably more of a 900p or 720p card for its time and especially now
>>
>>
>>58333195
Nice bait mate.
>>
>>58333326
1080p.
are you kidding? it was a fantastic 1080p card for its time. nipping at the 680. check the old reviews for it. what was above it? the 680 and the titans. of course it was a great card. 5 years ago the standard res for PC gaming was well within 1080p territory.
DEMD, arkham knight and ryse made me decide to upgrade. shit looks phenomenal these days. i want the eye candy and the fps.
>>
Several games use over 4Gb of VRAM. GoW4, CoD4 Remake, Witcher 3.
>>
A 970 isn't enough to max newer games at 1080x60, you'll want something quite a bit more powerful than that if you want to future proof 1080
>>
>>58332895
>>58333181
>>58333240
>>58333450
Anyone using ""future proof"" in the context of GPUs is litterally a retard.
>>
>>58333626
so you mean there will reach a time where a 1080 will barely run games at 720p60?
again we're talking about the same resolution
not futureproofing to also play at the newer target resolutions and VR bullshit
>>
>>58332895
I'm playing gtav, a 2 year old game, at 1080p and using over 3gb of vram. Who the fuck told you 2gb was enough?
>>
>>58333644
>so you mean there will reach a time where a 1080 will barely run games at 720p60?
The GeForce 3 Ti 200 I used 12 years ago cannot run Witcher 3 at 1024x768 (a res I normally used withthat GPU), so yes.
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1