Buyer's remorse... GTX 1080

K

KIAman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
289
I game at 2560x1440 so I went from my old GTX 980 to GTX 1080 and a completely new PC build (sandybridge to skylake).

I've done a ton of benchmarks and synthetics and the 1080 is clearly superior by over 100% margins in some tests.

The FPS overlay clearly show that the games I play (FO4 for example) has gone up from 50 max settings up to 100+ max settings.

BUT... visually, if I didn't have that FPS counter, I don't see a lot of difference in the games I play. The old 980 in the old sandybridge was visually (this is totally subjective opinion) the same. Most games ran high FPS already that getting a 2 fold increase didn't seem to add much value.

My monitor is 96hz so maybe I need a Gsync capable 120hz+ monitor to see but at this point, I have slight buyers remose.

Anybody else chime in?
 
Well if you ever want to try VR then you are better off with the 1080, but until a game comes out that really taxes your card then yes it wont really gain you anything but more fps.
 
I'm just looking to see if I'm missing something or am I just too old to notice I went from 60 to 100 fps in games. I'll try DSR, thanks!
 
crank up the AA...even super-sampling...max out all other graphics options as well...
 
If you start maxing out with ridiculous AA, you are going to see lower mins and increased stutter due to the frame drops. Your overall experience won't improve much. A high refresh G-sync monitor is going to be a night and day difference for you, if you truly want to see the benefits of your new card.
 
NukeDukem said:
If you start maxing out with ridiculous AA, you are going to see lower mins and increased stutter due to the frame drops. Your overall experience won't improve much. A high refresh G-sync monitor is going to be a night and day difference for you, if you truly want to see the benefits of your new card.
Click to expand...

A 2560x1440 Gsync monitor is now on my christmas list. Thanks!
 
Sounds like you were just used to and content with lower performance so having faster frame rates is really not doing anything for you. It would be like torture for me to drop down to the GTX 980 from what I'm used to though. And even with the GTX 1080 there are several games that cannot hold 60fps at 1440p on max settings.
 
a GTX 1080 is ideally for 4K monitors, if you have anything less it will just increase your FPS above what is noticeable, as you have described. I have a 980Ti with a 2K monitor and hitting over 60FPS in every game I play on ultra so no reason to upgrade unless I get a better monitor (not planning on it)
 
AlphaFox said:
a GTX 1080 is ideally for 4K monitors, if you have anything less it will just increase your FPS above what is noticeable, as you have described. I have a 980Ti with a 2K monitor and hitting over 60FPS in every game I play on ultra so no reason to upgrade unless I get a better monitor (not planning on it)
Click to expand...
That is a complete load of crap. You must live in a fantasy land as a GTX 1080 cannot even Max all games and get 60 frames per second at just 1440p as I already mentioned. Hell there are a couple games I have to turn down settings at just 1080p such as Quantum break and Watch Dogs 2.
 
I don't buy graphics cards unless I need them now I upgraded way too early from the 970gtx to the 980ti.
The beauty of PC gaming is you don't need the latest and best of everything just to play the game.
 
If you werent unhappy with the performance you had then its not surprising it had little impact.
What difference were you expecting?
 
misterbobby said:
That is a complete load of crap. You must live in a fantasy land as a GTX 1080 cannot even Max all games and get 60 frames per second at just 1440p as I already mentioned. Hell there are a couple games I have to turn down settings at just 1080p such as Quantum break and Watch Dogs 2.
Click to expand...

well excuse me! all the games I play (new doom, overwatch, battlefield1) I can max out at 1440p with no issues on my 980Ti, maybe they aren't as demanding as the games your talking about.
 
AlphaFox said:
well excuse me! all the games I play (new doom, overwatch, battlefield1) I can max out at 1440p with no issues on my 980Ti, maybe they aren't as demanding as the games your talking about.
Click to expand...
Well it was really all of your post that was just plain silly. Saying that a 1080 is "ideally a 4k card" and that playing on a lower resolution will give you an unnoticeable FPS is just so for beyond ridiculous that it makes it hard to take you seriously. A 1080 stands no chance of getting any where near 60 fps on max settings at 4k in plenty of games. And again even at 1440p there are even many games where every setting cant be cranked and achieve 60 fps. And I am not even talking about demanding forms of AA that would really cripple it.
 
RE: 1080
I would argue that your game selection itself probably limited the tangible improvements (FO4 of all games :p)
I'd probably look to other modern games that actually benefit from increased graphical fidelity, but we've known about the 1080's poor value proposition, when compared to say OCed 980Tis.
Yes, at 4K there is much more noticeable separation, but I think you'd rather have a 1080Ti if you're moving to that resolution.

RE: CPU
SB vs Skylake - we've also had this discussion since the Skylake launch. Any well-overclocked SB (4.5-5Ghz) is not going to see a big boost compared to Skylake.
The funny thing is - I was shopping for a bare-bones build and the guy selling his SB combo even said as much in his listing (after he upgraded to Skylake).

Overall - I'd say if you want tangible benefits, I'd look more to your monitor itself (e.g. Gsync) to benefit from ULMB.@NukeDukem mentioned it earlier and I've seen Gsync in person at e-sports events. It's pretty insane. Or you could also look to your input devices (KB/mouse). These are things you interact with everyday, so if you can benefit from improvements there - do it :p
 
Mav451 said:
RE: 1080
I would argue that your game selection itself probably limited the tangible improvements (FO4 of all games :p)
I'd probably look to other modern games that actually benefit from increased graphical fidelity, but we've known about the 1080's poor value proposition, when compared to say OCed 980Tis.
Yes, at 4K there is much more noticeable separation, but I think you'd rather have a 1080Ti if you're moving to that resolution.

RE: CPU
SB vs Skylake - we've also had this discussion since the Skylake launch. Any well-overclocked SB (4.5-5Ghz) is not going to see a big boost compared to Skylake.
The funny thing is - I was shopping for a bare-bones build and the guy selling his SB combo even said as much in his listing (after he upgraded to Skylake).
Click to expand...


I went from a mildly overclocked 2500k (4GHz) to a 6700k at stock speeds (haven't found a need to OC yet) and I do notice a FPS increase in some games I play.. however, it wasn't like my FPS were all shit to begin with. Plus, already having a Gync monitor smoothed out games that had FPS that would vary. Was it entirely worth it? Eh... Considering the price difference (~$250) after selling my 2500k mobo + RAM, I think it was. It gives me more runway in the future and I get USB 3.1 and m.2 now.
 
M.2 is actually pointless.
Drives cost more, get hotter which reduces performance, use more PCI-E lanes (can lose 2 sata ports for one M.2 slot) and real life performance is hardly any different.
However, a 6700K is a good buy for maintaining constant 60fps at 1080p.
Higher res you might not care so much.
HT also helps.
Many USB 3.0+ ports is always good, essential for VR.

Until M.2 shows a real difference I'm sticking with SATA Samsung Evo drives.
If the 960 doesnt come in anything but M.2, I will probably get a 950.
 
WillC310 said:
I went from a mildly overclocked 2500k (4GHz) to a 6700k at stock speeds (haven't found a need to OC yet) and I do notice a FPS increase in some games I play.. however, it wasn't like my FPS were all shit to begin with. Plus, already having a Gync monitor smoothed out games that had FPS that would vary. Was it entirely worth it? Eh... Considering the price difference (~$250) after selling my 2500k mobo + RAM, I think it was. It gives me more runway in the future and I get USB 3.1 and m.2 now.
Click to expand...

Yeah you should have just got a better HSF and OC'd that 2500k to 4.5+ if you didn't mind waiting a little longer. Iirc 6700k is 4ghz stock with boost to 4.4 and you damn well should see some fps differences at equal clock speed and 6th gen vs. 2nd gen cpus. The next CPU I'm looking to get has to be a 6 core I'm thinking, because I primarily use my PC for gaming and right now 2nd gen/3rd gen gets the job done well.
 
misterbobby said:
Sounds like you were just used to and content with lower performance so having faster frame rates is really not doing anything for you. It would be like torture for me to drop down to the GTX 980 from what I'm used to though. And even with the GTX 1080 there are several games that cannot hold 60fps at 1440p on max settings.
Click to expand...


Yeah I see the parallel. *Rolls eyes.

maxresdefault.jpg



----------
Hardware is ahead of software at this point. I agree with the gsync recommendations suggested. I use freesync and was surprised how valuable I find it.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
When has the x80 part ever been a good buy?
Click to expand...
I don't think buyers have ever been as swindled as 780 buyers were. $649 for a $499 part...that didn't stand the test of time.
Then again it had already happened in 2008 - with the 260/280 lmao. But those cuts occurred far quicker.

Fool me once...fool me twice. And, so forth.
 
Mav451 said:
I don't think buyers have ever been as swindled as 780 buyers were. $649 for a $499 part...that didn't stand the test of time.
Then again it had already happened in 2008 - with the 260/280 lmao. But those cuts occurred far quicker.

Fool me once...fool me twice. And, so forth.
Click to expand...
so you were duped 4 times? you sad sad soul :/
 
Haha nah. Got the GTX 260 after the price cut and had the rebate applied directly via Newegg chat. Posted quite a few times in that thread actually. Consequently it was when I figured out my 620HX seasonic unit was a squealer haha.
 
I'm kind of in the same boat as you were. I'm running a 980 and thinking about a 1080. But at least what you get is more vram. I regret to not have waited for the 10 series for that because even at 1080p, 4Gb is really limiting on new titles at ultra.
 
JDpro said:
I'm kind of in the same boat as you were. I'm running a 980 and thinking about a 1080. But at least what you get is more vram. I regret to not have waited for the 10 series for that because even at 1080p, 4Gb is really limiting on new titles at ultra.
Click to expand...
Honestly 1080 versus 980 is night and day. I went from titan x to 1080 and loved it. I game at 4k though
 
KIAman said:
I game at 2560x1440 so I went from my old GTX 980 to GTX 1080 and a completely new PC build (sandybridge to skylake).

I've done a ton of benchmarks and synthetics and the 1080 is clearly superior by over 100% margins in some tests.

The FPS overlay clearly show that the games I play (FO4 for example) has gone up from 50 max settings up to 100+ max settings.

BUT... visually, if I didn't have that FPS counter, I don't see a lot of difference in the games I play. The old 980 in the old sandybridge was visually (this is totally subjective opinion) the same. Most games ran high FPS already that getting a 2 fold increase didn't seem to add much value.

My monitor is 96hz so maybe I need a Gsync capable 120hz+ monitor to see but at this point, I have slight buyers remose.

Anybody else chime in?
Click to expand...

I can fully understand having buyers remorse because that is a LOT of money you just spent. However, if you plan on keeping the computer at least as long as the last one and game a lot, I think you will get your monies worth. Therefore, unless you can return the items and go back to what you had, enjoy them. (I did go from an FX 8350 to 6700k and back to an FX 8300 because I prefer AMD, game at 4k and barely game at all anymore.) Try doing a DSR resolution to 4k and see what that looks like as well.
 
This is why I don't see any reason to upgrade from my current setup in the next year or two -- I'm at minimum going to ride out Skylake / Kaby Lake with my 2500K and 980Ti SLI setup and see whatever Intel's next chip (or if AMD suddenly stops being horrible, whatever follows Ryzen -- Zen+ I guess?) brings to the table.

You at least have a 96Hz monitor; my Dell U3415W is a great display and I'm very happy with color reproduction and resolution, but it's 60Hz (and I'm fine with that) so there's literally no gain for me going to a newer chip. I'm already getting 60+ FPS solid in every game I play at max or near max (I usually turn off motion blur cause I hate it) in every game I play. 90, 120, 200 FPS... won't make any different to my experience. Yes, I know some things out there I can't pull 60 FPS with a 2500K at 4.6Ghz... but I don't play them. Could care less about GTA V, large scale multiplayer FPS, etc.

ManofGod said:
I can fully understand having buyers remorse because that is a LOT of money you just spent. However, if you plan on keeping the computer at least as long as the last one and game a lot, I think you will get your monies worth. Therefore, unless you can return the items and go back to what you had, enjoy them. (I did go from an FX 8350 to 6700k and back to an FX 8300 because I prefer AMD, game at 4k and barely game at all anymore.) Try doing a DSR resolution to 4k and see what that looks like as well.
Click to expand...

I've seen you post about this many times -- the whole 8350 to 6700K to 8300 thing -- and it just feels... odd. Off. In literally every metric the 6700 is the better chip but you went back because you prefer AMD. You felt so guilty about Intel building a faster machine that you washed your hands and "went home"? It's weird. Feels like awkward placement advertising.
 
Ah, screw it, if you do not like what I own and the choices I made, that is on you. (Directed at the post above mine.) OP, are you gaming pretty heavily? Have you tried DSR yet?
 
Last edited:
Maybe you're just not very sensitive to FPS changes? Personally I can tell a large difference between a game with a 50 fps average and a 100 fps average
 
RamonGTP said:
Maybe you're just not very sensitive to FPS changes? Personally I can tell a large difference between a game with a 50 fps average and a 100 fps average
Click to expand...

I personally cannot tell the difference overall but, then again, I also play on an XBox One and 360 from about 11 feet away from my 50 inch Sony LCD TV. (There is that.) Personally, I do not think it unusual to have a bit of buyers remorse after spending of $1000 but, I think the OP will fully enjoy it at least until 2021 or so. :)
 
All of you were right. I got a dell G-sync monitor and fired up some games I haven't played. Just last night I opened a save game from witcher 3 which I never finished and everything is just so much smoother... even my mouse cursor is smoother. I don't regret the purchase, it was just a bit of sticker shock. I know I have a decent future proof setup. Gonna finally play Final Fantasy 15, once I'm done with witcher, can't wait!
 
KIAman said:
All of you were right. I got a dell G-sync monitor and fired up some games I haven't played. Just last night I opened a save game from witcher 3 which I never finished and everything is just so much smoother... even my mouse cursor is smoother. I don't regret the purchase, it was just a bit of sticker shock. I know I have a decent future proof setup. Gonna finally play Final Fantasy 15, once I'm done with witcher, can't wait!
Click to expand...
Future proof...Biggest Oxymoron in this community.
 
KIAman said:
I game at 2560x1440 so I went from my old GTX 980 to GTX 1080 and a completely new PC build (sandybridge to skylake).

I've done a ton of benchmarks and synthetics and the 1080 is clearly superior by over 100% margins in some tests.

The FPS overlay clearly show that the games I play (FO4 for example) has gone up from 50 max settings up to 100+ max settings.

BUT... visually, if I didn't have that FPS counter, I don't see a lot of difference in the games I play. The old 980 in the old sandybridge was visually (this is totally subjective opinion) the same. Most games ran high FPS already that getting a 2 fold increase didn't seem to add much value.

My monitor is 96hz so maybe I need a Gsync capable 120hz+ monitor to see but at this point, I have slight buyers remose.

Anybody else chime in?
Click to expand...


Wow, did you come out of an anus to bitch at us all? You have spent thousands of dollars and still not happy? I would like your wallet!
 
I've got a desktop PC and an HTPC. Previously, both were running GTX 970s.

The desktop is running a 144HZ 2560x1440 G-Sync monitor
The HTPC (primarily) runs 1920x1080,.. and also an HTC Vive

I bought a GTX 1070. Guess which one it went to? The HTPC. Because of VR.

I'm keeping the 970 in the desktop until I start running into frame rate issues that can't be solved by just turning down a few settings... And was already there in VR.
So, yeah, if you were already getting acceptable frame rates, the new card wouldn't exactly help you a whole lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top