best nvidia gpu for 1080p @ solid min 120fps in most games

JesterOI

JesterOI

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
162
Hi all, bit of a troglodyte here. But, if I want the best chance to game at a minimum 120fps on a 1080p 144hz gsync monitor what would be the minimum nvidia GPU to aim to get? A 2070?

CPU is a 4690k @ 4.4ghz


Thanks!

***edit: currently running 2x GTX 980s
 
JesterOI said:
Hi all, bit of a troglodyte here. But, if I want the best chance to game at a minimum 120fps on a 1080p 144hz gsync monitor what would be the minimum nvidia GPU to aim to get? A 2070?

CPU is a 4690k @ 4.4ghz


Thanks!

***edit: currently running 2x GTX 980s
Click to expand...
3060 would do well. So would a 1080 ti or 2070. Your CPU being only 4C/4T might cause you some limitations in newer titles.
 
for 120hz at 1080p in most games, you will need some headroom. 2070/3060 isn't enough.

You should be looking at something like an RTX 3070. That will get you 120fps in many games. And I don't just mean peak frames. A 3070 will keep higher minimum frames, too. Even still, you may have to dial down some settings from Ultra, especially in the newest games.

You should also upgrade your CPU. Haswell CPUs are bottlenecks these days. Your minimum frames will suffer a lot, with that CPU.
 
Are you planning on running ultra/high details or low for the fps details? A 2070 on low medium will probably suffice but like others mentioned the cpu upgrade is also important. There's a huge improvement in your 1% lows with a closer to current cpu from my personal experience.
 
chameleoneel said:
for 120hz at 1080p in most games, you will need some headroom. 2070/3060 isn't enough.

You should be looking at something like an RTX 3070. That will get you 120fps in many games. And I don't just mean peak frames. A 3070 will keep higher minimum frames, too. Even still, you may have to dial down some settings from Ultra, especially in the newest games.

You should also upgrade your CPU. Haswell CPUs are bottlenecks these days. Your minimum frames will suffer a lot, with that CPU.
Click to expand...
He doesn't really need that much power especially because he's got a gsync monitor.
 
As others have said, your CPU is a definite bottleneck. Most of today's games utilize multiple cores.
 
Furious_Styles said:
Perhaps he does not realize the benefits of gsync. He also did not specify "120 min fps ultra only settings..."
Click to expand...

I think he might know the benefits, though it would be for the smaller range of 120 to 144. I notice a big difference between 90-110 fps at 1440p on the old 2080ti to now 165+ on the 3080ti. Even with a gsync monitor. While Gsync at variable framesrates from 60~120 probably would help, I would argue depending on the games the op plays he might have a competitive advantage running 120fps flat. Which is why the question above about medium/low settings vs high/ultra. If OP is just planning on playing esports shooters outside of COD or Apex, I would say something like the 1660ti would easily run a solid 120fps on current games at 1080p (along with a cpu upgrade).
 
Criticalhitkoala said:
I think he might know the benefits, though it would be for the smaller range of 120 to 144. I notice a big difference between 90-110 fps at 1440p on the old 2080ti to now 165+ on the 3080ti. Even with a gsync monitor. While Gsync at variable framesrates from 60~120 probably would help, I would argue depending on the games the op plays he might have a competitive advantage running 120fps flat. Which is why the question above about medium/low settings vs high/ultra. If OP is just planning on playing esports shooters outside of COD or Apex, I would say something like the 1660ti would easily run a solid 120fps on current games at 1080p (along with a cpu upgrade).
Click to expand...
He would not have an advantage at 120 flat. If anything, it would be advantageous to run vsync off if he can run fps 2-3x the refresh rate. Otherwise gsync is going to give him no tearing and almost identical latency.
 
Furious_Styles said:
He would not have an advantage at 120 flat. If anything, it would be advantageous to run vsync off if he can run fps 2-3x the refresh rate. Otherwise gsync is going to give him no tearing and almost identical latency.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.


He wants 120minimum in most games.

He does have Gsync, yes.

Gsync'd 120 is going to be a lot better than Gsync'd 60. Not only for input latency, but also temporal motion resolution. Which is one of the big reasons that high refresh gives a competitive advantage. But that also just looks nice, even for single player games.
 
chameleoneel said:
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.


He wants 120minimum in most games.

He does have Gsync, yes.

Gsync'd 120 is going to be a lot better than Gsync'd 60. Not only for input latency, but also temporal motion resolution. Which is one of the big reasons that high refresh gives a competitive advantage. But that also just looks nice, even for single player games.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to give him the facts. I did not comment on gsync 120 vs 60 for a good reason. The question is whether OP understands the benefits of gsync in the first place and that 120 min fps is an odd requirement if he does.
 
Furious_Styles said:
I'm trying to give him the facts. I did not comment on gsync 120 vs 60 for a good reason. The question is whether OP understands the benefits of gsync in the first place and that 120 min fps is an odd requirement if he does.
Click to expand...
It is odd but for streaming its helpful. Having your sync set at 2x any other monitor helps with massive stuttering issues with obs. I have no idea if this even relates to the op though.

Would you mind sharing what is relevant in this case about gsync? I own a few but love to more about the system. Would be nice to fill in the gaps. If it's off topic would love a pm if you don't mind.
 
Furious_Styles said:
I'm trying to give him the facts. I did not comment on gsync 120 vs 60 for a good reason. The question is whether OP understands the benefits of gsync in the first place and that 120 min fps is an odd requirement if he does.
Click to expand...
again, i'm not sure what point you are trying to make. but you aren't explaining yourself.

So......what are you at odds with about "minimum 120 fps"?
 
chameleoneel said:
again, i'm not sure what point you are trying to make. but you aren't explaining yourself.

So......what are you at odds with about "minimum 120 fps"?
Click to expand...
What point have I not made clear? I said I don't think a 3070 is necessary and explained why it probably isn't. What more clarity do you need?
 
Maybe I'm dense here but, you seem to be circling a point, across a few posts. But I'm struggling to understand exactly why you are at odds about 120fps minimum.

It seems like you are hung up on input lag. But I'm not sure. And that's why I asked you to explain it all together. Which would have been much more efficient than this loop-de-loop we are now caught in. And because you didn't explain more, after I asked, I'm not going to write a book, to try and cover the bases I guess. Hoping I come across your direct point.

variable refresh rate support is not free lunch on input lag. And neither is a gysnc module, specifically. VRR at any given refresh rate, is not lower input lag than that same refresh rate, without VRR. And often, VRR is actually a little higher. Depending upon the monitor, it can even be over 1ms higher. This alienware was tested by RTings as nearly 2ms higher input lag with VRR at 60hz Vs. 60hz without VRR. But most of Rtings monitor reviews, show VRR and yes, even Gsync modules, as .5 to 1ms higher input lag.
and incase this wasn't clear: VRR doesn't make input lag at 60hz as low as input lag at 120hz.


It definitely helps input lag when your framerate is varying, as it helps organize frame delivery vs. input delivery. And that, besides eliminating tearing, is one of the main points of VRR (a point which Nvidia's "Reflex" expands upon). But high refresh rate is still the main factor in lowering input lag. and if you are maintaining a high minimum, the potential benefit from VRR for average input lag evaporates. Because you aren't really varying that much, at that point. Especially if you cap fairly close to your minimum.

The other big benefit to high refresh rate, is that more frames displayed means you see more resolution and detail, during motion. It looks better, allows you to react better because you see things closer to when they actually happen and you see things more consistently due to the temporal benefit of more visual information. This is very important and is, in my opinion, probably more beneficial for competitive play, than the input lag benefit of high refresh rate. Your brain is viewing more information about what's happening in the game.

High refresh rate also contributes indirectly to "feel". Maybe like how smell interacts with taste. The temporal smoothness and visual consistency of high refresh interacts with how your inputs "feel". Even if you didn't have the input lag benefit.
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
Maybe I'm dense here but, you seem to be circling a point, across a few posts. But I'm struggling to understand exactly why you are at odds about 120fps minimum.

It seems like you are hung up on input lag. But I'm not sure. And that's why I asked you to explain it all together. Which would have been much more efficient than this loop-de-loop we are now caught in. And because you didn't explain more, after I asked, I'm not going to write a book, to try and cover the bases I guess. Hoping I come across your direct point.

variable refresh rate support is not free lunch on input lag. And neither is a gysnc module, specifically. VRR at any given refresh rate, is not lower input lag than that same refresh rate, without VRR. And often, VRR is actually a little higher. Depending upon the monitor, it can even be over 1ms higher. This alienware was tested by RTings as nearly 2ms higher input lag with VRR at 60hz Vs. 60hz without VRR. But most of Rtings monitor reviews, show VRR and yes, even Gsync modules, as .5 to 1ms higher input lag.
and incase this wasn't clear: VRR doesn't make input lag at 60hz as low as input lag at 120hz.


It definitely helps input lag when your framerate is varying, as it helps organize frame delivery vs. input delivery. And that, besides eliminating tearing, is one of the main points of VRR (a point which Nvidia's "Reflex" expands upon). But high refresh rate is still the main factor in lowering input lag. and if you are maintaining a high minimum, the potential benefit from VRR for average input lag evaporates. Because you aren't really varying that much, at that point. Especially if you cap fairly close to your minimum.

The other big benefit to high refresh rate, is that more frames displayed means you see more resolution and detail, during motion. It looks better, allows you to react better because you see things closer to when they actually happen and you see things more consistently due to the temporal benefit of more visual information. This is very important and is, in my opinion, probably more beneficial for competitive play, than the input lag benefit of high refresh rate. Your brain is viewing more information about what's happening in the game.

High refresh rate also contributes indirectly to "feel". Maybe like how smell interacts with taste. The temporal smoothness and visual consistency of high refresh interacts with how your inputs "feel". Even if you didn't have the input lag benefit.
Click to expand...
I'm not circling at all. I'm in need of more information from OP as to WHY he requires 120fps min. For example, if OP is concerned about input lag, he would want ~144 fps min, not 120. Or he would run vsync off and go for 2-3x fps over refresh rate.

But maybe he is concerned about streaming like koala mentioned, if that's the case then I understand where he's coming from and it makes more sense.

I also have already mentioned no matter what his choice of GPU that his CPU will likely be an issue for him whether he requires 120 fps min or anything higher.
 
would suggest a 3060ti or 3070.. but depends on the game as well. as other have said likely to be cpu bottlenecked.
 
dthree said:
would suggest a 3060ti or 3070.. but depends on the game as well. as other have said likely to be cpu bottlenecked.
Click to expand...
There is no likely to it as his CPU is not even capable of maintaining 60 FPS in some games. In fact pushing a GPU such as a 3060 ti or faster would result in a stutterfest in most halfway modern games out there as he would be completely and utterly CPU limited trying to achieve 120 fps. Hell he probably wouldn't even see much more than 50% in GPU utilization in some games.
 
Last edited:
I would build a new Ryzen 5 5600x system for now and use the 980GTX until GPU's become something a Shane person would pay .. FSR will help your older gpu for now in those games and the 5600x should offer the up most speed that your 980GTX has ever seen . Like already said back off the settings as 1080p Med would offer that on an RX 570 at 144Hz

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top