Will We Soon Enter A New Era of 1080p Budget Gaming?

Joined
May 4, 2018
Messages
62
With the push for 4k it seems like there will be a turning point in the near future where 1080p gamers will be able to game on very cheap cards @60-100fps. Imagine a 50-100 dollar card easily handling AAA modern games @1080p.

Or am I overly optimistic?

My thinking is the higher resolution you go the less difference you can notice and yet the higher resolutions like 4k need much more power from your hardware. For all those content with 1080p, I can see some major gains coming with regards to budget builds.

what do you all think?
 

ReaperX22

Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2013
Messages
720
I think you're overly optimistic. The problem is that newer games are still becoming more demanding as time goes on, so whilst the hardware currently 'keeps up' it's not like it's shooting ahead of the demand.

If game engines became more optimised/visuals became less of a priority/more stagnant, then eventually. But for now companies are still pushing the newest graphics, moving closer and closer to 'real life' images, so I still don't see your dream coming true anytime soon.
 

Sloginfizz

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
85
I also think that "4k" gaming still has a way to go. I don't see a noticeable difference in games played at 4k over 1080p on a 43" screen. Except for games with video sequences, most game play is preferable at a higher FPS than a higher resolution.

I see a lot of commenting that people don't move to 4k from 1440p because (affordable) video cards can't hit 100+ FPS at 4k yet. Unless the next gen video card has about 30-40% increase in FPS @4k resolution, I don't see that changing. Also, until we see monitors ~100+ Hz at 4k, serious FPS gamers will stick with their 1440p.

Recently a 4k monitor with 120 Hz was announced at $1400. That is not a mainstream price and only serious computer geeks would sell their 1440p monitors to upgrade. Remember most will have paid a premium for 1440p @ 144Hz.

I think your predictions are at least 3-4 years away. Personally, had I just bought a monitor, it would be at least 3-4 years before I would upgrade. Same with video card.
 

ReaperX22

Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2013
Messages
720
I personally have a 2560x1440 monitor at 27". I've been on one side 2011? I think (across two different models), and believe it's the sweet spot in general, especially now you can get 144+hz versions of it. It's 'challenging' for lower to mid tier cards to run, but is suitable for higher end cards, has a good pixel density, and doesn't require any type of scaling from windows.

I've refused to move from this res, and probably won't for a long time.

my original was a Dell U2711H, now on a BenQ in my sig.. Next will be a high refresh rate monitor! But likely only when my current dies because.. Well.. Money. :p
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,689
I think you're overly optimistic. The problem is that newer games are still becoming more demanding as time goes on, so whilst the hardware currently 'keeps up' it's not like it's shooting ahead of the demand.

If game engines became more optimised/visuals became less of a priority/more stagnant, then eventually. But for now companies are still pushing the newest graphics, moving closer and closer to 'real life' images, so I still don't see your dream coming true anytime soon.

Agreed. It will be possible but not very soon. If you said $160-200 GPUs at 1080 with 60 frame rates I'd say we're heading there.
 

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,504
We are just about there. How much is msrp on a rx 570/txt 1060? $150? For the most part you can play just about any game at 1080 at high/ultra with those cards. Usually this generation 570 is about as fast as next generations 660. What’s the msrp on a 560? $100?
 

pentiumiiislota

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 20, 2018
Messages
209
I think we're getting there soon. It seems like 1080p monitors and graphics cards are getting more reasonably priced. I was very happy with my rx470 that I got for around $150 New before the mining craze.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
$50-100 is optimistic at this point in time. $200 at non-mining, non-memory shortage prices would be easily doable. I have an RX 480 4GB and a 1060 6GB that breeze through games at 1080p
 
  • Like
Reactions: DF-1
like this

silk186

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,625
My next monitor purchase will be a 27" 1440 with high refresh and good colors. As others have said, that would cost more than twice as much for 4k.
 

Fuzzy_3D

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
195
I think we were pretty much there up until the GPU & RAM price hikes last year.

We've had budget builds capable of running the latest AAA titles at 1080p 60fps on medium settings for quite a few years now, there's really not much further the prices can fall unless you look at second hand parts or those intel NUC PCs.

Maybe you'd ask "Will We Soon Enter A New Era of 4k Budget Gaming?" to which I'd say "not without some solid competition", but 4k is where everything is headed. Just a matter of time now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
639
GTX 980/1060-level GPU performance will get you there; it's more about bringing that performance level down to cheaper SKUs. Maybe next GPU generation...

My problem is that while a GTX 980 is plenty for a 1080p120 monitor (Eizo FG2421 here), it's just on the edge of "adequate" for VR.

Also, let's not forget that expected gaming resolutions have only trickled up over time. For instance, most people started playing Quake at software 320x200 (classic Mode 13h), but 3dfx made 640x480 and even 800x600 gaming a reality. Keep in mind that console gamers had to settle for 320x240p at that time, and not always at a constant 60 FPS (certainly not with Quake). Nowadays, the thought of playing any game in a mere 640x480 would make people cringe, and they'd probably just run the same old Quake in a modern source port that does 4K or even 8K without a hitch on today's hardware.

We're already seeing 1920x1080 as entry-level nowadays. 4K and even 8K are what people aspire to, but the cost is too prohibitive right now, especially for those of us who like our refresh rates in the triple digits for greater motion clarity.
 

RazorWind

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2001
Messages
4,346
With the push for 4k it seems like there will be a turning point in the near future where 1080p gamers will be able to game on very cheap cards @60-100fps. Imagine a 50-100 dollar card easily handling AAA modern games @1080p.

Or am I overly optimistic?

My thinking is the higher resolution you go the less difference you can notice and yet the higher resolutions like 4k need much more power from your hardware. For all those content with 1080p, I can see some major gains coming with regards to budget builds.

what do you all think?
We're pretty much already there. I have a laptop with a 1050Ti and a 1080P display, and it takes all the games I've tried on it like a man. You can't max out the settings, but you can get to at least on par with consoles, it seems.

I guess maybe you couldn't reproduce this super cheaply today, but it should be cheap enough to be reasonably doable for anyone who could afford a console; especially give how much more useful a PC is.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
With the push for 4k it seems like there will be a turning point in the near future where 1080p gamers will be able to game on very cheap cards @60-100fps. Imagine a 50-100 dollar card easily handling AAA modern games @1080p.

Or am I overly optimistic?

My thinking is the higher resolution you go the less difference you can notice and yet the higher resolutions like 4k need much more power from your hardware. For all those content with 1080p, I can see some major gains coming with regards to budget builds.

what do you all think?


Did you check this : https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...reality-with-amds-ryzen-5-2400g/#64382f7048a3

He put the Ryzen 5 2400G through its paces with games like Overwatch, Grand Theft Auto V, Killing Floor 2, DOOM, Dirt Rally, and Rise of the Tomb Raider among others. In each of these cases, AMD's Raven Ridge APU demonstrated playable frame rates at 1920 x 1080p.
This can be tricky you might get better performance depending on the speed of the DDR4 ram and there is a point which makes to expensive but okay the option is there.
 

HiryuuX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
206
I'd actually say we have been there for a while - probably since release of the Geforce 1xxx / Radeon RX 4xx series. MSRP prices of cards that can play most games at 1080p 60fps (on varying settings) for less than $150.
 

AltTabbins

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
20,277
I think 4k has a fatal flaw. Unless you are running a 40+ inch display, 4k is pretty much unusable as a desktop resolution without scaling. Scaling is absolute dog shit on Windows 10 so that doesn't help either. Its not like a resolution boost from back in the day where when you went from 800x600 to 1280x1024 and got more usable desktop real estate. I think 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 was the last of those jumps.. and only really good if you had a 24-27" display.

I think the format needs to change again. I think Ultrawides need to become the new standard. I am on a 3440x1440 21:9 ratio display and its the best resolution I have ever used. I get the best of 2560x1440 by forcing 16:9 aspect ratio with black bars on anything that doesn't support 21:9, and anything that does is amazing. Even movies look amazing when they are 21:9. I keep seeing 4k creep up to 5k, and up to 8k.. and since everything is so scaled up so you can actually use that resolution for practical things, whats the purpose? I mean even with your nose to the display you cant see the pixels in 4k display unless its a 70+ incher. I have to look pretty damn hard with my glasses on and my nose plastered to my 3440x1440 to see the pixels on that.
 
Last edited:

Fuzzy_3D

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
195
Well, 1080p 144hz monitors are getting cheaper every year. I can see 144hz being the new entry level at 1080p.... I hope :)

I change my answer to this. :p

I think gamers benefit more from higher refresh rates than higher resolutions, 4k is overkill on a typical 24" screen anyway. And definitely find target tracking is easier at 144hz, so there's also a competitive advantage.
 

ChrisC

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
96
My personal opinion is that visually we are reaching plateau with 1080p. Most development studios have reached a point of "good enough" for graphics and as far as hitting 60fps, I think any midranged card will easily reach that today.

The future of more expensive graphics cards is either 4K or...."other uses for GPUs".
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8,109
I don't think OP's too optimistic. I'm still gaming just fine on a 4 year old 290x. A couple of the new games I've had to turn down a setting or two for but it ain't many and I'm still getting plenty fast frame rates. I keep wanting to buy a new GPU just to make full use of my 144 Hz monitor but the lowest framerates I'm getting in any game is in the 60's with settings at 90% max.

Monitors aren't getting any better looking and games aren't really getting anymore demanding. The only thing that's really increasing is resolution so yeah 1080 will be pretty cheap to game in pretty soon.
 
Last edited:

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,162
I give it 6 to 8 years before 1080p becomes an afterthought and $50 cards can run it well with high to max settings.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,991
I think 4k has a fatal flaw. Unless you are running a 40+ inch display, 4k is pretty much unusable as a desktop resolution without scaling. Scaling is absolute dog shit on Windows 10 so that doesn't help either. Its not like a resolution boost from back in the day where when you went from 800x600 to 1080x1024 and got more usable desktop real estate. I think 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 was the last of those jumps.. and only really good if you had a 24-27" display.

I think the format needs to change again. I think Ultrawides need to become the new standard. I am on a 3440x1440 21:9 ratio display and its the best resolution I have ever used. I get the best of 2560x1440 by forcing 16:9 aspect ratio with black bars on anything that doesn't support 21:9, and anything that does is amazing. Even movies look amazing when they are 21:9. I keep seeing 4k creep up to 5k, and up to 8k.. and since everything is so scaled down so you can actually use that resolution for practical things, whats the purpose? I mean even with your nose to the display you cant see the pixels in 4k display unless its a 70+ incher. I have to look pretty damn hard with my glasses on and my nose plastered to my 3440x1440 to see the pixels on that.

I agree. And it’s 5MP compared to 8MP on a 4k screen. Perfect for a single 1080ti to drive.

A 1050ti which should be ~$129 right now runs 1080p great. OP isn’t far off.

Personally I run my 4k TV at 1080p since the extra res doesn’t buy much IMO.
 

Shadowed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
508
I love 100% scaling for 4k on my 27" monitor. Granted, I sit up close. I want a 24" 4k monitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

dexvx

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
1,273
IDK about you, but late 2016 was the new era of 1080p gaming.

RX 470's were going for $130 new. I got a new MSI Gaming RX 480 4GB for $165. On the used front, Radeon 7970's were going for ~$75-100.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
IDK about you, but late 2016 was the new era of 1080p gaming.

RX 470's were going for $130 new. I got a new MSI Gaming RX 480 4GB for $165. On the used front, Radeon 7970's were going for ~$75-100.

Yep, I sold a 7970 for $90 IIRC
 

Sloginfizz

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
85
I believe this is how you interpret the OP's post. He said $50-100 cards. $130 is still on the high end (technically over) . Using Ebay Buy it Now pricing

GTX 1070 1080p @~ 125 FPS = $339.00
GTX 1060 6GB 1080p @~ 95 FPS = $299.00
GTX 970 1080p @~ 89 FPS = $150.00
R9 390X 1080p @~ 88 FPS = $224.00
RX470 1080p @~74.4 FPS = $220.00
GTX 960 1080p @~ 59 FPS = $150.00

I am using some general Benchmarks from 2016 that I pulled up from Gamer's Nexus.

I would say, that 60 FPS at $100 dollars is optimistic at best. More like $150 for used 60 FPS @1080p. Its close.... but not yet. For 100 FPS, you are looking more at $299 plus for a used card. At that point, might as well wait for a GTX 1050 Ti to go on sale, its been as low as $139. They are $199 right now, there really is no point in buying an older card with no warranty. You will would only get about 70 FPS, but the alternatives are used cards.

Bottom line, we aren't there yet. When all of the bitcoin miners dump their cards for the next Generation, then we might actually see a GTX 970 drop below $100 but that is at least a year away.

To the OP's second point, there is a big difference from 1080p to 1440p to 4k. I own a 4k monitor and trying to game a first person shooter like BF1 or 4, there is a noticeable difference between those resolutions as far as playability. On a GTX 1080 @1080p I get 200 FPS, at 4k I get about 70 FPS. At those resolutions in BF4, there is no reason to play at the higher resolution. Tomb raider though is a different situation where you want to play at all the 4k sexy goodness, but then the FPS doesn't have to be as high. Games are not going to become less demanding and lower resolutions at lower FPSs, so it only makes sense that eventually you will want a 4k.

For now the cheapest "used" 1080p solution at 100 FPS is $339. The cheapest 1080p solution at 60 FPS is $150.
 

Langly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
4,526
I hope we start to enter that world soon.

I just moved up in between 1080p and 4k after using the same Dell 24inch monitor since 2005. Night and day difference and MAN I love FPS gaming again.

Bring on cheaper gfx cards I can utilize 144hz properly with!
 

Nebell

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
2,124
Unless the next gen video card has about 30-40% increase in FPS @4k resolution, I don't see that changing. Also, until we see monitors ~100+ Hz at 4k, serious FPS gamers will stick with their 1440p.

I would be disappointed if we only get 50% fps increase in 4k.
Because 1080Ti is twice as fast as 980Ti. That is 100% increase.
 

Sloginfizz

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
85
I would be disappointed if we only get 50% fps increase in 4k.
Because 1080Ti is twice as fast as 980Ti. That is 100% increase.

From 980 Ti to 1080 Ti @1080p only saw about a 11-33% increase depending on the game. FPS changes dramatically if you then take that same card to 4k.

Also how do you figure that 1080 Ti is twice as fast? I don't know how you arrived at that number but most benchmarks I have seen put the difference at about 30 ish percent. Maybe if we are talking bitcoin mining, then that number might be different. Witcher 3 is the closest I have seen to double the speed and its like 980 ti@76 FPS 1080ti @140 FPS, but I really would call it an outlier, most others I have seen only put it about 30 ish. Maybe you have seen some benchmarks I haven't? I have never seen a 100% improvement in one generation of cards. That said, I don't think the jump from 1080ti to 1180ti is going to change that. Maybe the 1280ti or the 1380ti, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

*Disclaimer - I came from a 970 to a 1080, so my reference to top of the line GPUs is based off of pure internet research. I have no first hand knowledge of how a GTX 1080ti might fare.
 

Nebell

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
2,124
From 980 Ti to 1080 Ti @1080p only saw about a 11-33% increase depending on the game. FPS changes dramatically if you then take that same card to 4k.

Also how do you figure that 1080 Ti is twice as fast? I don't know how you arrived at that number but most benchmarks I have seen put the difference at about 30 ish percent. Maybe if we are talking bitcoin mining, then that number might be different. Witcher 3 is the closest I have seen to double the speed and its like 980 ti@76 FPS 1080ti @140 FPS, but I really would call it an outlier, most others I have seen only put it about 30 ish. Maybe you have seen some benchmarks I haven't? I have never seen a 100% improvement in one generation of cards. That said, I don't think the jump from 1080ti to 1180ti is going to change that. Maybe the 1280ti or the 1380ti, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

*Disclaimer - I came from a 970 to a 1080, so my reference to top of the line GPUs is based off of pure internet research. I have no first hand knowledge of how a GTX 1080ti might fare.

It's not twice but it's not even close to being 30% faster. It's about 80% faster.
How much faster it is at 1080p is irrelevant, I wasn't quoting a post about 1080p.
I went from 980Ti SLI to a single 1080Ti.

 

Sloginfizz

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
85
It's not twice but it's not even close to being 30% faster. It's about 80% faster.
How much faster it is at 1080p is irrelevant, I wasn't quoting a post about 1080p.
I went from 980Ti SLI to a single 1080Ti.



Thank you for correcting me so we are on the same sheet of music.It's my bad, I was using percent wrong.

I was looking at 50% being twice as fast, when you are right 100% is twice as fast. I was saying 30% when what I should have said was 1/3rd faster. Your example is a little different from the ones I have read either way, we are not seeing twice as fast. I stand by my statement that I (doesn't mean never) haven't seen a double increase in one generation of the same GPU. Its always been a generation or two before you see that.


Even with the correction do you really expect the jump to the next generation to be as good as the last one? CPUs have already started to cap out speed wise, now they are resorting to cores to make things more powerful as well as reducing the die. If there were these kinds of leaps forward, we would have probably seen it already. The last couple of years have been more about efficiency improvements and heat reduction. I expect that to double the speed in one generation, they would have to double the cores thereby doubling the power consumption. If that were the case I think SLI would be more relevant because isn't that pretty much what SLI does? And if it was similar, won't power supplies start getting bigger and bigger and coolers getting larger as well?

I can see it now, 8k gaming requiring a nuclear reactor to supply power to a Quad SLI rig a 24 core 48 thread cpu running at 5Ghz.

But back to the OP's point. I don't think Its this year but maybe next year or the year after before we see sub $100 cards that can run 1080p above 60-100FPS at 1080p.
 

Lumpus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
428
[QUOTE="GTX 960 1080p @~ 59 FPS = $150.00[/QUOTE]

That's where I'm at right now :/
Almost anything else is better... but crazy overpriced. It does handle 1080p gaming pretty decently (within it's limitations), but newer games choke it, somewhat. A lot of that might be crappy CPU related too.
I think I only paid @ $180 for my GTX 960 three or four years ago. Scary to think I can resell it for almost that - assuming I can find anything to replace it with.
/hoping for a Fall/Black Friday sale
 

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,760
The Radeon R9 280/380 cards were and are better than the 960 unless your PSU is dancing on the line of stability or the lack thereof.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,888
I think you're overly optimistic. The problem is that newer games are still becoming more demanding as time goes on, so whilst the hardware currently 'keeps up' it's not like it's shooting ahead of the demand.

If game engines became more optimised/visuals became less of a priority/more stagnant, then eventually. But for now companies are still pushing the newest graphics, moving closer and closer to 'real life' images, so I still don't see your dream coming true anytime soon.

Newer games used to be more demanding. Not as much anymore to be honest. Look at 1080ti it can still give you similar frame rates on new games as it did with games 2 years ago. I didn't think that would be the case but it is. Seems like the pace of games pushing the cards to their knees has slowed down quiet a bit last few years. Probably because of consoles. I mean consoles are getting better so they are being optimized likely for them to run smoothly at high resolution and thats why much faster gaming cards have no issue.
 

dexvx

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
1,273
I think he meant new card price.

Yea, and late 2016 was "the new era". RX 470 4GB could be had brand new for $130. It can run pretty much any game at 1080p60/high.

Right now we're mid 2018, and prices haven't come close to late 2016 for the value segment.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
Yea, and late 2016 was "the new era". RX 470 4GB could be had brand new for $130. It can run pretty much any game at 1080p60/high.

Right now we're mid 2018, and prices haven't come close to late 2016 for the value segment.

I actually bought a new Radeon RX 480 for that much.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,953
With the push for 4k it seems like there will be a turning point in the near future where 1080p gamers will be able to game on very cheap cards @60-100fps. Imagine a 50-100 dollar card easily handling AAA modern games @1080p.

Or am I overly optimistic?

My thinking is the higher resolution you go the less difference you can notice and yet the higher resolutions like 4k need much more power from your hardware. For all those content with 1080p, I can see some major gains coming with regards to budget builds.

what do you all think?

We're close now, igps can do 1080p 30fps, so I think next gen will be there. It's already doable at the $170 mark with the 1050ti.
 

ScuNioN

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
113
Here is my hierarchy of needs:

Multiplayer competitive games:
Constant 120 hz > Ultrawide UHWD > Ultrawide WQHD > 1080 resolution

Single Player games:
3D Vision > If no 3D Vision then constant 90 hz > No Ultrawide 3D vision > 1080 resolution > Eye Candy Options

Most of the above was and is achievable by a GTX 970 @ 1080p. If developers keep on the current trend of graphics > game play then we are in for a doosy. A good example of a AAA title that does everything right (frame rate, control feed back, graphics, animation, balance) is Overwatch. Very few developers can do what Blizzard has done.

It all boils down to what you want as your experience in your game of choice. Some people are incredibly happy with 35-50 frames per second which means they can use a much slower and cheaper card.

Focus on what matters, which is your senses:

Frame rate - You can easily tell the frame rate changes from 30, 45, 60, 90 and possibly to 120. Why skimp here?
Ultrawide Displays - Humans can see in 210' Horizontal FOV but really only see @ 114' in Stereopsis - Vertically we see 150'.
3D - Our eyes are aligned so we can see things in stereoscopic vision. 3D Vision and the right game is a revolutionary (not evolutionary) way to play and experience; I liken it to my first 3D accelerator (Orchid Righteous).
Your controls - Mouse and keyboard which no one has beat since the Assassin 3D or Panther XL. This is your direct method of inputting control, don't skip on it.

Higher resolution nets you about Diddly divided by Squat unless it is to give you FOV akin to what your current ocular systems (your eyes) allow you to see.
 
Top