Keeping on the edge of performance value curve

[Zatoichi]

So i got a 1070 (no ti) for £350 last year.

I'm an eyecandy man and I was disappointed to see assassins creed origins drop to sub 60fps at 1440p especially as I just got a new 1440p monitor.

If I'm lucky I could get £300 for it and a new 2070 is £460

25% more frames (dont care about raytracing) for 33% more money...


I'm not sure.

[DanceswithUnix]

I take it the new monitor isn't Gsync?

If the new monitor is FreeSync, then you could replace the 1070 with a Vega 64 for a little more performance and to get the best out of your monitor. Otherwise, instead of trading in the graphics card it might be more forward thinking to trade the new monitor for a Gsync model. Then the 60Hz cliff edge goes away, you can't tell the difference between just over and just under 60Hz.

[watercooled]

The 2000 series offer next to no improvement in terms of value over the 1000 series as far as conventional performance goes, and the only examples we've seen to date of RTX stuff destroys performance even further. If there's any alternative, now really isn't an ideal time to be in the market for a new GPU.

Would it really hurt to reduce the preset from ultra to high or something? The ultra preset in many games is more of an e-peen thing than anything and the visual differences are often tiny to invisible, but for substantially lower performance. Maybe worth a go?