3060Ti at 1080p - Worth it?

[Peeqa]

I've gone through all this and it's always a topic of contention. It's always interesting regardless though and it's nice to see some open debate without too much sniping.

There are a couple of trains of thought that are often merged into one. This causes confusion when each person is offering their thoughts on it, as they aren't always paralleled with the point being made (both ways).

Firstly - Is it worth it:

This is where every single forum frequenter is passionate. As previously stated, we always put forward system suggestions based on the best system that you can get for your money. Often times people have unrealistic budgets and we have to suggest potentially saving to get a more appropriate system for their needs..... otherwise you end up buying a 90s BMW without the Radio. On the other hand, there are more generous budgets where people tend to aim overkill. This is where the discussion begins as people will use flawed logic to justify their choices.


Secondly - What is performance?:

The above bleeds into this for the most part, but it is a separate contention and part of the flawed logic, IMO, that is used the most often. It's all very well and good buying a 240hz monitor and justifying it by purchasing a GPU that will power it.... moarrrr framess...... but can you see it? Other than the wanting, and I have a lot of wanting myself and make daft purchases because I want them, for 99.9% of the general public you won't see a blind bit of difference between that and the 120/144hz offerings that are most popular. I would argue that most wouldn't even notice a blip with anything over 75FPS to be perfectly honest.... certainly not while gaming. Smooth gameplay is FAR more important than throughput as you can time things so much better. There's an argument for having a 60hz monitor and wanting a card to push 120fps, but other than that..... save the money. I can't tell what frames I'm getting without an FPS counter..... well, I can... but if it's over 100 I can't. Can you? Can you really? It's not a question to answer on the forum, it's a question to answer for yourself.

My thoughts:

When matching a GPU to a monitor, you don't need to max it out.... that's not the aim. The aim is to be consistently over the lesser specs top bar. If you consider the following, 60 & 144hz are the most common choices for monitor. If your GPU can produce 100FPS, you want a 144hz monitor, if it can produce 40fps you want the 144hz option. The reverse logic is obvious. If you have a 144hz monitor, you want a GPU that can hit over 100fps IMO. It doesn't need to max out 144hz all the time, you're just looking to have a monitor & GPU pairing where nothing is bottle necked. Once you're at the point of maxing out the monitor at 144hz+ it's time for a resolution upgrade.

I would personally be far happier with 100fps/hz on a 144hz 1440p monitor than I ever would be with 240hz on 1080p, there isn't even a comparison to draw here.

I fully understand where these thoughts and opinions come from. It's clickbait though. It's entertainment and it's like thinking an Alonso hat will turn you into a driving god. Having all the gear doesn't make you an immediate gaming master, it doesn't really make any odds what sort of kit you use. It's been proven, a good gamer can smash average gamers while using an 18" CRT system pushing 40fps (it was a funny vid years ago).


TLDR;

We all want the best for you. We are not saying you cannot buy what you wish, the point of contention will come from the logic you use when justifying your spend..... it will be flawed and likely skewed from impressions and opinions for youtube videos and the likes. Having a system that plays well for your needs is our aim and we will do our best to aid you with that. If the budget allows for a better resolution than you had planned we will always recommend this route. We will never suggest wasting money on something you don't need as there is never a logic that applies. Save the money, get the next big thing in a year or 2.... it's that simple.

If the logic you are using is I want it so I'm getting it, then that's fair enough. I would only suggest that it's the only argument presented as if you're not aiming for the top 10 in the world of gaming, you really don't need to be sitting with a 300+ FPS system on an overclocked 240hz monitor.

Interesting read, very well worded.
I’d like to quote this Linus video as a reference with statistics for 60-144-240hz differentials.

30:23 mark for results.

as a fact, raw skill will beat technology in nearly every situation, but there is still an advantage in playing up at 240 as opposed to 144hz, even as a casual player. They also tested 300fps at 60hz (a 2080ti performance) and that performed far better than the standard 60hz which makes way for the argument of a 3060ti even at 144hz.

I got a 240hz 0.5 second response time 1080p monitor in a flash sale for £280. It was around £100 less than all of the other counter parts and surpasses most in quality. I’ve dabbled in competitive a lot, done many scrims and played some small tournaments. I’m still going to have a 1440p/144hz monitor and a 240hz 1080 set up, but I guarantee I’ll be using the 1080 more. I’ll let you know when my pc arrives which one I stick with more.

 

[Peeqa]

Everyone knows that your monitor, cpu and gpu don’t matter that much. Your gaming performance lies in the RGB 😉

 

[SpyderTracks]

but there is still an advantage in playing up at 240 as opposed to 144hz, even as a casual player.

Only for those with eyesight that can see the difference over 120Hz.

99% of humans can't.

I'm not talking to @Peeqa with what I say below, just generally.

The problem is there's an awful lot of disinformation on places like youtube where influencers who have no idea about tech make you believe that it's necessary to get 240Hz for everyone, it's just not the case.

You may THINK that it's making you better but in reality, you'd perform exactly the same at 144Hz.

 

[Peeqa]

I mean, Linus as an example knows more about tech/computers than anyone in this forum. The test subjects were casual players and some of the best competitive players ever ie shroud. You can say ‘there is no difference’ but I’m showing you some evidence in numbers there from a variety of unbiased tests. Even be it almost negligible, there is still a difference. Otherwise no one would play on them.

To quote his final statement:
“All other things being equal. Will high FPS and high refresh rate make you a great gamer?
No.
But will it make you a better gamer? Undoubtedly.”

 

[AgentCooper]

“All other things being equal. Will high FPS and high refresh rate make you a great gamer? No. But will it make you a better gamer? Undoubtedly.”

Sorry, but I tend to take anything Linus says with a pinch of salt. Pfft.

 

[SpyderTracks]

I mean, Linus as an example knows more about tech/computers than anyone in this forum. The test subjects were casual players and some of the best competitive players ever ie shroud. You can say ‘there is no difference’ but I’m showing you some evidence in numbers there from a variety of unbiased tests. Even be it almost negligible, there is still a difference. Otherwise no one would play on them.

To quote his final statement:
“All other things being equal. Will high FPS and high refresh rate make you a great gamer?
No.
But will it make you a better gamer? Undoubtedly.”

I’m speaking from having tested 144hz, 240hz and 360hz monitors for lengthy periods. I personally don’t benefit over about 80fps, literally makes no difference to me, doesn’t look any different and doesn’t improve my performance in FPS fast paced games.

I know a lot of competitive players also that I’ve suggested higher quality 144hz panels and they’ve come back and said the quality of panel improved their performance over the high refresh.

 

[Peeqa]

To each their own. There is a very very small difference. A quick google search alone would have more than less people agreeing that they can notice a difference albeit small. Aside from Linus, there are many other gamers, professional and tech experts that have stated this. It’s all down to preference and opinion. Again, if there was 0 difference, no one would do it. Why sacrifice quality for frames and refresh rates if you get no benefit from it?

 

[Scott]

I mean, Linus as an example knows more about tech/computers than anyone in this forum. The test subjects were casual players and some of the best competitive players ever ie shroud. You can say ‘there is no difference’ but I’m showing you some evidence in numbers there from a variety of unbiased tests. Even be it almost negligible, there is still a difference. Otherwise no one would play on them.

To quote his final statement:
“All other things being equal. Will high FPS and high refresh rate make you a great gamer?
No.
But will it make you a better gamer? Undoubtedly.”

I would argue that Linus knows more.... he is an influencer and the face of the channel, he relies heavily on the experts behind the camera who, every now and then, appear on the channel. This goes to further make my point regarding those channels and the influence that they possess. It's only when you begin to understand the background of the testing that you can understand the validity of it.

With regards to the video, I watched it a while back and loved it. Linus was the "casual gamer" and is in no way a casual gamer. He's also relatively young and likely able to get a VERY small improvement using the likes of a 144hz screen. 240hz though? What is the actual real world difference? It was %age points that could easily be error margin. Then there's model variation, refresh variation, input variation... there are so many variants in the test that it simply cannot be taken as gospel.

What can be seen is the difference between 60hz and 120/144hz. I don't think anyone would ever argue that fact and 144hz is often the recommended refresh rate due to covering the 120hz frequency and more (double the 60hz is the sweet spot for gaming).

Again though, we are digressing. If you want to buy a 240hz system because Linus says it's 5% better and will make you 5% better at shooting the opposition then you go for it. If that 5% is the difference between winning a £100,000 competition and not then I would absolutely get on board. However, if it's sitting at your desk having some fun with your mates at the weekend then I would argue it's FAR more beneficial to get the 1440p 144hz monitor and enjoy the eye candy while barely noticing any FPS difference.

The logic is all I'll argue with. You can reason yourself till your hearts content if you wish, but your reasoning isn't logically sound. Margins themselves only matter when the margin matters...... for casual gaming (and by casual I mean anything that doesn't pay) the margin doesn't matter. Purchase what you like, use the reasoning that helps burden the blow of the bank account..... I only ask that it's not used as logic, it may appear logical but it really isn't. I have a lot of experience in this regard as you should see some of the "stuff" I have. Thankfully the previous better halves have been less logically minded than myself and thus I've done some wool pulling financial justification over them years

 

[Peeqa]

I would argue that Linus knows more.... he is an influencer and the face of the channel, he relies heavily on the experts behind the camera who, every now and then, appear on the channel. This goes to further make my point regarding those channels and the influence that they possess. It's only when you begin to understand the background of the testing that you can understand the validity of it.

With regards to the video, I watched it a while back and loved it. Linus was the "casual gamer" and is in no way a casual gamer. He's also relatively young and likely able to get a VERY small improvement using the likes of a 144hz screen. 240hz though? What is the actual real world difference? It was %age points that could easily be error margin. Then there's model variation, refresh variation, input variation... there are so many variants in the test that it simply cannot be taken as gospel.

What can be seen is the difference between 60hz and 120/144hz. I don't think anyone would ever argue that fact and 144hz is often the recommended refresh rate due to covering the 120hz frequency and more (double the 60hz is the sweet spot for gaming).

Again though, we are digressing. If you want to buy a 240hz system because Linus says it's 5% better and will make you 5% better at shooting the opposition then you go for it. If that 5% is the difference between winning a £100,000 competition and not then I would absolutely get on board. However, if it's sitting at your desk having some fun with your mates at the weekend then I would argue it's FAR more beneficial to get the 1440p 144hz monitor and enjoy the eye candy while barely noticing any FPS difference.

The logic is all I'll argue with. You can reason yourself till your hearts content if you wish, but your reasoning isn't logically sound. Margins themselves only matter when the margin matters...... for casual gaming (and by casual I mean anything that doesn't pay) the margin doesn't matter. Purchase what you like, use the reasoning that helps burden the blow of the bank account..... I only ask that it's not used as logic, it may appear logical but it really isn't. I have a lot of experience in this regard as you should see some of the "stuff" I have. Thankfully the previous better halves have been less logically minded than myself and thus I've done some wool pulling financial justification over them years

Touché. There’s points to be made at both sides. I didn’t personally buy a 240hz monitor because Linus or anyone said I should. I did research and made my own deductions. The monitor was dirt cheap and was a steal so it made sense. As I say I’m still going to play on a 1440p for when I want a ‘pretty’ experience and I’m casually playing in a non-competitive title/format.

My issue on this topic is always that people’s strong emotions towards it are almost solely based on their own opinion. Again, to each their own.

 

[Scott]

To each their own. There is a very very small difference. A quick google search alone would have more than less people agreeing that they can notice a difference albeit small. Aside from Linus, there are many other gamers, professional and tech experts that have stated this. It’s all down to preference and opinion. Again, if there was 0 difference, no one would do it. Why sacrifice quality for frames and refresh rates if you get no benefit from it?

The masses are more often wrong than they are right. What you are "Googling" is opinions based on, probably, more affirmed opinions. That's where the term influencer is coined. It's like people who voted Trump...... boggles my mind, but to each their own. They would argue a million points for their decision, all based on opinion but sold as logic. You can google anything you want to put across anything you want, it can be as ridiculous as you choose..... it just goes further to prove my point though.

It's like Huckleberry Finn saying that painting the fence is fun..... next thing you know, 20 people are painting the fence and there's a queue for a turn.

People just live on different planes of influence. I tend not to be influenced by anything I cannot confirm with my own confirmation. FWIW, and I know it's not very much, the vast majority of my advice is given through experience of the things I am recommending. I very rarely recommend something based on someone else's opinion on it. There are exceptions, of course, but it takes a lot to convince me and I am very diligent in the sources I use to come about that recommendation.

 

[Scott]

Touché. There’s points to be made at both sides. I didn’t personally buy a 240hz monitor because Linus or anyone said I should. I did research and made my own deductions. The monitor was dirt cheap and was a steal so it made sense. As I say I’m still going to play on a 1440p for when I want a ‘pretty’ experience and I’m casually playing in a non-competitive title/format.

My issue on this topic is always that people’s strong emotions towards it are almost solely based on their own opinion. Again, to each their own.

I'm with you on all of that too. It's absolutely your decision and you should do it for whatever reasons you say fit. I understand what you mean entirely about how people can put their point across, myself included, and I can only say that it's down to the passion. If it was in real live, rather than a web page, it would be received in the spirited nature it's intended..... rather than seeming over-bearing. It's always difficult on a forum.

I'd love to see you do the Pepsi challenge on the monitor though. 120hz vs 240hz via settings that you are blind to. An hour on each setting, twice. I think the difference would be nil.

But as you got it at a good price.... why not. Can't beat a bargain

 

[Peeqa]

The masses are more often wrong than they are right. What you are "Googling" is opinions based on, probably, more affirmed opinions. That's where the term influencer is coined. It's like people who voted Trump...... boggles my mind, but to each their own. They would argue a million points for their decision, all based on opinion but sold as logic. You can google anything you want to put across anything you want, it can be as ridiculous as you choose..... it just goes further to prove my point though.

It's like Huckleberry Finn saying that painting the fence is fun..... next thing you know, 20 people are painting the fence and there's a queue for a turn.

People just live on different planes of influence. I tend not to be influenced by anything I cannot confirm with my own confirmation. FWIW, and I know it's not very much, the vast majority of my advice is given through experience of the things I am recommending. I very rarely recommend something based on someone else's opinion on it. There are exceptions, of course, but it takes a lot to convince me and I am very diligent in the sources I use to come about that recommendation.

I'm with you on all of that too. It's absolutely your decision and you should do it for whatever reasons you say fit. I understand what you mean entirely about how people can put their point across, myself included, and I can only say that it's down to the passion. If it was in real live, rather than a web page, it would be received in the spirited nature it's intended..... rather than seeming over-bearing. It's always difficult on a forum.

I'd love to see you do the Pepsi challenge on the monitor though. 120hz vs 240hz via settings that you are blind to. An hour on each setting, twice. I think the difference would be nil.

But as you got it at a good price.... why not. Can't beat a bargain

You’re definitely right in the sense of points being thrown around being construed as overbearing or aggressive.

I don’t like to rely on other people and I like to make my own deductions. That being said I can’t physically test the difference at present nor can I do any benchmarking that would be relevant so my only option is to search the vast web, look at the most reputable sources, go across a plethora of benchmarks and make an average due to the varied data and finally and less importantly, the opinion of ‘people’. I’ve also looked at conflicting information to try get a varied opinion. When you’re looking to buy something and are unsure, you have to take opinion/reviews into account. I’ve looked at both sides and there are arguments either side. I wouldn’t have opted for it if it wasn’t so cheap and I plan to play competitively once again so I’d take a 5% advantage.

I don’t like the culture of telling people they’re ‘completely wrong’ when there’s a catalogue of information that says otherwise. You can’t be wrong if you as an individual see benefit and have a preference for it. I do enjoy the back and forths though. I’m by no means an expert and any information, even if it conflicts against your own beliefs is still valuable.

 

[thurloto]

These are both terrible takes if I want a 3060ti which I got btw(Playing at 1440p) then ima buy it it's my money to waste( about robbing from someone) LMAO,

. plus logically why would i not buy a card that i can get now with the capability rather then spend more money in 3 years .

If you’re playing at 1440p, why are you upset? I was saying how if you’re playing at 1080p, get the 3060 and save money, instead of the ti. Read the thread before you throw some half-baked comment out there

 

[Quarter]

If you’re playing at 1440p, why are you upset? I was saying how if you’re playing at 1080p, get the 3060 and save money, instead of the ti. Read the thread before you throw some half-baked comment out there

Cos ur gatekeeping like it affects you the fact is the opportunity cost of getting a ti vs a 3060 is 50 quid so why wouldnt anyone who has a 1080p buy it for that cost. Fully made comments like your personally losing out by people orderint a ti.lmao

 

[thurloto]

Cos ur gatekeeping like it affects you the fact is the opportunity cost of getting a ti vs a 3060 is 50 quid so why wouldnt anyone who has a 1080p buy it for that cost. Fully made comments like your personally losing out by people orderint a ti.lmao

As we’ve been saying the entire thread, that there’s not much point waiting this long for a ti, which will make little difference at 1080p, 60Hz (the person I was responding to’s monitor), so you might as well save £50 and get a GPU now. Again, read this thread, that’s the whole reason why this was created. At the end of the day, if someone wants to wait longer for a graphics card that will make little to no difference compared to a cheaper one they can get much sooner because of the monitor so be it.

 

[Peeqa]

Cos ur gatekeeping like it affects you the fact is the opportunity cost of getting a ti vs a 3060 is 50 quid so why wouldnt anyone who has a 1080p buy it for that cost. Fully made comments like your personally losing out by people orderint a ti.lmao

you could argue it’s worth it alone considering the 1080ti even at its age can outperform the 3060. 😂 They really dropped the ball with the 3060. It’s a way to recycle parts that were rejected from the higher end 3000 series without adding to the stock issue I guess...

 

[Scott]

you could argue it’s worth it alone considering the 1080ti even at its age can outperform the 3060. 😂 They really dropped the ball with the 3060. It’s a way to recycle parts that were rejected from the higher end 3000 series without adding to the stock issue I guess...

Keep in mind that the 3060 us 3 tiers below the 1080ti so it's not surprising. The 1080ti was a beast and massively overshooting 1080p. It would still fair very well at 1440p.

With regards to 1080p 60hz, I don't think there's an argument over saving 50 quid. I wouldn't touch any of the 30 series for such a setup. Massive waste of money. You would get an amazing experience with the 1660, but even the 1650 Super would do well.

 

[Peeqa]

Keep in mind that the 3060 us 3 tiers below the 1080ti so it's not surprising. The 1080ti was a beast and massively overshooting 1080p. It would still fair very well at 1440p.

With regards to 1080p 60hz, I don't think there's an argument over saving 50 quid. I wouldn't touch any of the 30 series for such a setup. Massive waste of money. You would get an amazing experience with the 1660, but even the 1650 Super would do well.

Agreed. At 60hz, any 20 series and beyond is a waste. -Providing you don’t plan to upgrade I’m the near immediate future and you planned on staying on a 60hz. That’s not to say you’re not inclined to waste money if you so wish, play pinball on a 3090 for all I care 😂

Without causing another huge ruckus though, at 144hz it’s not a waste of money to get a ti for 1080p monitor so long as you are optimising the high end of graphical settings and using the rtx for what it’s worth. It’s still not as ideal as a 1440p, but despite contrasting views, not a waste in my eyes. (Not that I would do it).

 

[SpyderTracks]

To each their own. There is a very very small difference. A quick google search alone would have more than less people agreeing that they can notice a difference albeit small. Aside from Linus, there are many other gamers, professional and tech experts that have stated this. It’s all down to preference and opinion. Again, if there was 0 difference, no one would do it. Why sacrifice quality for frames and refresh rates if you get no benefit from it?

Again, we’re agreeing that there is a difference but only for a minute number of the worldwide population who are physically able to see the difference which is about 1% according to scientists.

It's just like high end audio, or 8k TV's or anything high end, it's all down to that individuals sensitivity to the medium.

Most people are fine on crappy 320kbs streaming from Spotify, a very small minority of users absolutely can't stand it and say it's demeaning to the sound. If you were fine with 320kbs streaming, you wouldn't spend the extra £10k to get high res because it wouldn't be worth it to your sensitivities and you wouldn't notice the difference.

It's the case with anything in life.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. At 60hz, any 20 series and beyond is a waste. -Providing you don’t plan to upgrade I’m the near immediate future and you planned on staying on a 60hz. That’s not to say you’re not inclined to waste money if you so wish, play pinball on a 3090 for all I care 😂

Without causing another huge ruckus though, at 144hz it’s not a waste of money to get a ti for 1080p monitor so long as you are optimising the high end of graphical settings and using the rtx for what it’s worth. It’s still not as ideal as a 1440p, but despite contrasting views, not a waste in my eyes. (Not that I would do it).

Indeed, I would personally have the 3060 Ti for VR & RTX features.... even with my crappy 1080p TV. That's not because it makes logical sense though, just because I want it

The contention isn't on the choice, it's the justification of the choice that comes into question. There are quite a few threads that begin with "I know it's overkill but I don't care and I want it"..... when that's the case, as long as nothing else is suffering from the build, we will just leave the purchaser to make their decision. If something is lacking or making way for the luxurious GPU we will always point this out and reason out the logic.

This is what I was saying about things getting diluted. There are 2 different key points with this. With one logic applies, with the other it's simply a want. Some of those wants are reasoned, some aren't, but at the end of the day... it's the ops money