High-definition gaming at 1440p with 144Hz refresh rate.
High-definition gaming at 1440p with 144Hz refresh rate.
@O9B0666 Maybe a 1080 resolution would be nice for a bit more performance? Or a few extra frames? That price tag of $500 isn’t something I’m willing to pay right now. The game looks and works great with my 1060 3GB setup. I don’t need the AA upgrade or the Ultra version. Of course, I could try to get a 1080 for under $200 if I really want it, but I’m not sure it’s worth it. BF1 is an awesome experience at 1440p.
You don’t have to go for a 1080 resolution, especially considering how much they’re now. Newer models are arriving soon, and it’s smart to stay updated. In about two to three months, fresh versions will hit the market—paying that price feels a bit unreasonable.
On my end, running an RX 470 with BF1 is totally doable at high settings. Crossfiring works well across most games, and I’ve tested it on titles like GTA V, Mass Effect, BF1, Project Cars, Wreckfest, and more. At max settings, everything handled smoothly.
I bought these cards 2-3 years ago when they were brand new, before their price skyrocketed to $538 each. Now they’re available on Amazon for around $199 each at Best Buy—great deal! With my $400 investment, I can afford whatever’s needed.
For someone who prefers a steady build, I’m a long-time AMD and GPU enthusiast. But once the next generation of 11 series 16GB cards arrives, I’ll upgrade. Right now, I’m happy with these for average gamers.
If you’re not a hardcore gamer, these are solid choices. I plan to play GTA V, streaming on YouTube or Netflix while gaming, and I’ve already set up two 32-inch smart TVs and a 24-inch monitor. My i5-4440 handled everything fine without extra cards.
Some folks think you need a crazy GPU combo for smooth streaming, but I’ve seen others get by with two budget cards. Once I get a 4K monitor, I’ll be ready to upgrade.
Thanks for the chat—I hope this helps clarify things!
^^ In comparison, 100 inches feels quite large today. My space is limited; 40 inches would suffice, and 50 inches seems ideal for compact rooms of 150-250 square feet. I'm not claiming it's perfect for your needs—you might position yourself closer to the screen to make the most of it. The key is viewing distance. It would likely be very pleasant at around 12 to 15 feet. That’s similar to how I chose a PS4 when it matched an Xbox One in terms of performance. They serve different purposes, yet achieve the same goal. Likewise, I believe MicroLEDs will eventually surpass OLED, considering their durability and burn-in issues remain significant concerns, especially at a reasonable price point. It really depends on your environment—OLED shines in dim settings or when you watch more films. For most people, a 120Hz display isn’t crucial since native 120Hz content is rare. On a 144Hz screen, G-Sync becomes almost irrelevant, and the frame time is minimal. Most users won’t notice it because such fast response times are rarely tested. If you’re actually seeing those frames, motion smoothing won’t help much. It’s more about display blur than input lag. A higher refresh rate offers little benefit for regular TV use, as most content isn’t designed for that speed. Adjustable refresh rates can be appealing, but they often don’t change much in practice—especially in gaming where software limits are more relevant. In short, aim for a balance that suits your space and viewing habits.