I’ve had my current laptop (dell g5 15, 9th gen i7, 1660ti, 16gb RAM) for 6 years now, and its great for running every game aside from cp2077 at med-high graphics, 60fps smoothly. its on its on its way out though (mostly the issue is cp2077, brings it to its knees, 50fps on low at best)
either way, looking to build something that can do the same as this thing did but at 1440p 120+ fps. what sort of budget will I need for that?
tldr: how much would it cost to build a PC that can run 1440p 120+ fps high settings for the next 5 or so years. ty all :)
That’s simply not available without more details. If you want max settings (which isn’t always the best idea) no GPU can do 1440p 120 fps in all games (for example Cyberpunk with path tracing).
But the closest you can get right now is a RTX 4090 if you have to buy immediately. So you’re looking at a minimum budget of $2600, but with better specs besides the GPU probably more towards $3000.
And even that won’t last you 5 years when we consider advances in path tracing :-/
Outside of RT though a 4090 might get you 120+ fps in most games for that time frame.
don’t need max, just high. rt doesn’t matter. are you saying that a cheaper card like a 7800xt couldn’t do 1440p 120? or is the issue more with longevity, that it won’t be able to maintain this kind of performance for the next 5 years due to games being more demanding
Longevity, you said you want ~5 years out of it or so at that performance.
But a 7800 XT already can’t hold 1440p 120 fps in a lot of games, it’s pretty high to aim for GPU wise depending on the type of games you like. For what you’re asking a 4090 is pretty much the only option. Or a lesser card now and then an earlier upgrade with the saved money (But even a 4080 is way too expensive, might as well go higher then). 4070 is again too slow, I have a 3080 right now at 1440p and in GPU heavy games reaching 120 fps can be tough.
guess imma just have to lower my expectations then. don’t have 1500 to spend on a GPU. thats the max I’d wanna spend on the whole thing. guess I was just aiming too high. thanks for ur help :)
I mean I’m talking GPU heavy games (latest releases) at very high / ultra settings. If you are willing to fiddle with settings you can get away with less :)
For example even on my 3080 I often pull down shadows to high (or even medium in more competitive games), you can use DLSS Quality for another boost (Balanced can be too blurry on 1440p, but sometimes it works) and there’s more ways to get higher fps.
You’ll be plenty happy with that kind of performance, especially coming from a laptop.
1500 would get you 1440p/120FPS capability right now with no issues, my 3070 // Ryzen 5 3600XT get that performance and the build is just about $1500.
These people are asking you to blow a huge fucking amount on overkill CPU’s that won’t even break a sweat and GPU’s that could give you 4k/140FPS for the next decade. They’re building their dream machines, not giving you an accurate build price.
alright that’s a far more reasonable amount to spend
yeah, I’m gonna disagree with this guy. that’s definitely not going to get you that performance for 5 years. that will get you that now on most, but not all games at Max. if you want 120 high 1440 for 5 years you need close to the highest end offered now.
that said, this community is probably the most amd focused place I’ve ever seen. the debate between amd and Nvidia isn’t nearly as cut and died as they want to make it seem. even if they are mad at nvidia for real reasons. right now nvidia is not chasing traditional rendering at all. so amd is winning when it comes to that, but that’s not where nvidia says the future is. nvidia is building their cards around their objectively superior, even if proprietary, upscaling technology (dlss). so for the next 5 years at least, nvidia will be pushing it’s massive anti competitive weight into making dlss the way of the future. into making sure games are made with performance targets exprecting the use of dlss.
so honestly, a big part of this decision that no one here will tell you is whether you want to fight for what you believe should be the future of gaming, or you accept that nvidia will just do whatever regardless of how many foss heads scream about it.
if you want 120 high 1440 for 5 years you need close to the highest end offered now.
You can pretend to know that for certain all you want, but we have no idea what technological limitations we will run into or change in the market will demand that companies optimize their games because the market simply can’t support buying newer hardware.
You’re correct that my build won’t get me the stated performance for five years, but I don’t think you need to snag a 4090 to get 1440p 120FPS with medium graphics five years from now. While you may disagree with that assessment, we are both shooting in the dark here as the market goes through the next half decade.
What’s my justification? Performance at a specific resolution is always going to be more important, if my 1660 can get 75FPS on high settings with modern games at 1920x1080p then there’s no reason to believe that a build/card that can get you 144FPS at 1440p high/ultra graphics today won’t be able to play games for five years by just adjusting certain titles down a bit.
Five years isn’t even a full console generation, unless the games are planning to be unplayable on consoles they have to be around the same level of capability. His only real concern is VRAM so I think either AMD or a high GB Nvidia on the used market. Pair with a late gen Ryzen 7 AM4 and he’s good to go for a budget friendly build on a more realistic dime.
He will have to adjust his settings but that’s not a problem according to him.
To get that FPS for the next five years you’d need something slightly beefier, assuming you purchase brand new games and want them on max settings.
If you’re like me and ok with turning shadows to medium and ambient occlusion, etc. Off entirely, then you could probably squeeze a 3070ti for five years but a 3080 would be a good choice too. I prefer Nvidia graphics because they’re more established and AMD is still catching up on certain technologies, but AMD CPU’s have come a long way and are absolutely the best bang for your buck, and while I’ll get downvoted again for speaking the truth, you don’t need an AM5 socket for gaming performance and IMO it’s all overpriced still. Stick with AM4 and snag a last gen Ryzen 7, that’ll help keep your other components lower in price. Unless you’re doing video rendering you simply don’t need a very robust CPU. Almost every model in this thread would be three to four times as powerful as you need and would massively overload your budget.
Don’t skimp on PSU but you can get a good one for 80-100USD from a reputable brand like Corsair that would fit your needs (850-950 watt.)
So far I haven’t seen anyone actually pitch you a build that does what you need at the most reasonable price, they’re just overloading you and then claiming you can’t get the performance you’re asking for at the price you want.
I have a PC at home that says otherwise, your downvotes mean nothing to me.
lol yea some of these ppl are saying to drop like 3k on my PC. I make 10k a year. I can’t afford to drop that much on some sand. on my car? sure. not a fuckin PC tho lol
anyways ty for your input :)
I might not be the best person to help you with this, but here it goes.
Performance on upcoming games will depend if developers keep fucking up the optimization.
With that said! I would say a combo of 7800X3D and RX 7800XT would put you close to 2k€ (price based in Portugal).
This is assuming the following parts:
- Any X670 mobo (around 300€)
- 2TB nvme (150€)
- Good PSU (150€)
- 32GB DDR5 CL30 (180€)
- Case (120€)
I know this is not an Nvidia build, and the reason is, AMD is promising FSR to work even with older games.
Hope this helps.
rather have an and build anyways. can save some money since I’ve already got an ssd. is 16gb of ram not enough anymore?
16gb is just enough, but it’s worth it to go to 32 considering the price.
I see
I’ll add that you can always upgrade to 32Gb whenever you feel like it. It’s the simplest upgrade you can make and takes only a couple minutes.
Realistically you’d want to upgrade to 32Gb after hitting the limit on 16Gb, this way you know for sure that it’s needed. But if you’re going from DDR4 to DDR5 then might as well just go 32Gb from the start.
About upgrading: you basically need dual channel ram, and even though you could go from 2x8 to 4x8 for 32, you really should buy matched dimms for performance and stability, plus 4x8 can be slightly slower or less able to hit max speed than 2x16.
If it’s a problem go ahead with 2x8, but you’re honestly better off with 2x16 for the long haul, especially since this is the sweet spot where 2x16 isnt expensive anymore and 16gb is starting to be the minimum.
Drives are currently cheap and ideally you want NVME for at least your boot drive, the increased transfer speeds can noticeably improve startup time. If money is tight you can always add one later too, just make sure to reinstall your OS onto it for maximum performance improvement.
16GB of RAM is very close to NOT being enough.
For a 32GB kit you don’t pay double, but you get to “future proof” your PC. And you get more RAM in case you want to run VM’s. Just my 2 cents.
FYI: I have built a desktop (5600x and 6700xt) with 32GB, because my previous PC had 8GB and I ended up upgrading to 16GB because I was running out of RAM in many occasions.
Agreed. A 2k€ budget for 1440p(16:9) should be able achieve the fps target for current maybe next year games.
But 5 years is way too long for any tech and would probably be eclipsed by some new toy 3 years later.
