The RX Vega 56 may be worth looking into, it has been said that it does outperform the GTX 1070 (though we should wait for proper benchmarks).
It should hopefully beat the 1070 and not draw an obscene amount of power.
Or the RX Vega Nano.

Again I am aware of the test results, but unfortunetley the results don't always 100% pan out like they do on a console, such is the nature of PC gaming. What works in your rig for 1440p/1080p will not always work for someone else. My 980 should have been more than enough for GTA 5, as the same should have been for my i5-4670k, yet they were not able to give me a decent and constant 60fps with GTA V and that wasn't with everything maxed either at 1080p and I know I'm not one in 7 billion on this rock that would have experienced that either (because you know not everyone within PC gaming ahs the likes of a 980 either).

I know of the mining situation, but that is only a temporary issue and not one that will be around for years at a time, thus the 1070 as you put it would be the defacto buy, just do what the average person would do and wait, it won't kill you.

So it's not really a need then, it's a factual illusion that I bought the 1080ti for my monitor and needs?, because that's honestly how that sentence is going. I've watched the benchmarks for multiple takes on the i7-6700k being paired with a 1080 at 1440p max settings for various games and I wasn't too happy with how far the frame dips had gone (because a 1080 is more than enough right?, so who's fault is it for the stupidly low eprformance dips, the devs?), which is why I went for the 1080ti, because I wanted to avoid said dips.

1080. I have not had 1 game on max settings in 4k that pushed this card unless your Star Citizen.

Just write a love poem, that's all you need to get a 1080

VGPolyglot said: Just write a love poem, that's all you need to get a 1080

1080Ti

You are basing everything around something that is ancedotal. I cannot possibly adhere to such things.

I'm right there with ya and I have an R9 Nano. Not that I was seriously looking to upgrade, though I was feeling the temptation before I found out the rumored power consumption numbers. If those and the performance numbers are true, then WTF AMD? Did they focus so hard on HBM2 that they forgot to actually upgrade over Fury X?!

):<

THe 1080Ti doesn't even run every game on max settings 4k/60 so I doubt the small brother does.

I never said 4k at 60 frames. I said that pushes this card to its limits. Playing Witcher 3 on max settings at 4k with 50 to 55 frames is not pushing this card or do i think many would care. 

1080 is a beast of a card and is well supported with Nvidea updates.

nier automata, watch dogs 2, some other games don't even run properly on my system. Sure the 1080 can do some 4k gaming on decent settings but on the witcher 4 you proberbly also have to turn down some settings to get a real solid framerate, same for gears of war and stuff, Even I made some compromizes on the witcher, getting around 70fps but you always need to count for the lowest frames not the average, when you go for 50-55 but have dips under 50 its going to be noticable, unless you have a Gsync display, that would help a lot.

Either way for this topic deff 1080 and deff at least 1440p resolution, else its kind of a waste, unless you just want to go for the high frames.