Here, RX 560 for 99€, which is around 85 British pounds: https://www.alternate.de/ASRock/Radeon-RX560-Phantom-Gaming-2G-Grafikkarte/html/product/1482494?

On the other hand, I couldn't find a 780Ti that wasn't way more expensive than 85 pounds. This might be a regional thing, but in Germany, even a 760 costs 125€ on Amazon.de, with a 780Ti over 150€. At that price point, you're better off buying a 1060 or RX 580 instead and call it a day.

€99+6 postage works out at around 95 or so pounds, CEX charges 1.50 for postage of items so ... yeah it's close to the same price, but again.... you're talking about less than half the performance for more money.

Regardless of your country btw you probably have services there for buying from other countries and delivering them to you, just like... for the UK stores some of them don't ship to Ireland but we've got 2 big companies who will accept packages on behalf of us Paddies from UK stores and forward them on for a lil extra fee, could be worth looking into in case you're limited to certain stores in your region some point down the line.

1060 is a neat enough purchase in 2019 though, performance wise that card is perfectly in line with the best you could get from a older gen 780TI and even the lower end version has the same 3GB of video memory that the 780ti had

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-780-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-3GB/2165vs3646

The one I keep banging on about to people though is that new AMD 5700 or 5700XT, the price point is mid range but it reaches upwards of 1080 in terms of benchmarks, If I was going for an upgrade from my current main PC gpu (a 980TI) I would consider that 5700XT as the next step.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-5700-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080/4046vs3603

That's the non xt comparison, the XT is actually 15% faster than the 1080 and yeah... you see the price of those cards on amazon and such https://www.amazon.co.uk/PowerColor-Radeon-5700-Graphic-Card/dp/B07TB5LFGM/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=5700&qid=1569652336&s=gateway&sr=8-4 309 for that, very respectable for what's in the box.

I wouldn't say I am a complete expert on pc hardware but I have been gaming on pc for a looong time and I do know what I'm buying. Yes, I did recently buy a pc, knowing that it would probably start to show it's age 2 years from now. But not everyone is willing to spend $1000 or more on a gpu. I bought my pc to have the best bang for my buck and a 1060GTX and i5 8400 are pretty decent specs for today's games. I can play everything on ultra, 1440p, even native 4k with most of the games I tested. I'm probably alone in this but I do not own 3 displays, nor do I think that triple-display and 120fps provides the absolute best in gaming immersion.   

It's funny, though, how first people are trying so hard to convince me that a 4870 AMD is still fine to play modern games. And now my 1060GTX and i5 8400 are labelled as crap and I'm buying incorrect gear... 

And you're right, releasing a game now with a 2080RTX as the minimum requirement will end up in financial disaster. That is why those games don't exist until the next gen consoles hit the market. My whole point is that when the next gen consoles come out, the hardware that will be in them will be the new minimum requirements for pc. Looking back and thinking about power usage and heat displacement, I'm guessing the ps5's GPU will be leaning more towards a RX5700/ 2060RTX.

Maybe that's not considered super high-end by some members of the pc master race, but it's still pretty good. The most important thing, however, is that we will finally see games come out that actually make proper use of the hardware and it should translate in gaming experience unlike anything we're seeing today. Also, for me proper use of that new hardware does not entail ps4-like-games running at 120fps in native 4k on triple displays. For me it means AAA $100m budget games running in 1080/1440p at a locked 30fps (in most cases), but with much more complex geometry, physics, lighting and a huge boost in overall visual fidelity.  

And the beauty of it... it works "out of the box" for thousands of PC games: insert new graphics card -> crank up the resolution/texture/post-processing and/or enjoy higher framerates and better frametimes.

PS4 Pro or Xbox One X only run better for a small part of their game libraries than the base systems.

Earlier this month I upgraded from Xbox One to Xbox One X and the "enhanced" games look awesome, even original-Xbox-games like "Conker: Live & Reloaded" or 360-games like "Red Dead Redemption 1".

Then I wanted to continue the complete edition of "Forza Motorsport 6" and was disappointed that it looked the same as on my old Xbox One... it wasn't worthy enough to get the "X enhancement treatment", so it only uses a fraction of the hardware power.

No one is telling you that you have to.

You could have gotten better hardware for the same price though.

I used to run eyefinity... Thus was gaming at 5760x1080 and later 7680x1440 (Which is more pixels than 4k.)
I can assure you the immersion is there and it is real... I just got tired of spending upwards of $4,000 on graphics processors every year to power it at the time.

Now happily game on a single 120hz, 1440P, 32" display.

You aren't getting it. You are complaining about the lack of component longevity and you buy average hardware.
The Radeon 4870 was the fastest GPU out when it released... And thus lasted the test of time because of it.

Your hardware isn't "crap" it's just average.

The point you are missing is that when next-gen consoles release, developers will continue to build games with low-end PC's in mind, that means hypothetical GPU's like a Geforce RTX/GTX 3030 or RX 6300... Which would definitely have less performance than the RTX 2080 or RX 5700.

Yeah. When I went back to replay Dragon Age: Inquisition on the Xbox One X, I was extremely disappointed in the fact it was still stuck at 900P with medium settings and thus looked extremely soft on the "most powerful console ever". - On PC I can dial it up to 4k and downsample it to 1440P not a problem.

It's great when games get enhanced, but it's a gamble essentially.

We don't even have to click on the URL to see the big flaw in your argument:

"at retail"

Who buys PC games at retail if there is no advantage over the digital version? For the cheap plastic box?

And for the developers and publishers the digital versions are much more profitable (smaller cut for the platform owners than for the retail chain, less transport costs, no resales).

The "Low-Spec gamer" even managed to get "Control" running with 30+ fps on a cheap dual-core APU:

View on YouTube

That is insanely impressive scalability.

Somehow it feels like you're missing the point about what we are arguing here. I never once complained about pc component longevity. In fact I said I will be disappointed if I can still play all of the next-gen AAA games on my 1060GTX. I'm sounding like a broken record but literally the only thing I'm saying is that minimum pc requirements will go up next gen. I know I will not be able to get the same experience on my 1060GTX compared to the next gen console versions and I'm perfectly fine with that. Maybe some games will still run (some no doubt run better than others) but who wants to be gaming like that? If I spend $60 on a game and have it running like this: (AC Oddysey running on a 5850) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLZiJcmi1z0, then for me it would be a clear sign that I'm in need of an upgrade. Even if some games still run fine.

Obviously, next gen games will work fine on lower hypothetical future cards like a 3060RTX, which will likely perform the same as a 2080RTX. But what does that have to with anything? I already said that a minimum requirement of a RX5700/ 2700RTX is pretty steep right now, but 4 years from now those cards will be relics on pc and you can probably buy a used 2070RTX for like $99. 

It's also irrelevant if pc has, or hasn't got a better SSD. What's important is that next gen games will be designed from the ground up to take full advantage of SSD, meaning bigger streaming worlds and basically zero load times. This also means that a 1tb SSD will be the bare minimum in the near future.

Also, things like the ps4 pro and Xbox One X have the same problem that high end pc's are having. Nobody is going to make a game that takes full advantage of the hardware. Instead you get the same games as the base consoles with just some added resolution. Which is nice but really not that noticeable when you're gaming on a tv. That is why I'm hoping that next gen console games will not be targeting native 4k as the new standard. That would be a massive waste of resources. Instead I would much rather see 1080p with a huge boost in overall graphical fidelity.

Are some people still thinking PS5 will compete with a RTX 2080?

Some PC retail boxes just include a box with a redeemable download CD Key inside that you redeem on Steam. I kid you not. Haha

I wouldn't be surprised to be honest, that's damn impressive eitherway.

But that is your argument when you essentially stated that unless you have a Geforce 2080, that your PC might as well end in the bin.
Do I need to bring more quotes out? Talk about disingenuous...

Here we go again... He pulled out another game to try and shift the goal post.

1) Get a Radeon 5870. (He is using a Radeon 5850.)
2) Overclock said Radeon 5870. (Most can do 950/1250 over the stock 900/1225 {Core/Mem} if not more.)
3) Drop settings to low. (Video is using medium.)
4) Drop resolution back to 900P or maybe even 720P (Video is using 1080P, Xbox One is 792P.)
5) Profit.

But you know what is amazing? That a GPU from 10 years ago is running that game at all, there is still room to improve the experience.

I bet a GPU that is a year newer like the Radeon 6970 with it's 2GB buffer would probably be fine running the game at 1080P.
The lesser 6950 (With a heap of Medium settings again):

Umm. Think lower than a hypothetical RTX 3060.
RTX 3030/RTX 3050/RTX 3050 Ti... And maybe the RTX 3060. - They will likely all have fillrates and memory buffers that come up short against the RTX 2080, nVidia never makes a high-end GPU a low-end one in a single generation these days.

Doesn't matter what you said.

Let's take Polaris... That released in 2016 as the Radeon RX 480 8GB.
Next year it will be 4 years old... It's still a very capable mid-range part.

AMD later rebadged it as the RX 580, then ported the design over to 12nm, increased clocks and called it the RX 590,  those GPU's are not going to suddenly become incapable of gaming next year.

Umm. The PC is the domain of MMO's. - It has lots of big worlds that get streamed in.. And that was happening before SSD's became mainstream.

But just because you have fast storage doesn't mean you will have zero load times, load times being eliminated is not guaranteed for next-gen, don't drink the propaganda kool-aid being pushed out, it's up to the developers in the end... Just like 1080P/4k on the current consoles.
Games still need to compile shaders, decompress textures and games that use procedural generations... Need to procedurally generate... And such tasks are often held back by the CPU or GPU rather than the storage subsystem and thus a loading screen is still a requirement in some scenarios.

SSD's on PC will be faster than the Playstation 5, in games that are held back by sequential memory transfers into DRAM, the PC will beat consoles... Fast SSD's aren't a replacement for RAM, which the PC also has more of.
In short you can eliminate load times on PC today... When the above aren't factors.

Those are the real facts.

The Xbox One X and Playstation 4 Pro often only use medium-quality PC equivalent settings... Which don't stray significantly far from the base consoles. - But because their hardware is only mid-range, developers tend to sink all the extra headroom into driving resolution/framerates.

High-end PC's actually get used, they get higher resolutions, higher framerates, better texturing, lighting, shadowing, effects and more.

Next-gen consoles the resolution will be entirely up to the developers, just like this generation, on PC you can choose.