I'm curious what gpu you're playing it on then because the minimum requirement is a 660GTX... Also, I'm willing to bet my entire Pokemon collection that there is no AAA game out there that requires anything above a 660GTX for the minimum requirements. 

They are made in China, how will Brexit have any impact on console sales? I buy stuff from EVGA, now that will fuck things up price wise post Brexit.

Well, if you look at my congrats post to the OP near the start of the thread, you'll know which GPU I'm using  

Minimum is what it is though. As in playing that game with everything turned to practical potato settings.

Game looks absolutely gorgeous and stresses my GPU quite a bit, temps included. 

That isn't what I am asserting at all... And the worst part is, you know that.

Nah. I have provided plenty of examples of the Radeon 5870.

Fermi managed to hold onto it's own for a long time as well.

Shit example for so many reasons.
Here is Assassins Creed Unity running on a Geforce GTX 480 (2010 GPU) with 30+ fps.

You might finally be starting to get it. Maybe.
Yes we have no idea how next-gen consoles will perform, so falsely asserting you will need an RTX 2080 as a minimum to match their specs means you are just throwing false assertions out into the wild and trying to pass it off as factual when that is far from the case.

The Geforce 1060 and RX 480/580 will be sticking around as "gaming capable" in the PC sphere for years to come. - Why? Because they are some of the most popular GPU's currently in use by gamers as reflected by Steams hardware statistics, irrespective of what hardware next-gen uses.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

They are optimized for whatever the developer sees fit and what the hardware is capable of.
The base Xbox One and Playstation 4 are theoretically capable of 4k, but the refresh rates would take a giant hit thanks to the older HDMI version, hence why such functionality isn't exposed on those consoles.

No one has suggested we should play at 460p, lowest settings. Nor has any of the benchmarks I presented dropped to such a low level to get them to run on antiquated hardware anyway... Meaning your dig is pretty redundant.

Here is the Geforce GTX 480.
Battlefield 1, 1080P, 30+ fps, medium:


Batman Arkham Knight:


In general the GTX 480 is not only faster than the 560, it's older too. You get what you pay for.
The age of the hardware isn't important, it's the performance tier it offered in the first place.

If you buy low-end or mid-range hardware, then it simply isn't going to last as long, that is what history is telling us, that is what the evidence I have provided says.

I'm not insulting a card in the slightest, the 1060 is a perfect mid range card from the previous generation of cards, I'm just not going to let it float in the air that you claim you can game 1440p at ultra on the thing because in a while you'll be quoting that post as fact that was spoken and not called out as false.

It's just you talk about not wanting to spend extra on the GPU when you did buy it but will want to "buy a 2070 when it's $100 after the PS5 comes out" I'm really doubting that the 2070 would be reaching that region of price any time soon, a 970 second hand will still cost you over €100... €145 in the retailer which I use https://ie.webuy.com/product-detail?id=sgranvi970gtx4gba&categoryName=pci-express-graphics-cards&superCatName=computing&title=nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-4gb-gddr5 because of the fact that it was a higher end GPU and as such it has held its value far better than lower end cards would, a used 2070 now costs around £400 and that price is not going to drop to 25% in the next 2-3 years as the card is going to keep some of that value as it will be a capable 1440 card still in 2022.

Truth be told, I haven't tested 1440p on that many games. But I was playing Gears 5 the other day and it runs great in 1440p. We will have to see if a 2070 will still be a capable 1440p card in 2022. It all depends on how these next gen consoles will perform (they are saying 2080RTX level but 2060RTX sounds more realistic) and what resolution next gen games will be aiming for. I think that will be 1080p for the more demanding games and 4k for the cross platform titles. But if these consoles push their gpu to its limits to run smoothly in 1080p, we will probably need a 2080GTX or higher to play them in 1440p, let alone native 4k.

It doesn't matter where they are manufactured. They set the US pricing and base the GBP price off of that.

Look at the new iPhones, they're manufactured in Asia. The iPhone X cost $1000 in the US 2017 (a year after the referendum) and cost £1000 in the UK.   The iPhone 11 Pro costs $1000 in the US and now costs £1050 in the UK. 

Whilst in 2014. The iPhone 6 started at $649 and in the UK started at £539. 

We've never had the correct exchange rate due to VAT and things but usually it was still marginally lower. Like the PS4 costing $400 but £350, or XB1 costing $500 and £450. 

Another example from this year my 3900x is $500 from retailers. Yet It costs £500 from retailers at cheapest. Most are more. 

So if a PS5 costs $500, it will most likely at least cost £500. 

I'm not saying leaving the EU fucks up our worldwide pricing, I'm saying leaving the EU is fucking the GBP's value.

So after a few days of both Pavlov and Contractors.. that dang empty mag, grab new mag, load in new mag, cock gun is definitely aggravating.. lol.  Still trying to get my bearings in order.  Definitely worth learning though, and even more important now to fab a gun stock for holding the Vive wands.  Arms get tired after a while.

Yes a 480 GTX did still kinda work, even though I wouldn't call games running in 720p and framerates constantly dropping to 20fps a playable experience. Sure, you can say that buying a higher end gpu is going to last you longer when next gen consoles come out. But personally, I don't think it's worth it. I mean if I bought a $200, 460GTX in 2010 and it became useless in 2014 because the ps4 came out, I would be far less pissed then if I had spend $500 on a 480GTX and the games could still barely run. So yes, a 1080Ti that came out 4 years before the ps5, will also still work. But the people who own one also spend $700 on it. And if it works like a 480GTX did when the ps4 came out, I would be pissed. That is why most people don't buy high-end gpu's and why a mid-range cards like the 1060GTX are by far the most common gpu's among pc gamers.

Also, I don't think current mid-range cards like the 1060GTX will be sticking around for years after the next gen consoles arrive. Because here's the thing. Developers don't care if pc gamers can, or can not, run their games when the next gen hits. They will simply build their games around the ps5 hardware and take as much advantage of it as possible. If that means hardware ray tracing incorporated in all games, currently only 4% of the pc gamers who own a RTX card (according to steam hardware survey), can play those games at similar settings as the console versions. That's why I'm willing to bet that the 3060RTX (and AMD equivalent) will be the most common gpu's in 2021/ 2022. This might not be a fact, but my prediction is based on historic facts from previous console generations. Just look at the steam hardware study and tell me how many gamers are still playing on a 560 or 480GTX in 2019? Literally nobody...

Here's an interesting video that shows how gpu requirements shift as soon as new consoles come out. You can clearly see, that once developers stopped supporting the ps3, a 560GTX or lower became pretty much useless. That is why nobody was gaming on a 560/ 480GTX or lower anymore in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=98&v=wHTdnIviZTE 

So Pemalite proves that Battlefield 1 on medium (similar to console settings) runs in 1080p with 30 - 50 fps on an almost 7 year old GPU (Game Oct 2016 - GPU March 2010 = 6.5 years, almost a whole console cycle) and your take from that is "720p with framerates constantly dropping to 20fps"?

No, that video doesn't show GPU requirements or that a 560GTX or lower became pretty much useless in 2015. It only shows that the old models weren't in the top 15 anymore... and why should they, when dozens of other GPUs have been released since then?

GTX 560 + 480 weren't even on sale anymore for years, so people who bought a new PC (the PC gaming hardware base was also insanely growing the last decade) didn't even have an option for these cards.

Also you seem to think that most GPU upgraders buy a new GPU because they are forced to by system requirements of new games... that's not how it works. Most PC gamers upgrade their GPU when they want to upgrade and see a nice deal... long before their old GPU becomes useless. And in that case, they can often sell their old GPU for a few hundred bucks to people with less demands in graphics (f.e. people who play other genres like point&click adventures, strategy games, sport games...).

You said that you would have been "less pissed" if you bought a $200 for GTX 460GTX in 2010 instead of a $500 GTX 480 GTX for a usage of 4 years. But eventually the difference of your "investment" wouldn't have been $300 but probably less than $200, since the resell value of the GTX 480 was much higher. And for these $150 - $200 difference you would have enjoyed much better graphics in these 4 years.

Also the video proves that the GTX 560 was never nearly as popular as the GTX 1060 (which you claimed above).

At its peak (April 2012) it was in 4.6% of the surveyed Steam PCs (hardware base / active steam accounts less than 50 million in 2012, so around 2.3 million GTX 560). On the other hand, the GTX 1060 still is in 14.5% of the surveyed Steam PCs (hardware base / active steam accounts 200 - 300 million, so around 30 to 40 million GTX 1060).