New Video Card

Personally I think you are better off staying put. Those top of the line graphics cards seem overkill. I made the mistake of going for a 980ti on my rig. I barely even stress it as I play everything at 1920 by 1080. It was a waste of hundreds of pounds. Even my old ATI 6970 mobile gpu before I sold the laptop could handle 1920 by 1080 on more or less everything I threw at it. Each to their own perceptions but I can't really tell the difference between 1920 by 1080 and ultra hd. Both look crystal clear to me. Also cannot tell difference between say 30 fps or 60 fps. I don't think the human eye can really detect anything over 30 fps anyway. So as long as you can game at 30 fps and at 1080 I'd say stick with what you have.

I am running a gtx 1060 on my sons i5 and at 1920x1200, we run e everything maxed out with no issues whatsoever.

Scottyboy99 said:

I don't think the human eye can really detect anything over 30 fps anyway.

While it is true that movies project at 24 fps, and standard television works at 30 fps, it seems to be enough to fool the eye into perceiving proper motion. Research has shown that the human eye can detect up to 60 fps. Beyond that it is debatable if the increase can really be perceived. 30 fps is adequate for most things we see and do, and 60 would be better, but I can't really see the point of going beyond 60 fps. I get by just fine on games at ultra settings playing at 30 to 35 fps. Sure 60 fps has a little less blur when it comes to motion (that's why flat panel TV's were such a big deal when they came out. Working at 60 Hz allowed for less blur when it came to sports and fast motion.) A 120 Hz TV has apparently less blur, if you believe the literature, but I can't tell the difference between a 60 Hz and a 120 Hz TV. Maybe that's just me.

But here's a good article on frame rates and the human eye for those still reading:

How many frames per second can the human eye really see? | PC Gamer