Is a GTX 970 overkill for 1080p/60 FPS?

I'm a console gamer looking to start building my first real gaming PC. I want to be able to run games on high/ultra but I only need to have the resolution up to 1080p because I plan on hooking the tower up to my TV and using Big Picture Mode.

I've heard everyone talking about how great the 970 is but I wonder if that's too much power for what I'm trying to do. Is there an alternative/cheaper card I should go with?

No it isn't overkill. It's really fucking awesome but newer games need that power to hit 60 on Ultra at 1080p.

You can also do cool stuff like DSR with older games.

No.

No.

For example, my 970 just manages to keep Dragon Age running at 60fps and 1080p with most of the settings on Ultra. It will be overkill for most older games but it's a good investment for the future.

No, I have a 970 and I was just playing the Talos Principle Public Test with absolutely all the settings maxed out and I was only getting 30ish FPS. Maybe not the best example, since it isn't the final build of the game, but I can assure you that a 970 is not overkill when it comes to recent (and future) games.

With my (admittedly 3 year old) i5 2500k, 8gig of RAM and my brand new 970 (ZOTAC ZT-90101-10P) runs Tomb Raider (the original not the Definitive version) at 38.8 min, 62.0 max, 51.0 average at 1080 with everything cranked to max save TressFX (which just looks weird).

So... no.

It is a lovely boost over my old HD 6870, it might even let me play Dead Rising 3 (though I haven't tried that one yet)...

It's future proofing, though not really since a newer one will be out soon enough.

The question is, are you satisfied with 1080p60 now, or do you still want that 1-2 years from now?

There is no such thing, it just means the hardware will last longer.

If you have extra GPU power to spare at 1080p, you can always apply extra AA/AF and use downsampling. Or as Nvidia has termed it, "Dynamic Super Resolution." With a high end GPU you will quickly learn that most of the in-game settings just aren't enough for you, or don't provide the degree of control or image quality that you like.

Also keep in mind that PC games frequently have graphical options that have very little impact on how the game looks, but do have an impact on the frame rate. I know a lot of people like to throw around the "Ultra" term because it makes you feel awesome when using it, but in most games you can find a setting or two that can be turned down, or even turned off. Saving that performance where you don't need it will let you use it for additional Anti-Aliasing or Downsampling, both of which smooth out the edges of surfaces and get rid of "jaggies" as MB suggested above. To me, it's a lot more important to have a smooth image running at a consistent frame rate than to throw around stuff like "absolutely maxed out!".

An easy way to figure this stuff out is to google search "(name_of_game) tweak guide", assuming the game has been out for about a week or more. You'll typically find a forum thread or PC gaming website article going through each of the available options, describing what they do and how much of a performance impact they have on your frame rate. Stuff like Texture Detail, Shadow Quality, Lighting Detail, Object Detail, etc. are all important options that significantly change the way a game looks. But stuff like "Post Processing" can waste resources without having any noticeable effect on the picture. And plenty of games have a setting that just doesn't work as well maxed out as it does one notch down. Here's a perfect example from Bioshock Infinite: Bioshock Infinite | Very High/Ultra Shadow Glitch

It may sound annoying coming from a console environment, but taking 5-10 minutes to check out the available info on a game that you plan to put 10+ hours into is well worth making sure you have the best experience available to you.