Can a single GTX 970 provide constant 60fps at 1440p?

[ProtoflareX]

I'm currently looking to buy a new monitor, but I am unsure if I should purchase a 1080p monitor, or a 1440p monitor. Do any of you guys game at 1440p with a single gtx 970? If so, can you describe whether you think your gaming experience is enjoyable or not? Is the GTX 970 able to provide constant 60fps across all games?

 

[skit75]

Nope.

Enjoyable, sure. Constant 60 FPS across all games, no way. I don't think a GTX 980 could even make that claim @ 1440p

 

[ProtoflareX]

Nope.

Enjoyable, sure. Constant 60 FPS across all games, no way.

Out of curiosity, is your response under the assumption that I will be playing at ultra settings on all games?

 

[skit75]

I only assumed standard gaming practice. Assuming you are spending over $300.00 just for a GPU, I'm willing to bet you are not playing on Medium or Low settings. High settings or better on a GTX 970 @ 1440p, you will fall under 60 FPS; maybe even on medium settings depending on the game.

I can say I wouldn't entertain the thought of moving to 1440p at the expense of losing eye candy.

 

[ProtoflareX]

I only assumed standard gaming practice. Assuming you are spending over $300.00 just for a GPU, I'm willing to bet you are not playing on Medium or Low settings.

Playing at medium settings would indeed be pretty pointless, but lets assume that I set everything to high and never ultra in all games, do you think what you said in your first response would still be true?

Edit: Just read your edit. Out of curiosity, can you name some examples of games where constant fps on high would be difficult with a single 970 at 1440p.

 

[10tacle]

I have a 1440p and started with a single 970. I was hitting low 40s in games like Crysis 3 with max quality and 4xAA...that's average, not minimum which dipped down into the 30s. I got second 970 and it was problem solved...but even on Witcher 3, the new Crysis beast of GPU beatdown, average only about 75-80FPS at max quality settings with AA enabled (not even including the Hairworks BS). Older racing games like Grid 2 and Grid Autosport however handled it pretty well in single card, averaging close to 60FPS and Project Cars wasn't too far behind in the 50s (rain and a lot of traffic though drew those FPS down a lot).

Had the 980Ti been out though, I'd have much preferred going with a single card solution since there is a noticeable increase in the amount of games not officially supporting SLI. But regarding the direct access 3.5GB VRAM issue, I've never seen MSI Afterburner monitoring get close to reporting 3GB VRAM use in my games.

 

[skit75]

I only assumed standard gaming practice. Assuming you are spending over $300.00 just for a GPU, I'm willing to bet you are not playing on Medium or Low settings.

Playing at medium settings would indeed be pretty pointless, but lets assume that I set everything to high and never ultra in all games, do you think what you said in your first response would still be true?

Edit: Just read your edit. Out of curiosity, can you name some examples of games where constant fps on high would be difficult with a single 970 at 1440p.

Almost every AAA release in 2015. I'm not trying to bash the 970. It is a great card to be quite honest. 2015 AAA releases arguably exposed a lack of VRAM or lazy coding or both. @1440p, these games do chew up a lot of VRAM and many people would say a GTX 980 or even 980Ti is more of a sweet spot for 1440p.

 

[ProtoflareX]

I only assumed standard gaming practice. Assuming you are spending over $300.00 just for a GPU, I'm willing to bet you are not playing on Medium or Low settings.

Playing at medium settings would indeed be pretty pointless, but lets assume that I set everything to high and never ultra in all games, do you think what you said in your first response would still be true?

Edit: Just read your edit. Out of curiosity, can you name some examples of games where constant fps on high would be difficult with a single 970 at 1440p.

Almost every AAA release in 2015.

Well ****, that's pretty depressing. Alright, I guess I'll begin hunting for a decent 1080p monitor.

 

[skit75]

I only assumed standard gaming practice. Assuming you are spending over $300.00 just for a GPU, I'm willing to bet you are not playing on Medium or Low settings.

Playing at medium settings would indeed be pretty pointless, but lets assume that I set everything to high and never ultra in all games, do you think what you said in your first response would still be true?

Edit: Just read your edit. Out of curiosity, can you name some examples of games where constant fps on high would be difficult with a single 970 at 1440p.

Almost every AAA release in 2015.

Well ****, that's pretty depressing. Alright, I guess I'll begin hunting for a decent 1080p monitor.

You might find the R9 390 as a suitable partner for your 1440p endeavors if you are willing to move away from nvidia. They do a little better than the 970 in the upper resolutions and aren't troubled by high VRAM requests from games.

 

[ProtoflareX]

I only assumed standard gaming practice. Assuming you are spending over $300.00 just for a GPU, I'm willing to bet you are not playing on Medium or Low settings.

Playing at medium settings would indeed be pretty pointless, but lets assume that I set everything to high and never ultra in all games, do you think what you said in your first response would still be true?

Edit: Just read your edit. Out of curiosity, can you name some examples of games where constant fps on high would be difficult with a single 970 at 1440p.

Almost every AAA release in 2015.

Well ****, that's pretty depressing. Alright, I guess I'll begin hunting for a decent 1080p monitor.

You might find the R9 390 as a suitable partner for your 1440p endeavors if you are willing to move away from nvidia. They do a little better than the 970 in the upper resolutions and aren't troubled by high VRAM requests from games.

Before I fully convince myself that 1440p is not the right choice, I have one final question. Are medium settings at 1440 worse than, greater than, or equal to ultra settings at 1080p?

 

[skit75]

That is a harder question to answer. Some games have more post-processing/over-sampling than others and some GPU's will handle one better than the other. We have numbers for resolution...
1920x1080p = 2,073,600 pixels rendered per second
2560x1440p = 3,686,400 pixels rendered per second

Just moving to 1440p using same in game settings will ask the GPU to work significantly harder. Without numbers to associate in-game settings with workload of the GPU, it gets difficult to say which would be more taxing on the hardware but one thing can be said for certain, more or higher resolution means even more VRAM you will need for post-processing\effects

 

[ProtoflareX]

That is a harder question to answer. Some games have more post-processing/over-sampling than others and some GPU's will handle one better than the other. We have numbers for resolution...
1920x1080p = 2,073,600 pixels rendered per second
2560x1440p = 3,686,400 pixels rendered per second

Just moving to 1440p using same in game settings will ask the GPU to work significantly harder. Without numbers to associate in-game settings with workload of the GPU, it gets difficult to say which would be more taxing on the hardware.

Ah, I see. Thank you.

 

[sshortguy73]

your best bet is going with another gtx 970 to sli that is what i'm running at now and I get around 120-150 fps on almost all my games I got a acer 27" 133 hz 2560x1440p

 

[Nick_30]

I only assumed standard gaming practice. Assuming you are spending over $300.00 just for a GPU, I'm willing to bet you are not playing on Medium or Low settings. High settings or better on a GTX 970 @ 1440p, you will fall under 60 FPS; maybe even on medium settings depending on the game.

I can say I wouldn't entertain the thought of moving to 1440p at the expense of losing eye candy.

That is a harder question to answer. Some games have more post-processing/over-sampling than others and some GPU's will handle one better than the other. We have numbers for resolution...
1920x1080p = 2,073,600 pixels rendered per second
2560x1440p = 3,686,400 pixels rendered per second

Just moving to 1440p using same in game settings will ask the GPU to work significantly harder. Without numbers to associate in-game settings with workload of the GPU, it gets difficult to say which would be more taxing on the hardware but one thing can be said for certain, more or higher resolution means even more VRAM you will need for post-processing\effects

Hey there, I'm pretty much in the same situation as OP. I actually have a R9 390 and am worried about attempting to game in 1440p. I'm in the process of building my first rig and now I just need a monitor (which monitor to get though? I'm not sure). I think I would want to go with an IPS for 1440p gaming. Now i know sacrificing FPS for picture quality isn't a bad idea but that means I will also be sacrificing the refresh rate if i go with the IPS panel. So my question to you is, what would your preference be? TN panel 144hz with super nice frame rates at 1080p or IPS panel gaming at 1440p with "mediocre" frame rates and 60hz?

 

[skit75]

I've never owned a monitor with a refresh rate over 60Hz, but I have gamed on a few. If it were me, I would be moving to an adaptive sync monitor first and foremost. I am currently playing an older game and screen tearing is a huge issue. I can't un-see it anymore. Your 390 will continue to destroy most games in 1080p. If you've become accustomed to more than 60 FPS, get the TN panel and your next GPU won't be held back by the limitations of your monitor.