GTX 970 Performance at 768p

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

amadeok

Distinguished
Sep 8, 2013
169
0
18,690
Hello,
I have heard that playing at 768p will decrease performance because of the load shifting to the CPU or something of that sort, thus decreasing performance. Would you know anything about this?
Anyways i can always just use DSR to dowscale 1080p to 768p, but i went for 768p mainly because of the better FPS and the lower VRAM consumption, not really for today games, even though many games are already going heavy on the VRAM also at 1080p(www.tweaktown.com),
but for tomorrow games, one or two years from now, considering also the 3.5GB + 0.5GB issue on the 970, and that i use decent amounts of AA, imo low AA is immersion breaking.
Nevertheless i have seen a benchmark where 768p was getting+20 FPS from 1080p, thats promising in my opinion. The DPI isnt that much greater in 1080p, doing some maths(http://dpi.lv/) we are speaking of 86 DPI for a 18.5 panel at 768p and 102 DPI for a 21.5 panel at 1080p, thats 18% more.
Please share your thoughts
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
You're thinking too much. I was able to play on full resolution a fair bit of games at 1440x900 on my 1GB GTX 650.
To say the 970 eats that for breakfast would be an understatement.
I don't think you should have any problems at 1080p with a 970. In fact I am thinking of going for a 970 myself, now having a 1080p Dell S2240L monitor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A 970 will max out almost anything at 1080p and will for sure max out ANYTHING at just 768p.
VRAM is still not an issue and still just marketing if you ask me. Most games dont even need full 2gb @1080 and i never had a problem with just 3gb VRAM @1440 with max settings.

The GTX970 is a good choice for 1080p and a pretty futureproof choice for 768p.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pease take minute to see these benchmarks:http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html
You'll see there some games are easily using 2.5GB, living the 970 only 1GB of good VRAM.
Indeed i'm going 768p because the card would last longer, i mean that i'll be able to get good settings for a longer time.
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
Having a 1080p display yields a pretty crisp picture, given the 21.5" monitor is much smaller than a 42" 1080p TV which was the norm 4 years ago.
You don't seem to actually have a 1080p monitor, so you are saying this.
It's not like either you have all the settings turned all the way up, or nothing at all.
Most of the benchmarks on that site are having all settings at the very max, because that's what geeks like to see.
But the rest of us are more reasonable, and we can leverage the situation a lot by tweaking settings, such as turning down anti-aliasing, which frees up a lot of video memory.

Trust me, it's not as straightforward as you're assuming. The 970 is an awesome card, and you don't need to sacrifice your screen size to 1366x768 just to make the card last.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Thanks for reply,
Would then be right to say that in the future with more demanding games the limiter would again turn to be the gpu? By the way i have a i5 3470

 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Only if you raised the resolution to increase the load on the GPU. a GTX 970 is way overkill for such a low resolution screen.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


What about in 3 years from now?

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Nobody can tell. There is nothing like a real futureproof build. Even quad SLI Titan X could be worthless by that time it depends on what the new games on DX12 will be like and how the GPU technologie evolves.

But with todays games out and a GXT970 you really should consider a 1080p screen, because 768p will look like shit in a comparison even if you're able to run 768p at max settings and 1080p at just mid/high settings.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Whatever card you decide to get, try to get the one that lets you set the maximum resolution for your screen. If you have, say a 1600x900 screen, then it's possible to set the resolution to 1366x768(causing things to look bigger, but still in proportion) and game. But setting the screen to 1600x900 will give you unmatched clarity.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah that's why i went for 768p panel, in a 1080p monitor 768p will truly look crappy. But i honestly believe i can live on a 18.5 768p panel. I dont need more than that, but what really annoys me is when i run out of VRAM and the game starts to stutter. take a look at tweaktown.com, Far Cry 4 uses 3GB of VRAM at 1080p, its crazy who knows what games will need in future.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


But 768p looks like shit. a 970 is a very good 1080p card or a 1440p card. Way overkill for 768p.

Hell, I use a gtx 680 on 1440p and its fine as long as you dont have to have everything maxed out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


there is only 18% more DPI from 768p to 1080p, the difference may of course be the size of the screen
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
1080p with no aa looks better than 768p with 4xmsaa mate.
As said you've over thought it completely IMO.

Setting vsync on to 60fps will prolong the life of a card far more than running at a lower resolution IMO.

You'd have been better with a 1080p screen & if you were that bothered 99.99999% of them support 720p as a native resolution too.

You could have saved a lot of money & bought a 960 for 768p.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


1366x768 = 1,049,088 pixels

1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels

Its not just about the DPI, having more pixels gives you more detail, even if you have a bigger screen.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Guys, cut the extra quoting please. Gets annoying.
I second you, RobCrezz.
It's about the area, not the DPI. A 1080p screen puts almost twice the load on a given GPU as compared to a 768p screen(whether it's called 768p or just 1366x768 I'm not sure).
As I said earlier, I was able to play most games at 1440x900 pretty well on my GTX 650. In terms of raw power, the 970 is 4.3x more powerful. So it'll be able to run the same games at the same settings on a panel twice as wide and twice as tall - a panel 2880x1800 pixels in size - much bigger than a 1080p screen - over 2.5 times larger in screen area.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ye i saw the benchmarks, the 970 can handle those resolutions, but for how long? Thats my main point.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What do you mean? 1080p is 1080p now and in the future. In future, some games will be more demanding and then you can use lower quality settings ingame. And if nothing else will help, then you still can lower the resolution in the future. If you can play with 1080p now, then do it. No need to cripple it now. And thats my main point.

Nobody knows what the future brings, so how can we see it and tell you? If you want a prognose, then I'll tell you 4 years from now the GTX 970 will play new high end games with lowest settings at 1080p and 30 frames per second. You can lower the resolution, but who wants 4 years later play at 720p? You could add another GTX 970 then and use SLI mode for 180% of a single card (two cards never reach 200% sli power). 4 years later the cards will be much cheaper.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Believe or not i have had a 1080p panel for a little time, and the differenece is surely noticeble coming from 15' old monitor, but from a 18.5 modern one? i dont think that much. IMO this is more related to each's personn subjective perception.
turbopixel i mean that GTX970+1080p will not last as much as it would at 768p, personaly i would rather pay for new technology rather than going SLI.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're thinking too much again.
A 970 is not even built for 1080p, but for 1440p. For gaming at 1080p, the 2GB 960 is recommended.
I'll say it again. A 970 can more than handle 1080p. And unless you're upgrading your panel to 1440p or more, you won't have a problem with graphics framerates.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Sorry if I say this and it may sound disrespecting, but this is nonsense! The resolution is the same today and in the future. Can you be more specific about "will not last"?! Look. My suggestion is, buy the GTX 970 now and play every game with high quality settings (that is much better than any console today) on a 1080p monitor with 60 fps. In the future, you maybe can't play games at high settings and 60 fps at 1080p. Then just lower the quality settings and some games maybe just playable at 30 fps. And if you think this is not enough, then you can lower the resolution, like you want play today.

Or buy a GTX 750 Ti, which is enough for almost any game at 1080p today. Even this card, which is very cheap will be enough for 4 years, if you can live with lower settings and resolution. Then, if this is not enough anymore, then just buy a new card. The price for two GTX 750 Ti is like a single GTX 970. Edit: I am not talking about sli here, but replacing the 750 Ti with a card in same price point.

> http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/video-card/#c=164,186
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You guys were right LOL. I should have lisented to you, 768 doesnt look as good as 1080, especialy the trees and small edges ect. I hope DSR fixes this a little would you know anything i can do to improve this?
edit: I tried cities xl with downsampling it does improve quite a bit, but a very high resolutions
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I told you, the 970 can easily handle 768p.
I have tried all three of 1024x768, 1440x900 and 1920x1080, and 1024x768 looks nowhere near 1440x900, let alone 1920x1080. Also, you don't necessarily have to max everything out for it to look good. A good balance is pretty easily achieved, trimming out the extra hifi stuff (such as 8xMSAA, 'cause 4x or even 2x AA works fine at 1080p) can up performance significantly.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom