I suck at math help! :P

[Nena Trinity]

Okay what will be unable to give 60 FPS first?

 

GTX 960 GPU on a 1280x1024 monitor (1310720 pixels)

or

GTX 970 GPU on a 1920x1080 monitor (2073600 pixels) The GTX 970 is around 60% better!

 

Lets just say Crysis 3, Metro 2033 Redux & Witcher 3 as basis games.

 

[Nineshadow]

What does this have to do with Maths?

[Textosterone]

nothing to do at math sorry but the title is a lie

[App4that]

Refresh rate?

[IMPERIUS]

What kind of post is this? Are you deciding between those two? I'd take the 1080p monitor and 970 but don't expect it to get 60fps on the witcher 3 with ultra settings

[Nena Trinity]

What does this have to do with Maths?

How can you not see that it clearly is! 60% stronger GPU vs less pixels!!!

 

nothing to do at math sorry but the title is a lie

You are trolling me right?

 

Refresh rate?

60hertz

 

What kind of post is this? Are you deciding between those two? I'd take the 1080p monitor and 970 but don't expect it to get 60fps on the witcher 3 with ultra settings

I just wonder who of the two setups that needs a upgrade first to keep the magical 60fps at max settings!  (I guess Witcher 3 may be to much for both?)

[Wombo]

Actually this really is math. Easy answer, GTX970. Simply for the very large amount of extra pixels in the given resolution.

[Nineshadow]

How can you not see that it clearly is! 60% stronger GPU vs less pixels!!!

It's not 60% stronger.

You don't know exactly how much stronger it is.

[Atmos]

Neither of those will give you 60fps maxed in any of the games you listed. Turned down to high/no aa, then they will. But get a 390 instead of the 970, it will perform better across the board. And get the 380 instead of the 960, as it too will perform better across the board.

[Nena Trinity]

Actually this really is math. Easy answer, GTX970. Simply for the very large amount of extra pixels in the given resolution.

I kinda feared that! x.x

 

It's not 60% stronger.

You don't know exactly how much stronger it is.

But Userbenchmark said so! D: (that page sucks I guess but many here keeps saying it is good!)

 

Neither of those will give you 60fps maxed in any of the games you listed. Turned down to high/no aa, then they will. But get a 390 instead of the 970, it will perform better across the board. And get the 380 instead of the 960, as it too will perform better across the board.

Ultra preset will they be equal or will one lose?

[Atmos]

I kinda feared that! x.x

 

But Userbenchmark said so! D: (that page sucks I guess but many here keeps saying it is good!)

 

Ultra preset will they be equal or will one lose?

 

the 390 and 380 both perform better, across the board than the 970 and 960, at every resolution, and every detail preset. That's what, a better performing card does lol.

[Nineshadow]

A 960 will require to push 78 643 200 pixels/second .

A 970 will require to push 124 416 000 pixels/second .

 

Let's say the 970 is 60% better than the 960 which is getting 60fps at its resolution. That means it should push 125 829 120 pixels/second, which is more than it needs to for 60fps.

 

The 970 should fare better, but this is quite a big aproximation honestly. Also , why would you play at 1280x1024 ???

[Nena Trinity]

the 390 and 380 both perform better, across the board than the 970 and 960, at every resolution, and every detail preset. That's what, a better performing card does lol.

Personally I would go for the AMD cards but their Linux drivers kinda is meh... :< (I play half my games on Windows!)

 

So the 970 is gonna give less FPS at 1080 over the 960 at 1024?

 

A 960 will require to push 78 643 200 pixels/second .

A 970 will require to push 124 416 000 pixels/second .

 

Let's say the 970 is 60% better than the 960 which is getting 60fps at its resolution. That means it should push 125 829 120 pixels/second, which is more than it needs to for 60fps.

So 960 wins by alot?

[Atmos]

Personally I would go for the AMD cards but their Linux drivers kinda is meh... :< (I play half my games on Windows!)

 

So the 970 is gonna give less FPS at 1080 over the 960 at 1024?

 

So 960 wins by alot?

 

From what i've heard the 390 performs decently on linux, and the 390X is insane on linux, beating the 980 quite a bit, though, the fury series are total balls on linux.

 

If you're more comfortable with a 970/960 then go for those, the difference in performance is marginal at worst, and decent at best (5-10% difference).

[Nineshadow]

So 960 wins by alot?

No...?

If a 970 is 60% more powerful than a 960 which can push 78 643 200 pixels/second , then it can push slightly more pixels than it would need to for it to run games at 60 fps at 1080p. It's an aproximation, impling that the 960 is already at its limit. If that happens, then the 970 would be slightly above its own limit, so it will do better.

 

Still, that's not taking a lot of factors into account. It's just mathematical, probably not representative of the real world scenario.

[Wombo]

No...?

If a 970 is 60% more powerful than a 960 which can push 78 643 200 pixels/second , then it can push slightly more pixels than it would need to for it to run games at 60 fps at 1080p. It's an aproximation, impling that the 960 is already at its limit. If that happens, then the 970 would be slightly above its own limit, so it will do better.

 

Still, that's not taking a lot of factors into account. It's just mathematical, probably not representative of the real world scenario.

Well with the res given being 1.5x the amount of pixels and the numbers you gave showing 1.58x the difference in rendering capabilities. We can't factor in differences in ability to render textures and other factors that stress the GPU itself. Plus we should factor in some non-perfect scaling. I'd still have to go with the 970 needing to be replaced sooner just due to the much higher pixel density in the given resolution. With that said, it is obviously very close and could probably go either way.

[Glenwing]

Okay what will be unable to give 60 FPS first?

 

GTX 960 GPU on a 1280x1024 monitor (1310720 pixels)

or

GTX 970 GPU on a 1920x1080 monitor (2073600 pixels) The GTX 970 is around 60% better!

 

Lets just say Crysis 3, Metro 2033 Redux & Witcher 3 as basis games.

 

2,073,600 is 762,880 more pixels than 1,310,720.

 

762,880 is 58.2% of 1,310,720.

 

So 1920x1080 is 58.2% more pixels than 1,310,720.

 

This means that one 1920x1080 frame takes 1.582x as much GPU power to render in the same amount of time as a 1280x1024 frame. So sixty 1920x1080 frames will take 1.582x as much GPU power to render in the same amount of time as sixty 1280x1024 frames.

 

So to move from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 and still keep the same framerate, you would need a GPU with 58.2% more computational power (or in other words, fps counts at least 1.582x as high at the same resolution).

[Nena Trinity]

No...?

If a 970 is 60% more powerful than a 960 which can push 78 643 200 pixels/second , then it can push slightly more pixels than it would need to for it to run games at 60 fps at 1080p. It's an aproximation, impling that the 960 is already at its limit. If that happens, then the 970 would be slightly above its own limit, so it will do better.

 

Still, that's not taking a lot of factors into account. It's just mathematical, probably not representative of the real world scenario.

Hmm I see...

 

Well with the res given being 1.5x the amount of pixels and the numbers you gave showing 1.58x the difference in rendering capabilities. We can't factor in differences in ability to render textures and other factors that stress the GPU itself. Plus we should factor in some non-perfect scaling. I'd still have to go with the 970 needing to be replaced sooner just due to the much higher pixel density in the given resolution. With that said, it is obviously very close and could probably go either way.

So they will both struggle at about the same time? Perfect that was what I was going for!

 

 

2,073,600 is 762,880 more pixels than 1,310,720.

 

762,880 is 58.2% of 1,310,720.

 

So 1920x1080 is 58.2% more pixels than 1,310,720.

 

This means that one 1920x1080 frame takes 1.582x as much GPU power to render in the same amount of time as a 1280x1024 frame. So sixty 1920x1080 frames will take 1.582x as much GPU power to render in the same amount of time as sixty 1280x1024 frames.

 

So to move from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 and still keep the same framerate, you would need a GPU with 58.2% more computational power (or in other words, fps counts at least 1.582x as high at the same resolution).

In simple words about the same?