How much does resolution affect performance?

[ImTheWizzy]

Hello everyone! Today I want to ask a question regarding performace in relation to resolution. Im looking to change my current monitor (An ancient LG Flatron 1280x1024 native panel) with something newer, with a 1920x1080 native resolution. I want to know how much the higher resolution will affect performance. My current system is: GTX950, FX8300, 8gb HyperX Fury 1600hz. Im currently getting fantastic FPS because of the resolution being pretty low (60 fps cap on Witcher 3 on ultra, nothing bellow 50 fps, 90 fps on dying light on ultra) and because by my calculation a 1920x1080 monitor will need to have rougly 70% more pixels rendered, does that mean that I would be getting 70% of the FPS im currently getting? Cheers to anyone that takes time off their day (or evening) to help me out

[Midnitewarrior4]

3 minutes ago, ImTheWizzy said:

Hello everyone! Today I want to ask a question regarding performace in relation to resolution. Im looking to change my current monitor (An ancient LG Flatron 1280x1024 native panel) with something newer, with a 1920x1080 native resolution. I want to know how much the higher resolution will affect performance. My current system is: GTX950, FX8300, 8gb HyperX Fury 1600hz. Im currently getting fantastic FPS because of the resolution being pretty low (60 fps cap on Witcher 3 on ultra, nothing bellow 50 fps, 90 fps on dying light on ultra) and because by my calculation a 1920x1080 monitor will need to have rougly 70% more pixels rendered, does that mean that I would be getting 70% of the FPS im currently getting? Cheers to anyone that takes time off their day (or evening) to help me out

no you will not se 70% less, its not really a linear thing, you will have to turn down some settings to get good frames but a 950 is a great card for 1080p

[cynexit]

As Midnitewarror4 already said it's not linear, you'll need to look at benchmarks to see what you can roughly expect. Just be aware that benchmarks are always bound to the CPU and driver version they used.

Here are a few you could checkout.

[PlayStation 2]

It's never a linear scale and almost entirely depends on the game engine. An engine like the Source engine will not see a noticeable decrease in performance going from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 while the RAGE engine in GTA 5 scales far worse in performance from the beforementioned resolutions.

[Guilherme Alles]

You probably won't find many benchmarks for games on your native resolution (due to it being outdated), but it is interesting to compare the performance of graphics cards when handling 1080p vs 1440p vs 4K. You can definitely see that the resolution is indeed a major factor to fps drops, but I believe your setup is enough to play on 1080p with medium to high settings (and just forget about witcher 3 on ultra :-) )

 

Also, you will not see a 70% loss in performance due to having to draw 70% more pixels on the screen. As it has already been implied, there are some other factors that prevent this comparison to be linear (video memory and the number of cuda cores are an example). Take a look at some 1080p gaming GTX 950 benchmarks to see what you should expect from upgrading the resolution .

 

cheers,

[ImTheWizzy]

Thanks

 

[Praesi]

Higher Resolutions cost more Power. The GTX950 will not handle latest AAA Titles in ultra. Depends on the Game how much you have to lower the settings.

My switch from 1080p to 1440p costs me ~30%-40% fps.

[LokiFire]

Depends on the game and the card, a high memory bandwidth card will do better vs a card with lower memory bandwidth if Vram is not a bottleneck.

[LokiFire]

GTX 950 at 1280x1024 would be like owning a GTX 970 at 1080P i would imagine, assuming your CPU can deliver good performance.

[EChondo]

I'm not sure about going from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080, but you could look at TechPowerUp's reviews for GTX 950's like this Gigabyte GTX 950 card: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_950_Xtreme_Gaming/

 

They do benchmarks in 1600x900, 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 resolutions in multiple games. So you can see what performance differences there are going from 1600x900 to 1920x1080 at least, but keep in mind they use a i7-4770k as their CPU.

 

You could also look at a Tom's Hardware review for a ASUS GTX 950: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-geforce-gtx-950-strix,4270.html

 

They have benchmarks for 1366x768 and 1920x1080. 1366x768 is a lower resolution pixels wise than 1280x1024, so it might be a closer comparison, but they use a i7-5930k.

 

Not the best comparisons, but it's the best I can find. I'd probably guess there would be at least a 15-30fps difference going from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080.

 

Best of luck!

[ImTheWizzy]

2 minutes ago, EChondo said:

I'm not sure about going from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080, but you could look at TechPowerUp's reviews for GTX 950's like this Gigabyte GTX 950 card: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_950_Xtreme_Gaming/

 

They do benchmarks in 1600x900, 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 resolutions in multiple games. So you can see what performance differences there are going from 1600x900 to 1920x1080 at least, but keep in mind they use a i7-4770k as their CPU.

 

You could also look at a Tom's Hardware review for a ASUS GTX 950: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-geforce-gtx-950-strix,4270.html

 

They have benchmarks for 1366x768 and 1920x1080. 1366x768 is a lower resolution pixels wise than 1280x1024, so it might be a closer comparison, but they use a i7-5930k.

 

Not the best comparisons, but it's the best I can find. I'd probably guess there would be at least a 15-30fps difference going from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080.

 

Best of luck!

Thank you so very much good sir!

[Thony]

In Source Engine if u change aspect ratio, u see less ingame (sides are cut off in 4:3 compared to 16:9).

 

As many mentioned, it's very engine specific.

 

[PlayStation 2]

7 hours ago, LokiFire said:

GTX 950 at 1280x1024 would be like owning a GTX 970 at 1080P i would imagine, assuming your CPU can deliver good performance.

It would be much closer to an R9 280X at 1280x1024 being like a 970 at 1080p.

[typographie]

The number of pixels being rendered may not always work out to be exactly a linear decrease in performance, but it's often quite close assuming everything else is kept exactly the same. The game and the GPU architecture are factors that may make it more or less than linear, of course. Resolution is much less of a wild card than many other settings and effects.