Would a GTX 1070 be any better on a 1080 60 Hz monitor?

[ace_cheaply]

No, it will not look better.  The 970 can play 1080p60 on ultra for pretty much all the games out there, and likely will for a couple years to come.   In your case the extra $120-$150 Will just be wasted. Waiting for the 1070 bemchmarks would be best, but in the meantime Look for deals on 970s as they clear out the stock.  You probably don't even need to get B-stock to get to $250, and a second hand 970 can be found for $200 or so. If you're sure to stay at 1080p, and you find a great deal, the 970 will be perfect for you.

[mckrackin5324]

On 5/19/2016 at 7:11 PM, ace_cheaply said:

No, it will not look better.  The 970 can play 1080p60 on ultra for pretty much all the games out there, and likely will for a couple years to come.   In your case the extra $120-$150 Will just be wasted. Waiting for the 1070 bemchmarks would be best, but in the meantime Look for deals on 970s as they clear out the stock.  You probably don't even need to get B-stock to get to $250, and a second hand 970 can be found for $200 or so. If you're sure to stay at 1080p, and you find a great deal, the 970 will be perfect for you.

Thanks...I'm thinking about a new 4K TV but still pretty happy with this one.

You all have confirmed what I was thinking...unless I upgrade my TV and monitors,the 1070 is a waste.

[SpeederT12]

On 5/18/2016 at 1:49 AM, hex4 said:

1070 will destroy all Maxwell based single GPU's when OC'd even on air, 2.1ghz on a 1080 gives it 980Ti SLi performance, just food for thought.

980TI sli performance? I mean, I wish that was true but it isn't possible. It can't even beat dual 980s in every game

[Omon_Ra]

 

13 hours ago, mckrackin5324 said:

Thanks...I'm thinking about a new 4K TV but still pretty happy with this one.

You all have confirmed what I was thinking...unless I upgrade my TV and monitors,the 1070 is a waste.

It is and it isn't. If you're not planning on getting any new titles until you upgrade your displays, the 960 will be fine if you're happy with the performance of it in the games you're playing. However, if you want to play newer titles, the 8GB of VRAM is going to keep up with newer games a lot better than the 2GB in your 960, or the 4*GB in a 970. You could look at an AMD card with 8GB of VRAM, but that won't be anywhere close to the same outright performance of a 1070. Then there's the power savings with 1070, the better thermals, and when you're ready for new displays, you don't need to budget for a new GPU at the same time. As far as making it look better, you could always run DSR. I personally haven't tried it except for a couple games, but there really isn't enough overhead with a 780 to make it worth it. Either way, I'd wait until 1070 benchmarks come out and the Polaris GPU's. Since it sounds like you're going to stick at 1080 for a little while, and the supposed price point of the Polaris GPU's (mid-range/consumer), they could be worth waiting for.

[Linus_torvalds]

On May 18, 2016 at 2:49 AM, hex4 said:

1070 will destroy all Maxwell based single GPU's when OC'd even on air, 2.1ghz on a 1080 gives it 980Ti SLi performance, just food for thought.

1080 gives ~ 980 SLI performance. Losing even with this here and there but it is not even close to 980 Ti SLI performance!

[Praesi]

I would not waste so much Money for a tearing 60Hz TV with 30ms+ response time.

[NegNoodles]

Like the others said, its best to wait it out and make a proper comparison. WHo knows if any of the speculations/theories on YT are actually accurate, or the extent its accurate. Best to wait till post release and you'll figure this out for yourself

 

That said, it might be a smarter thing to do to invest on the 1070 instead. 970 is a beast OFC, but just like how its better than the 770, we can only assume 1070 would be better, just not sure by how much.

[Sharkyx1]

22 hours ago, mckrackin5324 said:

Thanks...I'm thinking about a new 4K TV but still pretty happy with this one.

You all have confirmed what I was thinking...unless I upgrade my TV and monitors,the 1070 is a waste.

 

You can look at the performance of 970 vs 1080 here https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/11.html, 1070 will be a little slower than 75% of the 1080

 

On 5/18/2016 at 6:59 PM, Gix7Fifty said:

The 1070 is nerfed

 

the 970 is a cut down 980 as well.

 

the 1070 is slower in comparison, but that is entirely irrelevant, as it will still be around titan X speed for 380$ US

[mckrackin5324]

13 hours ago, Praesi said:

I would not waste so much Money for a tearing 60Hz TV with 30ms+ response time.

I get what you're saying but I have never once experienced tearing and my TV has a 5-8ms response....you got the 60Hz though

[vanished]

4 hours ago, mckrackin5324 said:

I get what you're saying but I have never once experienced tearing and my TV has a 5-8ms response....you got the 60Hz though

Yeah I doubt any screen these days would have a 30 ms response time.  It would be way too blurry for anything that moved

But I would look up your model and check what people have measured it at in terms of input lag.  Only the fastest TVs in the world are around 1 frame (16ms) and that's only like 1 or 2 models in existence in any given year.  Most TVs are at least 2 or more frames (30 ms, 45ms, etc.) And, though everyone and everything game it different, that would be mostly unplayable to me.

[mckrackin5324]

9 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah I doubt any screen these days would have a 30 ms response time.  It would be way too blurry for anything that moved

But I would look up your model and check what people have measured it at in terms of input lag.  Only the fastest TVs in the world are around 1 frame (16ms) and that's only like 1 or 2 models in existence in any given year.  Most TVs are at least 2 or more frames (30 ms, 45ms, etc.) And, though everyone and everything game it different, that would be mostly unplayable to me.

You are the one that should look up a few different TV models. lol

The more I read your comment...the less sense it makes...it's to about zero now.

 

You doubt any screen would have a 30 ms response time because it wouldn't function...You say most TVs have a 45 ms response time or more...WTF?

[vanished]

1 hour ago, mckrackin5324 said:

You are the one that should look up a few different TV models. lol

The more I read your comment...the less sense it makes...it's to about zero now.

 

You doubt any screen would have a 30 ms response time because it wouldn't function...You say most TVs have a 45 ms response time or more...WTF?

Read the first link in my signature and read it again.  I just checked; it makes perfect sense.  If you need some sample data, please visit http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/ and filter the display type by "HDTV" to take computer monitors out of the list.

[mckrackin5324]

5 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Read the first link in my signature and read it again.  I just checked; it makes perfect sense.  If you need some sample data, please visit http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/ and filter the display type by "HDTV" to take computer monitors out of the list.

Thanks.

I still don't understand your comment on 30 ms being to slow to function.

I can see one or two frames being a slight disadvantage in FPS games but that's about it.

 

Anyway...thanks again for your input.

 

At least my TV got a "Great" rating on this site. hahaha

[vanished]

7 hours ago, mckrackin5324 said:

Thanks.

I still don't understand your comment on 30 ms being to slow to function.

I can see one or two frames being a slight disadvantage in FPS games but that's about it.

 

Anyway...thanks again for your input.

 

At least my TV got a "Great" rating on this site. hahaha

The issue with a 30 millisecond response time is that it would likely be too blurry for anything that moved - tv or games.  Most screens have a response time of about 5 ms, or even 1 ms, and while this does not perfectly correlate with motion blur, it's the best we have without looking up actual tests of what the motion blur really looks like on any particular model.  If you've ever left a device out in very cold weather, you might have seen this effect on the screen in your car, or a portable gaming device, or a cell phone, where everything slowly fades and smears.

[MisterDeadeye]

As someone who actually owns a 970, you are not going to be playing BF4 at max with 60fps. I have VRAM issues with GTA and even with Call of Duty... BF4 won't be any different. 

 

I can play a lot of games with maxed settings, but BF4 is most definitely not one of them.

 

I made a mistake getting a 970 for 1080p60 based off of recommendations from everyone on the internet, and I'm most likely going to be upgrading to the 1070 shortly after release.

 

Gonna say it once, and I hope you pay attention. The 1070 is going to give you a performance bump on a 60Hz TV(which is what I use anyway), at least in intensive games. If you plan on playing on this monitor with maxed settings for the next couple of years, the 970 WILL NOT cut it.

[alphaproject]

970 bro are going for around $200 used. You could possibly upgrade to the 970 and save the rest for a 144hz monitor.

[YongKang]

Like any folks, I'll say wait for the benchmarks of it and polaris come out. You can then get a clearer picture. If you're patient enough, you could wait for the release of next year gpu since Pascal is only the middle of stairs of what's coming.

[Bhav]

On 18/05/2016 at 11:45 PM, DarkRuskov said:

i don't see why you would buy a 970 if you can have a 1070 for the same approximately the price

Depends on if they will be the same price. UK price on the 1070 is likely going to be around £350-£400.

 

If they are under £300 then I will upgrade to them.

[mckrackin5324]

On 5/18/2016 at 6:45 PM, DarkRuskov said:

i don't see why you would buy a 970 if you can have a 1070 for the same approximately the price

The difference in price will be almost double...where do you get your numbers?

[Coaxialgamer]

On 5/18/2016 at 0:49 AM, hex4 said:

1070 will destroy all Maxwell based single GPU's when OC'd even on air, 2.1ghz on a 1080 gives it 980Ti SLi performance, just food for thought.

source ? Last time i checked the 1080 was only around 20-30% faster than a single 980ti , and didn't even beat a 980 sli. 

[Gerr]

If your monitor/TV is only 1080p@60Hz, then you just need to see which video card will run AAA titles at max quality settings and maintain an average of 60+ FPS with no FPS dips below 40.  A 970 will do that on most of the games out now, but as future titles come out that need more horsepower, that might reduce some.  A 1070 would do that for a long time, but you do have to shell out nearly 2x the price of a 970.  If you want something more powerful than a 970, but don't want to fork out the money for a 1070, check out a 980 once the 1070's have been released as I see them dropping in price.  Also check the used market as you will see a lot of people dumping mint condition used 900-series cards in order to upgrade to a 1080/1070 card.  Or wait even longer and see what the specs of the 1060 will be.

 

As for 900 vs 1000 series graphics quality, if the games are set at equal settings, there won't be any noticable difference, if any at all.

[maxrosciano]

Honestly if you upgrade from a gtx 960, I'd get the new AMD 480 that's being announced tomorrow. 

Should be pretty cheap, maximum 250-299$, offer over twice the performance of your actual 960 without being overkill as the 1070 for 1080p60 and cost over a hunderd dollars less.

[alphaproject]

Yea with the price drop in used cards....not sure about NEW ones but the 970 or even 980 cards will do you fine.

 

I've seen 970 cards go for $250 and LOWER....  The 980 cards around $300.

 

$400 for the 980 Ti cards.