Does an ultrawide monitor required more GPU POWER?!

[iHomer]

Simple question,

 

does an ultra wide FHD panel require more gpu power than a normal FHD panel.

i assume it does as it requires more pixels to be processed.

 

The ultrawide resolution is 2560x1080

[dizmo]

It has more pixels, so...yes.

[knightslugger]

moar pixel, MOAR POWAHHH!

[Mira Yurizaki]

Technically yes. But it has a minuscule impact to performance. Unless your hardware is ancient.

[Ruffleduffle]

more pixels = more calcualtion needed = more POWAH

[iHomer]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Technically yes. But it has a minuscule impact to performance. Unless your hardware is ancient.

Ryzen 5 with gtx 1050ti

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, iHomer said:

Ryzen 5 with gtx 1050ti

Yeah, it'll have practically zero performance impact.

[iHomer]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Yeah, it'll have practically zero performance impact.

Good,I was kinda worried lol

 

thanks man!

[Aleks NE]

11 minutes ago, iHomer said:

Simple question,

 

does an ultra wide FHD panel require more gpu power than a normal FHD panel.

i assume it does as it requires more pixels to be processed.

 

The ultrawide resolution is 2560x1080

Yes it does, but don't let that discourage you, it's a matter of 1-3FPS(with 750Ti). I've just upgraded to one and it's really not a noticeable difference.

 

Edit: When I say 1-3FPS that's is what i noticed when really looking for the drop. It barely ever happens.

[CyberneticTitan]

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Technically yes. But it has a minuscule impact to performance. Unless your hardware is ancient.

I wouldn't say miniscule...

 

1920x1080 to 2560x1080 is an increase of 691200 pixels or 33%

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, CyberneticTitan said:

I wouldn't say miniscule...

 

1920x1080 to 2560x1080 is an increase of 691200 pixels or 33%

Both resolutions take up less than 0.007% of the GPU's total pixel crunching capabilities, minus any other overhead.

[CyberneticTitan]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Both resolutions take up less than 0.007% of the GPU's total pixel crunching capabilities, minus any other overhead.

Where does that number come from?

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, CyberneticTitan said:

Where does that number come from?

1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600

2560 * 1080 = 2,764,800

GTX 1080 Ti's pixel processing power: 41,300,000,000 pixels per second on stock speeds

 

2,073,600 / 41,300,000,000 = 0.00005020823244552058 * 100 = ~0.005%

2,764,800 / 41,300,000,000  = 0.00006694430992736077 * 100 = ~0.0067%

 

[flibberdipper]

24 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Yeah, it'll have practically zero performance impact.

Thaaaaaaaaaaaaat's not how it works. Applying your logic to 4K, a 4K ultrawide would have minimal performance impact too, and we both know that damn well isn't the case.

[CyberneticTitan]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600

2560 * 1080 = 2,764,800

GTX 1080 Ti's pixel processing power: 41,300,000,000 pixels per second on stock speeds

 

2,073,600 / 41,300,000,000 = 0.00005020823244552058 * 100 = ~0.005%

2,764,800 / 41,300,000,000  = 0.00006694430992736077 * 100 = ~0.0067%

 

Right.... By that logic the 1080 Ti should have no issue doing 8K, which it clearly does.

 

8K - 7680x4320 = 33177600

 

33177600 / 41,300,000,000 = 8.0333171912832929782082324455206e-4 * 100 = 0.08%

 

It's only 0.08% of its total capability. What's your point?

[iHomer]

2 minutes ago, CyberneticTitan said:

Right.... By that logic the 1080 Ti should have no issue doing 8K, which it clearly does.

 

8K - 7680x4320 = 33177600

 

33177600 / 41,300,000,000 = 8.0333171912832929782082324455206e-4 * 100 = 0.08%

 

It's only 0.08% of its total capability. What's your point?

For the record I'm using a gtx 1050ti!!!

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

Thaaaaaaaaaaaaat's not how it works. Applying your logic to 4K, a 4K ultrawide would have minimal performance impact too, and we both know that damn well isn't the case.

 

4 minutes ago, CyberneticTitan said:

Right.... By that logic the 1080 Ti should have no issue doing 8K, which it clearly does.

 

8K - 7680x4320 = 33177600

 

33177600 / 41,300,000,000 = 8.0333171912832929782082324455206e-4 * 100 = 0.08%

 

It's only 0.08% of its total capability. What's your point?

If we're talking about a gaming use case, then sure. But OP didn't explicitly specify a what sort of use case they were saying. And in 2D workloads, resolution hardly makes a difference in modern GPUs since it's such a laughably easy workload for them.

 

So @iHomer, if you're talking about 3D gaming, then yes, you'll need more a more powerful GPU to get the same performance.

[Cookybiscuit]

It will also require more CPU power, in some cases, a lot more CPU power. The move to a wider aspect ratio means you get a wider FOV (game dependent, but you usually do), which means more crap is on screen that the CPU can't just forget about.

[iHomer]

10 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

 

If we're talking about a gaming use case, then sure. But OP didn't explicitly specify a what sort of use case they were saying. And in 2D workloads, resolution hardly makes a difference in modern GPUs since it's such a laughably easy workload for them.

 

So @iHomer, if you're talking about 3D gaming, then yes, you'll need more a more powerful GPU to get the same performance.

Yeah gaming but will there be much performance decrease?

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 hours ago, iHomer said:

Yeah gaming but will there be much performance decrease?

While it's reasonable to make a guess of 25% since the resolution is increasing by 25%, you probably won't see that much of a loss. A few 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080 benchmarks I'm looking at drop anywhere from 20%-40% for a 50% bump in resolution.

 

So it depends on the game and the settings you use

[Guest]

Generally, yes, more pixels = more gpu power because the gpu has to render more pixels on the screen. It also depends on what gpu you are running.

[xsimplyjosh]

depend on your frame rates if you ask me. normally how i would calculate
(width pixels x height pixels) x desired frame rate per second [Hz]

then use that to gauge accordingly [obviously the desired frame rate won't always equal as some games will demand certain numbers and some will process with superior ease but it will give you some idea of what to expect.]

 

in this scenario lets say ultrawide 1080p vs standard 1080p at 60frames.

we are looking at:

ultrawide pixels/sec = 2560 x 1080 x 60 = 166 mil pixels/sec

standard widescreen pixels/sec = 1920 x 1080 x 60 = 124.4 mil pixels/sec

 

so approx 33% more pixels to push.

 

then again it also entirely depends on your graphics card/gpu. but from recent benchmarks cpu comes more into play when we talk about higher frame rates. [eg 100hz++] and higher resolutions become more gpu-bound rather than cpu as far as things are concerned [eg 4k gaming]

 

i'm on the assumption you are using either a 1060 or a 1070 [nvidia] which should prove not much issue powering either resolution.

 

so long story short yes it will require more gpu power to process 33% more pixels over standard widescreen display. if your gpu is fully utilized at 1080p60 widescreen 100% for example , then you might not see the extra same frame rates on an ultrawide due to that limitation of the gpu. which causes frame rates to dip down a bit. < this is an example. not entirely realistic.

[Glenwing]

8 hours ago, iHomer said:

Yeah gaming but will there be much performance decrease?

Your framerate will be about 3/4 as much, since there are 4/3 as many pixels.