7950 Boost -> 970 @1080p Worth the upgrade?

[Headfoot]

IPS panel self-stimulation is completely and wildly overblown. There are good TN panels that aren't noticeably worse than decent IPS panels for gaming. There are bad IPS panels. Just stop with the oversimplification

You have to look on a monitor-to-monitor basis for panel quality, scaler quality, etc. Overlord, for example, makes a very high refresh rate scaler/input that lets you get 120hz out of a high quality IPS panel with low input lag. It's $450 though. Fantastic monitor (the Tempest)

There are highly acceptable TN panels out there, decent color reproduction and good refresh rate with acceptable viewing angles. Color reproduction doesn't need to be super accurate for gaming, just good looking subjectively. For any fast paced game I'll take 120hz over 60hz IPS ten times out of ten. This is from a guy that runs triple IPS monitors... Actual measured response time is 1000000000x more important than the response time they report in the marketing. The scaler and input logic adds far more latency than the panel type though they are related.

At 120hz each frame persists for ~8ms and 60hz is 16.6ms. Thus, high latency monitors can be a handful of frames behind. Kinda kills the point of having high framerates if you ask me... All of this is to say that buying a monitor is much more complicated than "buy IPS!1!!"

 

[lopri]

I agree with others. Upgrading to a nice 27~30" QHD screen will make you happier.

 

[futurefields]

It's funny people are recommending the monitor over the GPU here.

Do you know how much a single 7950 is going to struggle at higher than 1080p on new games?

It's going to struggle a lot. The fact is the 7950 already hits sub-60 in most new games at 1080p even without running HDAO, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation and things like that.

I think its hilarious people say things like "The 970 will be overkill at 1080p"

HAHAHA

Are you serious???

There are already games that cant be maxed out on a 970 and hit 60fps. And I dont mean stupid maxing out like running 8x AA or supersampling. I mean normal Ultra/Max settings with 2x/4x MSAA and 16x AF and there are already games the 970 will struggle to maintain 60fps at 1080p.

There is NO SUCH THING as too much GPU power for 1080p. Especially with the way optimization is handled nowadays (almost non-existant "they can just buy a bigger GPU!" say the heads at Ubisoft)

 

[Arachnotronic]

I agree with others. Upgrading to a nice 27~30" QHD screen will make you happier.

Except when the OP tries to run games at QHD and then realized that the GPU upgrade is now necessary

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Except when the OP tries to run games at QHD and then realized that the GPU upgrade is now necessary

That and more frequent GPU upgrades are required in the future to maintain a given quality/framerate.

 

[tential]

It's funny people are recommending the monitor over the GPU here.

Do you know how much a single 7950 is going to struggle at higher than 1080p on new games?

It's going to struggle a lot. The fact is the 7950 already hits sub-60 in most new games at 1080p even without running HDAO, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation and things like that.

I think its hilarious people say things like "The 970 will be overkill at 1080p"

HAHAHA

Are you serious???

There are already games that cant be maxed out on a 970 and hit 60fps. And I dont mean stupid maxing out like running 8x AA or supersampling. I mean normal Ultra/Max settings with 2x/4x MSAA and 16x AF and there are already games the 970 will struggle to maintain 60fps at 1080p.

There is NO SUCH THING as too much GPU power for 1080p. Especially with the way optimization is handled nowadays (almost non-existant "they can just buy a bigger GPU!" say the heads at Ubisoft)

Examples....
This is generally what you post when you make these claims. You back it up with examples/graphs/reviews...
Otherwise, it's just words.

 

[amenx]

I would take an even lesser card than 7950 to pair with a 1440p and still be happy. I dont need maxed settings and 60fps all the time to enjoy gaming. But ultimately it would depend on how highly you prioritize gaming in your life vs overall PC usage. So each to their own but for me I would never go back to 1080p no matter how powerful a GPU you give me.

 

[futurefields]

Examples....
This is generally what you post when you make these claims. You back it up with examples/graphs/reviews...
Otherwise, it's just words.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/8

At 1440p, using only High Quality and FXAA (Very High quality and SMAA 2TX tax much more) the 970 only averages 54 frames per second, thats not even stating what the minimum FPS are which is a much more important figure than average if you want to eliminate any framerate fluctuations when you game, which is what I do. Thats what I always lock games down to the minimum framerate. Trust em you can not have too much power at 1080p, especially when we get 3-4 years into this console generation and PS4 games are rendering 720p/30 in order to push advanced rendering effects. You will need tons of brute force power for 1080p/60 later this console gen.

 

[Chevron]

It's funny people are recommending the monitor over the GPU here.

Do you know how much a single 7950 is going to struggle at higher than 1080p on new games?

It's going to struggle a lot. The fact is the 7950 already hits sub-60 in most new games at 1080p even without running HDAO, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation and things like that.

I think its hilarious people say things like "The 970 will be overkill at 1080p"

HAHAHA

Are you serious???

There are already games that cant be maxed out on a 970 and hit 60fps. And I dont mean stupid maxing out like running 8x AA or supersampling. I mean normal Ultra/Max settings with 2x/4x MSAA and 16x AF and there are already games the 970 will struggle to maintain 60fps at 1080p.

There is NO SUCH THING as too much GPU power for 1080p. Especially with the way optimization is handled nowadays (almost non-existant "they can just buy a bigger GPU!" say the heads at Ubisoft)

Except when the OP tries to run games at QHD and then realized that the GPU upgrade is now necessary

You can turn down the settings in games, but an old monitor with new GFX card will still look crap.

And that's excluding all the benefits of having a better monitor such as better movie watching, easy reading or even more work space if he ups the resolution.

A monitor is so much more useful than a gfx card that only works in games.

 

[Headfoot]

It's funny people are recommending the monitor over the GPU here.

Do you know how much a single 7950 is going to struggle at higher than 1080p on new games?

It's going to struggle a lot. The fact is the 7950 already hits sub-60 in most new games at 1080p even without running HDAO, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation and things like that.

I think its hilarious people say things like "The 970 will be overkill at 1080p"

HAHAHA

Are you serious???

There are already games that cant be maxed out on a 970 and hit 60fps. And I dont mean stupid maxing out like running 8x AA or supersampling. I mean normal Ultra/Max settings with 2x/4x MSAA and 16x AF and there are already games the 970 will struggle to maintain 60fps at 1080p.

There is NO SUCH THING as too much GPU power for 1080p. Especially with the way optimization is handled nowadays (almost non-existant "they can just buy a bigger GPU!" say the heads at Ubisoft)

It's almost like people can make suggestions relating to $ spent for gaming experience upgrades in areas other than strictly the proposed solution...

 

[futurefields]

You can turn down the settings in games, but an old monitor with new GFX card will still look crap.

And that's excluding all the benefits of having a better monitor such as better movie watching, easy reading or even more work space if he ups the resolution.

A monitor is so much more useful than a gfx card that only works in games.

I much rather have 1080 with max settings than 1440+ with a mix of high/medium etc...

I find most PC games just look weird if you don't have geometry, textures, and ligting/shadows at the highest settings available in the games.

 

[XiandreX]

I personally did this upgrade very recently. The performance difference is substantial.
A lot of the time around double. :biggrin:
I am even able to run some games at 1440p using DSR and its perfectly playable.

It runs cooler, quieter(well at least for me) and smokes everything at 1080p.
Being able to keep AA on is wonderful.

:thumbsup:

 

[psolord]

Lol I just said in the 970/980 owners thread that I am considering a transition from 7950 cfx to 970 sli, but I am not 100% there yet!

Dude you are not helping not to spend my moneyz!

Thanks for sharing! Have fun with it!

 

[Techhog]

It's funny people are recommending the monitor over the GPU here.

Do you know how much a single 7950 is going to struggle at higher than 1080p on new games?

It's going to struggle a lot. The fact is the 7950 already hits sub-60 in most new games at 1080p even without running HDAO, parralax occlussion mapping, tessellation and things like that.

I think its hilarious people say things like "The 970 will be overkill at 1080p"

HAHAHA

Are you serious???

There are already games that cant be maxed out on a 970 and hit 60fps. And I dont mean stupid maxing out like running 8x AA or supersampling. I mean normal Ultra/Max settings with 2x/4x MSAA and 16x AF and there are already games the 970 will struggle to maintain 60fps at 1080p.

There is NO SUCH THING as too much GPU power for 1080p. Especially with the way optimization is handled nowadays (almost non-existant "they can just buy a bigger GPU!" say the heads at Ubisoft)

I've seen people recommending new builders to downgrade their CPU or GPU in order to get a better monitor (or even mouse, keyboard, or headphones/speakers), so it's really just about where priorities lie here. They care more about interfaces than what's inside the computer.


That said, with G-Sync monitors still so overpriced due to lack of competition and prices on higher-res monitors still coming down, don't you guys think it makes more sense to buy the card now and buy a monitor once prices bottom out? That way he'll get a better deal and he won't have to lower resolution or settings while he waits to be able to afford a new card.

 

[Keysplayr]

Which is fine. A nice IPS monitor makes everything better, including movie watching, reading text on websites and gaming. You'll feel more "wow" from a decent monitor.

Not gaming. TN is better.

And OP, 970 is a HUGE upgrade from a 7950. Like a wise person stated in this thread, upgrading your monitor will only make your FPS go down, which is probably the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[tential]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/8

At 1440p, using only High Quality and FXAA (Very High quality and SMAA 2TX tax much more) the 970 only averages 54 frames per second, thats not even stating what the minimum FPS are which is a much more important figure than average if you want to eliminate any framerate fluctuations when you game, which is what I do. Thats what I always lock games down to the minimum framerate. Trust em you can not have too much power at 1080p, especially when we get 3-4 years into this console generation and PS4 games are rendering 720p/30 in order to push advanced rendering effects. You will need tons of brute force power for 1080p/60 later this console gen.

So you give a 1440p example to talk about 1080p.

Good job, you failed.

 

[futurefields]

1440p with basically what amounts to medium settings.

Crank it up to Very High details with anti-aliasing completely disabled it can't even maintain constant 60 @ 1080p?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/8

Who fails now? Looks like the 970 does. There goes your "gotcha" moment. Dang.

 

[Enigmoid]

1440p with basically what amounts to medium settings.

Crank it up to Very High details with anti-aliasing completely disabled it can't even maintain constant 60 @ 1080p?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/8

Who fails now? Looks like the 970 does. There goes your "gotcha" moment. Dang.

Crysis 3 is the perfect example of a game where very high vs. high brings very minimal IQ gains for a very large performance hit.

 

[Techhog]

1440p with basically what amounts to medium settings.

Crank it up to Very High details with anti-aliasing completely disabled it can't even maintain constant 60 @ 1080p?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/8

Who fails now? Looks like the 970 does. There goes your "gotcha" moment. Dang.

You people are really aggressive here...

 

[Keysplayr]

You people are really aggressive here...

Can't expect anything else when people give comments like this:

"Good job, you failed."

If that isn't antagonistic, I don't know what is.

 

[tential]

1440p with basically what amounts to medium settings.

Crank it up to Very High details with anti-aliasing completely disabled it can't even maintain constant 60 @ 1080p?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/8

Who fails now? Looks like the 970 does. There goes your "gotcha" moment. Dang.

My "I gotcha" moment was already achieved the second you used 1440p data to talk about 1080p.
I simply don't like when people make a claim without using any data to substantiate their claims when there is ton of data out there.
And then when a person asks them to substantiate their claim they use something completely different from what they claimed.

If you're going to make a claim give some examples next time that's the point I'm making.

And one game example, especially if you pick crysis is just lame...

Maybe I'm just getting used to Russian sensations detailed posts that it's just annoying to see people make weak posts with 0 examples/details and then when they're asked to provide some proof just screw around with it and give something irrelevant to what was asked.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Honestly, there hasn't been a worse time to upgrade a GPU for as long as I can remember. Any game worth upgrading for is a ways off at this point. I would just sit tight on any GPU upgrade because I fully expect AMD to release a new GPU and Nvidia to drop a full size chip shortly after to stay on top. All that's left to be seen after that happens is where performance and price end up.

Long story short I only upgrade if a game I'm playing dictates and I will never upgrade before that game comes out.

Witcher 3.

 

[futurefields]

My "I gotcha" moment was already achieved the second you used 1440p data to talk about 1080p.
I simply don't like when people make a claim without using any data to substantiate their claims when there is ton of data out there.
And then when a person asks them to substantiate their claim they use something completely different from what they claimed.

If you're going to make a claim give some examples next time that's the point I'm making.

And one game example, especially if you pick crysis is just lame...

Maybe I'm just getting used to Russian sensations detailed posts that it's just annoying to see people make weak posts with 0 examples/details and then when they're asked to provide some proof just screw around with it and give something irrelevant to what was asked.

Good grief, get over yourself. I'm sorry my post didn't satisfy your criteria.

 

[Headfoot]

In any case, if you're in the US the R9 290 is better bang for the buck by a good amount over the 970. It's just not worth the decent amount of extra cash for the small increase in performance.

Either 290 or wait for next gen. If you wait, overclock that 7950. You can get quite a bit out of them yet, enough to upgrade settings in some cases.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Crysis 3 is the perfect example of a game where very high vs. high brings very minimal IQ gains for a very large performance hit.

I find BF3/BF4 is a good example too,high vs ultra you may not immediately notice or for me even strugge to see a difference.Running about killing people you won't notice all that much of a difference except to your frame rate.:awe: Medium to high there is a big difference of course.

I think shadows are a bit darker maybe on ultra vs high?Kill MSAA and ultra and a 770 can hold 60fps+ minimums@1080p in BF3,enable ultra textures and 4XMSAA and your pretty much wanting to sli such a card to pull the same frame rate.