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

[tential]

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.

BF4 I run on High rather than Ultra. Nvidia does a great job of showing the image detail differences between presets on their sites, and some other sites do a good job as well. I usually use those as a reference for deciding what settings I want to use.

 

[lopri]

Here is a simple test: Ask those who run 30"/1600p or 27'/1440p screen if they want to trade their monitors with 23"/1080p monitor + a faster video card so that they can run games faster. (and why stop at 1080p.. we can go down to 720p + TWO faster video cards combo as well )

I have an idea what that poll result would look like.

People seem to forget that larger screen and higher resolution bring their own benefits, such as reduced need of AA thanks to higher PPI and more immersion by virtue of things showing up big.

No doubt there will be a trade-off but IMO it makes more sense to have a quality display first then an adequate graphics adapter. Same logic applies for sound, too. I would not pair a $200 sound card with a $20 speaker set. That is like (literally) elevating means over the end, predictably resulting in an inferior end.

Screen is what you look at all the time. No amount of graphics card's power can change the fidelity of monitor. It is what you stare at all the time whether you play game or not.

 

[tential]

Here is a simple test: Ask those who run 30"/1600p or 27'/1440p screen if they want to trade their monitors with 23"/1080p monitor + a faster video card so that they can run games faster. (and why stop at 1080p.. we can go down to 720p + TWO faster video cards combo as well )

I have an idea what that poll result would look like.

People seem to forget that larger screen and higher resolution bring their own benefits, such as reduced need of AA thanks to higher PPI and more immersion by virtue of things showing up big.

No doubt there will be a trade-off but IMO it makes more sense to have a quality display first then an adequate graphics adapter. Same logic applies for sound, too. I would not pair a $200 sound card with a $20 speaker set. That is like (literally) elevating means over the end, predictably resulting in an inferior end.

Screen is what you look at all the time. No amount of graphics card's power can change the fidelity of monitor. It is what you stare at all the time whether you play game or not.

You do realize how utterly ridiculous the scenario you proposed is right?
A person with a 1440p/1600p most likely has a graphics card to run that monitor. Going to a faster card at a lower resolution wouldn't help them.

How about we make the scenario reminiscent of what's happening in the actual thread.

Would you rather have an hd7950 and a 30 inch 1600p monitor (or 27 inch 1440p monitor) or would you rather have a gtx 970 with a 23 inch 1080p monitor?
(and to be clear you can't simply just upgrade right away you're locked in for a year).

 

[Vesku]

You do realize how utterly ridiculous the scenario you proposed is right?
A person with a 1440p/1600p most likely has a graphics card to run that monitor. Going to a faster card at a lower resolution wouldn't help them.

How about we make the scenario reminiscent of what's happening in the actual thread.

Would you rather have an hd7950 and a 30 inch 1600p monitor (or 27 inch 1440p monitor) or would you rather have a gtx 970 with a 23 inch 1080p monitor?
(and to be clear you can't simply just upgrade right away you're locked in for a year).

27" 1440P + 7950@1080MHz here, would not swap for 1080P+970. Not sure about OP but I'm willing to run "High" rather than "Ultra" for another 6-9 months to see what happens price and SKU wise. At the minimum I'd expect some price competition once AMD replaces their 290(X) line up. Witcher 3 might be a bit painful, might require mostly medium settings, we will see. Luckily it seems most upcoming GPU stressing games I would be interested are end of 2015 sometime in 2016 titles.

 

[tential]

27" 1440P + 7950@1080MHz here, would not swap for 1080P+970. Not sure about OP but I'm willing to run "High" rather than "Ultra" for another 6-9 months to see what happens price and SKU wise. At the minimum I'd expect some price competition once AMD replaces their 290(X) line up. Witcher 3 might be a bit painful, might require mostly medium settings, we will see. Luckily it seems most upcoming GPU stressing games I would be interested are end of 2015 sometime in 2016 titles.

That's interesting. I'd answer my own question but I have 0 clue which I'd pick as an HD7950 user.
I don't use monitors so to me 1080p is the only thing that's ever mattered.
I was just trying to make the question more relevant to the thread at hand.

I'm waiting as well though to see what happens. But my most likely choice will be crossfire 390x+Vizio P Series 70 inch. But I'm waiting as long as possible because I really don't want another 70 inch HDTV. I want 80 inches+4K at a reasonable price, not 70 inches. 70 inches is starting to feel small.

 

[amenx]

I have a few 1440p and 1080p monitors as well as several GPUs. Always surprised at how good many games look even with reduced settings on larger, higher res monitors. Ran 1440p on a GTX660ti and would definitely prefer that over a 1080p with more powerful GPU (GTX970). Every increase in monitor size/res more than makes up for the lower game settings, even some tough games on medium looks better on 1440p than very high on 1080p. Its not so much the res as it is the larger screen that makes the visual impact. Then when you consider your time not gaming (90% or more for me), thats all the more reason I would go for larger screen. Only if I were a fanatical, competitive gamer who settles for no less than 60 FPS all the time, every time and dont care about visual impact or involvement, then I may consider a smaller monitor. Smaller monitors (as 1080p would imply) are so underwhelming after living with larger screens that even the increased performance doesnt make up for it - for me at least.