2560x1080p vs 1920x1080p FPS difference

[Benitus]

I've read a lot of mixed stuff about it, im looking to upgrade to an ultrawide soon and i was wondering if there's a big difference in FPS between the two resolutions.
My setup has an i5 7600, GTX 1060 6gb and 16gb of RAM.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Basically the same difference as 1080p 16:9 vs 1440p 16:9 in terms of PC performance needed to run 1080p 21:9

[Benitus]

Originally posted by Bad_Motha:

Basically the same difference as 1080p 16:9 vs 1440p 16:9 in terms of PC performance needed to run 1080p 21:9

Wow, i tought the difference wasn't that big. I don't want to go under 60 fps in games or lower settings too much to reach 60 fps. Some benchmarks i found on youtube show 10-15 FPS drop with my same setup but i don't think that a 1060 can handle 1440p60fps on most games with maxed out settings so it should be the same for 21:9 1080p. Thanks for the info, ill think about getting a better GPU before upgrading.

[just.kamk /idle]

Eh, 1440p is a way higher resolution than 1080p ultrawide.

Expect some 20-30% performance hit. A decent 1060 can handle it (considering 970s can) - of course you gonna have to lower a setting here and there, but high'ish will work on more demanding titles.

[Monk]

Yeah 1440p is considerably higher than 1080 ultra wide, its 3,686,400 pixels Vs 2,764,800, regular 1080p is only 2,073,600

[Benitus]

Originally posted by but i never learned to eco :'(:

Eh, 1440p is a way higher resolution than 1080p ultrawide.

Expect some 20-30% performance hit. A decent 1060 can handle it (considering 970s can) - of course you gonna have to lower a setting here and there, but high'ish will work on more demanding titles.

Originally posted by Monk:

Yeah 1440p is considerably higher than 1080 ultra wide, its 3,686,400 pixels Vs 2,764,800, regular 1080p is only 2,073,600

Good to know, i will probably still upgrade my GPU to a 1070ti-1080 after purchasing the monitor, just to "futureproof" for some years before upgrading again.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Originally posted by but i never learned to eco :'(:

Eh, 1440p is a way higher resolution than 1080p ultrawide.

Expect some 20-30% performance hit. A decent 1060 can handle it (considering 970s can) - of course you gonna have to lower a setting here and there, but high'ish will work on more demanding titles.

The GTX970 can handle it better due to a wider memory interface width (256bit) compared to the GTX1060 (192bit). The GTX970 is capable of 1080p ultra wide and performs better than the GTX1060.

[Benitus]

Originally posted by Bad_Motha:

It still is about the same; overall the OP shouldn't have any issues running that though.

If you want above a GTX 1060, then I would have gone with a 21:9 1440p 120Hz or better Monitor.

These monitors are expensive and i don't really have a big budget but i still want a good quality image so i prefer going with a 2560x1080 but with better specs than maybe paying the same price for a 1440p ultrawide but with bad specs.

[Monk]

yes the 970 has a wider memory bandwidth, but its total is much slower 192.2 GB/s for the 970 while the 1060 6gb gets 224.4 GB/s the size doesn't matter its how its used.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Originally posted by Monk:

yes the 970 has a wider memory bandwidth, but its total is much slower 192.2 GB/s for the 970 while the 1060 6gb gets 224.4 GB/s the size doesn't matter its how its used.

It's actually 196GB/s for the 4GB version of the GTX970 (the rumors about only 3.5GB are untrue...NVIDIA's PR department has no concept of the engineering that goes into these things...and that "missing" 512MB is merely TMU cache whereas most GPU cards in the 900 line only use 128MB of the VRAM for it) and 28GB for the ill fated 512MB version of the GTX970.

The 1060 has 192GB/s on both versions of it.

https://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-1060/specifications

A memory address width is more important because it allows for the data to be pushed through more efficiently (i.e. better performance) given the bandwidth (GB/s) to be pushed through the bus doesn't match or exceed the memory interface bit width to used. Wider is usually better.

So having a memory address width of 192bits on a card that averages 192GB/s in bandwidth is not as effectively efficient as having a memory address width of 256bits with 196GB/s.

All VRAM is used for in most cases is storing textures, polygons, and calculations that need to be processed before being sent off to the video card's display buffer. That process is handled by the GPU so that the CPU on your PC doesn't have to do it.

In regards to the OP, more pixels polygons and textures on the screen usually mean more pixels, polygons, and textures need to be processed when having a wider screen. To answer the OP's question regarding frame rate, having a1080p resolution at 21:9 aspect ratio usually does decrease frame rate in some cases due to the GPU card having more objects and pixels to process simultaneously. In most cases that difference is quite negligible and is highly subject to the type of screen change involved (there are a few different types).

In case anyone asks what I mean by screen change...check this article:
http://www.wsgf.org/article/screen-change

[Revelene]

Originally posted by 🎃Sir Edmund's Spoopy Kitteh:

The GTX970 can handle it better due to a wider memory interface width (256bit) compared to the GTX1060 (192bit). The GTX970 is capable of 1080p ultra wide and performs better than the GTX1060.

The 970 is not better than the 1060.

There are plenty of benchmarks that say otherwise.

You are spreading this nonsense on multiple threads.

Are you upset that you have a 970, or...? I just don't understand why you are clinging to one number on a spec list, as if it means everything. It is more complicated than a single spec.

With your logic, being that a wider memory bus is THE form of performance measurement, then the 780 Ti should be better than the 1060 as well. Well, it is not.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Originally posted by 🎃Sir Edmund's Spoopy Kitteh:

Originally posted by Monk:

yes the 970 has a wider memory bandwidth, but its total is much slower 192.2 GB/s for the 970 while the 1060 6gb gets 224.4 GB/s the size doesn't matter its how its used.

It's actually 196GB/s for the 4GB version of the GTX970 (the rumors about only 3.5GB are untrue...NVIDIA's PR department has no concept of the engineering that goes into these things...and that "missing" 512MB is merely TMU cache whereas most GPU cards in the 900 line only use 128MB of the VRAM for it) and 28GB for the ill fated 512MB version of the GTX970.

The 1060 has 192GB/s on both versions of it.

https://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-1060/specifications

A memory address width is more important because it allows for the data to be pushed through more efficiently (i.e. better performance) given the bandwidth (GB/s) to be pushed through the bus doesn't match or exceed the memory interface bit width to used. Wider is usually better.

So having a memory address width of 192bits on a card that averages 192GB/s in bandwidth is not as effectively efficient as having a memory address width of 256bits with 196GB/s.

All VRAM is used for in most cases is storing textures, polygons, and calculations that need to be processed before being sent off to the video card's display buffer. That process is handled by the GPU so that the CPU on your PC doesn't have to do it.

In regards to the OP, more pixels polygons and textures on the screen usually mean more pixels, polygons, and textures need to be processed when having a wider screen. To answer the OP's question regarding frame rate, having a1080p resolution at 21:9 aspect ratio usually does decrease frame rate in some cases due to the GPU card having more objects and pixels to process simultaneously. In most cases that difference is quite negligible and is highly subject to the type of screen change involved (there are a few different types).

In case anyone asks what I mean by screen change...check this article:
http://www.wsgf.org/article/screen-change

In real life gaming, GPU memory bandwidth does not matter much, a 192 bit bus width is enough to transport any amount of data up to 1440+p or may be higher. That's the reason even a 512 bit AMD R9 290 is 20% slower than a Gtx 1060, which is only 192 bit. A wider road won't help you if your car itself is moving slow.

In real life gaming, GPU shader units, memory clock, Core Clock, etc. are the most important things. That's the reason GTX 970 is almost 20% slower than GTX 1060 in all games, As shown in the 10 games benchmarks below-

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1777?vs=1743

But if you have any proof or benchmarks that shows Gtx 970 is faster, don't hesitate to show us......

[Big Boom Boom]

Originally posted by 🎃Sir Edmund's Spoopy Kitteh:

Originally posted by but i never learned to eco :'(:

Eh, 1440p is a way higher resolution than 1080p ultrawide.

Expect some 20-30% performance hit. A decent 1060 can handle it (considering 970s can) - of course you gonna have to lower a setting here and there, but high'ish will work on more demanding titles.

The GTX970 can handle it better due to a wider memory interface width (256bit) compared to the GTX1060 (192bit). The GTX970 is capable of 1080p ultra wide and performs better than the GTX1060.

GTX 1060 6 GB is twice as as GTX 970 on Wolfenstein II 4K. Owned.

[just.kamk /idle]

Originally posted by ⇋๖ۣۜTʜᴇ01xвᴏxᴇʀ:

Originally posted by but i never learned to eco :'(:

-snip-

Good to know, i will probably still upgrade my GPU to a 1070ti-1080 after purchasing the monitor, just to "futureproof" for some years before upgrading again.

IMHO, 1080 would be rather overkill, 1070 (Ti) should grant you already that lazyness to just select highest preset for at least another generation.

Anyways, performance hit is there, not that much of course, and graphical beauty on ultrawide IPS with a few settings lowered vs. basic 1080p TN panel is a huge improvement.