5770 1080p vs 1440p Gaming

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by -BigMac-, Nov 9, 2011.

  1. -BigMac- macrumors 6502a

    -BigMac-

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #1
    Hi guys,
    running a quad 2.8 with 5770 and 16gb ram.
    Normally use it on a 27" ACD but am playing battlefield 3 only at 1080p, even though its a 1440p screen. My question is, how much does the 'stretching' to fill the rest of the 1440p screen actually hinder the Frames per second?

    Would playing the same game on a 1080p screen provide a noticeable fps boost??

    thanks :)
     
  2. gullySn0wCat macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #2
    No, stretching does not affect performance at all.
     
  3. pgtruesdell, Nov 9, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2011

    pgtruesdell macrumors member

    pgtruesdell

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    #3
    Playing at a lower resolution will force it to stretch a bit but that won't affect performance.

    Some interesting numbers I came to while going offtrack about your question for a bit....
    The more pixels your graphics card and CPU have to process the lower your FPS and performance will go. So some simple math will tell us that 1440p has 43.75% more pixels than 1080p. So you should have roughly 40% better performance with 1080p, obviously this isn't exact because it really depends on the game engine and other factors. But with such a higher percentage of pixels it will definitely effect your FPS in a positive manner.

    Hope that helped. :)
     
  4. -BigMac- thread starter macrumors 6502a

    -BigMac-

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #4

    thanks a lot for such a great and researched answer :)
    I think though that when stretched the total pixels which need to be processed are actually at the full resolution of 1440p, because there are still all those pixels which need to have a colour put to it etc. to make out the 1080p stretched image.. having said that there would surely be a difference of fps since theres so much more math the comp has to do compared to a 1080p monitor...

    essentially the full 1440p is still getting processed, the pixels are all still there
     
  5. gpzjock macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #5
    Stretch the GFX card not the screen

    I'm not a fan of non native resolution gaming, it increases eyestrain for me and I have even found my eyes watering after prolonged exposure.
    My solution is to set the game to the screen's resolution and turn down the GFX options till the card can cope.
    I run my main LCD screen at 1680 x 1050 and my 40" LCD TV at 1080i direct from my HD5870 via DVI and HDMI cables.
    It works for me maybe you should experiment with it too.
     
  6. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #6
    Your monitor is doing the upscaling from 1080 to 1440, not your computer. So there should be no effect whatsoever on the frame rate. The picture quality may be reduced somewhat because there is not a 1-to-1 pixel match, but this is probably not noticeable in a fast paced game like BF3.
     
  7. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #7
    Had to quote this now and say your math is waaaaay off. 1440p is close to double the pixels of 1080p, at 3,686,400 pixels vs 2,073,600.
     
  8. BigJohno macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    I had a 5770 for a while doing exactly what the OP posted. It's was ok. Played bf3 at 1080 on high and got about 30-35 fps. Like you we're saying the everything just looked a little fuzzy because of the up scaling. If I plugged in my 24 and played the same res it would look crisp but still return the same fps. I have since bought a gtx 670 and play everything max at 1440p and return 60fps constant.

    If you have the cash and gaming is really important then I would get a gtx 570 or 670.
     
  9. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #9
    Redo your math. He just said the same thing...

    Also a note to gtruesdell, you can't judge graphics performance linearly like that because it doesn't scale.
     
  10. WilliamG, Jun 7, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2013

    WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #10
    Not really sure what you mean? 2560 x 1440 is 60% more pixels than 1920 x 1080, unless my math is wrong?
     
  11. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #11
    "3,686,400 pixels vs 2,073,600"

    2 -> 3.7 is 54%, not 60% and not 43.75%. Also, 2560x1440 is 16:9 ratio. What about 16:10? In any case, your original claim that it's almost double pixels is not accurate. 2073600 * 2 != 3686400. Not anywhere close.
     
  12. It's Electric macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    #12
    What?

    3.7 is an 85% increase over 2, since 1.85*2 = 3.7.

    Similarly, 2560 x 1440 is a 78% increase in pixels over 1920 x 1080, since 1.78*(1920*1080) is roughly equal to 2560*1440.

    The exact ratio of pixels is (2560*1440)/(1920*1080) = 16/9.
     
  13. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #13
    I'm sorry but you're wrong. I was also wrong earlier when I wrote down the percentage, but then again it's Friday. :)

    Here is the correct math:

    1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600

    2560 x 1440 = 3,686,400

    The percentage increase is as follows:

    3,686,400 - 2,073,600 = 1,612,800

    1,612,800 divided by 2,073,600 = 0.777777

    So let's call it 0.78. 0.78 x 100 = 78%

    So 2560x1440 is 78% more pixels than 1920x1080. To my mind, that's "close" to double the number of pixels. In any case, your math is completely wrong.
     
  14. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #14
    Point taken. I didn't crunch numbers.
     
  15. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #15
    Hell I had my numbers all over the place originally. It's amazing how wrong we can all be. :D
     

Share This Page