1080p - 970 or 980?

[Armenius]

Wider is not better. Also, there are a lot more used for PCs than gaming.

I'd still rather have a widescreen. Then I have the option of utlizing the landscape for side-by-side applications like real-time debugging, or turning it in portrait for editing code. You get superior vertical and horizontal space either way with a wider aspect ratio than you will with a square-ish one like 4:3 or 5:4.

 

[PGHammer]

I'd still rather have a widescreen. Then I have the option of utlizing the landscape for side-by-side applications like real-time debugging, or turning it in portrait for editing code. You get superior vertical and horizontal space either way with a wider aspect ratio than you will with a square-ish one like 4:3 or 5:4.

That is why I went widescreen - non-gaming use.

Three applications I use a LOT are Word, Outlook, and Reader (Adobe) - if anything, I use even Word (the least-used of the three) more than I game. All three support widescreen displays, and have for years - in fact, Word and Outlook alone have supported widescreen since Office 2000.

Further, unless you are talking vintage DX9c or older, most games (even DX9c-based games) support widescreen (720p and 1080p at minimum, if not higher) - even moldie-oldie the Sims 2 supports 1680x1050, and that game predates DX9.

Word and Outlook support two-pane and three-pane at 1920x1080 - fantastic for editing and proofing, especially in Word (or Adobe Reader, for that matter). Once you kick open your limits by going widescreen, going back to 4:3 is downright painful. If - for some reason - I choose NOT to run full-screen widescreen, I WILL go with a windowed widescreen view (either 1680x1050 or 1280x720 - the former is my windowed default with Bejeweled 3, for example).

 

[PGHammer]

So, you are asking about a gtx 970 or 980 for 1080p? I say neither. Assuming your monitor is 60 hz, both are overkill at this resolution. Instead, wait for cheaper gtx 960 or similar cards that will likely emerge in the coming months.

It depends on the game.

For MMOs (not World of Warcraft, but DCUO and Planetside 2), GTX750 or up lets me absolutely firewall both games settings-wise at that resolution (GTX550Ti runs DCUO firewalled today, but not Planetside 2, which uses a newer game engine). GTX970 will let me firewall most (just not all) games I have in my game library (both Steam and Origin) - the issue with the non-firewalled games is CPU, not GPU. PentiumG3258 is still not powerful enough to firewall everything even with a fifty-percent overcranking (which I won't do).

As far as sub-970 GPUs, I don't expect to see any until all the GTX77x inventory goes away - and considering that GTX970 alone still undercuts it in price today, that may not happen until after Christmas.

 

[t1337Dude]

So, you are asking about a gtx 970 or 980 for 1080p? I say neither. Assuming your monitor is 60 hz, both are overkill at this resolution. Instead, wait for cheaper gtx 960 or similar cards that will likely emerge in the coming months.

I don't know about that. I have a GTX 980 at 1200P (which is close to 1080P) and there are games where a GTX 980 is barely enough to play the game at highest settings (with little AA) at a steady 60 FPS.

Examples: Crysis 3, Ryse, Watch Dogs, LOTR, Rome 2, and I'm sure there are a few more I forgot.

These are games that have already been released. Generally when you upgrade videocards to one of the higher-end ones, you want to have a little bit of future proof, and GTX 980 gives me just that little bit I need.


In other words - playing older games? GTX 980 isn't needed. Playing tons of newer, flashier looking titles, and not upgrading particularly soon? You probably want a 980, or SLI 970's.

 

[PGHammer]

I don't know about that. I have a GTX 980 at 1200P (which is close to 1080P) and there are games where a GTX 980 is barely enough to play the game at highest settings (with little AA) at a steady 60 FPS.

Examples: Crysis 3, Ryse, Watch Dogs, LOTR, Rome 2, and I'm sure there are a few more I forgot.

These are games that have already been released. Generally when you upgrade videocards to one of the higher-end ones, you want to have a little bit of future proof, and GTX 980 gives me just that little bit I need.


In other words - playing older games? GTX 980 isn't needed. Playing tons of newer, flashier looking titles, and not upgrading particularly soon? You probably want a 980, or SLI 970's.

I tend to play older and less-flashy games - Crysis 3 is therefore the exception, and that is despite having Titanfall in the rotation. (Titanfall is actually easier - far easier - on GPUs, and even on CPUs - than any shooter in the past two years, if not the last three.) The game I am waiting on pre-Christmas is Civilization: Beyond Earth - the upcoming RTS from Sid Meier and Firaxis.

Like the previous Meier Civ titles (especially Civ V and Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire) it promises to be both graphically gorgeous and surprisingly UNtaxing on PC hardware. Even better, Beyond Earth is not merely the sequel to Civ V, but a reboot of Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire as well - a trio of titles with genuine replayability. Not many developers get all three right - and especially in the RTS space. (I know of only two others - Stardock and Blizzard.) A GTX970 fits the bill for taking such a title to the graphical firewall - without requiring you spend a mint.