How a GTX 580 could handle 1200p?

[ithehappy]

Hello guys, I am upgrading my monitor from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200, and as you can see with my signature I have a MSI GTX 580 Lightning 1.5 GB GPU. It's old, but it's still decent imo, as other than BF4 and C3 no other game pushed it that much exposing it's age.

So my question is, going from 1050p to 1200p, how much FPS do you guys think I will loose? The upcoming games I am looking for are Watchdog, GTA V, and those kinds.

I will upgrade my rig (CPU + GPU) next year, around March / April.

Thanks.

 

[janii]

I have no idea to be honest. But my oced gtx 580 on 1080p is more than enough for todays games.
But I do think that 1200p will eat some delicious fps

 

[ithehappy]

Thanks. If it runs smoothly on 1080p then I think 1200p will be okay. Also I can turn down the resolution to 1080p from native 1200p right? However I guess that will look horrible?

 

[lehtv]

GTX 580 is about the same as R9 270, a bit faster than GTX 660, slower than GTX 760. Despite the 1.5GB VRAM, it's still a decent card for 1200p. Far from optimal, but definitely playable in any game.

Compared to your current resolution, 1920x1200 is 30% more pixels to render, so it will be that much tougher on the framerate.

 

[guskline]

Hello guys, I am upgrading my monitor from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200, and as you can see with my signature I have a MSI GTX 580 Lightning 1.5 GB GPU. It's old, but it's still decent imo, as other than BF4 and C3 no other game pushed it that much exposing it's age.

So my question is, going from 1050p to 1200p, how much FPS do you guys think I will loose? The upcoming games I am looking for are Watchdog, GTA V, and those kinds.

I will upgrade my rig (CPU + GPU) next year, around March / April.

Thanks.

Even though you will be buying a new monitor with higher native resolution, if your games run too slow at 1920x1200, I'm pretty sure you could just lower the resolution in the games settings option to get higher fps. Once you get a newer card just up them. BTW, the GTX 580 is still a pretty powerful card.

 

[lehtv]

Even though you will be buying a new monitor with higher native resolution, if your games run too slow at 1920x1200, I'm pretty sure you could just lower the resolution in the games settings option to get higher fps.

That would just result in a very blurry image since the lower resolution would be upscaled to the monitor's native resolution anyway. Or alternatively, with no scaling you would just get a small image centered on the screen.

I think the GTX 580 is fast enough to run pretty much any game at 1200p, provided low enough image quality settings. Lowering image quality is prefereable to lowering resolution

 

[nurturedhate]

I recently upgraded from a 580 to a 780ti. You will be mostly fine. I did have some issues with bf4 and the 1.5ram but it was a rare issue. FPS would tank for a second or two rarely under heavy circumstances. This was at 1080p, Everything outside of that ran great for its age. With the initial price of 580s around $500-550 they really should have came with 3gb ram. 580sli still has a lot of power. I probably would have kept mine if not for a solder issue requiring me to bake it. Side note, the 580 is still running strong after being baked in early Nov 2013 in a second rig.

 

[Insomniator]

You should be fine, might have to lower some settings but its not like games will run or look dramatically worse... in fact I'd probably take medium on a larger nice 1200p monitor vs high on a smaller 1050p.

As a quick example I comfortably played crysis 3 on medium at 1200p with a 560ti 448... and a 580 is decently faster than that.

 

[Hinda65]

If it helps, I played games like Assassins Creed 3 and Sleeping Dogs @ 1440p all/most settings maxed (except AA) with no problems on a stock Evga 580gtx

 

[ithehappy]

AC 3 means the one with Connor? Darn then! My 580 got raped whenever he stepped on Boston! Below 40! Sleeping Dogs sailed like butter though.

Thanks for the replies guys, appreciate it. I understand that I have to tone down some graphic settings, which I haven't done, ever, other than one or two games, like Crysis 3. I always play on Ultra if possible, High if not, but never gone down below High Well that's an adjustment I will have to make, at least for around one year more.

PS : Btw, I can OC the card to extract more performance out of it right? In case the need comes?

 

[RaistlinZ]

I think you'll be ok if you overclock your CPU and GTX 580. You'd have to spend $300+ for any kind of meaningful upgrade to either a 770 or R9 280X. Just monitor your VRAM usage with the settings you choose for now.

 

[ithehappy]

Just monitor your VRAM usage with the settings you choose for now.

Thanks. Point noted.

 

[janii]

Assassins creed black flag ran 60fps on max settings, except 1 tier lower aa and I think without/low godray or whatever it was on 1080p

 

[Makaveli]

I agree with everyone else, you should get playable performance with the 580 and that res. I was using a 6970 at the res and was turning down settings in some games not all and a 580 is faster than a 6970 by abit.

 

[Ed1]

going from 1680x 1050 to 1920x1200 is about 30% more pixels so your going to have to reduce some settings a bit to keep same fps .

 

[ithehappy]

going from 1680x 1050 to 1920x1200 is about 30% more pixels so your going to have to reduce some settings a bit to keep same fps .

Yep exactly. Was playing Thief today, and at everything set to high it was averaging around 40-42, those rainy scenes drained FPS to even 24-25 sometimes! So 30% of 40 FPS mean 12, and I will average out a 28 FPS with 1200p, now that's really bad :|

So what choice would be wise to make, turning the resolution down to something like 1080p or tone down graphic settings to medium or something?

 

[nurturedhate]

turning the graphics settings down

 

[toyota]

Yep exactly. Was playing Thief today, and at everything set to high it was averaging around 40-42, those rainy scenes drained FPS to even 24-25 sometimes! So 30% of 40 FPS mean 12, and I will average out a 28 FPS with 1200p, now that's really bad :|

So what choice would be wise to make, turning the resolution down to something like 1080p or tone down graphic settings to medium or something?

SSAA on high too? um if so then use common sense and turn that off first.

 

[ithehappy]

turning the graphics settings down

Okay.

SSAA on high too? um if so then use common sense and turn that off first.

Umm, I am sorry but I don't know what SSAA is. I mean I know Anti Aliasing, but no idea about SS! I just chose preset to very high. This is the settings actually.

 

[toyota]

SSAA is super sampling which eats up vram and is really demanding. turn it off and you will do just fine in Thief with your 580. maybe knock shadows down a notch too. your cpu will need to be oced for best framerates too.

 

[Deders]

Thanks. If it runs smoothly on 1080p then I think 1200p will be okay. Also I can turn down the resolution to 1080p from native 1200p right? However I guess that will look horrible?

You might be able to play with the scaling settings to say no scaling in games so it will be 1:1 pixelwise but you'd get the black bars above and below the image.

Personally I don't thing the extra pixels from 1080p to 1200p will make much of a difference performance wise.

 

[ithehappy]

SSAA is super sampling which eats up vram and is really demanding. turn it off and you will do just fine in Thief with your 580. maybe knock shadows down a notch too. your cpu will need to be oced for best framerates too.

All right monsieur will do that

 

[lehtv]

All right monsieur will do that

Which one of the three things toyota mentioned?

(Awaiting the answer: "Yes")

 

[ithehappy]

Bringing up this topic as I have something to ask. Well I have upgraded the monitor and now I am running games at 1200p. As usual I took a good amount of frame drop, where I used to get 45-50, well I am getting 35-40 now, so I naturally turned down graphic settings from Ultra to High, in BF4 / Ghost etc. But I am finding that turning down the graphic settings at 1200p provide a much worse image quality than turning down the resolution to 1050p. I mean at 1680x1050 Ultra I am finding the quality better than 1920x1200 Medium / High.

Are my eyes going crazy? I took some screens from BF4, the difference was even clearer in Ghost but as BF4 is more intensive graphically took the shots from it.

@1200p Ultra : http://i.imgur.com/0gaM5cy.png

@1200p Medium : http://i.imgur.com/zYwEi1u.png

@1050p Ultra : http://i.imgur.com/G4oxQ8w.png

 

[blackened23]

You can't run the newest games on ultra in all cases, and especially ultra with SSAA. Heck even most current gen top end GPUs choke on SSAA. It's a performance pig and uses up way too much VRAM. You want to keep AA at lower levels, use FXAA (doesn't use VRAM) or 2x MSAA-4x MSAA depending on what you can get away with. Beyond 2x MSAA you get diminishing returns and high AA levels and especially high SSAA levels use too much VRAM.

Do not use resolution scale in BF4. That is OGSSAA. So you can make the 580 work easily - Just lower the settings to reasonable levels if you're playing something like crysis 3 or metro LL, the 580 is still a great 1080p/1200p GPU. Just don't expect to max every latest game out and you'll be fine.

As far as your pics there, the only thing I notice are differing aliasing levels. I'd just use FXAA across the board, because MSAA causes a performance hit while FXAA causes nearly no performance hit. Also you don't need to use the medium or ultra presets. Just pick and choose the settings that matter most - shadows, tessellation, don't use physx in cod:ghosts, etc etc. And don't use resolution scale in BF4.