pasow
Distinguished
- Nov 15, 2012
- 474
- 0
- 19,160
you have a true 2K display, im rather surprised!
2048x1152 is between the standard 1920x1080 and more enthusiast resolution of 2560x1440 but isn't far off from 1080p.
1920x1080 | FHD | 2,073,600 pixels
2048x1152 | 2K | 2,359,296 pixels | 14% more pixels than 1080p
2560x1440 | 2.5k | 3,686,400 pixels | 78% more pixels than 1080p
A GTX970 should do quite well at this resolution, and a R9 390 with 8GB of vRAM is a bit on the overkill side (not knowing your CPU) but if its the same price, overkill is my preference. I would consider the benchmarks at 1080p and just know you will have slightly lower frame rates than that. The GTX 970's memory issues shouldn't rear its head at 2K, as its still a popular GPU at higher resolutions such as 2.5k (2560x1440).
If you dont mind me asking, what monitor/display are you using?
Upvote0Downvote
VampLena
Distinguished
- May 31, 2010
- 34
- 0
- 18,530
It is a beautiful picture, though finding support for 2k displays seem difficult in games and GPUs.
As for my processor I have a FX 8350 8 Core @ 4ghz and 8 GB of ram if that makes a difference. 8GB though overkill seems awesome, especially when it comes to modding games like Fallout 4 and such, but will it preform as well as the GTX970 at my Resolution?
Upvote0Downvote
pasow
Distinguished
- Nov 15, 2012
- 474
- 0
- 19,160
if your planning on modding games then i recommend heading for the AMD card as i remember Skyrim modding chewing through vRAM rather quickly. checking benchmarks here at Tomas Hardware of a GTX 970 and R9 390 shows that the two are basically equal when running at 1920x1080, and the R9 390 starts to make a decent lead at higher resolutions, particularly at UHD.
Upvote0Downvote
Solution
