Is it possible to max out 1080p at 120Hz ? I need GPU advice.

[GuruMeditationError]

I have a 1080p monitor with a maximum refresh rate of 120Hz.

 

It's a 1080p 3D monitor I use with a dedicated 3D gaming rig, and I'm looking to try and match or exceed 120 FPS in even the most demanding games (120 FPS is required to get a steady 60 FPS for each eye).

Since I only need 120 FPS, is it theoretically possible to "max out" the monitor...? ...or are games getting graphically intensive enough that even 1080p will still lag at 120Hz?

The 2070 Strix I previously had ran about 3 frames slower than 60 fps in 3D mode running Witcher 3 on full settings; which I guess means it was running at about 6 FPS slower than 120Hz.

So, two questions:

1. Is the above way of looking at this stuff valid?

2. Will it be possible to exceed the 120Hz speed limit of my 1080p 3D monitor with an RTX 3000 series or later card, or will there theoretically always be a need for greater GPU power?

I'm thinking that if, in general terms, the speed of increase in commonplace screen resolutions exceeds the speed of increase in graphical detail in each frame rendered, then theoretically there should be a point at which a 1080p 120Hz monitor's speed is overwhelmed by sheer GPU power...? ...like running a 60Hz 720p monitor with an RTX 2080? 

What do you guys think?    

[LIGISTX]

8 minutes ago, GuruMeditationError said:

I have a 1080p monitor with a maximum refresh rate of 120Hz.

 

It's a 1080p 3D monitor I use with a dedicated 3D gaming rig, and I'm looking to try and match or exceed 120 FPS in even the most demanding games (120 FPS is required to get a steady 60 FPS for each eye).

Since I only need 120 FPS, is it theoretically possible to "max out" the monitor...? ...or are games getting graphically intensive enough that even 1080p will still lag at 120Hz?

The 2070 Strix I previously had ran about 3 frames slower than 60 fps in 3D mode running Witcher 3 on full settings; which I guess means it was running at about 6 FPS slower than 120Hz.

So, two questions:

1. Is the above way of looking at this stuff valid?

2. Will it be possible to exceed the 120Hz speed limit of my 1080p 3D monitor with an RTX 3000 series or later card, or will there theoretically always be a need for greater GPU power?

I'm thinking that if, in general terms, the speed of increase in commonplace screen resolutions exceeds the speed of increase in graphical detail in each frame rendered, then theoretically there should be a point at which a 1080p 120Hz monitor's speed is overwhelmed by sheer GPU power...? ...like running a 60Hz 720p monitor with an RTX 2080? 

What do you guys think?    

What CPU do you have? I am shocked a 2070 wasn’t enough...

 

GPU’s are definitely powerful enough, and will continue to be faster, yes. Just like VR, you need a good steady FPS to keep from feeling nautilus, which my 2080 does no problem. I would imagine, depending on the game, it shouldn’t be an issue, assuming the CPU is fast enough to feed the GPU data to render. But, maybe it is still difficult to have minimum FPS of over 120 at all times in AAA games, even at 1080p. 

[Dedayog]

120Hz is to get 60Hz for each eye?  Do your eyes see things interlaced?

[Tristerin]

Since you always have to factor in different games have different software foundations, and can never predict what is optimized and what isn't, then a 2080ti would be the best bet.  

Especially if you like eye candy.

[GuruMeditationError]

12 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

What CPU do you have? I am shocked a 2070 wasn’t enough...

 

GPU’s are definitely powerful enough, and will continue to be faster, yes. Just like VR, you need a good steady FPS to keep from feeling nautilus, which my 2080 does no problem. I would imagine, depending on the game, it shouldn’t be an issue, assuming the CPU is fast enough to feed the GPU data to render. But, maybe it is still difficult to have minimum FPS of over 120 at all times in AAA games, even at 1080p. 

I've got a 4790k, with a liquid metal de-lid and an overclock.

But yeah, I was only just under 60 FPS in 3D mode in Witcher 3 with everything maxed out.
 

10 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

120Hz is to get 60Hz for each eye?  Do your eyes see things interlaced?

Only when I'm playing my standard def consoles on my CRT  ;0P

...but no, joking aside, it's for a dedicated 3D rig that utilises a 3D vision kit with shutter glasses.

[GuruMeditationError]

3 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Since you always have to factor in different games have different software foundations, and can never predict what is optimized and what isn't, then a 2080ti would be the best bet.  

Especially if you like eye candy.

So you don't think I'd need to go faster than a 2080 ti?

I need it for a dedicated 3D rig, and there are newer games being converted by the 3D community, so theoretically I might even end up trying to run Cyberpunk 2077 in 1080p at 120Hz.

[Kilrah]

Well there's nothing better than a 2080Ti you can really get right now, so... maybe wait a couple of months for the new cards?

[Mick Naughty]

If you do get stronger cards, that cpu will never keep up, doubt it does now.

[LIGISTX]

7 minutes ago, GuruMeditationError said:

I've got a 4790k, with a liquid metal de-lid and an overclock.

What speed is it at? But regardless of speed, that is almost certainly an issue for you.

 

This is Gamer’s nexus’ review of the 10900k, but it has very good historic data with many CPU’s. Their 7700k is at 5.1 ghz, and you can use that as a bit of a measuring stick for yourself. I highly doubt your 4790 is at the 5ghz mark, and there were improvements between those chips..... so look how much more FPS a 10th gen intel chip would get you at “low res high CPU demanding” games. The lower your resolution, the more demand there is on the CPU. If you stepped up to a 10th gen intel chip, you would easily pick up ~15-20% more FPS depending on what speed your 4790 is running. 
 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3587-intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review-benchmarks

[GuruMeditationError]

3 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

If you do get stronger cards, that cpu will never keep up, doubt it does now.

That's interesting because I'm trying to figure out the fastest card I should pair with the setup I have.

I can't afford to upgrade the rest of the rig, so it's literally a matter of working out the point at which I'm not going see more gains by upgrading. 
 

4 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Well there's nothing better than a 2080Ti you can really get right now, so... maybe wait a couple of months for the new cards?

I'm working on getting the cash together for a 3000 series card and trying to figure out how much I'm going to need for it and which tier to go for.

[GuruMeditationError]

On 7/10/2020 at 6:22 PM, LIGISTX said:

What speed is it at? But regardless of speed, that is almost certainly an issue for you.

 

This is Gamer’s nexus’ review of the 10900k, but it has very good historic data with many CPU’s. Their 7700k is at 5.1 ghz, and you can use that as a bit of a measuring stick for yourself. I highly doubt your 4790 is at the 5ghz mark, and there were improvements between those chips..... so look how much more FPS a 10th gen intel chip would get you at “low res high CPU demanding” games. The lower your resolution, the more demand there is on the CPU. If you stepped up to a 10th gen intel chip, you would easily pick up ~15-20% more FPS depending on what speed your 4790 is running. 
 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3587-intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review-benchmarks

I don't really remember the speed of the overclock, I'm not too savvy when it comes to OC'ing. I just used the Asus OC facility because it was also boosting my RAM clocks and I was using a game that was memory speed sensitive as a test case.

Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read. :0)

 

Edit:

Found this, which was really helpful (hopefully the price points will remain the same for the 3000 series)...