RTX 2080TI and 1440p at 144Hz

[aka John Caesar]

Hi guys, so I've got a couple of questions a out the fabled goldilocks zone of 1440p at 144fps and how can it be achieved.

Now I've only been in the PC game a little over a year, so still kinda wet behind the ears.

 

I've been looking through achieve the above, I quickly learned my 1080 is not upto the that task.

Here is my current setup btw:

Ryzen 7 2700x

16gb Gskill Trident z rgb 3200Mhz

Gigabyte G1 GTX 1080 8gb

Vanguard 750w psu

256gb Samsung 970 nvme m.2 (c drive)

2x Barracuda HDD 1TB and 3TB

Watercooled system

XSPC D5 270 pump/res

XSPC 360 rad

XSPC cpu water block

 

I was considering an sli config with 2x 1080 cards. After doing some intensive research (youtube) looking at benchmark videos, it's seems that this setup would not be able to hit that target of 1440p 144fps, plus all the headaches that come with sli etc.

 

My next thought was to look at an upgrade and a big one. A 2080TI would surely do the job for stable 144fps, well it seems I may be wrong about that also. Watching a bunch of benchmark videos on that, I found myself a little shocked.

 

Videos showing an R7 2700x with 16gb RAM and a 2080TI, it showed that alot of AAA titles struggled to get hit the mark on ULTRA settings, even on some older games, FPS games seemed to fair a little better, and Forza seemed to hold up well but still short.

The only time I saw +144fps was if the resolution was lowed to 1080p and/or 60fps.

This gave rise to a new question, why the hell would you spend £900-£1200 on a 2080TI if it can't deliver smooth and stable gameplay at 144fps on 1440p with ultra settings?

 

If I was to spend that kind of money I would expect nothing short of that minimum.

Or am I missing the point somewhere, as I hardly think Ray tracing alone is enough to warrant an upgrade of that level.

 

 

[nlz242]

11 minutes ago, aka John Caesar said:

This gave rise to a new question, why the hell would you spend £900-£1200 on a 2080TI if it can't deliver smooth and stable gameplay at 144fps on 1440p with ultra settings?

 

You are mixing two different use cases.
Stable 144 fps is a must for esport titles, nothing else.

You can achieve smooth and stable gameplay at much lower frame rates. If you want to play AAA with all the eye candies turned on, 144 fps is not a requirement.

Of course, we would all love to play games at 1440 (or better, at 4k!), 144fps with all eye-candies, that would be the dream... but the technology is not there yet.

[Princess Luna]

If you wanted 1440p at 144hz on triple A games then forget about it as you've already started off with the wrong foot by choosing the Ryzen 7 2700X, see how far it can bottleneck a RTX 2080 Ti in comparison to Coffee Lake:

 

7 minutes ago, aka John Caesar said:

why the hell would you spend £900-£1200 on a 2080TI if it can't deliver smooth and stable gameplay at 144fps on 1440p with ultra settings?

Because MAXING out the graphical settings on games at a high resolution of 1440p while expecting 144fps on every game is completely ludicrous to begin with, watch this video for better understanding how pointless these so called Ultra settings are on the great scheme of things:

In shorts if you're not fine tuning your in-game settings and just wants to MAX out everything then you're doing something wrong, the 2080 Ti is a beast that allows a hell lot of headroom but there's no miracles around extremely demanding settings that offers imperceptible improvements most of the time.

[RejZoR]

Btw, people think if you have a 144Hz monitor you need to run games at 144fps to use it. Well, that ain't true. If game runs at 120fps or 100fps you'll still have far better experience than on any 60Hz monitor. Not to mention it's harder to experience tearing although it's hardly an issue with Adaptive/Fast V-Sync...

[aka John Caesar]

40 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

If you wanted 1440p at 144hz on triple A games then forget about it as you've already started off with the wrong foot by choosing the Ryzen 7 2700X, see how far it can bottleneck a RTX 2080 Ti in comparison to Coffee Lake:

 

Because MAXING out the graphical settings on games at a high resolution of 1440p while expecting 144fps on every game is completely ludicrous to begin with, watch this video for better understanding how pointless these so called Ultra settings are on the great scheme of things:

In shorts if you're not fine tuning your in-game settings and just wants to MAX out everything then you're doing something wrong, the 2080 Ti is a beast that allows a hell lot of headroom but there's no miracles around extremely demanding settings that offers imperceptible improvements most of the time.

Thanks for that, when I first built my system I belive the the R7 1700 was my best choice atm time, value for money wise, I purchased it from an online store on credit and the selection of cpu's wasnt that great at the time. So I committed to an AM4 platform. I later upgraded when the 2700x came out, by returning the old one.

 

That video though is an eye opener, I could barely see any noticeable difference, maybe some shadows. Thanks for that though, it changes my view totally.

 

So what are we talking, Shooter games at 144fps, lower settings.

Story kind of games and racing games, higher quality at lower fps. 

[aka John Caesar]

1 hour ago, nlz242 said:

You are mixing two different use cases.
Stable 144 fps is a must for esport titles, nothing else.

You can achieve smooth and stable gameplay at much lower frame rates. If you want to play AAA with all the eye candies turned on, 144 fps is not a requirement.

Of course, we would all love to play games at 1440 (or better, at 4k!), 144fps with all eye-candies, that would be the dream... but the technology is not there yet.

The post below was yours was very informative, but it does still seems ludicrous to pay so much for a powerful card that you still have to compromise with. 

[aka John Caesar]

57 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Btw, people think if you have a 144Hz monitor you need to run games at 144fps to use it. Well, that ain't true. If game runs at 120fps or 100fps you'll still have far better experience than on any 60Hz monitor. Not to mention it's harder to experience tearing although it's hardly an issue with Adaptive/Fast V-Sync...

True yes, but it seems crazy to have a screen capable of 144, like mine, if you not going to get the most out of it. Seems like wasting money. 

[RejZoR]

Well, it's not. And I very much doubt you'll be able to tell a difference between 120fps and 144fps as much as you would between 60Hz and 144Hz screen, even if at lower framerate. The thing is, with 144Hz screen, if anything is off and it's running at 60Hz for whatever reason, I can instantly spot something is wrong. Even mouse cursor movement feels totally off at 60Hz.

[aka John Caesar]

15 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Well, it's not. And I very much doubt you'll be able to tell a difference between 120fps and 144fps as much as you would between 60Hz and 144Hz screen, even if at lower framerate. The thing is, with 144Hz screen, if anything is off and it's running at 60Hz for whatever reason, I can instantly spot something is wrong. Even mouse cursor movement feels totally off at 60Hz.

OK yea I can see how that would be and I can concede to that, thanks for your reply btw.

But can you help me understand why anyone would want to get a 2080TI then for example, if you still have to compromise on settings.

I know Princess Luna post above showed a good video, very little difference in in-game settings, low to ultra.

But if I was to pay a 4 digit sum for a gpu, I 100% would expect 144 - 1440p capible of ultra.

Otherwise what's the point? More core, higher clock speed. 

[Ankerson]

18 minutes ago, aka John Caesar said:

OK yea I can see how that would be and I can concede to that, thanks for your reply btw.

But can you help me understand why anyone would want to get a 2080TI then for example, if you still have to compromise on settings.

I know Princess Luna post above showed a good video, very little difference in in-game settings, low to ultra.

But if I was to pay a 4 digit sum for a gpu, I 100% would expect 144 - 1440p capible of ultra.

Otherwise what's the point? More core, higher clock speed. 

 

 

That's NOT how it works in the real world.

 

The games and technology is currently outpacing the GPU's again, not all games, just the newest AAA titles.

 

People buy and use RTX 2080Ti's because it's a monster and if they do play at 1440P it really is the only one that can actually handle the games with maxed out settings and still have good frame rates. That is across the board in all games. A GTX 1080Ti / RTX 2080 is also good, but will have to adjust the settings in some games.

 

Then there is 4K, the 2080Ti is the only one currently that can handle that once you crank up the settings.

 

It's all a package deal really, the games are getting MUCH better visually and that takes GPU power to run. Then combine a great GPU with a great monitor to experience it all at the highest details. 

 

 

[aka John Caesar]

33 minutes ago, Ankerson said:

 

 

That's NOT how it works in the real world.

 

The games and technology is currently outpacing the GPU's again, not all games, just the newest AAA titles.

 

People buy and use RTX 2080Ti's because it's a monster and if they do play at 1440P it really is the only one that can actually handle the games with maxed out settings and still have good frame rates. That is across the board in all games. A GTX 1080Ti / RTX 2080 is also good, but will have to adjust the settings in some games.

 

Then there is 4K, the 2080Ti is the only one currently that can handle that once you crank up the settings.

 

It's all a package deal really, the games are getting MUCH better visually and that takes GPU power to run. Then combine a great GPU with a great monitor to experience it all at the highest details. 

 

 

OK I understand all of that pretty much, your talking aswell mainly about in game settings and resolution. 

"2080ti only one capable of handling maxed out settings on 1440p"

But where do you find frames per second fits in with all that. As that is really the main point in this thread, FPS. Do you find that you still have to turn down settings to achieve higher fps and turn down fps for higher quality etc.

If so, then again for a 4 figure gpu I would expect to see 144fps min at 1440p with ultra settings. 

[Ankerson]

19 minutes ago, aka John Caesar said:

OK I understand all of that pretty much, your talking aswell mainly about in game settings and resolution. 

"2080ti only one capable of handling maxed out settings on 1440p"

But where do you find frames per second fits in with all that. As that is really the main point in this thread, FPS. Do you find that you still have to turn down settings to achieve higher fps and turn down fps for higher quality etc.

If so, then again for a 4 figure gpu I would expect to see 144fps min at 1440p with ultra settings. 

 

Depends on the game and the rest of the system, can the CPU actually push those high frames?

 

You are confusing price with performance here like it matters, it doesn't.

 

There are $3,000 GPU's out that still won't do it.

 

The difference here is I am talking about real world and you are talking fantasy.

 

 

 

 

[aka John Caesar]

42 minutes ago, Ankerson said:

 

Depends on the game and the rest of the system, can the CPU actually push those high frames?

 

You are confusing price with performance here like it matters, it doesn't.

 

There are $3,000 GPU's out that still won't do it.

 

The difference here is I am talking about real world and you are talking fantasy.

 

 

 

 

That real world talk as you put it, sounds like crazy apart from the CPU, I know some games work better on amd or Intel.

But It's a lil hard to get my head around, 

surely it should matter, those $3,000+ gpu cards you mentioned, those cards aren't for gaming as such but more for extreme video editing and very heavy duty work loads, etc no? 

[Ankerson]

1 minute ago, aka John Caesar said:

That real world talk as you put it, sounds like crazy apart from the CPU, I know some games work better on amd or Intel.

But It's a lil hard to get my head around, 

surely it should matter, those $3,000+ gpu cards you mentioned, those cards aren't for gaming as such but more for extreme video editing and very heavy duty work loads, etc no? 

 

Not all of them.

 

The Titian RTX is a MONSTER in gaming.

[Princess Luna]

36 minutes ago, Ankerson said:

The Titian RTX is a MONSTER in gaming.

It's the same as a RTX 2080 Ti... please...

[Ankerson]

Just now, Princess Luna said:

It's the same as a RTX 2080 Ti... please...

 

They compared them, it is not the same.

[SpookyCitrus]

1 hour ago, aka John Caesar said:

If so, then again for a 4 figure gpu I would expect to see 144fps min at 1440p with ultra settings. 

Ok I'm just going to repeat some of the other people that have already responded to you. 144fps plus is fantastic for esports games like CS:GO, Rocket League, R6 Siege, etc. Basically the only games where 144fps makes an actual difference are competitive esports or shooter type multiplayer titles where it can give you an advantage over other players and make your reaction times as quick as possible and for the most part those games are already on engines and optimized perfectly to run at high refresh rates and high FPS. AAA graphically demanding titles benefit from high refresh rates in terms of smoothness, as long as you're over 75fps with a high refresh rate monitor you're golden. The 2080ti kills almost every esports game at over 144fps closer to 200fps with a good CPU and at 1440p, but more graphically demanding titles at 1440p it drops down a bit but is still one of the best cards on the market and no matter what game you're playing at a high refresh rate and 1440p you're not going to notice anything negative. Do I think the 2080tis are worth $1200 plus? Hell no. But they're still the one of the best on the market and have some of the best frame rates at higher resolutions. 

[aka John Caesar]

1 hour ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Ok I'm just going to repeat some of the other people that have already responded to you. 144fps plus is fantastic for esports games like CS:GO, Rocket League, R6 Siege, etc. Basically the only games where 144fps makes an actual difference are competitive esports or shooter type multiplayer titles where it can give you an advantage over other players and make your reaction times as quick as possible and for the most part those games are already on engines and optimized perfectly to run at high refresh rates and high FPS. AAA graphically demanding titles benefit from high refresh rates in terms of smoothness, as long as you're over 75fps with a high refresh rate monitor you're golden. The 2080ti kills almost every esports game at over 144fps closer to 200fps with a good CPU and at 1440p, but more graphically demanding titles at 1440p it drops down a bit but is still one of the best cards on the market and no matter what game you're playing at a high refresh rate and 1440p you're not going to notice anything negative. Do I think the 2080tis are worth $1200 plus? Hell no. But they're still the one of the best on the market and have some of the best frame rates at higher resolutions. 

Yea I've retty much got my head around it now, shooters = higher fps lower quality settings. 

Other AAA games = higher quality settings lower fps.

So I take do take what everyone has said on board and I thank you all for your responses.

The one thing I'm still thinking is that for such a high price, I don't think it unreasonable to expect to see 1440p 144fps on ultra settings on any title.

I know I could get it if I don't I turned off/down certain settings, and that is the realistic approach.

But it just seems crazy to pay £1200, to have compromise with settings.

That's all, no argument that a 2080ti is a beast.

[SpookyCitrus]

11 minutes ago, aka John Caesar said:

The one thing I'm still thinking is that for such a high price, I don't think it unreasonable to expect to see 1440p 144fps on ultra settings on any title.

But it just seems crazy to pay £1200, to have compromise with settings.

Yeah maybe next generation, personally I use a 165hz 1440p monitor with my 8700k and 1080ti both slightly overclocked and haven't had a negative experience, most esports and competitive games like CS:GO, R6:Siege, Rocket league and some other titles I get close to or over my 165hz, CS:GO is usually in the 280fps mark but that's for most mid to high end systems. AAA games like RE:2 Remake and Metro Exodus as well as Shadow of The Tomb Raider  are in the 80-90s with some jumps up above 100fps depending on the area on max settings, but I haven't had a title that has been below 60fps, honestly never really had one go below 70fps unless it was poorly optimized.

[aka John Caesar]

33 minutes ago, SpookyCitrus said:

Yeah maybe next generation, personally I use a 165hz 1440p monitor with my 8700k and 1080ti both slightly overclocked and haven't had a negative experience, most esports and competitive games like CS:GO, R6:Siege, Rocket league and some other titles I get close to or over my 165hz, CS:GO is usually in the 280fps mark but that's for most mid to high end systems. AAA games like RE:2 Remake and Metro Exodus as well as Shadow of The Tomb Raider  are in the 80-90s with some jumps up above 100fps depending on the area on max settings, but I haven't had a title that has been below 60fps, honestly never really had one go below 70fps unless it was poorly optimized.

I can get 90-100 average on mid settings on Forza 7, 45-65 on ultra. On my 1080. I can push 120+ if I lower the resolution. 

[SpookyCitrus]

2 hours ago, aka John Caesar said:

I can get 90-100 average on mid settings on Forza 7, 45-65 on ultra. On my 1080. I can push 120+ if I lower the resolution. 

Is there a particular reason you have to have the highest fps possible even if you have to lower the settings and resolution? Honestly I'm a more graphics quality over performance type person but I mainly play AAA single player titles like Metro Exodus, RE2, Fallout and games like that occasionally I play multiplayer games like CS:GO, BF5, Apex, DayZ and Arma 3 and still max settings on all of them and as long as they're above 70fps I'm happy and my system handles 1440p max settings like a dream.

[aka John Caesar]

No none particularly, just more trying to understand previously said points, at such high price I would expect both top quality and performance, regardless of title.

My view to the price of a 2080ti is well that's 4 xbox one x's

(not comparing performance)

It's a huge amount, those of you that have been in the PC world a long time may be used to astronomical prices, but I find it absolutely shocking.

Other than that I would agree whole heartedly on quality over performance on a lower cards in the 10 series, especially single player games.

Thinking of upgrades, I think I may just get a decent 1080ti.

One other thing, player Apex Legends last night, tried to get 144fps on 1440p on all low settings. It wasn't having it, the max I saw was 115, avg of 90ish.

I did try lowering the resolution aswell but for some wierd reason this kept causing the game to crash. 

[Ankerson]

39 minutes ago, aka John Caesar said:

No none particularly, just more trying to understand previously said points, at such high price I would expect both top quality and performance, regardless of title.

My view to the price of a 2080ti is well that's 4 xbox one x's

(not comparing performance)

It's a huge amount, those of you that have been in the PC world a long time may be used to astronomical prices, but I find it absolutely shocking.

Other than that I would agree whole heartedly on quality over performance on a lower cards in the 10 series, especially single player games.

Thinking of upgrades, I think I may just get a decent 1080ti.

One other thing, player Apex Legends last night, tried to get 144fps on 1440p on all low settings. It wasn't having it, the max I saw was 115, avg of 90ish.

I did try lowering the resolution aswell but for some wierd reason this kept causing the game to crash. 

 

You would be better off going with an RTX 2080, any new GTX 1080Ti is going to be over $1,000 currently.

 

I have been around for a very long time and PC prices now are actually much cheaper than they were back in the day of the 286, 386 and 486.

 

I remember punch cards on computers.

 

It really wasn't until the mid to late 90's that the prices really dropped through the floor when Compact came out with the $500 PC. Yeah it was a POS, a total POS. It basically killed the industry as far as a lot of things went quality wise for a long time. Everyone was coming out with cheap garbage trying to undercut everyone else, it was for the most part absolutely horrendous how bad it really was. The high end stuff was still good and high quality though, but it really got bad fast once you dropped below that. I worked in the field during the time so I can say it was VERY BAD there was so much complete garbage on the market. And that stuff was what people were buying because it was cheap.... It was a nightmare working on those POS PC's that were around then.

 

A lot of it has carried into even today, but thankfully there still is a lot of high quality parts on the market from the mid range and up. It's only when you drop down into the low budget and lower that the real garbage is found. 

 

The prices are NOT that bad today, it's pretty much came back around to the point that one can build a very nice gaming PC in the $1,000 range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aka John Caesar]

1 hour ago, Ankerson said:

You would be better off going with an RTX 2080, any new GTX 1080Ti is going to be over $1,000 currently.

Talk to me about this because I did look into that, though benchmarks appear to show that the differences between the 1080ti and a 2080 is extremely marginal, a difference of only 2 or 3 fps in most cases in the video below, in some other videos the 1080ti has performed a bit better.

I would struggle to find a 1080ti new but I could get one second hand for around £350. As where the 2080 would be a little over double that.

Other than Ray tracing, which is only supported by a couple of games, a little higher core clock and about 1500mhz higher mem clock.

What would a 2080 have over a 1080ti?

 

1 hour ago, Ankerson said:

 

I remember punch cards on computers.

I have no idea what these are aha I'm a late 80's kid.

1 hour ago, Ankerson said:

The prices are NOT that bad today

The only other thing that surprised me when u built my pc was the cost of the RAM, I thought it was high. Other than that I think everything else was reasonable even my cpu.

The shocker was just GPU's, I know mining drove prices skywards with those a couple of years ago.

[Ankerson]

1 hour ago, aka John Caesar said:

Talk to me about this because I did look into that, though benchmarks appear to show that the differences between the 1080ti and a 2080 is extremely marginal, a difference of only 2 or 3 fps in most cases in the video below, in some other videos the 1080ti has performed a bit better.

I would struggle to find a 1080ti new but I could get one second hand for around £350. As where the 2080 would be a little over double that.

Other than Ray tracing, which is only supported by a couple of games, a little higher core clock and about 1500mhz higher mem clock.

What would a 2080 have over a 1080ti?

 

I have no idea what these are aha I'm a late 80's kid.

The only other thing that surprised me when u built my pc was the cost of the RAM, I thought it was high. Other than that I think everything else was reasonable even my cpu.

The shocker was just GPU's, I know mining drove prices skywards with those a couple of years ago.

 

 

Personally I wouldn't buy a used GTX 1080Ti, if you find one for that cheap there will be something wrong with it.

 

The good ones, the ones worth buying are like $800 or more used, that's in the same range as a new 2080.