2070S with a 1440P ultrawide?

[The Evil Morty]

So I'm looking at building a PC this year and I'm trying to figure out what kind of graphics card to get. What kind of FPS would I be getting on a 1440p ultrawide with an RTX 2070S? I realize the new RTX 3000 cards are coming out this year and I will most likely be asking about them again later this year. I'm planning on getting a Ryzen 7 3800x for the processor.

[Princess Luna]

9 minutes ago, The Evil Morty said:

I'm planning on getting a Ryzen 7 3800x for the processor.

Might wanna reconsider this, it's literally the same as the R7 3700X and it's really barely any different in gaming from the much cheaper R5 3600, refer to:

 

If you are willing to wait for the next gen nVidia cards then you might as well wait for Intel's 10th gen in April which should bring the i7 10700K as an i9 9900K refresh for i7 9700K MSRP making it a lot more compelling monetary wise.

 

The RTX 2070 Super should be fine for 3440x1440p100hz, I had a 1080 Ti under these conditions and served me very well with just some graphical adjustments so I'm confident the 2070S would follow suit but like stated we're also fairly close to the release of a new gen.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

Might wanna reconsider this, it's literally the same as the R7 3700X and it's really barely any different in gaming from the much cheaper R5 3600, refer to:

Can't say I really agree with going cheap on cpu when the new console baseline is about to be Ryzen 2 8C/16T. I'd just pay the extra for the Ryzen 7 now or wait to see if the i7-10700k is worth it.

[Princess Luna]

5 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Can't say I really agree with going cheap on cpu when the new console baseline is about to be Ryzen 2 8C/16T.

Consoles already uses octacores, have in mind that the OS is different and when porting the game from a console to a PC you'll never have it function the same way.

 

Not only that the Zen 2 based processor on the PS/Xbox is still significantly inferior, with lower cache and lower core frequency than the current octacore retail chips, so this preoccupation is needless.

 

Finding a PC game today that uses more than 8 threads is nearly impossible, with only a very very few exceptions like Ashes of Singularity, so with that in mind competent hexacore processors like the Ryzen 5 3600/X and say i7 8700K will remain adequate for high end gaming for a good couple of years yet.

[SteveGrabowski0]

16 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

Consoles already uses octacores, have in mind that the OS is different and when porting the game from a console to a PC you'll never have it function the same way.

 

Not only that the Zen 2 based processor on the PS/Xbox is still significantly inferior, with lower cache and lower core frequency than the current octacore retail chips, so this preoccupation is needless.

 

Finding a PC game today that uses more than 8 threads is nearly impossible, with only a very very few exceptions like Ashes of Singularity, so with that in mind competent hexacore processors like the Ryzen 5 3600/X and say i7 8700K will remain adequate for high end gaming for a good couple of years yet.

Ubisoft games like AC Odyssey will use every core you can throw at them. And I used to hear this same kind of advice telling people to buy i5 and then a couple of years ago I'd start hearing people complaining about Battlefield being cpu bound for them while 4C/8T i7 were still doing fine. 

 

You could get away with frequency + SMT making up for core deficiency for games designed for octacore PS4/XB1 since those chips were super low clocked mobile versions of an already crap AMD architecture, but from Digitial Foundry I think I have seen leaks of these Ryzen 2 chips running at 3.2 GHz. So it's a haircut from the clock you'd get on a PC Ryzen 2 chip, but it's not running at less than half the clock of a PC chip like current gen (of course, provided the leak is true). And they're going to be starting from a great architecture instead of total crap like they did with Jagaur, so you don't get that bonus either that you do running games on Intel and Ryzen chips this console gen.

 

When people recommend clockspeed over having the extra threads, it always takes me back to how a 3.4 GHz 2C/4T i3-4130 would completely mop the floor with a 4.8 GHz 2C/2T Pentium G3258 in gaming.

 

I think it makes sense to be unquestionably better than console in every way with your hardware since PC ports are often lazily done and the consoles are always going to be what AAA games are designed first and foremost for these days.

[Princess Luna]

3 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Ubisoft games like AC Odyssey will use every core you can throw at them.

 

Yep that's why having 4c/8t more provided such a huge boost in performance (both are CPU bound).

 

3 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

And I used to hear this same kind of advice telling people to buy i5 and then a couple of years ago I'd start hearing people complaining about Battlefield being cpu bound for them while 4C/8T i7 were still doing fine.

Oh no trust me I was telling people to go with the locked i7 6700 over overclocking the i5 6600K back then, but the difference here is that quadcores stayed on the market for over a whole decade, it took a lot of time for these processors finally run out.

 

Hexacores became a thing fairly recently and they already allowed the breathing room needed since like stated most games including AC Odyssey will peak at 8 threads usage... if you only had a 4c/8t that means the whole game is using the processor leaving no room for OS and side/background applications which is the issue but 6c/12t gets around it for now and should still do it for like I said quite another couple of years (though that's further reason why the i5 9600K is a bad purchase due to low cache and lack of HT).

 

Regardless, I'll stick to the original suggestion of waiting for the upcoming i7 10700K since the R7 3800X is *not* a good value processor and OP is not on a hurry.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, Princess Luna said:

Yep that's why having 4c/8t more provided such a huge boost in performance (both are CPU bound).

 

Oh no trust me I was telling people to go with the locked i7 6700 over overclocking the i5 6600K back then, but the difference here is that quadcores stayed on the market for over a whole decade, it took a lot of time for these processors finally run out.

 

Hexacores became a thing fairly recently and they already allowed the breathing room needed since like stated most games including AC Odyssey will peak at 8 threads usage... if you only had a 4c/8t that means the whole game is using the processor leaving no room for OS and side/background applications which is the issue but 6c/12t gets around it for now and should still do it for like I said quite another couple of years (though that's further reason why the i5 9600K is a bad purchase due to low cache and lack of HT).

 

Regardless, I'll stick to the original suggestion of waiting for the upcoming i7 10700K since the R7 3800X is *not* a good value processor and OP is not on a hurry.

Fair enough. I would 100% hold out for a ~$400 i7-10700k too if I wanted to run a 100+ Hz monitor.