Is it true that the 3090 performs worse at 1440p compared to 4k?

[Slyceth]

I'm currently doubting between getting a 1440p monitor, a 27GL850, or getting a 4k monitor like a PG329Q or a 27GN950, whichever is available on November 5th after the Ryzen 5900X launch.

 

I watched this video:

 

I want to get the most out of my TUF 3090 graphics card, and while I would prefer 4k, it's about double the price. My question is, is this video true as in, can I get relatively better frames with a 4k monitor than a 1440p monitor?

[emosun]

Think you might have missed his point which was the 1440p performance wasn't very good RELATIVE to the 4k performance. 

4k performance wasn't better though .... its more pixels so across all their benchmark the fps were lower. 

 

That being said it's 2020 and my personal opinion is that you should opt for 4k becuase there quite literally no reason not to unless you for some reason just want the resolution to be lower than a 4 year old televison from bestbuy.

[BobVonBob]

3 minutes ago, emosun said:

That being said it's 2020 and my personal opinion is that you should opt for 4k becuase there quite literally no reason not to unless you for some reason just want the resolution to be lower than a 4 year old televison from bestbuy.

High refresh rate still isn't available for a reasonable price at 4K, and I'd say the jump from 60 to 144/240 Hz makes a much larger difference than the one from 1440p to 4K. Granted if you're buying a 3090 the price argument is much less compelling.

[emosun]

Just now, BobVonBob said:

High refresh rate still isn't available for a reasonable price at 4K

I supposed I'm biased as I have had 4k for 4 years now and just the other day I tried running a game at 1440 and was shocked at how bad 1440 with AA looks compared to 4k without AA.

That and high refresh rate gaming is more of a marketing ploy used to sell hardware to FPS game players and not very useful at all for any other genre. 

[Slyceth]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

I supposed I'm biased as I have had 4k for 4 years now and just the other day I tried running a game at 1440 and was shocked at how bad 1440 with AA looks compared to 4k without AA.

That and high refresh rate gaming is more of a marketing ploy used to sell hardware to FPS game players and not very useful at all for any other genre. 

So you run at 4k 60 fps then? What size screen?

 

5 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

High refresh rate still isn't available for a reasonable price at 4K, and I'd say the jump from 60 to 144/240 Hz makes a much larger difference than the one from 1440p to 4K. Granted if you're buying a 3090 the price argument is much less compelling.

What do you think about the monitors I mentioned then? (PG329Q and 27GN950), they should be 4k AND 144Hz.

[BobVonBob]

3 minutes ago, emosun said:

I supposed I'm biased as I have had 4k for 4 years now and just the other day I tried running a game at 1440 and was shocked at how bad 1440 with AA looks compared to 4k without AA.

That and high refresh rate gaming is more of a marketing ploy used to sell hardware to FPS game players and not very useful at all for any other genre. 

I've gotten plenty of use out of my 144 Hz screen, even in non-FPS titles. 240 and 360 screens are definitely wannabe-pro-gamer-bait imo, but high refresh rate in general isn't.

[emosun]

4 minutes ago, Slyceth said:

So you run at 4k 60 fps then? What size screen?

65 inch

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

240 and 360 screens are definitely wannabe-pro-gamer-bait imo, but high refresh rate in general isn't.

Well if it's a trade off between something useful and something not useful , then i'll opt for what I find to be useful. Go figure 144hz sure doesn't seem to add a whole lot to cities skylines vs 4k. lol

but if you needed 144hz then ,sure go for it. We dont need to share a screen lol

[BTGbullseye]

5 hours ago, emosun said:

65 inch

You have lower pixel density than a 32" 1080p display. Unless you're sitting across the room, of course it's going to look bad at lower resolutions. Also, non-native panel resolutions have always been sub-par in the image quality. (unless using integer scaling to upscale something from exactly 1/4 or 1/16th of the native resolution)

[emosun]

9 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

 

K well move it to a pm if you want to argue about what display I prefer 

[BobVonBob]

21 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

unless using integer scaling to upscale something from exactly 1/4 or 1/16th of the native resolution

Pixel perfect upscaling is only a thing when game devs add support for it, much to my chagrin both AMD and Nvidia don't support native nearest neighbor scaling.

 

Luckily screens have basically reached the point where more resolution doesn't matter and GPUs are starting to be able to run those resolutions, so this will probably only be an issue for another 5-10 years.

[xg32]

On 10/10/2020 at 3:00 PM, Slyceth said:

.

the improvement to the 30 series is smaller on 1440p than 4k, but overall it should be about a 50% generation jump in fps at 4k. The cards still aren't good enough for 4k/120fps yet, maybe if you turn down the settings to medium but it still wouldn't reach 120fps in some games.

 

In simple terms the raw performance of the 2080 ti is 4k/70fps, 3080 is 4k/90 and the 3090 is 4k/100.

 

In terms of monitors the x27 is capped at 4k/98hz hdr, while the new LG nano (they also have one of the best 4k or 1440p ultrawide) monitors have low contrast ratio, and the oled tvs have hdmi 2.1 and support 4k/120 hdr it might be too big for some.

 

There's no optimal solutions yet and what compromise you make is up to you. Meanwhile 1440p/144hz will still provide a good experience without breaking the bank on a 3080.

 

But like @emosun said, i can see the pixels on monitors with lower pixel density.

 

It's still 1 or 2 gen (2-4 years) before 4k is fully ready.

 

x27/pg35uq for fald, gn850 for 4k/120hz, gn950 for 1440p ips ultrawide or just go with an oled tv. You can also wait for displayport1.5 for anything 4k, which ampere doesn't even support.

[emosun]

2 hours ago, xg32 said:

It's still 1 or 2 gen (2-4 years) before 4k is fully ready.

Ive been enjoying 4k for 4 years already but sure wait another 4 I guess lol

[BTGbullseye]

5 hours ago, BobVonBob said:

Pixel perfect upscaling is only a thing when game devs add support for it, much to my chagrin both AMD and Nvidia don't support native nearest neighbor scaling.

Funny... It's working just fine on my system on the driver level, provided it's rendered at a resolution that is directly integer multiplicative to reach monitor resolution. (otherwise it gets as close as possible, and centers it on the screen)

 

It is not present in any games whatsoever because it doesn't need to be. This is not one of the features that requires software support for it. DLSS/RTX requires software support, RIS and integer scaling on either platform does not. You do have to enable the GPU Scaling option for it to work however.

[BobVonBob]

On 10/12/2020 at 1:59 AM, BTGbullseye said:

Funny... It's working just fine on my system on the driver level, provided it's rendered at a resolution that is directly integer multiplicative to reach monitor resolution. (otherwise it gets as close as possible, and centers it on the screen)

 

It is not present in any games whatsoever because it doesn't need to be. This is not one of the features that requires software support for it. DLSS/RTX requires software support, RIS and integer scaling on either platform does not. You do have to enable the GPU Scaling option for it to work however.

Huh, looks like it's available for AMD GPUs 200 series and later, and for Nvidia RTX and GTX 16 series cards.

 

I didn't know that had changed since I'm still running an unsupported GPU that needs it to be implemented in the game.

[BobVonBob]

Whoopsie double post.
 

<-- Look at this fool that clicked reply instead of edit.