Possible performance decrease from going (1080p + 1920x1200) -> (1080p + 1440p)?

[pistolzombie]

Hi y'all, hope I could get some advice on this.

Right now I have two monitors, my main one at 1920x1080 resolution 144hz and a secondary old ass Acer G24 with a 1920x1200 resolution.

I'm running with a PBO'd Ryzen 5 3600x and a slightly oc'ed EVGA XC GAMING ULTRA 2070 Super, 16 gb 3200 mhz cl16 ram, and an SSD if that's important.

Basically, I'm looking to upgrade my monitor setup at the end of the summer, and my idea is to take my slightly meh current main monitor and make it my secondary while getting a better one in either 1080p or 1440p resolution. I was wondering how much of a performance decrease I could experience going if I made this change. Both would be 144hz, so I'm trying to gauge if I would be able to run everything 144-ish fps if I went 1440p. If not, I'll just get my new monitor at 1080p and be fine. Google math gets me to see that it's only 30% more pixels from now going the 1440p version and at the moment I run most of my games at the perfect sweet spot of 130-150 fps for my 144hz refresh rate monitor. Any advice on how 1440p would impact my setup? Thanks.

 

[tkitch]

Everything?  Absolutely not.

 

What are you actually running?  Because currently, for example, no hardware on the planet can run Cyberpunk at 1440 at 144fps (even without RTX)

[TylerD321]

According to GPU check you'd probably get around 90-100 fps at 1440p with most games I would imagine.

 

https://www.gpucheck.com/gpu/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-super/amd-ryzen-5-3600x/

[Quackers101]

more resolution will decrease, if you can run it close to 150 or 200 fps already, then you might be able to hit the 100-140 mark.

Just to know what you want the most, as 1440p is a badly scaled resolution, else it still gives a lot for resolution.

Also if you have two 1080p, it can be a lot easier to use both for gaming and so on, unless you are mainly only using one.

As there are some cheap 1080p now with better brightness and color and high refresh rate (HZ).

[pistolzombie]

1 minute ago, tkitch said:

Everything?  Absolutely not.

 

What are you actually running?  Because currently, for example, no hardware on the planet can run Cyberpunk at 1440 at 144fps (even without RTX)

oh my bad I forgot to mention what I run normally. Here's a pic of my VR and non-VR games if it helps. sorry about that

[pistolzombie]

1 minute ago, Quackers101 said:

more resolution will decrease, if you can run it close to 150 or 200 fps already, then you might be able to hit the 100-140 mark.

Just to know what you want the most, as 1440p is a badly scaled resolution, else it still gives a lot for resolution.

Also if you have two 1080p, it can be a lot easier to use both for gaming and so on, unless you are mainly only using one.

As there are some cheap 1080p now with better brightness and color and high refresh rate (HZ).

ah I see, thanks yeah I'm realizing now that better pixel density, color, and refresh rate are also pretty important. I'll look around a bit more and thanks for the advice

[Downkey]

7 minutes ago, TylerD321 said:

According to GPU check you'd probably get around 90-100 fps at 1440p with most games I would imagine.

 

https://www.gpucheck.com/gpu/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2070-super/amd-ryzen-5-3600x/

GPU check is BS.

[TylerD321]

3 minutes ago, Downkey said:

GPU check is BS.

Minus power supply requirement it is pretty accurate for me (i7 10700k + 3070)

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, TylerD321 said:

Minus power supply requirement it is pretty accurate for me (i7 10700k + 3070)

… its kinda bs if you take them literally…  so they have 2 games i own…

MHW 1440p "ultra" they say "80" but im getting 100 (straight) and there are no "ultra" settings whatsover, they dont even mention the HD texture pack which has probably a lot more impact on fps than any "ultra" settings, so are they running it or is their "80fps" figure without the HD texture pack… no one knows and they probably never ran the game, theyre just guessing (looks like)

 

RE2 1440p "ultra" (the game wants to use a ridiculous amount of VRAM at "max" settings, so I doubt they ran anywhere near "ultra" but ok) "114fps" … ok nice estimate I guess, but im getting ~160fps with everything maxed out, except textures set to 3GB or so because  the game literally wants like ~20GB at max and simply crashes when I go over ~8GB… tldr, I can guarantee they did not ever run this at "ultra" which makes the whole thIng kinda useless, because they're obviously just guessing and its not reliable at all and they are 20-40fps off already anyway in the 2 games i can compare real life performance ~