Does aspec ratio matters to performance?

[lautaro_busto]

Hello, i have a rtx 3080 and a 38" ultra wide monitor 3840x1600 wich is technically sub 4k, Ive seen videos and  benchmarks sayin a rtx 3080 should do for 4k, but is it?  is the aspec ratio of my monitor afecting performance? im barely getting  60fps on modern games 

[Dedayog]

6 minutes ago, lautaro_busto said:

Hello, i have a rtx 3080 and a 34" ultra wide monitor 3840x1600 wich is technically sub 4k, Ive seen videos and  benchmarks sayin a rtx 3080 should do for 4k, but is it?  is the aspec ratio of my monitor afecting performance? im barely getting  60fps on modern games 

Aspect ratio is arguably the deciding factor in GPU performance.  The GPU has to draw an image based on it, so the higher the resolution the more pixels to draw the more power needed.

 

Btw, you mean a 38" UW I think.  34" are 3440x1440p usually.

 

Your GPU should be fine for that resolution but what CPU do you have? That plays a part as well.

[lautaro_busto]

Just now, Dedayog said:

Aspect ratio is arguably the deciding factor in GPU performance.  The GPU has to draw an image based on it, so the higher the resolution the more pixels to draw the more power needed.

 

Btw, you mean a 38" UW I think.  34" are 3440x1440p usually.

yeah i fixed the size. on the aspec ratio thing,  i allways thougt  resolution was the  number to check, isnt the aspect ratio just the way is the pixel arranged?

 

[Dedayog]

2 minutes ago, lautaro_busto said:

yeah i fixed the size. on the aspec ratio thing,  i allways thougt  resolution was the  number to check, isnt the aspect ratio just the way is the pixel arranged?

 

Sorry, yes.  Aspect ratio is the 21:9, which can be ANY resolution. But it's assumed that 21:9 aspect ratio on your monitor is the actual resolution. Not many people change it. Not sure why you did, to be honest.

 

So you have a 34" 3440x1440p monitor that you're running in 3840x1600?

 

[lautaro_busto]

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

Sorry, yes.  Aspect ratio is the 21:9, which can be ANY resolution. But it's assumed that 21:9 aspect ratio on your monitor is the actual resolution. Not many people change it. Not sure why you did, to be honest.

 

So you have a 34" 3440x1440p monitor that you're running in 3840x1600?

 

nope, is a 38" 3840x1600 

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, lautaro_busto said:

nope, is a 38" 3840x1600 

Oh I see it now.  So yes, you're pushing 6million pixels, which is nearing 4k level. 

[mariushm]

Aspect ratio shouldn't be a big deal.  Basically the number of pixels should be the deciding factor ... 3840 x 1600 = is 6.144 million pixels  , 3840x2160 is 8.294 million

 

Some games may not be as optimized for ultra wide screen, meaning they developers may not be as careful with what's drawn outside 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios... for example, they may resort to some tricks to remove from scenes objects or things you can't see in the corners of a 16:9 or 16:10 image in order to increase fps, but they may not think of searching for things to remove outside that 16:9 aspect ratio, so the video card may have to render much more stuff than they should have and you'd get less fps.

 

It's really up to how well a game is tested, how much developers care, it's rarely a hardware issue (video card itself) that would cause games to have much less fps on ultra wide screens.

 

[Middcore]

What matters is the number of pixels the card has to draw. It doesn't care what shape they're in.

 

4K resolution = a hair under 8.3 million pixels

 

3840x1600 = "only" a little over 6.1 million pixels

 

So whatever performance a 3080 manages in a game at 4k, it should get somewhat better performance at your resolution. 

[PDifolco]

39 minutes ago, lautaro_busto said:

nope, is a 38" 3840x1600 

That's a Alienware 38" isn't it ? Think it's the only monitor with that res

 

[OrdinaryPhil]

The short answer is no.

The output resolution in pixels is the number you want to look for. If you are looking at 2160p (4k), that's a total of 8,294,400 pixels. The resolution of your display is 6,1440,000 pixels. That's an approximately 26% lower pixel count so your games will run noticeably faster than if you were playing them at 2160p.

The arrangement of the pixels is generally not a factor unless you are changing other in-game settings such as FOV. If you do alter FOV settings, that can result in more objects being rendered which would lead to increased demand on the GPU.

[lautaro_busto]

45 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

That's a Alienware 38" isn't it ? Think it's the only monitor with that res

 

yes

[lautaro_busto]

1 hour ago, mariushm said:

Aspect ratio shouldn't be a big deal.  Basically the number of pixels should be the deciding factor ... 3840 x 1600 = is 6.144 million pixels  , 3840x2160 is 8.294 million

 

Some games may not be as optimized for ultra wide screen, meaning they developers may not be as careful with what's drawn outside 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratios... for example, they may resort to some tricks to remove from scenes objects or things you can't see in the corners of a 16:9 or 16:10 image in order to increase fps, but they may not think of searching for things to remove outside that 16:9 aspect ratio, so the video card may have to render much more stuff than they should have and you'd get less fps.

 

It's really up to how well a game is tested, how much developers care, it's rarely a hardware issue (video card itself) that would cause games to have much less fps on ultra wide screens.

 

this makes a lot of sense. well ill do an gpu upgrade on the future if posible,  cause im  loving the ultra wide formfactor

 

[SupaKomputa]

1 hour ago, lautaro_busto said:

60fps on modern games 

4k ultra settings + ray tracing in 3080 should be around this fps btw.

[GuiltySpark_]

49 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

That's a Alienware 38" isn't it ? Think it's the only monitor with that res

 

Definitely not. There aren't many but there isn't just one. 

 

My 38GL950G is also 38" 3840x1600. These are the step up from the 34" 3440x1440's. 

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, lautaro_busto said:

this makes a lot of sense. well ill do an gpu upgrade on the future if posible,  cause im  loving the ultra wide formfactor

 

It's odd that the 3080 is struggling at that resolution.  What settings are you using? What games?

 

Not sure how much a 10700 is affecting that.

[lautaro_busto]

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

It's odd that the 3080 is struggling at that resolution.  What settings are you using? What games?

 

Not sure how much a 10700 is affecting that.

project cars 2 i get 75fps max settings, Icarus medium ~45fps  Hellblade max settigs 50fps,  I get it i could set to medium but i believed that a 3080 should be enough. 

Ive checked  cpu/gpu usage while gaming and i get  99% gpu and 80% cpu, so i think there isnt a cpu bottleneck. may be the model of my gpu then? is a rtx 3080 LHR 10G, is 10gb not enough for the resolution?

 

[xg32]

15 minutes ago, lautaro_busto said:

project cars 2 i get 75fps max settings, Icarus medium ~45fps  Hellblade max settigs 50fps,  I get it i could set to medium but i believed that a 3080 should be enough. 

Ive checked  cpu/gpu usage while gaming and i get  99% gpu and 80% cpu, so i think there isnt a cpu bottleneck. may be the model of my gpu then? is a rtx 3080 LHR 10G, is 10gb not enough for the resolution?

 

ampere does fall off in uw but i also suspect your ram settings isn't optimal