Can my hardware drive this display?

[BlackHoleFox]

Hello again everyone,

 

I was curious to see that if my current rig (i7 4790k, 16GB DDR3, ASUS GTX 1070 8OG) would be able to drive the ASUS ROG PG348Q, with running modern games at high or ultra settings.

 

Thanks!

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

100Hz 3440x1440 isn't harder to drive than 144Hz 2560x1440. So sure.

[BlackHoleFox]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

100Hz 3440x1440 isn't harder to drive than 144Hz 2560x1440. So sure.

So the extra pixels don't make it harder to drive? How does that work?

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, BlackHoleFox said:

So the extra pixels don't make it harder to drive? How does that work?

It comes down to how much data you're throwing into the pipe per second:

• 3440 x 1440 x 100Hz = 495,360,000 pixels per second
• 2560 x 1440 x 144Hz = 530,841,600 pixels per second

Screen resolution is only harder on memory in this case.

[Eduard the weeb]

2 minutes ago, BlackHoleFox said:

So the extra pixels don't make it harder to drive? How does that work?

because your ony driving to 100hz not 144hz on that 

[TidaLWaveZ]

15 minutes ago, BlackHoleFox said:

So the extra pixels don't make it harder to drive? How does that work?

 

12 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It comes down to how much data you're throwing into the pipe per second:

• 3440 x 1440 x 100Hz = 495,360,000 pixels per second
• 2560 x 1440 x 144Hz = 530,841,600 pixels per second

Screen resolution is only harder on memory in this case.

 

12 minutes ago, Eduard the weeb said:

because your ony driving to 100hz not 144hz on that 

There's got to be some confusion here.

 

 

The monitors max refresh rate will not decrease a GPU's performance...

 

You will get a higher FPS at a lower resolution regardless.

 

Therefore you will get better performance from a 1070 at the lower resolution 2650x1440.

[Eduard the weeb]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

The monitors max refresh rate will not decrease a GPU's performance...

 

You will get a higher FPS at a lower resolution regardless.

he was asking why 100hz 3440 by 1440 is the similar to drive as 2560 by 1440 at 144hz so thats why I said he was only driving 100hz I knew that but whaterz.

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

The monitors max refresh rate will not decrease a GPU's performance...

 

You will get a higher FPS at a lower resolution regardless.

The assumption was made that OP wasn't aiming for higher FPS given that they're going for a 100Hz monitor instead of a 144Hz monitor and that a GTX 1070 works fine for most titles on high detail at 144Hz 2560x1440. So 100Hz 3440x1440 wouldn't be a problem either and is easier to reach its fullest potential.

[TidaLWaveZ]

31 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The assumption was made that OP wasn't aiming for higher FPS given that they're going for a 100Hz monitor instead of a 144Hz monitor and that a GTX 1070 works fine for most titles on high detail at 144Hz 2560x1440. So 100Hz 3440x1440 wouldn't be a problem either.

I kind of understand the above but the below is wrong unless you mean FPS instead of Hz, the monitors maximum refresh rate has no impact on GPU/CPU performance.

 

53 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

100Hz 3440x1440 isn't harder to drive than 144Hz 2560x1440. So sure.

The higher res monitor would be more taxing on the GPU so we can't assume it will be fine, probably about a 20 FPS drop between the two resolutions depending on the game.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Looking up AVG FPS difference between 3440 and 2560 resolutions through games(BF4,DOOM,Crysis3,RiseOfTombRaider) at ultra you lose 20+ FPS in each game giving you an average loss of over 20 FPS which is kind of substantial.

[Mira Yurizaki]

58 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I kind of understand the above but the below is wrong unless you mean FPS instead of Hz, the monitors maximum refresh rate has no impact on GPU/CPU performance.

 

The higher res monitor would be more taxing on the GPU so we can't assume it will be fine, even though you'll probably not drop a significant FPS of performance.

3440x1440 100 FPS is still easier to push than 2560x1440 144 FPS, if we assume resolution changes only impact performance linearly (which in most cases it doesn't appear to be linear but logarithmic, which is even better). And considering there are use cases outside of gaming, like the desktop environment which will for all intents and purposes run at maximum refresh rate for frame rates, then it's still easier to drive. Most of the desktop elements are vectors anyway so resolution is somewhat of a moot point and it'll only affect how many pixels you can shove out per second. Which given those two resolutions and frame rates, 3440x1440 100 FPS is still easier to push than 2560x1440 144 FPS.

 

Anyway we can argue until the cows come home but the overall point is a GTX 1070 has no issue running a 3440x1440 100Hz display. Probably moreso to its potential.

[TidaLWaveZ]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

3440x1440 100 FPS is still easier to push than 2560x1440 144 FPS, if we assume resolution changes only impact performance linearly (which in most cases it doesn't appear to be linear but logarithmic, which is even better). And considering there are use cases outside of gaming, like the desktop environment which will for all intents and purposes run at maximum refresh rate for frame rates, then it's still easier to drive. Most of the desktop elements are vectors anyway so resolution is somewhat of a moot point and it'll only affect how many pixels you can shove out per second. Which given those two resolutions and frame rates, 3440x1440 100 FPS is still easier to push than 2560x1440 144 FPS.

 

Anyway we can argue until the cows come home but the overall point is a GTX 1070 has no issue running a 3440x1440 100Hz display. Probably moreso to its potential.

For the top paragraph yes, I agree which is why I said "the below is wrong unless you mean FPS instead of Hz"

 

It has no issue running it, but OP was asking about gaming at Ultra and High in modern games. By switching from 2560x1440 to 3440x1440 OP will lose 20+ AVG FPS in modern games.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

For the top paragraph yes, I agree which is why I said "the below is wrong unless you mean FPS instead of Hz"

 

It has no issue running it, but OP was asking about gaming at Ultra and High in modern games. By switching from 2560x1440 to 3440x1440 OP will lose 20+ AVG FPS in modern games.

And if you're already achieving 120+ FPS, what's the problem?

[TidaLWaveZ]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

And if you're already achieving 120+ FPS, what's the problem?

What kind of monster 1070 hits 120FPS Ultra/High settings at 1440p in modern games?

[BlackHoleFox]

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

What kind of monster 1070 hits 120FPS Ultra/High settings at 1440p in modern games?

Dunno. Im currently running a 1600x1200 used Dell panel so anything is better

[TidaLWaveZ]

58 minutes ago, BlackHoleFox said:

Dunno. Im currently running a 1600x1200 used Dell panel so anything is better

I just think the 3440 is a bad idea.

 

2560x1440 is more than enough for the 1070, you're not often gonna be breaking 100FPS in modern titles on ultra/high and performance will be worse at 3440x1440. The 1070 at 2560x1440 sits between 60-90FPS in modern games if you look at benches you'll see that the difference between 2560 and 3440 is around 20FPS or more in popular modern games.

https://techgage.com/article/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-a-look-at-1440p-4k-ultra-wide-gaming/2/