Torn between 4K and 1440

[SpyderTracks]

I dont want to make this an argument, but...

Guy stated his monitor was "34” ultra wide at 144hz"
You said in answer to that post "You may as well just get a 3070 then, you're not going to use the 3080."

To be able to utilize that monitor, 3080 is better much match in my opinion.
You can check ultrawide 1440p benchmarks from the net. Most new "top games" wont hit close to that 144hz, some are already around 60fps.
Games will get more demanding. DLSS wont change that, though it will mitigate some negate impact from ray tracing.

Its a personal choice. My recommendation is 3080 for 1440p+ high fps gaming.

Links or it didn't happen, and unless they include DLSS they're not valid.

DLSS and Ray Tracing are exclusive. DLSS doesn't have to have ray tracing enabled and vice versa. DLSS doubles performance at 4k in a lot of titles. I'll await your links and then post mine.

 

[ubuysa]

 

[blueflake]

Links or it didn't happen, and unless they include DLSS they're not valid.

DLSS and Ray Tracing are exclusive. DLSS doesn't have to have ray tracing enabled and vice versa. DLSS doubles performance at 4k in a lot of titles. I'll await your links and then post mine.

Why would they not be valid unless they include DLSS? Some games support DLSS/raytracing, some dont. Some people want them on, some dont. Ray tracing should be surely on then too... DLSS at what quality? I dont want to go there. We are going nitpicking.

I happen to play Warzone ultra wide, and 3080 cant hit 144hz without lowering settings, let alone 165 hz my monitor supports. I can fully utilize 3080, but not my monitor.

Couple links for your study:

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080: 3440×1440 ultrawide benchmarks

Nvidia's GeForce RTX 3080 may be built for 4K, but our benchmarks show it's (almost) just as ferocious on a 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor.

www.pcworld.com

 

[SpyderTracks]

Why would they not be valid unless they include DLSS? Some games support DLSS/raytracing, some dont. Some people want them on, some dont. Ray tracing should be surely on then too... DLSS at what quality? I dont want to go there. We are going nitpicking.

I happen to play Warzone ultra wide, and 3080 cant hit 144hz without lowering settings, let alone 165 hz my monitor supports. I can fully utilize 3080, but not my monitor.

Couple links for your study:

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080: 3440×1440 ultrawide benchmarks

Nvidia's GeForce RTX 3080 may be built for 4K, but our benchmarks show it's (almost) just as ferocious on a 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor.

www.pcworld.com

So the PCWorld benchmarks state this at the very beginning:

"Each game is tested using its in-game benchmark at the highest possible graphics presets unless otherwise noted, with VSync, frame rate caps, real-time ray tracing or DLSS effects, and FreeSync/G-Sync disabled, along with any other vendor-specific technologies like FidelityFX. We’ve also enabled temporal anti-aliasing (TAA) to push these cards to their limits when it’s available."

So it's purposefully run at native which is redundant on the 3080. Those settings do not equate to how gamers would set it for optimum performance at highest settings.

The YouTube link was with RayTracing at full but no DLSS and all the games benchmarked supported it, so again, it's not a valid result on how gamers would set it. It's gonna be around half the potential framerate that the card can achieve.

And the older games that don't support DLSS would be flying well over 144Hz anyway on a 1440 ultrawide.

Games like Control or RDR are not supposed to be run with full settings, control is literally a benchmark game like Crysis was where it's just to show what may be possible in the future, it will be years before that can be played at full settings properly. RDR also, Hairworks would instantly be turned off by any gamer as it sucks so much resource for very little return, amongst other settings.

Even if you're factoring in games upcoming in the next few years, a 1440 Ultawide is going to bottleneck most games, and that's the point, you don't want the screen to bottleneck the card, you've got nowhere left with it, the next GPU upgrade, you'll need a new screen as well, so you've got a very short lifespan on a already outdated screen, and a very big layout cost wise on your next GPU upgrade, just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[blueflake]

I think we have to agree to disagree.
In my real world use I am bottlenecked by 3080 instead of my monitor. I want to keep my Warzone fluid.
Its nice if you are willing to settle for less fps or start lowering settings... you will save some money.

 

[SpyderTracks]

I think we have to agree to disagree.
In my real world use I am bottlenecked by 3080 instead of my monitor. I want to keep my Warzone fluid.
Its nice if you are willing to settle for less fps or start lowering settings... you will save some money.

Warzone is just a badly optimised game, that's nothing to do with the 3080, that's bad coding on the game and down to developers. You have to adjust settings on any card in existence to get it running smoothly, that's expected and any gamer knows that.

Badly Optimized PC Games - Complete List

A comprehensive PC games list of the worst offenders for poor game optimization today. Find out which games you should avoid due to bad hardware performance.

www.game-debate.com

Best Call of Duty Warzone settings for max fps

Want to dominate the competition in Warzone? Here are the best PC settings for performance in the Call of Duty battle royale

www.pcgamesn.com