You have a killer setup and I would agree that 3440x1440 is kind of the sweet spot resolution right now where almost no card is too powerful for the resolution, but a lot of cards can still work very well at that resolution. And it has some damn fine monitors available, whose prices aren't too outrageous.
I'm currently using a 27inch 1440p monitor, I'm giving serious consideration into getting a ultrawide Monitor. its a bit annoying as not all games support the 3440 resolution but there is usually a workaround. Question: could you ever go back to a 16:9 monitor after using a 21:9 ultrawide for so long?
@@Lennox032 Personally I'm not interested in going back. For a brief time there i was eyeballing one of those 42" LG tvs but then the AW3423DW OLED came out and I lost all interest in them.
@@Lennox032 I switched my main monitor LG 27" IPS 1440p 180hz to LG 34" IPS ultrawide 160hz about half a year ago, I would never go back. Having that extra space is simply amazing. Very minor downsides are cutscenes being 16:9 in games and most youtube content is 16:9 but there are extensions where you can toggle the aspect ratio / crop the video.
Thanks, I do beleive the ultrawide comunity will continue to grow it seems 9/10 ultrawide users never go back to standard wide monitors. And with so many new sizes, resolutions and price points in the ultrawide ecosystem will keep it going .
Once you go ultrawide you can never go back ......... For the first time I can play First Person without feeling like I have horse blinders on wrecking my peripheral vision and Third Person games feel even more cinematic than ever .... The larger problem is the idiot game developers that never do their cutscenes in ultrawide meaning I usually have to go into the game's EXE with a Hex Editor and hack it so the cutscenes are ultrawide too .... Sure it's simple enough to do but that's all the more reason it's stupid that the game developers don't do with with a few simple lines of code.
Thanks a lot for this video. I am currently investigating buying a new graphics card for my 3440x1440 screen, but most fps examples I find for 1440 and this helps to understand where I would roughly end up. Initially I was doing the same mistake, by multiplying the fps with a factor based on the resolution quotes.
I have both individual and head to head videos for all the graphics cards for the resolution you're interested in. They cover off both averages and 1% low performance as well as show DLSS and FSR performance for ray tracing.
Ya doubling your resolution like that will definitely give you a hard time in cyberpunk. it really hurts you for every pixel added especially when ray tracing.
Brilliant video. I played FF14 at 1080p with an FX-8350 / R9-290, then at 2560x1080 upgrading to a 980Ti, then at 3440x1440 with a 6850K / 980Ti x 2, then a 1080Ti followed by a 2080Ti, followed by a 3900X / 2080Ti, and then at 4K, first on a 13700K / 6800XT and now a 7900XTX. As one might imagine, each upgrade in CPU yielded FPS gains, and each upgrade in GPU allowed me to use higher settings and higher resolutions. But how much I would gain each time I upgraded was never predictable. This helps explain why.
What I have observed trough numerous reviews online trough the last few years, you need approx. 73FPS at 1440p to have 60FPS in 1440p UW. Interestingly enough, that is almost exactly reflecting your findings :D
Thanks for the video! I was wondering between the msi 271QRX vs 341CQP, specifically around how bad the performance would be. You made a great point that the extra pixels on the sides are not seeing much action, so it actually doesn't need that much GPU!
Very informative, i noticed this while playing Star citizen in 3840x1600, and while using all 3 of my screens for a 6000x1600 resolution, i saw only a small drop in frames, 6800xt and 5900x 32gb ram. Unfortunately the screens on the side are not freesync so i get some tearing and not full screen on them because of their resolution.
I'll be doing a 4k vs super ultrawide video next and I'm very currious if ill get a lower margin than the 12.5% resolution scale as you would expect when just scaling up or if the nature of the super ultrawide showing a 50% different sceen will make it actuly scale better than the 12.5% like you were seeing using a multimonitor display.
When i upgraded to a 1440p ultrawide, my 1070 was having a hard time driving total war warhammer series. Had to upgrade to a 2080ti to get a decent framerate. x70 series cards would be the bare minimum for getting good fps on UW1440P tho id recommend x80. Great content, i subscribed
Thanks for the sub. Yeah, the 4070 series at that resolution is providing you with good performance today but likely not so good performance in a few years. Where is the 4080 will give you amazing performance now and good performance in a couple years.
What a helpful video! I'm actually planning to buy another monitor and I'm considering WQHD, so this comparison was very useful for me. Thanks to the author for their effort.
@@ultrawidetechchannel One more question, is it possible to consider the power consumption of those cards for future videos like this? This way we can compare which resolution is more energy efficient or to have more data to compare in addition to the fps. Thanks again for all your work and dedication, you really are the only RU-vid channel creating content like this
@@lucashernandez922 I don't really have the equipment to properly collect that data and on the tiny bit of money I'm getting from RU-vid I’m not going to be able to invest in it for a while. Eventually I would love to be able to test everything but that is still a while down the road.
Thank you, this is very helpful! I myself has just upgraded to 4080 super and was seriously considering 4090. However, after trying out 4080s on my ultrawide AW3423dw I'm really happy I didn't pay extra for 4090 - everything runs great on perfect FPS and high graphics settings
@@yasink1995 i really like my OLED AW3423dw, so never thought of replacing it with a 4k screen. Plus a 4k oled would cost extra money and it will hit my fps
This video makes me hesitating between OLED 3440x1440p and 4K a lot …. If my performance will decrease by switching on ultrawide( even a little) would it be smarter to move to 4K 32’ for sharper and crisp image ? Nice video btw 😊
I'm not quite clear on what your saying, but 4K (3840x2160) would be significantly harder to drive than Ultrawide (3440x1440). In game the sharpness advantage of 4K will be less noticable than the frame rate drop will be, but on the desktop and in other apps the the sharpness advantage will be clearly noticable.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TESTS !!! Everyone been telling me that 3440x1440 makes no sense without top-tier GPU but after your vid I've decided to go for ultrawide. Picked IIyama VA panel since it have nearly no ghosting (I hate IPS glow) and paired it with 7900 GRE (Undervolted, underclocked, 45-55*C at 100% usage) Every game runs super smoothly, with at least 100 FPS ^^
I just got a 4070Super from 1080Ti, planning to get alienware aw3423dwf, seen some testing where certain games(alan wake 2 for example) were reaching towards 12Gb VRAM, should I be worried about VRAM?
12 GB should be fine for that resolution for everything except path tracing in Cyberpunk and Alan wake 2. Regular ultra ray tracing especially with DLSS on which you will definitely be using will still stay within your memory budget.
I'm on two ultrawide's, an Oled and IPS plus a third 24" IPS. My 3080ti handles the games I play just fine with max settings and ray tracing, but latest games I've played are RE4 remake and RE Village. Been meaning to replay Elden Ring and start Cyberpunk, maybe I'll notice it more then.
Well said, using the math in your video as well as the one tier above your own typical 1440p GPU of choice is a good decision maker. No need to overspend on some cards unless raytracing or other features are of importance, because from pure rasterization performance or even with some upscaling you could easily get 100+ in a lot of these titles. But would you still recommend the 7800XT though for 1440p ultrawide if you're going off by purely rasterization performance/FSR without raytracing and high/optimised settings instead of ultra? Or is it worth to spend the extra for the 7900XT in the long run? I still haven't seen many 7800XT ultrawide benchmarks out there despite it being months now since the cards release.
Sadly, I don't have the 7800XT so I can't say definitively but personally I would like to have the extra power of the 7900XT for the ultrawide resolution just so I know that high refresh rates are almost always going to be on the table if I feel like the game will really benefit from it. At standard 1440p i think the 7800XT would satisfy but for the ultrawide I would still want the 7900XT the same way that I recommend the 4070Ti over the 4070 at this resolution.
What would have greater longevity for ultrawide 4070 super 12GB or 4060ti 16GB. Seeing how 8GB really punishes the 2080, I have to wonder. It makes me procrastinate to the point I would rather wait for 5070 and hope it has 16GB.
regular rtx 4070 NON super...would still be stronger than a 4060 ti 16gb...so anything above 4070...super or ti is always going to be better...the 12gb vram is a non issue in games. theres maybe a handfull of games that can go over the 12 gb in 1440p in that case, just dont play on ultra and set it to very high textures and or use medium raytracing instead of high...problem solved easily but these yappers on youtube love to cry about vram while not owning even a good card themselfs. for 4K however yeah 16gb is better for future 5070 i believe all rumors are going to be 12 gb as well, could be wrong tho, own a 4070 ti myself...have no issues gaming unless you actually seek to play troubled games that need more than 12gb and want ultra settings at all cost
I run 2560x1080p 21.9 Ultrawide and THAT is the sweet spot between 1080p and 1440p . I have an i7 9700k , Asus rog strix 3070ti oc ( + the NVidia app oc ) and 32 gb of ddr4 3200mhz ram .
Thank you very much for this review that no one ever seem to have domne or didn't care about.. Never are there any game reviews using ultrawide screens. Been using 2 ultra wide 3440x1440 now for many years.., (60 Hz Samsung se790c for 8 years and 144 Hz AOC CU34G2X for 4 years) and I love them to bits. I always had a feeling I got better framerates than extrapolated from the 34½% performance drop claimed. My games ran faster than i expected based on game reviews with my graphics cards. glad to see it was not just wisful thinking on my side Very happy with the present gaming screen. However I would like to have a 3840x 2160 screen beside it for office and the few games that look better with non ultrawide screen. Hate it I can't really play skyrim on ultrawide screen.. and for that a 32 " 4K ish screen would be awesome .
Thanks, I do have some game review but its hard and expensive to keep up with game releases as I don't get any press codes or anything like that. I to try to tackle all the big releases that hit PC GamePass on day one though.
I went to 34” a couple years ago but accidentally broke my monitor so had to go back to 27” for a whole, I hated it after trying ultrawide so now i’m back with a 34” monitor lol but finding benchmarks for it isn’t the easiest.
I've been gaming on Ultrawide since 2019. I'm currently using an Alienware AW3821DW that I bought in the beginning of 2022. It can be irritating that I still have to do a hex edit or some other modification for some games, but it is what it is.
Luckily most games i've played I've found a way to even edit the cut scenes to display in ultrawide. Pre-renderered scenes are a different story though. @@ultrawidetechchannel
I Just whipped out my old 1070FE card because Ive been wanting to build a portable mini ITX build with it, I ran it at 2560x1080 and that thing slaps!! It even did about as good as my 5700xt in 3440x1440!! Frakkin crazy! Now Im wondering why I even uprgraded 4 years ago in the first place lol
just got the new alienware oled ultrawide absolute beast although on certain setting i get headaches so had to do some tinkering , last ultrawide i had was the 2015 asus pg349q they have come a long way!
I have a 3440x1440 and thinking about upgrading to 5120x1440 for sim racing ... I know my 3060 will struggle so I hope 5000 series gpus will have affordable options that can work.
Not only will it struggle from a pure performance perspective, it's low Vram will cause it to have unrectifiable issues even at the lowest settings in several new games
I think the most important part here which sure isn't obvious to many, if you are going ultra wide just be sure to have a gpu with more than 8gb of vram. Most games suck up 8/10 gb of vram already. Be more future proof and go with 12/16etc
Any way you could get your hands on a 2080TI and run it like 2080 just to see how much of a performance difference it would be if it had more VRAM? As a 2080 owner that moved from 1440p 16:9 to 1440p 21:9 a few months back, the 8GB really aged the card, performance wise. It may not have be a 30% performance reduction, but it sure felt like one! Now I have a 4080S on the way, and seeing an over 100% performance increase it makes spending all that money feel a little bit better. 😅
I don't know anybody who has one and the cost of acquiring one will definitely not pay for itself with the content I can make from it. Right now the 2080 is a good standing for the 4060 and any other 8 gigabyte card that you might be considering. You will be delighted to no end by the performance improvement you're getting with the 4080 super.
While I don't have any hands on experience for a true budget monitor, the KOORUI 34 Inch Ultrawide 165HZ amzn.to/3Pl2I2M is getting some good press on several outlets and has a pretty satisfied amazon user score. It’s not IPS it’s using what I think is one of Samsung’s fast VA screens but those are very good panels. Here is a little bit more expensive LG option amzn.to/3veCNCP again haven’t used it myself but have had good experiences with my LG monitor and TVs and here is the Samsung G5 amzn.to/48TR1qt the quintessential midrange ultrawide.
I'm using a 3080 10GB on a 3440x1440 monitor. It's a decent set up. There are some games where I feel like I could do with a GPU upgrade at that resolution. My monitor also has up to 180hz, and the fact that I can't reach anywhere near that framerate makes me feel like I'm not maximising my display's full potential. I've considered the 4080 Super, but I really can't tell if it's worth it or not for me.
What I'd really love to know is how much the two side monitors I have next to my center 3440x1440p screen are hurting my gaming performance. I have a 27" 3840x2160p 60Hz monitor on the left, my center 35" 3440x1440p 100Hz screen in the middle and a 27" 2560x1440p (60Hz) on the right. I usually only have STEAM and Discord running on the side monitors so nothing that should be using a lot of GPU horsepower but still, would be interesting to know if I'm losing noticeable performance by having those side monitors on while gaming.
Depends on the game and if you are willing to use DLSS or FSR upscaling and frame gen. If you can get to about 90fps with upscaling then frame gen can take you the resto of the way to your monitors max refresh rate.
If you just set the internal game resolution, while in full screen mode, to whatever resolution you want your recording to be, then it will record it at that resolution even if in the game it shows the screen all stretched out. The recording should be in standard 16:9
If I understand this video correctly, my current RX 6700xt will not be able to properly drive a 1440p ultra wide monitor I currently use a 1080p 24 inch monitor and I am looking to get a better monitor.
Hopefully you respond before tomorrow. But I'm going to Micro Center tomorrow to build my pc. And I'm having a hard time choosing between a 4070 TI SUPER or a 4080 Super. I don't want to get a a 4080 Super if I can be fine with with 4070 TI SUPER. It would save me about 200 bucks.
If you don't mind using DLSS here and there the 4070 ti can provide a great play experience at 3440x1440. All my testing I do at max or Ultra settings, which often are not worth the performance hit over High. I don't think there is a game you wont be able to hit 60 on when using DLSS. (using path tracing doesnt count)
Most games from that era should be fine but things like the Witcher 3 which have had graphics upgrades since will not be able to be maxed. And ray tracing is not viable on that card.
Once GPUs are powerful enough, I think the 5K by 2K ultrawides are going to become the new high watermark. As it will allow larger size monitors without compromising clarity.
@@ultrawidetechchannel In my honest opinion, driving the 5K2K screens with great performance(90+ fps for me) will get really annoying really fast. I'm praying for a 38" 3840x1600 OLED 240hz+, literally perfect endgame monitor in my eyes. That, or a 38" 4320x1800(way better PPI and clarity but still less pixels to drive than 4K) 1800p is the long lost, missing stop-gap between 1440p and 4K.
@@epiccontrolzx2291 the sad thing is I don't think that panel is ever coming. the 1600p ultrawide seems to be a forgotten size. Now you're either seeing 3440x1440 at larger sizes or it just jumping up to 5120x2160.
@@ultrawidetechchannel it's a shame for sure, I'll probably have to just bite the bullet with a UW 2160p and use upscaling or resolution scaling to claw back decent performance. Do you have any insight as to how 1600p or 1800p content looks on a 2160p screen?
That's bechause the games never are made for ultrawide, or even super ultrawide 32:9. The image is stretched more and more the wider the screen, and your performance is mostly affected by going from 1080p to 1440p. That's why my 3070ti could still run most games with 90+ fps on my 5120x1440p monitor. It was struggeling in the newest titles tho, so i did upgrade to a 4070ti that i got for cheap and it is amazing.
Using 3440x1440 for years now. But it’s out of date now. I use DL-DSR 5160x2160 resolution with my 4090. Waiting already for a monitor with 5120x2160 with Atleast 120Hz from Asus.
so, ive got a 3440x1440p monitor paired with a 3070.. been seeing the limits of just 8gbs and not sure where to go from here, 4070TS/4080(S) or as much as i enjoy it, sell the monitor. Any Thoughts?
The 16GB on the 4070TiS and the 4080S will keep you safe at that resolution for quite a long while. Even if you were to go down to a 16:9 1440p monitor it wouldn't mean you would be safe with only 8GB of VRAM. Some newer games are still going to get you.
Actually it does scale fairly linearly with resolution. It's just not a pure 1:1 scaling, It's more like 0.9:1 versus the pixel count increase (which comes to about a 22% difference, down from 34%). Which is to be expected given that not ALL of the graphical work is granular, some of it has more vector-like properties. I wasn't seeing "half" of the projected performance drop as you say in summary. Ray tracing has more CPU involvement... which can somewhat skew graphics card comparisons. But for your purposes here, I don't think it would skew the effect you're trying to show. A big part of why you're not seeing a 1:1 linear decrease is that 1440p ultrawide is using regular 1440p textures (just in somewhat larger quantity). When you go from 1080 to 1440, or 1440 to 4k, you're dealing with a lot more detailed texture work. The ultrawide steps in resolution skip that, which saves some performance. But even full-rez jumps aren't quite 1:1 (but they can get pretty close to 1:1) I don't think it has much to do with what's displaying in the center versus the edges of the screen though. Unless you're in games with detailed players & enemies, but rather un-detailed settings (of which there are several popular titles, admittedly). In games with detailed settings, there's not going to be any benefit there though. Still, you're looking at 25-40% OF 34%... so a 1:1 guestimate is off by what? 8-13%? (in the ultimate FPS) ...not sure how often that's going to make a significant difference in video card choice. It's a bigger difference than an overclock, but it's not a huge difference. I dunno. Generally I advise against buying the bare minimum card for your needs... there's no bigger waste of money than getting a card which is "almost good enough". On the other hand, if you overshoot a bit, you have some insulation against obsolescence. So it's not really a waste unless you overshoot by a lot.
I don't think you can call it scaling linearly even at a lower ratio because the game to game variability can sometimes be pretty big. If it was linear at a lower ratio then most games would see a similar loss. The end average discounting the 2080 was 17.8% which is not quite half but not too far off, definitely closer to half than 75% so I'm ok with that fact that I said "about half". As for it being better to over shoot, well it depends where you are in the stack because if you over shot from a 4080/7900XTX to a 4090 because you though you needed 34.4% more performance rather than 20%/16% more than that is a $1000 over spend (at the moment) which is the cost of a nice OLED Ultrawide monitor these days.
@@ultrawidetechchannel Most "steps" in gpu tier are no more than $200. 4090 is a bad example as it's kind of in an ultra-tier of it's own. Personally, I've under-estimated gpu needs, and it was quite a waste of money to do so. Twice actually. Meanwhile I have also over-estimated gpu needs (1080 Ti), which at 1440p allowed me to skip 2 generations of gpu's (rather than the usual one generation), and it _more_ than paid for the up front premium on cost, while offering really 'above & beyond' performance early in it's 6 year use cycle. You can't know for certain how well a card will perform on your specific machine, particularly with software applications which haven't even been released yet ..."a bit of padding is good". For example, right now 8GB has problems in 1440p in numerous game titles. And it usually shows up in benchmarks. But some titles are starting to ask for more than 12GB. Not very many ...yet. But personally, I would lean strongly towards 16GB as a buffer against this game requirements trend. It seems like nvidia is leaning into ram limitations as a method of built-in obsolescence in their more mid-tier cards. You make a valid point. It's not a 34% difference. More like 20-28%. I think i was more distracted by the "barely enough is good" thinking. I just look at it differently. To me "barely enough" is "almost obsolete".
@@kathrynck Where you’re upgrading from in the stack does have a big effect on pain of the price jump. Before the 4080 Super the price jump from the Ti to the 4080 was pretty ugly at $400 a 50% increase in price. While the 7900XTX did help out for those looking for only a raster boost it did nothing for those looking to increase RT performance. All that said the true solution to the problem is better data, and I am doing my damndest to provide that for the Ultrawide Community. I might be far from perfect but as far as I can tell I’m the best the community has and trust me I have looked trying to find someone who was doing this so I could follow them and watch their reviews. But that person didn’t seem to exist, so I set out to rectify the problem myself. I’m doing what I can with the resources I have to help ultrawide users make better decisions.
you would be a bit faster than the 2080 in these graphs. If your were going to be going ultrawide you would be looking at a High/Medium settings experience rather than ultra with ray tracing.
for my situation with the 5800X3D the only GPU that is really CPU bottlenecked is the 4090 with the 7900XTX sometimes hitting it. What racing games are you seeing those bottle necks on?
Your test results of the rtx 2080 are off on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I know for a fact, with everything maxed out (higher than the highest preset) at 2560x1440 with ultra rt enabled, the 2080 can get around 70 fps in the benchmark with a 5600X cpu. Not sure why yours is showing only 40 fps with rt on. The 8GB vram on the 2080 does not cause a problem in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, so it's not that. I'm starting to think your 2080 may be defective.
I'm pretty sure you have DLSS on. I played the whole game on my 2080 with a healthy overclock (I was in the top end of 2080's in 3DMark comparisons) and I couldn't get out of the low 40s with RT on. Even with DLSS1 which was pretty bad looking compared to what it is now, I couldn't achieve a flat 60fps. Eventually I just gave up on the RT and enjoyed the great looking native raster visuals at over 60fps. At 2560x1440p the performance is not memory limited, only at higher resolutions.
i am using an AW3418dw 3440x1440 120hz Ultrawide and i am thinking going to 32" 2560x1440 240hz ... Do u think worth it ? Is it worst ? Will i notice the Lower resolution of 2560x1440? Thank u
In game the DPI probably won't be a big issue but outside of game you're really going to notice it. I'm guessing price is the reason you don't want to go 240hz 3440x1440p ultrawide?
@@ultrawidetechchannel Is there any 3440*1440 IPS panel at 240hz ? Unless if there is a VA panel with no ghosting. Or Oled panel with Antireflective coating with no ABL with a brightness over 300nits Fullscreen with no flicker on lower hz and between perfect black off pixels and gray , and last no shadow crash detail. If they fix all these I would go with Oled . My previous Oled after 2 years lost brightness also got stuck bright pixels and when they change panel under warranty it was way way more Bright. I know IPS has the worst blacks but at least they use Antireflective coating most of them and I can use them at Day.
@@ultrawidetechchannel Thanks for replying if there is any ultrawide IPS or VA with no ghosting and Antireflective coating can u tell me what models ? Asus pro art are these Amy good ?
@@Tripokaridos22 The closest non oled is the Philips Evania that is a VA 1ms monitor with 1000+ dimming zones. at 165hz For OLED there is ROG Swift OLED PG34WCDM don't know if it uses an ABL
Yes, I'm pretty sure the 4090 would see higher refresh rates if I had a 7800X3D but I'm not sure if the 7900XTX and 4080 would see a statistically significant increase. Sadly RU-vid doesn't pay me well enough to buy a 7800X3D and its accompanying motherboard and RAM because i sure would like to have one.
Am I the only one that thinks that these performance numbers are insane? I don’t mean anything by the author, but I just looked at a decent 1440p build with ultrawide and looking at these benchmarks a 7900gre is not gonna cut it for 60fps gaming. I’m talking 3400€ build. And what is going to happen with games 2 years down the line? I was almost about to buy that config(pcpartpickwr) but this benchmark has me go nope. I’ll wait next cpu and gpu gen. I can’t spent 3400€ for a pc that can barely do 1440p non ultrawide
Like I say in the video I have made these settings as punishing as possible to try and prevent any bottlenecking other than from the GPU, because I have previously found even on regular ultra settings some of my test games were not able to fully leverage the 4090 even at 3440x1440 ultrawide. So with going even lower resolution, I had to try to make sure that happened as little as possible. You can get much better frame rates than what are shown here for almost no visual downgrade and there are very few of the games I would play using these tested settings and I would classify myself as a pretty bad visuals snob.
@@ultrawidetechchannel yeah but a 7900xt barely makes the cut now i almost all the games (40fps) what's gonna happen in 3 years? i'm not gonna change computer every 3 years to keep up to play 1440p
These are raster scanned monitors so what really matters is the vertical resolution not the horizontal since the raster is scanned vertically. So the number of lines means more than the horizontal resolution of each line. And just for the record ALL video including Ray Tracing is rasterized by default because all monitors are raster scanned displays. Instead of saying AMD is better at rasterization it's more correct to say AMD is better at traditional graphics processing ...... Oh yeah, all frames are fake because it's a digital representation no matter what technology is used to derive the frame
I'm not sure why you think the way the monitor displays each frame on the screen would affect the performance difference between the two resolutions. As for the second part of your response I really feel like you’re commenting on the wrong video I never even said the word raster in this whole video, I checked the script, and your "oh yeah" is completely off topic from anything in the video.
In AAA story type games Ultrawide is a must have. I want to get Ultrawide but I also want 1440p screen also, GPUs are expensive too. What will be better 1080p Ultrawide or 1440p 16:9?
1440p ultrawides are not as expensive as they used to be you can get some high refresh rate ones as low as $250 and some recomended ones for like $350 1080p ultrawides are not really that much cheaper.
@@ultrawidetechchannel Sure but I was talking about more like having sharper display or ultrawide one. I can try go for 1440p ultra wide but I am afraid that i not only need to pay more for monitor also for GPU to drive it
@@iraklimgeladze5223 if the choice was only between 2560x1080 and 2560x1440 i'll take the 2560x1440 as im not sure the 1080p ultrawide would be large enough to have the same emersive effect as a 34" 3440x1440 ultrawide. For pure gaming a 34" 1080p ultrawide might be better than a 16:9 1440p monitor but not for working or web browsing.
While, I realized the FPS graphs aren't super distinct. They're not the important information that we are testing. All the important information is displayed in the bright colors.
Some of thess numbers are *way* off. The Horizon Zero Dawn was the first I double-checked. The 7900XTX at ultimate quality preset with no upscaling pushes out 118 fps at 4k, not 1440p. And that with me limiting the card to 350w so the case stays cool. At 2560x1440 Ultimate, it renders 232 fps. Might want to recheck those numbers.
Horizon Zero Dawn has been giving me problems on the AMD side for nearly half a year now, and i probably should remove it from the list unless there is some fix out there. about 8 moths or so ago the game got an update to an even higher graphich option and it started being super choppy when SAM was on but would run smooth but slower than it used to with it off. And now even with SAM on it seems the driver recognizes the game an just turns it off so it will run smooth but it is not getting as high a frame rate as the past. Even then i was only getting 138fps to the 105 i see now at 3440x1440.
Your CPU is faster than mine so this could just be a CPU overhead issue, though your results would be even faster than the 4090 when raytracing is on, and we are seeing pretty expected performance scaling on all cards in this game.
The XTX it can match the standard Ti in RT even in Cyberpunk and best it in most other games and the raster performance is just so much higher. Sure you have slightly worse upscaling tech but with the kind of performance the XTX can provide at 3440x1440 you don't need it in most cases. If it was between the Ti Super and the XT i would lean Ti super.
@@ultrawidetechchannel eh... from the benchmarks I have seen, that is not true. The 4070 ti is roughly 14.5% faster than the 7900xtx in RT at 1440p when looking at Cyberpunk 2077 only. When you add in the option for ray reconstruction, the 4070 ti is just the better option if using CP2077 as the metric to go by.
@@deuswulf6193 If you are only going to play cyberpunk and only use RT in cyberpunk then ya the 4070Ti edges it out and has a couple of nice extras, but in these benchmarks here I have 7 other games that use RT and the 7900XTX beats the 4070ti in all of them most not by much but a couple have it with a decent lead. With the most significant one being Fortnite where the XTX performs a fair bit faster and Lumin RT is likely to be quite common in future games. If you want RT power then the 4080 Super is the one to get at the $1000 price point if you can stll find any at that price.
@@ultrawidetechchannelI'm actually surprised at how well Unreal Engine's Lumen lighting system works with AMD GPUs, in games that is. Back when deciding between a 4090 and a 7900xtx, partially for game dev/3D work, one of the issues with the AMD was that it was chock full of issues when it came to lumen in the editor itself. Epic did a good job with Fortnite in terms of outright compatibility across the board. Unfortunately with rendering in say something like Blender, even a rtx 3060 can win out over the 7900xtx. Just goes to show that once you throw in productivity work, things get a bit weird. Anyways, I agree the 4080 super sits in the sweet spot as far as RT goes when comparing it to the 7900xtx. As far as MSRP goes, should'nt be too hard. One just has to buy from Nvidia, Asus, gigabyte...etc storefront directly. That's how I was able to get a 4090 for $1599. They don't upcharge there.
I've been using a 5120x1440 super ultra wide with my rtx 3080 and I feel like it seems the shit out of my card and it's over heating the monitor cables in the back amdy monitor black screens (not actual black screen). I down scaled to a 32" 1440 monitor hopen it fixed my issue. You have any insight?
Your 3080 is not strong enough for that ultra wide. You are basically playing games at higher resolution than 4K with that monitor. If you play on standard 1440p monitor you see huge boost in performance and lower heat dissipation.
0:17 Your head going up, down, left, right, up, down,... is noticeable. You've probably absorbed some presentation techniques here and there but you might try using them with more subtlety. (I don't get notifications)
Same, I love the ultrawide format. I will admit for a while there I was tempted by one of the 40-in C2s but then all the OLED ultrawides started coming out and that temptation evaporated.
since most games don't even need upper level cards this is a non issue, it may not scale linearly but going from 1k to 2k was not as bad as going to 4k and vram capacity seems to be a bigger issue with larger resolutions.
I think most people like to be prepared to have a good experience with that one AAA title that they have had their eye on all year and it is good to konw the real performance they could expect if they wanted to upgrade to Ultrawide to enjoy the game even more.
the hands down biggest issue for me has been if a new game will support 32:9, not all do. Starfield came out last sept and still does not support. i have 15 yr old games that support it no problem. I think you made a valuable video warning people not to assume. When i upgrade gpu i do a ton of research because i never want to buy the top card.
@@supergenius74 Ya 32:9 is still in a bit of an odd spot where support for all new games is still not there where it seems the 21:9 is supported completely for game play but still sometimes ignored for cut scenes.
Now I know for sure. I watch your videos and am a small you tuber. It was going well until about 9th January where I had 6 days of no subscribers until 14th jan. Since then you tube had done something to the algorithm to smash small you tubers. For your channel to have 109 views in 19 hours is bad .. should be more right >? They messed it up lol :(
Ya this one is under performing my norm but there are a few things going on that make it not the normal video. First is i haven't posted in a while due to vacations and then life being crazy after said vacation, and second, I'm trying some advice from one of the get better at RU-vid channels and unchecked push this video to my subscribers since this is really for a person who is new to or thinking about getting into Ultrawide not a veteran ultrawide user like my subscribers likely are. This video does have one of my best ever click through rates but one of my lowest ever impressions for the time period.
Ahh i see. Hope you had a great vacation! I have also noticed that my impressions are much less in general but the click through has become higher too. Its as if the algorithm is showing our videos to the people that want the information we are releasing but not to as many people in general and overall as it used to. Basically to our targeted audience. So in theory likes and subscriptions should hold up if the content is such as yours as its useful and informative. I could be wrong though. Who knows when it comes to you tube and its algorithms lol .. Thanks for the info and good luck until the next time :D:D:D
@@magashisgaming8462 Yeah, RU-vid often never seems to make sense. Though it seems this video has started to be shared with a broader audience now, it was just on a delay.
I realize there's a lot going on in each line, but the information that you need to pay attention to really is the bright colorful information. All the stuff in white and gray is backdrop information that if you want to dig deeper, you can pay attention to.
I have plenty of benchmarks comparing the ultrawide to super ultrawide, but I will be doing an upcoming video comparing the super ultrawide to 4K performance.
@ultrawidetechchannel I appreciate the video. I watched a few and cancelled my monitor I ordered. I'll just get one once I get a 5k card down the road. I don't really wanna go from 3 to 4 series lol.
There's a couple of reasons why I didn't use DLSS FSR or XeSS. The first is I feel if you're going to be comparing two resolutions you should actually test those resolutions and not a reduction of those resolutions. The second is while I have a very fast CPU, I do not have the absolute fastest and using any kind of upscaling, would put more of the performance limitations onto the CPU which wouldn't be representative of what someone that has the absolutely best available CPU right now could get or expect.
games ain't cheap. So i work with what I have access to. RU-vid barely makes me anything for a small gaming related creator. Also the most popular games are multiplayer online only which makes them near impossible to reliably benchmark.
