Best GPU options for 3440x1440?

[Furious_Styles]

Posted this in another thread as well. I run 7680x1440 across 3x 32" 144Hz. monitors.

I personally have been on the fence about this for several weeks now, and just pulled the trigger on a 4080FE to replace my 2070S. Yes, I probably spent more than I should have, even though I got it at the "list" price of $1,200. However, given where TSMC is located and the fact that China is increasing the pressure on them big time, I didn't want to chance things escalating before I made my decision. If China invades, prices are going to go WAY up.

Well I better hurry up and buy before the war starts!

 

[DKrebo87]

Posted this in another thread as well. I run 7680x1440 across 3x 32" 144Hz. monitors.

I personally have been on the fence about this for several weeks now, and just pulled the trigger on a 4080FE to replace my 2070S. Yes, I probably spent more than I should have, even though I got it at the "list" price of $1,200. However, given where TSMC is located and the fact that China is increasing the pressure on them big time, I didn't want to chance things escalating before I made my decision. If China invades, prices are going to go WAY up.

I’m sure it’s gonna be sweet, def a big upgrade from the 2070S. I wish they made a FE for the 4070 Ti, I went with the ASUS TUF model as it was MSRP and has really good reviews overall. Are you running triple monitors?

If China invaded Taiwan we’ll have more to worry about than the price of our GPU’s…I highly doubt it will happen within the next couple of years but it’s possible. China and the U.S. are so reliant on one another economically, I personally think most of it is just fear mongering.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I didn't read all replies in this thread, but with your budget I'd probably consider either a 6950XT or a 7900XT. The 7900XT had a starting price of $800, but there are models that have gone down by at least $50. The newer tech on the XT makes it compete much more directly in features like RT (though admittedly AMD is a bit behind here). And I think offers much better value for money in general vs cards like the 4070Ti or 4070.

I'd do the 6950XT if you absolutely cannot spend over $700, especially over the 4070 which is $600 (or the 4070Ti which is $800+ anyway - though is a better card admittedly, just has poor price to performance). The 6950XT is just a better card in most games and doesn't requires DLSS to get there. Neither of these cards are exactly RT powerhouses, but will be able to do it in some form of "balanced" settings.

If used is an option, then I would look into a 3090 (non Ti) or a 3080Ti where your money would go further. Downsides there is no DLSS 3, but frankly getting more real frames > frame generation. Especially if you're sensitive to input lag.

 

[DKrebo87]

I didn't read all replies in this thread, but with your budget I'd probably consider either a 6950XT or a 7900XT. The 7900XT had a starting price of $800, but there are models that have gone down by at least $50. The newer tech on the XT makes it compete much more directly in features like RT (though admittedly AMD is a bit behind here). And I think offers much better value for money in general vs cards like the 4070Ti or 4070.

I'd do the 6950XT if you absolutely cannot spend over $700, especially over the 4070 which is $600 (or the 4070Ti which is $800+ anyway - though is a better card admittedly, just has poor price to performance). The 6950XT is just a better card in most games and doesn't requires DLSS to get there. Neither of these cards are exactly RT powerhouses, but will be able to do it in some form of "balanced" settings.

If used is an option, then I would look into a 3090 (non Ti) or a 3080Ti where your money would go further. Downsides there is no DLSS 3, but frankly getting more real frames > frame generation. Especially if you're sensitive to input lag.

I’m a sucker for Nvidia’s GPUs I’m gonna be honest, mostly for their advanced features and efficiency overall, the 7900 XT is still a great card I’m sure of it. I think the VRAM issue is getting blown out of proportion and I just feel a lot more comfortable spending that kind of money on Nvidia personally. It’s just a matter of preference, I would prob be just as happy with the 7900 XT, maybe even more so, Nvidia’s reliability hasn’t let me down yet so I don’t have a reason to really bail on them as of yet (I’ve never owned an AMD GPU). I personally value DLSS 3 and GPU efficiency over the small differences in rasterization and VRAM which likely won’t affect me by the time I want a new GPU in ~3 years, at my resolution anyway.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I’m a sucker for Nvidia’s GPUs I’m gonna be honest, mostly for their advanced features and efficiency overall, the 7900 XT is still a great card I’m sure of it. I think the VRAM issue is getting blown out of proportion and I just feel a lot more comfortable spending that kind of money on Nvidia personally.

If you have $1700 to spend, buy a 4090. There is nothing like it. But for every price bracket below that nVidia just offers poor price to performance this gen. If you want to spend more for less, that's up to you. But when strictly speaking you have a budget, I think there is value in getting the best your budget can get you. Regardless of the alternatives.

As for the vRAM issue, it's not being overblown. Both Hardware Unboxed and GamersNexus went to great pains to show nVidia 8GB cards hitting the wall in 1440p/Ultra. It's only going to become a bigger issue as time goes on. It has definitely made the 3070 and Ti a pretty poor value proposition when after a single generation an otherwise capable card can't keep up due to nVidia being cheap with vRam. 12GB will likely still be okay for 1440p for a few years. However as games want to use more high resolution textures it's going to creep into 12GB long before it does 16GB or 20GB for that matter. That is indisputable.

If you can "simply afford to upgrade" immediately after a game hits that wall, then there's "no problem". But again, if you're restricted to a budget in the first place, I'd imagine you wouldn't want to replace this card after two years if you can.

It’s just a matter of preference, I would prob be just as happy with the 7900 XT, maybe even more so, Nvidia’s reliability hasn’t let me down yet so I don’t have a reason to really bail on them as of yet (I’ve never owned an AMD GPU). I personally value DLSS 3 and GPU efficiency over the small differences in rasterization and VRAM which likely won’t affect me by the time I want a new GPU in ~3 years, at my resolution anyway.

If it must be nVidia, and you're okay with used, I'd just buy a higher end Ampere card. The 3090 is punching way above its weight for what most people want or need a card to do. Especially in 1440p.
The 4070 I think is simply a bad deal in terms of cost to performance. And contrary to your position I think you'll start to hit a vRAM problem in a lot of games once Unreal 5 engine games become more prevalent and all of the features of Unreal 5 (nanite, lumen, RT, etc) combined with large textures all come knocking.

If you're good with spending more for a card that doesn't perform as well but saves you power while gaming, then that's a thing. While I think it matters to all of us, it's definitely not a metric that I would prioritize, though all else being equal of course take the card that's more efficient. All else is not equal here though.

You're welcome to disagree, and for the most part you have. But you asked how other people would spend the money and for suggestions. So there they are.

 

[FlawleZ]

Since the premise of discussion here is based on the 3440x1440 resolution, a good friend asked me recently if he could pick 1 upgrade which would be more meaningful for his system. He currently runs a 3900X + 2080Ti. I feel those 2 are fairly well matched but I was leaning towards a 5800X3D recommendation simply due to the cost to performance ratio for the AM4 platform. But maybe he would benefit more still from a GPU upgrade? He's primarily playing the new COD and I know he's going to do Diablo IV when it releases.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Since the premise of discussion here is based on the 3440x1440 resolution, a good friend asked me recently if he could pick 1 upgrade which would be more meaningful for his system. He currently runs a 3900X + 2080Ti. I feel those 2 are fairly well matched but I was leaning towards a 5800X3D recommendation simply due to the cost to performance ratio for the AM4 platform. But maybe he would benefit more still from a GPU upgrade? He's primarily playing the new COD and I know he's going to do Diablo IV when it releases.

He's honestly "okay" where he is right now, unless he's unhappy with the current graphics settings that he can select in games. I don't really even think he needs to upgrade his CPU either, unless he wants to because it's fun. But the ROI there isn't high. Though the 3900x is "old" it's still moving pretty quick.

D4 will be able to run on anything. I used a friends computer that contained an RX6750, and it pegged it at 120fps (vsync) in 1080p. That's lower than 21:9 1440p, but I say that to say even in beta with a not crazy high end card it kept it pegged. D4 is supposed to get RT later, likely some amount of rays/shadows, hopefully RT GI. So, that will likely be more taxing though I more or less guarantee that it will be fairly well optimized. The RX6750 is roughly 20% faster than the 2080Ti in raster.

CoD, I can't speak as much to, but like I say, I wouldn't upgrade anything if he's able to hit his frame rate targets. The 2080 Ti should be able to hit 60fps in ultra settings at 21:9 1440p. With likely around 40fps lows.

 

[FlawleZ]

He's honestly "okay" where he is right now, unless he's unhappy with the current graphics settings that he can select in games. I don't really even think he needs to upgrade his CPU either, unless he wants to because it's fun. But the ROI there isn't high. Though the 3900x is "old" it's still moving pretty quick.

D4 will be able to run on anything. I used a friends computer that contained an RX6750, and it pegged it at 120fps (vsync) in 1080p. That's lower than 21:9 1440p, but I say that to say even in beta with a not crazy high end card it kept it pegged. D4 is supposed to get RT later, likely some amount of rays/shadows, hopefully RT GI. So, that will likely be more taxing though I more or less guarantee that it will be fairly well optimized. The RX6750 is roughly 20% faster than the 2080Ti in raster.

CoD, I can't speak as much to, but like I say, I wouldn't upgrade anything if he's able to hit his frame rate targets. The 2080 Ti should be able to hit 60fps in ultra settings at 21:9 1440p. With likely around 40fps lows.

He does run a higher refresh monitor, I think a 144hz I'll have to double check. So his goal is to achieve that framerate at that resolution.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

He does run a higher refresh monitor, I think a 144hz I'll have to double check. So his goal is to achieve that framerate at that resolution.

Well in that case, graphics card all the way. Looking at that chart, he'd need no less than a 6950 XT to get close to that frame rate in 21:9 1440p. More if he wants to be comfortable. In that title, AMD is favored here; the RX6950 XT is faster than the 3090 Ti. So if not the 6950 XT then 7900 XT/X if your friend wants to "ensure" that his lows are as close to 144hz as possible.

I'd say graphics card first. And if he can also upgrade his CPU to help match his graphics card at that point to prevent any limitations on higher frame rates, then do that too. The 5800X3d in that case would make a lot of sense as an upgrade.

 

[DKrebo87]

If you have $1700 to spend, buy a 4090. There is nothing like it. But for every price bracket below that nVidia just offers poor price to performance this gen. If you want to spend more for less, that's up to you. But when strictly speaking you have a budget, I think there is value in getting the best your budget can get you. Regardless of the alternatives.

As for the vRAM issue, it's not being overblown. Both Hardware Unboxed and GamersNexus went to great pains to show nVidia 8GB cards hitting the wall in 1440p/Ultra. It's only going to become a bigger issue as time goes on. It has definitely made the 3070 and Ti a pretty poor value proposition when after a single generation an otherwise capable card can't keep up due to nVidia being cheap with vRam. 12GB will likely still be okay for 1440p for a few years. However as games want to use more high resolution textures it's going to creep into 12GB long before it does 16GB or 20GB for that matter. That is indisputable.

If you can "simply afford to upgrade" immediately after a game hits that wall, then there's "no problem". But again, if you're restricted to a budget in the first place, I'd imagine you wouldn't want to replace this card after two years if you can.

If it must be nVidia, and you're okay with used, I'd just buy a higher end Ampere card. The 3090 is punching way above its weight for what most people want or need a card to do. Especially in 1440p.
The 4070 I think is simply a bad deal in terms of cost to performance. And contrary to your position I think you'll start to hit a vRAM problem in a lot of games once Unreal 5 engine games become more prevalent and all of the features of Unreal 5 (nanite, lumen, RT, etc) combined with large textures all come knocking.

If you're good with spending more for a card that doesn't perform as well but saves you power while gaming, then that's a thing. While I think it matters to all of us, it's definitely not a metric that I would prioritize, though all else being equal of course take the card that's more efficient. All else is not equal here though.

You're welcome to disagree, and for the most part you have. But you asked how other people would spend the money and for suggestions. So there they are.

I decided to take the dive on the 4070 Ti, I just prefer Nvidia personally and feel more comfortable buying new. I read that DLSS 3 will be built into UE5 and Unity engines, so I feel good about the choice. If VRAM does become an issue I can always sell and purchase something else, I don’t see that happening too soon though. Should be ready for pick-up next week, ended up getting the ASUS TUF model for MSRP (799), I would’ve liked a FE but oh well. I also grabbed a Corsair PCIE to 16 pin connector as I don’t want to use the adapter (too many connections).

 

[pavel]

I decided to take the dive on the 4070 Ti, I just prefer Nvidia personally and feel more comfortable buying new. I read that DLSS 3 will be built into UE5 and Unity engines, so I feel good about the choice. If VRAM does become an issue I can always sell and purchase something else, I don’t see that happening too soon though. Should be ready for pick-up next week, ended up getting the ASUS TUF model, I would’ve liked a FE but oh well.

I think raytracing on it might not be that great (also, depends on the game) - there's enough videos though that test that so just check 4070 Ti reviews on youtube until you find one that looks at that. RT seems to be really meh, too, though - you really need a powerful card - since the fps takes such a nosedive when using it.
I like the 7900 XT as a better overall card - at least, for gaming - but, I understand choosing nvidia over amd - especially, if you do Compute and video editing. But, the 4080 looks a much better card albeit at a much higher price.

 

[DKrebo87]

I think raytracing on it might not be that great (also, depends on the game) - there's enough videos though that test that so just check 4070 Ti reviews on youtube until you find one that looks at that. RT seems to be really meh, too, though - you really need a powerful card - since the fps takes such a nosedive when using it.
I like the 7900 XT as a better overall card - at least, for gaming - but, I understand choosing nvidia over amd - especially, if you do Compute and video editing. But, the 4080 looks a much better card albeit at a much higher price.

I think it will be fine as I like using DLSS on Quality settings, I’m also looking forward to the Frame Gen feature even if it introduces slight latency (I’m not a competitive gamer, and games like Battlefield aren’t demanding enough to need it). The 7900 XT is a beast of a GPU as well, it seems like they trade blows overall depending on the game, XT overall more grunt and VRAM, Ti has more tech and features/efficiency. I also upgraded to Windows 11 as it’s supposed to display HDR much better/more accurately than Windows 10. I think I made the right choice for my use case, I’ll keep the thread up to date on performance, especially with future releases with my set-up for reference. Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the input!

 

[Bankie]

He does run a higher refresh monitor, I think a 144hz I'll have to double check. So his goal is to achieve that framerate at that resolution.

I run 3440x1440 with a 2080ti and 5800x3D. I upgraded from a 5900X (which is already quite a bit faster than the 3900X) and it was still a pretty big improvement in minimum fps. He'll need both a big boy GPU (7900XTX, 4080, 4090) AND a CPU upgrade to hold 144hz at that res in most modern games though.