Conventional wisdom: Need 4k+ monitors to make use of the RTX3080/90 or RX6800 series?

Jumpem said:
I will be perfectly happy with 4K and 60 FPS. The way I see it is that consoles are now running at 4K, so a new high end PC build should aim for that as well.
Click to expand...
The problem is that 4k 60 doesn't look great, either. For a static image, sure, it's fine. Amazing, even, when the pixel density is greater than you are used to and you are up close.

But I bought my kid the new XBox X and a 55" 4k Visio to run it on. I'm not all that impressed. Had I researched it more - or been willing to spend more - I could have found a 4k 120, which would be a lot better. He 'comparison gamed' COD on the old XBOne on a 40" 1080p vs the new XSX on the 55" 4k, and, yeah, it was nice to see in large format -- but it wasn't 'knock your socks off' great.

Non-gaming example: I've got a really old 42" 720p DLP tv that I've enjoyed for years. Started watching football on it yesterday and thought. "what the heck am I doing; I should be watching this on the 55" 4k downstairs"... Cut to - the game did not look all that great. I ended up going back upstairs to watch on the smaller screen.

For one thing, AFAIK ESPN is still sending games out in 720p native (thus the upscaling did not look great). We watched a movie on the 4k (Disney Plus, "Soul") which we enjoyed, but I wasn't 'blown away' by the large screen 4k experience. I'm certain that you need 4k for a screen that big (cannot imagine how widely spaced the pixels would be on a 55" at 1080), but the composite of distance from screen, non-native 4k content, and a 60hz refresh rate on a large screen made the three experiences somewhat pedestrian.

All of that aside: I am looking forward to seeing what 4k is like on a fast refresh IPS 32" monitor. The size and pixel density increase over a 24" 1080p should be impressive. Just got to score a GPU to drive it, and since the monitor I want isn't out yet, it helps me be (somewhat) patient in waiting for GPU stocks to improve.*





*However - once the monitor is out, they better damn well have figured out the GPU stock fiasco!
 
4K big screeen really makes a difference with really big screens. Our primary HTPC setup is 85”, with 4k120- and it is jaw dropping on native HDR content.

at the same time, my 4K60 at 42” for my game room is just ok. Native hdr looks good, but not mind blowing
 
lopoetve said:
1440P / 120Hz here. I did the 3080 because I want to set everything to max and not worry about it. Ever.
Click to expand...
I'm similar to you. I just played through Metro E @ 1440p/165hz at Ultra (no DLSS, no RT) on my 3080 & it looked like a DREAM.
 
I am at 1440p and 144 hertz. I think the 3080 would net me near if not always more than 144fps. That is why I want one over my 2070 super xc ultra.

Plus I'd only have to pay 300$ to get one via step up. Def worth it at 1440p.
 
jarablue said:
I am at 1440p and 144 hertz. I think the 3080 would net me near if not always more than 144fps. That is why I want one over my 2070 super xc ultra.

Plus I'd only have to pay 300$ to get one via step up. Def worth it at 1440p.
Click to expand...
I moved from a 2070 Super to 3080.

Take whatever FPS you're getting on your 2070 Super and double it. That's about what you will be getting on a 3080. Massive upgrade.

It's not a 100% linear upgrade (might be CPU limited in some cases), but at 1440P and 4K, the 3080 is a beast.
 
It's hard to show recorded video of say 144Hz when ReLive can only record at 60fps for me .
 
With Cyberpunk and if the Stalker teaser is any indication of what it will end up looking like, I would imagine that no, that many of the newer title will be hard to run at always at least 60 fps (and your higher one for the fast action title) with everything set a ultra at 1440p with anything else lower than those cards and that without RT fully on.
 
I can just barely get 60 fps with CP2077 on ultra w/ RT. 3440x1440 on 2080 Ti. My monitor is 160Hz, so there is a lot of room left there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top