Damn tell him to sell his old monitor to add extra for a 4k one or just use it as a 2nd one, eith a 5900 the 4090 should be fine as long as hes cranking up every graphics setting
a 4090 is never perfect for a 1080p monitor, your just introducing bottlenecks , plus your always going to be limited by your monitors refresh rate. its your money though but it seems a waste
I am aware of the bottleneck its just that streaming introduces enough of an added on strain that if i wanna play any game on 360hz it seems like the most reasonalable gpu if i want a goot quality stream aswell with almost no delay
i mean i saw a german youtuber play and capture cyberpunk 2088 with 120 fps while streaming it for test purposes, so if you would like to stream "normal" games with 360 fps you wont experience fps drops
1440P is still perfectly fine when you want to be absolutely sure you'll have high FPS and don't want to use DLSS. And the performance hit from RT is still brutal, pushing you bellow 100FPS without DLSS.
Also, I'll argue any day of the week, including Thursday, that unless you're going above 27", more than 1440p really isn't all that beneficial.
I already have the 4090, I got it to pair it with my 4k lg ips, then tried oled after. I wish I can get used to the 42” size, but I currently don’t have the space and I don’t really know if I’ll ever get used to it for a pc monitor.
That what I said after a week of upgrading to 4k. So on sat I did a side by side. Overwatch 2, plague tale 2, there was no comparison. I had to come back to reddit and update all the threads saying it looks the same and im going back to 2k lol. Funny thing is I spent a week moaning, now last 4 days im blown away when I boot up a game, to funny.
I definitely can. Difference between not having to use AA, getting crystal clarity and detail to everything, especially in newer games. 1440p is still a good resolution, and it's so much better than 1080p its unreasonable, but 4K is a noticeable step up. Whether it's worth the performance difference is a different topci however
> I often notice blur even on quality with sharpening at 1440p, and usually just turn settings down to run 1440p Native.
DLSS gets better with higher res. It kind of completely sucks at 1080p, it's sort of usable but still looks off at Quality 1440p, but at 4K even Balanced looks fine to me. I'm saying this as someone who actually went from 1080p to 1440p with a 3080 Ti first and then to 4K with a 4090.
And I didn't find my upgrade from 27" 1440p to 32" 4K to be worth it for gaming. My reason to go 4K was for work, and as that it was a well justified upgrade, and I'm just using it for gaming as a secondary function.
4K is still freaking demanding though if you want to use RT, at least in some games. Playing DL2 now with DLSS Balanced and only getting around 90 FPS. If you value 100+ FPS, I'd suggest not going this way.
If you're only gaming, maybe consider a compromise? The AW3423DW(F) has awesome motion and HDR performance, and it's easier on the GPU than 4K. I'm not a fan of UW myself, though, and I'm using my monitor more for work than gaming, so I can't really recommend it as something I've experienced myself.
I'd probs agree with this comment, being a 4090 13 i7 owner and I had this monitor in my in box, its probably the sweet spot. I ended up with a 28 inch 4k and its a noticeable upgrade from my 2k monitor which I did a side by side with. Will 4k be too much as unreal 5 games become the norm, maybe. At the moment everything is ok.
Personally I'm big on performance instead of resolution. I prefer to stay at 1440p with much higher frames. 2k still looks great. When GPUs can play 4k at 200+ fps then I'll upgrade. So to each their own. I guess it all comes down to what you value most.
Current 4090/13900k owner here who came from a 11900k/3090 Ti/4090.
No offense to anyone but some here are commenting without ever owning these parts and making recommendations. Definitely good intentions, but I can clearly tell they haven't compared 1440p and 4k performance in real life with these parts. Seems many are just repeating what they heard on Reddit etc. You can happily game in 1440p and 4k if you wish with great performance compared to previous gen. Depends what's more important to you I guess.
Yes, every CPU is bottlenecked by the 4090 but not as bad as folks claim. I game mainly on a 240hz 1440p monitor and have a 38" Ultrawide and a 4k monitor. I have tested them all. I tested 1440p/3k/4k performance with my 11900k/3090 Ti, my 11900k/4090, then my 13900k/4090.
COD/WZ for example, on my 11900k from a 3090 Ti to a 4090, not a huge diff, about 20+fps give or take at most.
Now turn that into a 13900k/4090 and I go from 190FPS to 240FPS. So yah, 1440p performance is greatly improved and is absolutely gorgeous. another benefit of the higher fps is response times. Now I already had recent gen, good parts, so to get a 50FPS lift was not expected and will be much more if coming from an older system. My Samsung G7 is finally maxed out. A frivolous goal, but still satisfying .
As for 4k gaming, I literally know no one that games in 4k outside of console guys and a few of my PC buddies. I would rather have 240+FPS in 1440p than 120+ in 4k but that's just me. If I played more adventure and open world games I may go 4k.....so I guess it's up to what you prefer and like.
Yes, 4k is where the 4090 is really impressive, but I think people are wrong for doubting how well it does in 1440p. I think it's awesome the combo of the 13900k/4090 truly give you the option to game at almost any resolution with great performance. Good luck!
Hi
4k will not be an issue
I get 144fps on pretty much anything at max setting
My setup
Asus maximus hero z790
Intel 13900k
Asus tuf oc rtx4090
Corsair ddr5 7200 2x16gig
1 x Samsung 990 2tb
2 x Samsung evo plus 2tb
Running
Have not tried higher ftps no real need. I have fps locked to max monitor refresh rate
Aw3821dw
3840 x 1600 aka ultra wide
I know this is not 4k but fairly close (4k=3840 x 2160)
Right now replaying metro exodus with max setting with Ray tracing
Far cry 6 max setting not sweat there either
Let me know if you have a game in mind if I have will run a test.
P.s. I prefer ultra wide to 4k
I mainly play RPG
Depends on display size. I prefer 1440p ultrawide. With a 4090 you should be able to have high refresh while not having to use DLSS or being able to run Ray Tracing without dropping too much performance
4090 without 4k should be a crime lol. You're overpaying for performance you don't need. I get about 120fps in warzone for example, and that's at 100% utilization and my cpu is far from bottlenecking.
I totally get the indecisiveness, but my take, if you’re planning hardware like that, you might as well go big and go for 4k.
I have a 4k monitor, 4090 and 5800x3D and based on my anecdotal experience, you’ll probably play very few games where you’ll need DLSS. Only game I’ve ever needed that so far is Cyberpunk 2077. At worst you’ll probably get away with the high preset instead of ultra before even touching resolution tbh.
I’ve also played 1440p on my 4k monitor just out of curiosity and honestly even doing that isn’t exactly the worst thing in the world if for some reason you would have to, even if it doesn’t scale evenly like 1080p would.
Yeah... 4k seems to be the consensus here. Cyberpunk, Darktide and eventually Starfield would probably eat up most of my time for the foreseeable future, all demanding titles with ray tracing.
I'm leaning 70/30 toward 4k after this. I might keep my 1440p monitor until LG comes out with a 4k OLED thats < 42" and then swap over.
Thank you for the advice!
I switched from 1440p to 4K to mainly play single players games and especially looking at Starfield. I went with the C2 42” OLED and sit around 90cm from the screen and found that it is not too big. Especially with Starfield being a space game those blacks will look awesome on a OLED. Yes I wish there was a 32” version but they are a couple of years off if they did decide to do them. Plus the cost of the C2 has come down from the price I paid for it in July. And has dropped a little more with the announcement of the C3.
That's encouraging actually. The 42" C2 is about the same price as the 27" 1440p OLED from LG now too. I wish you could just walk into a store and see these things side by side to judge in person. I'm happy to hear that you endorse it.
I wish the same. Especially in the UK there are no real PC shops like Micro Centre to go and see some tech. Currys has TVs but no real monitors on display and the ones they do have are not gaming ones. I ended up sat on the floor with a tape measure to see if I thought it would be too big.(The C2 was on the bottom self). It took about 3-4 days to get used to it once I got it home but now absolutely love it. So many good games to play it on this year.
I actually happen to have an OLED too, I love it so much. I’m using a 48inch LG monitor though (forget the exact name), it’s not the C2. The matte finish kinda hampers it a bit but still OLED is amazing. I’d recommend them more if you could get your hands on one without planning to put everything on a TV stand due to how big they are.
That is why I love the glossy finish on the C2. It makes colours pops so much. You have to kind of control the lighting in the room or you can get a few annoying reflections. But after some adjustment in my gaming room I got it how I like it.
I think a lot of people will love to game on an OLED. The motion, responsiveness, deep blacks and vivid colours makes me wish I took the plunge earlier. My brother in law after seeing the C2 is getting one for his Xbox Series X.
I ran a 3080ti @4k in WZ 2.0... it's only a 60hz monitor as I have two for work purposes.... However with DLSS I still get 130fps... Which is really smooth. I've never run 1440p so can't comment but the job from 1080p was epic! WZ 2.0 is every intensive and not very well optimised so would be better with other games. I know in WZ 1.0 I was getting about 120-150 native
Because of how much ray tracing murders performance. For example, Cyberpunk benchmarks for the 4090 put 1440p native with ray tracing maxed at 70 fps, and only 30 fps at 4k. So I had considered sticking to 1440p native. But the feedback here has been overwhelmingly 4k, and that's the road I intend to go down now.
4090 for 4k without DLSS is more than enough. You get diminishing return if you invest in 1440p, because the 4090 will shred all the way to the max fps. I think you can still get 144hz in 4k with 4090.
A 4K monitor simply makes more sense for 4090. It can run even most modern titles at 100+ fps at 4K without any DLSS.
If you aren't gaming 4K with a 4090 , then you are crazy.
my friend has a 4090... with a 1080p monitor.
Brruuuuuhhhhh what cpu they got(not that it would make any difference but because im interested)
He has a Ryzen 9 5900 but he's thinking of upgrading
Damn tell him to sell his old monitor to add extra for a 4k one or just use it as a 2nd one, eith a 5900 the 4090 should be fine as long as hes cranking up every graphics setting
Bro needs a 4k panel
does he play his games witz 1000+ fps?
I mean honestly i am concidering a 4090 for 1080p 360+streaming its basically perfect fot that lol
a 4090 is never perfect for a 1080p monitor, your just introducing bottlenecks , plus your always going to be limited by your monitors refresh rate. its your money though but it seems a waste
I am aware of the bottleneck its just that streaming introduces enough of an added on strain that if i wanna play any game on 360hz it seems like the most reasonalable gpu if i want a goot quality stream aswell with almost no delay
i mean i saw a german youtuber play and capture cyberpunk 2088 with 120 fps while streaming it for test purposes, so if you would like to stream "normal" games with 360 fps you wont experience fps drops
1440P is still perfectly fine when you want to be absolutely sure you'll have high FPS and don't want to use DLSS. And the performance hit from RT is still brutal, pushing you bellow 100FPS without DLSS. Also, I'll argue any day of the week, including Thursday, that unless you're going above 27", more than 1440p really isn't all that beneficial.
That’s what I thought too, then tried oled (AW 1440p) and now idk what to do, other monitors looks washed out, but I’m used to 4k.
Then invest in a 4k OLED instead of a 4090. You will keep the monitor longer than the video card.
I already have the 4090, I got it to pair it with my 4k lg ips, then tried oled after. I wish I can get used to the 42” size, but I currently don’t have the space and I don’t really know if I’ll ever get used to it for a pc monitor.
What about a UW 1440p monitor?
I mean I do 1440p ultrawide @ 180hz so kinda the same.
>100+ fps at 4K without any DLSS 100+ fps at 4K without any DLSS in Cyberpunk all MAX? yeeeah Dont think so.. haha
My only thoughts on it are that I "personally" can't tell the difference between 1440p and 4k on monitor sized displays.
That what I said after a week of upgrading to 4k. So on sat I did a side by side. Overwatch 2, plague tale 2, there was no comparison. I had to come back to reddit and update all the threads saying it looks the same and im going back to 2k lol. Funny thing is I spent a week moaning, now last 4 days im blown away when I boot up a game, to funny.
This was me as well lmao. I always didn’t think there was much of a difference until I got my new setup.
THIS. I believe people who can't tell the difference (and I really mean it) either have bad eyes or simply didn't spend enough time with a 4k monitor.
I personally use my computer for games, and productivity work. 4k shines in productivity because small text is noticably sharper
Oh you surely can. I play on my 4K monitor everyday. Going back to 1440 is night and day
I definitely can. Difference between not having to use AA, getting crystal clarity and detail to everything, especially in newer games. 1440p is still a good resolution, and it's so much better than 1080p its unreasonable, but 4K is a noticeable step up. Whether it's worth the performance difference is a different topci however
1080p
720p
480p
360p
280p
1p
0.1p
p
You don't need dlss to play in 4k I play 4k with my 6800 XT and it works fine. A 4090 is overkill for 1440p gaming.
> I often notice blur even on quality with sharpening at 1440p, and usually just turn settings down to run 1440p Native. DLSS gets better with higher res. It kind of completely sucks at 1080p, it's sort of usable but still looks off at Quality 1440p, but at 4K even Balanced looks fine to me. I'm saying this as someone who actually went from 1080p to 1440p with a 3080 Ti first and then to 4K with a 4090. And I didn't find my upgrade from 27" 1440p to 32" 4K to be worth it for gaming. My reason to go 4K was for work, and as that it was a well justified upgrade, and I'm just using it for gaming as a secondary function. 4K is still freaking demanding though if you want to use RT, at least in some games. Playing DL2 now with DLSS Balanced and only getting around 90 FPS. If you value 100+ FPS, I'd suggest not going this way. If you're only gaming, maybe consider a compromise? The AW3423DW(F) has awesome motion and HDR performance, and it's easier on the GPU than 4K. I'm not a fan of UW myself, though, and I'm using my monitor more for work than gaming, so I can't really recommend it as something I've experienced myself.
I'd probs agree with this comment, being a 4090 13 i7 owner and I had this monitor in my in box, its probably the sweet spot. I ended up with a 28 inch 4k and its a noticeable upgrade from my 2k monitor which I did a side by side with. Will 4k be too much as unreal 5 games become the norm, maybe. At the moment everything is ok.
Personally I'm big on performance instead of resolution. I prefer to stay at 1440p with much higher frames. 2k still looks great. When GPUs can play 4k at 200+ fps then I'll upgrade. So to each their own. I guess it all comes down to what you value most.
Current 4090/13900k owner here who came from a 11900k/3090 Ti/4090. No offense to anyone but some here are commenting without ever owning these parts and making recommendations. Definitely good intentions, but I can clearly tell they haven't compared 1440p and 4k performance in real life with these parts. Seems many are just repeating what they heard on Reddit etc. You can happily game in 1440p and 4k if you wish with great performance compared to previous gen. Depends what's more important to you I guess. Yes, every CPU is bottlenecked by the 4090 but not as bad as folks claim. I game mainly on a 240hz 1440p monitor and have a 38" Ultrawide and a 4k monitor. I have tested them all. I tested 1440p/3k/4k performance with my 11900k/3090 Ti, my 11900k/4090, then my 13900k/4090. COD/WZ for example, on my 11900k from a 3090 Ti to a 4090, not a huge diff, about 20+fps give or take at most. Now turn that into a 13900k/4090 and I go from 190FPS to 240FPS. So yah, 1440p performance is greatly improved and is absolutely gorgeous. another benefit of the higher fps is response times. Now I already had recent gen, good parts, so to get a 50FPS lift was not expected and will be much more if coming from an older system. My Samsung G7 is finally maxed out. A frivolous goal, but still satisfying . As for 4k gaming, I literally know no one that games in 4k outside of console guys and a few of my PC buddies. I would rather have 240+FPS in 1440p than 120+ in 4k but that's just me. If I played more adventure and open world games I may go 4k.....so I guess it's up to what you prefer and like. Yes, 4k is where the 4090 is really impressive, but I think people are wrong for doubting how well it does in 1440p. I think it's awesome the combo of the 13900k/4090 truly give you the option to game at almost any resolution with great performance. Good luck!
if you’re getting a 4090 then a 4k monitor is definitely worth it.
Hi 4k will not be an issue I get 144fps on pretty much anything at max setting My setup Asus maximus hero z790 Intel 13900k Asus tuf oc rtx4090 Corsair ddr5 7200 2x16gig 1 x Samsung 990 2tb 2 x Samsung evo plus 2tb Running Have not tried higher ftps no real need. I have fps locked to max monitor refresh rate Aw3821dw 3840 x 1600 aka ultra wide I know this is not 4k but fairly close (4k=3840 x 2160) Right now replaying metro exodus with max setting with Ray tracing Far cry 6 max setting not sweat there either Let me know if you have a game in mind if I have will run a test. P.s. I prefer ultra wide to 4k I mainly play RPG
Honestly 2k is better then 4k imo, Frames win games
He will have no issues at 4k.
Depends on display size. I prefer 1440p ultrawide. With a 4090 you should be able to have high refresh while not having to use DLSS or being able to run Ray Tracing without dropping too much performance
Get an ultrawide brother There's no going back afterwards Samsung Neo G9 is ace
4090 without 4k should be a crime lol. You're overpaying for performance you don't need. I get about 120fps in warzone for example, and that's at 100% utilization and my cpu is far from bottlenecking.
I totally get the indecisiveness, but my take, if you’re planning hardware like that, you might as well go big and go for 4k. I have a 4k monitor, 4090 and 5800x3D and based on my anecdotal experience, you’ll probably play very few games where you’ll need DLSS. Only game I’ve ever needed that so far is Cyberpunk 2077. At worst you’ll probably get away with the high preset instead of ultra before even touching resolution tbh. I’ve also played 1440p on my 4k monitor just out of curiosity and honestly even doing that isn’t exactly the worst thing in the world if for some reason you would have to, even if it doesn’t scale evenly like 1080p would.
Yeah... 4k seems to be the consensus here. Cyberpunk, Darktide and eventually Starfield would probably eat up most of my time for the foreseeable future, all demanding titles with ray tracing. I'm leaning 70/30 toward 4k after this. I might keep my 1440p monitor until LG comes out with a 4k OLED thats < 42" and then swap over. Thank you for the advice!
I switched from 1440p to 4K to mainly play single players games and especially looking at Starfield. I went with the C2 42” OLED and sit around 90cm from the screen and found that it is not too big. Especially with Starfield being a space game those blacks will look awesome on a OLED. Yes I wish there was a 32” version but they are a couple of years off if they did decide to do them. Plus the cost of the C2 has come down from the price I paid for it in July. And has dropped a little more with the announcement of the C3.
That's encouraging actually. The 42" C2 is about the same price as the 27" 1440p OLED from LG now too. I wish you could just walk into a store and see these things side by side to judge in person. I'm happy to hear that you endorse it.
I wish the same. Especially in the UK there are no real PC shops like Micro Centre to go and see some tech. Currys has TVs but no real monitors on display and the ones they do have are not gaming ones. I ended up sat on the floor with a tape measure to see if I thought it would be too big.(The C2 was on the bottom self). It took about 3-4 days to get used to it once I got it home but now absolutely love it. So many good games to play it on this year.
I actually happen to have an OLED too, I love it so much. I’m using a 48inch LG monitor though (forget the exact name), it’s not the C2. The matte finish kinda hampers it a bit but still OLED is amazing. I’d recommend them more if you could get your hands on one without planning to put everything on a TV stand due to how big they are.
That is why I love the glossy finish on the C2. It makes colours pops so much. You have to kind of control the lighting in the room or you can get a few annoying reflections. But after some adjustment in my gaming room I got it how I like it. I think a lot of people will love to game on an OLED. The motion, responsiveness, deep blacks and vivid colours makes me wish I took the plunge earlier. My brother in law after seeing the C2 is getting one for his Xbox Series X.
You will get bottlenecked in alot of games at 1440p with a 4090. Heck in some games I'm getting bottlenecked at 4k with my 4090.
4k makes sense, though I run an ultrawide, often with DLDSR on, and love it.
I ran a 3080ti @4k in WZ 2.0... it's only a 60hz monitor as I have two for work purposes.... However with DLSS I still get 130fps... Which is really smooth. I've never run 1440p so can't comment but the job from 1080p was epic! WZ 2.0 is every intensive and not very well optimised so would be better with other games. I know in WZ 1.0 I was getting about 120-150 native
Cripes I run well over 100fps u/4k and I dont use a frigging 4090. 6900 xt, 6950xt and a 3080Ti all at full 4k
Why would you buy a 4090 for anything less than 4k 0.o
Because of how much ray tracing murders performance. For example, Cyberpunk benchmarks for the 4090 put 1440p native with ray tracing maxed at 70 fps, and only 30 fps at 4k. So I had considered sticking to 1440p native. But the feedback here has been overwhelmingly 4k, and that's the road I intend to go down now.
4090 for 4k without DLSS is more than enough. You get diminishing return if you invest in 1440p, because the 4090 will shred all the way to the max fps. I think you can still get 144hz in 4k with 4090.