4K gaming with 144/165/240 Hz monitors

[cosmogenesis]

So o get a free sync/gsync monitor of a certain Hz, buy a graphics card -4070 Ti super minimum and using DLSS etc what is the minimum card I could use to 4K game on as many titles as possible - high or ultimate settings, RTX is capable of it. Using syncing can I get 144/165/240 fps synced?

Only the 4090 is capable it or can other cards get you there too ?

 

[Tetras]

what is the minimum card I could use to 4K game on as many titles as possible - high or ultimate settings

7900 GRE or 4070 Super is the minimum I'd get:

4K Gaming Doesn't Have to be Expensive - AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE PC Build

Building an Affordable Radeon RX 7900 GRE 4K Gaming PC ð¥°This video is sponsored by GIGABYTE. You can find all the parts I used below ð*System Specs / Parts...

www.youtube.com

If you want 144/165/240, then there is nothing that can achieve that at the highest settings across a wide range of newer games. If you're prepared to lower the detail and use upscaling then sure.

 

[cosmogenesis]

I’ve got a 4080 and a 144 hz 34” monitor. Got it free synced etc but it wont achirve 144 fps, tops out at about 138. Dlss quality setting on and RTX which is probably the reason

 

[SirPsychoZe0]

I have a RTX 4090 and a 4K 144hz 43"monitor (with freesync). A few points to note:

• DLSS is a god-send whenever it is available. There are no games that I play which have DLSS that I wouldn't activate it for - the visuals at 4K are 99% as good as native in my (albeit limited) experience.
• Few games achieve 144FPS or frame rates around that amount. Therefore frame rates above that should just be ignored (although I didn't think there was anything that could do more than 144hz at 4K).
• Game optimisation will be such a bigger determinate of your frame rate than the graphics card. I've played games well-optimised that look good and provide 130+ FPS without DLSS (e.g. Days Gone). I've also played other games that aren't so well-optimised, or at least CPU bound, that are no more graphically impressive but result in average frame rates around 70-80 FPS (e.g. Helldivers 2). Having a 4090 has not proved to be a simply brute-force method of ensuring high frame rates at 4K.
• Unless its a game with simplistic graphics (e.g. Enshrouded) or is a very well optimised non-RTX title (e.g. Days Gone), then I rarely run a game with all settings on max. Again, continuing on from the previous point, the 4090 is fantastic but even it can't always guarantee you high frames rates (for context, 100 FPS is "high" to me, whilst 120+ FPS is the goal).
• If the monitor size is less than 34", and assuming you don't sit super close to it, then the improvement from going from 1440p to 4K is minimal and therefore arguably not worth the performance cost.
• Dropping down to 1440p on a 4K monitor is always an option when a game is particularly demanding or not well-optimised. So you are never 'stuck' at 4K if you go down that road with your monitor purchase.
• On RTX, still not convinced by it based on current implementations and thus I wouldn't give it too much weight right now. Even playing C2077 with RTX Overdrive on, whilst I can see the difference, it's not always obviously "better" than even the non-RTX graphics, and certainty not worth the frame rate hit.
• Agree that 4070 Ti is probably the lowest you want to go for a satisfying 4K experience beyond 60hz.

 

[stooeh]

Got a 4080 and play on 120Hz 2160p screen. Feel like I could use some extra grunt tbh but ultimately depends on the games you play and DLSS (mostly) does its job where necessary.

 

[Calin Banc]

don't forget that you need a fast CPU (system) as well.

 

[cosmogenesis]

I did upgrade my CPU from 5800X to 5900X but the difference is minimal

 

[Quartz]

So o get a free sync/gsync monitor of a certain Hz, buy a graphics card -4070 Ti super minimum and using DLSS etc what is the minimum card I could use to 4K game on as many titles as possible - high or ultimate settings, RTX is capable of it. Using syncing can I get 144/165/240 fps synced?

I have a 4090 and a 120 Hz 27" 4k monitor. You are not going to get maxxed settings - especially with RT enabled - and super-high framerates in the newest games. That said, if you fire up older games, you'll have a blast. Remember that a game doesn't stop being fun because it's old. I still play Borderlands 2 (11 years old) and Far Cry (20 years old) and I ought to fire up Freespace 2 (25 years old) again.

If the monitor size is less than 34", and assuming you don't sit super close to it, then the improvement from going from 1440p to 4K is minimal and therefore arguably not worth the performance cost.

This is not my experience. 4k gaming on a 27" monitor is awesome. It's a qualitatively better experience and the higher ppi can allow you to turn off some post-processing.

 

[ThunderLicker]

I did upgrade my CPU from 5800X to 5900X but the difference is minimal

Thats not really an upgrade for gaming. If you're using the pc for work purposes that makes use of the extra cores its an upgrade but for gaming it won't really make a difference.

Only real upgrade on AM4 for gaming from a 5800x is a 5700x3d or a 5800x3d.

 

[cosmogenesis]

Thats not really an upgrade for gaming. If you're using the pc for work purposes that makes use of the extra cores its an upgrade but for gaming it won't really make a difference.

Only real upgrade on AM4 for gaming from a 5800x is a 5700x3d or a 5800x3d.

Well I thought as much bit 6-8 cores is the gaming sweet spot and anything more is overkill ?

 

[ThunderLicker]

Well I thought as much bit 6-8 cores is the gaming sweet spot and anything more is overkill ?

8 Is the sweet spot at the moment, there may be the rare exception than can make use of extra cores but faster cores are what makes the differnce in gaming right now.

 

[Poneros]

Game to game performance variance can be even a four times performance difference. Smarter would be to investigate the games you care about otherwise the answer can only be the 4090.