1440p 'woes'

Noxia · 4 Mar 2019 at 08:58

So I have a nice 144hz monitor and a 2060 that I use to play at 1440p. The 'problem' is that I'm not really getting the performance I'd hoped for but not sure if it's my CPU (2600x stock). For example, in JC3 in heavy action I can see it dropping into the 60s and that's quite an old game now.

I'm not sure if it's my expectations that are unrealistic or the card itself isn't all that. Maybe I was naive to think I had an ultra settings 1440p card but aside from the 2080 what really is there? Am I right in thinking that in order to have a smooth experience my FPS needs to be above 47 for Freesync 2 to work?
The card has worked nicely with my monitor in that respect despite not being on the official list.
I suspect this is a case of me getting what I paid for which ultimately is a midrange system I built. Only path I see is a Radeon VII

555BUK · 4 Mar 2019 at 09:18

Even a 2080 TI would struggle to hold 144fps @ 1440P on ultra within most recent games. I think your expectations were a little too high.

The beauty of Freesync/G-Sync monitors is that they do not need to maintain 144Hz or require laggy-VSYNC for smooth tear-free gaming. If you really want to maintain 144Hz you will need to drop the settings and/or resolutions to high/very-high/1080P. That's just the way games are - they are made to push the most powerful hardware.

arc@css · 4 Mar 2019 at 09:19

The fps you mention reads fine to me, so how is it not smooth?

Noxia · 4 Mar 2019 at 09:22

Ah I wasn't clear, so because I can go up to 144hz I thought that I was not getting my moneys worth if I don't get at least over 100 but that comes from me being naive about the technology. So am I right that if I get at least a minimum of the lowest FPS range on FS which I think is 48, then I'm still getting the same experience as if I was getting 60fps in theory. Probably coming across a bit thick here.

To clarify it IS smooth, I think I'm obsessing too much over the FPS counter and I should probably just turn it off. The only game I felt stutter was WOW but you know, it's WOW.

Conor. · 4 Mar 2019 at 10:28

Noxia said:
Ah I wasn't clear, so because I can go up to 144hz I thought that I was not getting my moneys worth if I don't get at least over 100 but that comes from me being naive about the technology. So am I right that if I get at least a minimum of the lowest FPS range on FS which I think is 48, then I'm still getting the same experience as if I was getting 60fps in theory. Probably coming across a bit thick here.

To clarify it IS smooth, I think I'm obsessing too much over the FPS counter and I should probably just turn it off. The only game I felt stutter was WOW but you know, it's WOW.

If it’s smooth turn the FPS counter off and enjoy yourself. If it’s not smooth turn it on and debug.

bimbleuk · 4 Mar 2019 at 10:29

Yeah that's the general idea the GS/FS smooth out the dips and most of the time it works great. The closer you get to that lower limit you will start to notice some frame drops or choppiness on fast pans for example so it's not perfect but helpful.

As above maybe adjust settings to suit.

Kelt · 4 Mar 2019 at 10:34

If you want to find out if you're getting CPU bound then run a monitor (I use Afterburner) and display it whilst running games.

It's the only way to be sure.

555BUK · 4 Mar 2019 at 10:41

Anything over 40fps on a Freesync/G-Sync monitor will look smoother and suffer less tearing and lag than it would on a fixed-60Hz monitor. 144fps+ would have course be perfect, but you should also notice improvements on 144Hz screens at slower framerates. So long as minimun fps >40 (ideally >60) you have nothing to worry about.

You can also try dropping the screen res to 1080P to see whether your eyes notice a big diference between ~60fps and ~120fps. Personally, I sacrifice Ultra settings on demanding games to keep framerates ~90fps. Anything above 90fps my eyes find increasiningly difficult to notice.

*From 30fps to 60fps I notice a big difference
*From 60fps to 120fps I see a reasonable difference
*From ~90fps to 155fps (my monitor supports 155Hz) the difference is really small.

Your fps perception may vary

.

Noxia · 4 Mar 2019 at 10:50

Thanks all I had a feeling it was me overthinking. I used to always play with vsync on and have 60hz monitors and I can certainly feel the difference.
This is why I stayed away from pcgaming as I always got hung up over things that don't always matter.

willhub · 4 Mar 2019 at 10:54

Does G-Sync work at 30fps, because 30FPS on my GSYNC display is easilly playable and smooth for me. Not in Minecraft though.

555BUK · 4 Mar 2019 at 11:45

Not sure on G-Sync but I assume it works similarly to Freesync which "frame-doubles" when fps drop below 40. So, if your graphics card can only output 33fps, Freersync monitor will display at 66Hz (displaying every full frame twice).

opethdisciple · 4 Mar 2019 at 17:47

willhub said:
Does G-Sync work at 30fps, because 30FPS on my GSYNC display is easilly playable and smooth for me. Not in Minecraft though.

Yes. Any Gsync monitor works from 30 - max refresh rate. It does what it says in the tin.

There's is no ambiguity with Gsync.

Safetytrousers · 4 Mar 2019 at 17:56

d_brennen · 4 Mar 2019 at 18:05

Turn the frame counter off until you find a game that isn't smooth

Noxia · 4 Mar 2019 at 18:25

d_brennen said:
Turn the frame counter off until you find a game that isn't smooth

Yep I've done that now .

tyler_jrb · 4 Mar 2019 at 19:35

2060 while a fairly powerful card is only really 1070ish power range which will struggle with 1440p/144hz.

Should be able to manage at 1440 60hz with high-ultra settings I’d have thought.

Personally. Best off getting a 2nd hand 1080Ti over radeon VII.

Noxia · 4 Mar 2019 at 20:15

tyler_jrb said:
2060 while a fairly powerful card is only really 1070ish power range which will struggle with 1440p/144hz.

Should be able to manage at 1440 60hz with high-ultra settings I’d have thought.

Personally. Best off getting a 2nd hand 1080Ti over radeon VII.

I'm ok with it as it is I just thought I 'needed' more than what I was getting. I find it interesting that with your sig spec you only play at 1440p, except I guess on your tv.

tyler_jrb · 4 Mar 2019 at 20:19

Noxia said:
I'm ok with it as it is I just thought I 'needed' more than what I was getting. I find it interesting that with your sig spec you only play at 1440p, except I guess on your tv.

1440p 165hz on my monitor 4k 60hz on my oled

Even a 2080Ti isn't there yet to push 120+ frames in 4k so 1440p high refresh rate is still plenty good enough.

Noxia · 5 Mar 2019 at 09:45

tyler_jrb said:
1440p 165hz on my monitor 4k 60hz on my oled

Even a 2080Ti isn't there yet to push 120+ frames in 4k so 1440p high refresh rate is still plenty good enough.

I promised myself I wouldn't bother with PC gaming until I could have a one GPU setup that pushed 4k at 60 FPS+ but seems I'd be waiting quite a while.

tyler_jrb · 5 Mar 2019 at 11:45

Noxia said:
I promised myself I wouldn't bother with PC gaming until I could have a one GPU setup that pushed 4k at 60 FPS+ but seems I'd be waiting quite a while.

Even a 1080Ti can do 4k 60 with a mixture of high-ultra.

I prefer high refresh especially with K+M and my TV is just for controller based games.

A 2080Ti can do a constant 4k 60hz ultra on the vast majority of games. But then you have the cost etc. More than twice as fast as a 2060, even more so overclocked for info.