• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

21:9 1440p Help!

jamief

jamief

jamief

Soldato
Joined
23 Sep 2005
Posts
5,528
Location
Fife
I've just picked up a 3440x1440p 21:9 LG monitor (UM95) to replacing an ageing BenQ 1080p TN panel. The rest of my rig is

i5-4690K @ stock
8GB 2400 MHZ DDR3
SSD
HIS 3GB 7950 (oc to 1000c/1500m)

I'm obviously finding a huge drop in performance (I play a lot of BF4 for example) when playing at native res. I was thinking of upgrading, but not idea to what? A 980 looks nice but they are pretty pricey!
 
jamief said:
I've just picked up a 3440x1440p 21:9 LG monitor (UM95) to replacing an ageing BenQ 1080p TN panel. The rest of my rig is

i5-4690K @ stock
8GB 2400 MHZ DDR3
SSD
HIS 3GB 7950 (oc to 1000c/1500m)

I'm obviously finding a huge drop in performance (I play a lot of BF4 for example) when playing at native res. I was thinking of upgrading, but not idea to what? A 980 looks nice but they are pretty pricey!
Click to expand...
Sorry, but for demanding games at that res you would ideally need two high-end cards...
 
I run a single 980 for 1440p and its more than up to the job , however a 290x or even a 290 will be just as good.

If your on a budget another 7950 would be ok , i'm not a huge fan of dual card setups and find its more hassle than they are worth unless you play a handfull of games that scale well with crossfire or Sli.

However get that 4690 to 4.5 and you'll be rocking whatever card you stick in there.
 
Bonjour said:
The total resolution is more than 1440p. It's 3440x1440p, so more like 5k.
Click to expand...


Doh, i do apologize , well either a pair of 980's or 290's , personally until a gpu is released that will handle Ultra high resolution gaming i wont be touching it. I don't think the setup up in resolution is worth the hassle of multiple card setups just to get a playable frame rate.
 
However ,

Samsung 4k monitor - 3840 x 2160 = 8298720 pixels
Your monitor - 3440 x 1440 = 4953600 pixels (a little shy of 5k imho)
My dell - 2560 x 1440 = 3686400 pixels

I would actually say a single card might be up to the job. Its not a massive step up from 1440p and no way near as demanding as 4k.
 
Thanks guys.

Anything comparable from AMD that would do it? Happy to go for a 980 but If I can save a few quid the better!
 
Bonjour said:
Yeah, you're right. It's only just over half 4k resolution.

I single 980 should be able to do it.
Click to expand...

I have the same monitor as you and 2 x 780's. Very few games cannot run maxed out. Occasionally I have to tone details down a touch. Also the number of times I have forgotten to re-enable SLI after a driver update is laughable. Always happens actually! Point is even with one 780 most games are fine. It is only when something particularly demanding comes on that I finally realise I have forgottent to re-enable SLI.

Cheers
 
darket said:
However ,

Samsung 4k monitor - 3840 x 2160 = 8298720 pixels
Your monitor - 3440 x 1440 = 4953600 pixels (a little shy of 5k imho)
My dell - 2560 x 1440 = 3686400 pixels

I would actually say a single card might be up to the job. Its not a massive step up from 1440p and no way near as demanding as 4k.
Click to expand...
Whilst it is not really as demanding as 4K, 3440x1440 is still 34% more pixels than 2560x1440...it is still too much to ask of single card that are just about able to handle the 2560 res to push that extra 34%.
 
Mr. May said:
Get an 290x 8gb at that res then another later on
Click to expand...

I really don't get this, for weeks people have been banging on about how future proof the 290x with 8gb of ram is , utter rubbish. For a handful of poorly coded console ports its not worth the extra over the 4gb 290x, and by the time mainstream games need 8gb vram the horsepower of these cards wont be nearly enough anyway.

Its just history repeating itself, NOTHING in the gpu market is future proof and never will be.

Vram at UHD resolutions is just 1 small part of the problem, the rest is gpu performance related and that wont see any real strides until 2016.
 
Last edited:
darket said:
I really don't get this, for weeks people have been banging on about how future proof the 290x with 8gb of ram is , utter rubbish. For a handful of poorly coded console ports its not worth the extra over the 4gb 290x, and by the time mainstream games need 8gb vram the horsepower of these cards wont be nearly enough anyway.

Its just history repeating itself, NOTHING in the gpu market is future proof and never will be.

Vram at UHD resolutions is just 1 small part of the problem, the rest is gpu performance related and that wont see any real strides until 2016.
Click to expand...
I don't think people were actually banging on the 290X 8GB being "future proof", but more like at £299.99 the card is ridiculous good for value, and would provide a "ease of mind" without having to worry about games being poorly optimised/ported and using ridiculous amount of vram, or may it be due to extreme high-res texture or whatever.

If the 8GB 290x was at £350-£400, nobody would really recommend it for 1920 res.
 
I have a 290 and for the most part its pretty good for 3440x1440 bf4 looks to be the only game ive tested so far where I may have to drop some settings but for me the 290 is a stop gap until the 390x comes out, another option for demanding games is to play at 2560x1080 for now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom