3080 Owners - What resolution do you game at?

IceWolf · 4 Oct 2020 at 14:47

I can guarantee you that the 3080 will have significantly better performance than the 3070 going forward at 1440p in Cyberpunk 2077 and other demanding games with Raytracing on.

I would wait a bit longer until the AMD GPU reviews and reviews for Cyberpunk are out in November before making your choice if you are on the fence. By then there might actually be stock available to buy...

Xyclops · 4 Oct 2020 at 14:52

Doppleganger said:
5120 X 1440 Superultrawide - about 90% pixels of 4k. Have it set to 100Hz for 10bit colour although the panel will do 120Hz at 8bit.

That is crazy wide! Are games distorted on the side edges or does it look ok? Reason I ask is when I have tried playing with nvidia surround across 3 1080p screens the two side monitors have a stretched view. Just doesn't look good.

Jonjo69 · 4 Oct 2020 at 15:18

I have an Ultrawide at present and will probably move to 4K (LG CX48) once my 3090 comes. Maybe Nvidia promoted 8k on the basis that, by the time you get your 3090, 8k will be standard. Anyway, the question is linked to the type of games played. Fortnite, COD type gamers tend to make up the vast majority at 1080p (with 1440 a small percentage). People who play management or sim type games (small percentage) will go for UW, SUW or 4K.

Of course, fortnite etc. attracts the younger generation with little disposable income, while sims are dominated by older types who have a larger disposable income needed for sims.

fx1 · 4 Oct 2020 at 15:26

3840x1600 175hz 6 million pixels at high frames needs the 3080.

4K is pointless imo because vertically too high to be any use. Especially for shooters.

Jonjo69 · 4 Oct 2020 at 15:32

fx1 said:
3840x1600 175hz 6 million pixels at high frames needs the 3080.

4K is pointless imo because vertically too high to be any use. Especially for shooters.

In most management games, vertical workspace is as important at horizontal. Again, resolution comes down to type of gamer.

Management games tend to eat VRAM; but that's another topic.

fx1 · 4 Oct 2020 at 15:47

Jonjo69 said:
In most management games
, vertical workspace is as important at horizontal. Again, resolution comes down to type of gamer.

Management games tend to eat VRAM; but that's another topic.

Except that your eyes hurt and so does your neck unless you sit far back.

1080p, 4K and 8K all have the same problem. They were designed as TV resolutions and not PC screens. Due to manufacturing efficiency they have been adopted not because they are the best.

1080p sucked because before 1080p you had 1600x1200 vertical. Thats why 1440p took off.

4k sucks because its 4x 1080p and way too many pixels for the technology of the time and the vertical size is not good for desks and smaller screens the PPI is too high.

Forget 8k its marketing BS.

I have settled on 3840x1600 because it has the old vertical of the 2560x1600 32" monitor which were great but adds extra horizontal size of 4k which doesnt add any extra eye strain but adds valuable and usable screen real estate. Plus at 6m pixels it still runs 100+ FPS with a good GPU.

I really dont get why people play PC games on TV's Even those OLED's will suffer because of crappy input lag and 48FPS Gsync lower limit which is terrible.

Absolutely Clueless · 4 Oct 2020 at 17:07

Jonjo69 said:
In most management games, vertical workspace is as important at horizontal. Again, resolution comes down to type of gamer.

Management games tend to eat VRAM; but that's another topic.

Slightly off-topic, but could you expand on the VRAM point? Curious...

B1gdeano · 4 Oct 2020 at 17:36

Im using 1440p @240hz - Samsung 32" G7

Jonjo69 · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:00

fx1 said:
Except that your eyes hurt and so does your neck unless you sit far back.

1080p, 4K and 8K all have the same problem. They were designed as TV resolutions and not PC screens. Due to manufacturing efficiency they have been adopted not because they are the best.

1080p sucked because before 1080p you had 1600x1200 vertical. Thats why 1440p took off.

4k sucks because its 4x 1080p and way too many pixels for the technology of the time and the vertical size is not good for desks and smaller screens the PPI is too high.

Forget 8k its marketing BS.

I have settled on 3840x1600 because it has the old vertical of the 2560x1600 32" monitor which were great but adds extra horizontal size of 4k which doesnt add any extra eye strain but adds valuable and usable screen real estate. Plus at 6m pixels it still runs 100+ FPS with a good GPU.

I really dont get why people play PC games on TV's Even those OLED's will suffer because of crappy input lag and 48FPS Gsync lower limit which is terrible.

I would say that you are taking your use case and applying that to everyone. Eye strain is more about the ambient light and your monitor/TV settings and little about resolution. If you're happy with 3840x1600 then that's good, but don't assume that makes sense for all people under all use cases. It just doesn't work like that. There are plenty of calculators out there that will give you minimum, maximum and optimal distances for any resolution.

Xyclops · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:05

Have to admit, I have never personally viewed a 4k or 1440p monitor. I am happy with 1080p on a 24 inch monitor. I do have a portable 15.4inch monitor thats 1080p also, and I find the text on that a bit small. So imagine I'd have a similar problem with 1440p on a normal sized screen. I never use font scaling in Windows, as some software I use doesn't like anything other than 100% scale.

Jonjo69 · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:11

Absolutely Clueless said:
Slightly off-topic, but could you expand on the VRAM point? Curious...

Depending on the game, some will hold assets etc. in VRAM. Large maps with many thousands or hundreds of thousands of assets can use up huge amounts of VRAM. Cities Skylines is well known for this and it has been shown that this isn't just allocation (as is often the case), but usage.

Absolutely Clueless · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:13

Xyclops said:
Have to admit, I have never personally viewed a 4k or 1440p monitor. I am happy with 1080p on a 24 inch monitor. I do have a portable 15.4inch monitor thats 1080p also, and I find the text on that a bit small. So imagine I'd have a similar problem with 1440p on a normal sized screen. I never use font scaling in Windows, as some software I use doesn't like anything other than 100% scale.

You'd be absolute fine with a 1440p 27in monitor, no issues at all.

Absolutely Clueless · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:14

Jonjo69 said:
Depending on the game, some will hold assets etc. in VRAM. Large maps with many thousands or hundreds of thousands of assets can use up huge amounts of VRAM. Cities Skylines is well known for this and it has been shown that this isn't just allocation (as is often the case), but usage.

Ah, interesting. Thanks! Learning so much about games now I've decided to jump ship from consoles, haha.

B1gdeano · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:22

Xyclops said:
Have to admit, I have never personally viewed a 4k or 1440p monitor. I am happy with 1080p on a 24 inch monitor. I do have a portable 15.4inch monitor thats 1080p also, and I find the text on that a bit small. So imagine I'd have a similar problem with 1440p on a normal sized screen. I never use font scaling in Windows, as some software I use doesn't like anything other than 100% scale.

I have to admit I find 1440p at 32" slightly on the too low res side of things due to the PPI - its great at 27" though

I just find 4k far too much for screens less than 40" and 40" isnt great to work with at 2' away

But you should try 1440 - its a big step up from 1080

Xyclops · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:30

Absolutely Clueless said:
You'd be absolute fine with a 1440p 27in monitor, no issues at all.

B1gdeano said:
I have to admit I find 1440p at 32" slightly on the too low res side of things due to the PPI - its great at 27" though

I just find 4k far too much for screens less than 40" and 40" isnt great to work with at 2' away

But you should try 1440 - its a big step up from 1080

Good to know. I have three 1080p screens though, and they only just fit on desk. Three 27inch 1440p screens would be a lot more screen space thats for sure, and an expensive undertaking too! All of my screens are 100% srgb panels for photography and videography. I won't be able to afford such an upgrade for a couple of years.

Dumphole · 4 Oct 2020 at 18:37

1440p - 240hz.

fx1 · 4 Oct 2020 at 19:27

Jonjo69 said:
I would say that you are taking your use case and applying that to everyone. Eye strain is more about the ambient light and your monitor/TV settings and little about resolution. If you're happy with 3840x1600 then that's good, but don't assume that makes sense for all people under all use cases. It just doesn't work like that. There are plenty of calculators out there that will give you minimum, maximum and optimal distances for any resolution.

Not really.

I have a 55 inch 4k screen a 65" 4k Oled and a 1440p 27"and now a 38" 3840x1600.

I play all types of games and can confidently say what works and what has issues.

Tv's should be used as TVs and console style gaming. If you are at a desk get a PC monitor with a PC res.

Cask · 5 Oct 2020 at 09:58

1440p ultrawide 144hz. Next monitor upgrade will be 4k/5k ultrawide.

SpartaP · 5 Oct 2020 at 10:22

Have a 1440p 165hz monitor and my 4k TV which supports HDMI 2.1 - all I'm waiting for is a 3080 to become available to purchase lol.

ne0 · 5 Oct 2020 at 12:24

3440 x 1440 @ 144hz. Superior to 4k when you weigh up the pros and cons imo.