• 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.

Is a 5090 really overkill for 1440?

Clarence Boddicker

Clarence Boddicker

Clarence Boddicker

Associate
Joined
18 Feb 2024
Posts
126
Location
UK
I know its meant to be a 4k card, but would a 5090 still be overkill for 1440, if playing with graphics maxed, rt on and no upscaling or frame gen?

The 5080 doesn’t seem a good option for this scenario, especially as it only has 16gb vram.
 
Clarence Boddicker said:
I know its meant to be a 4k card, but would a 5090 still be overkill for 1440, if playing with graphics maxed, rt on and no upscaling or frame gen?

The 5080 doesn’t seem a good option for this scenario, especially as it only has 16gb vram.
Click to expand...
Depends on the refresh rate really - if you've got a 1440p with 60Hz, then yes, it's overkill. But if you're looking at numbers in the 200s and 300s, then not overkill.
 
Not really, people running 4k often use DLSS bringing the res down to the 1440p range anyway.
If not using DLSS and wanting RT maxed out it's not overkill at all.

I guess it would boil down to the fact you can get a 5080 and a 4K OLED monitor for the same price as a 5090 which would likely be a better buy unless you have an OLED 1440p monitor and like high refresh rate gaming
 
My monitors 165Hz, not OLED though. Dont get me wrong, dont really want to drop over 2k on a gpu but I want to upgrade to Nvidia and the 5080 just doesnt seem good enough. I suppose thats exactly what they want though, people buying the 5090 because the 5080 isnt quite enough.
 
Some reviews have been showing that the 5090 is bottlenecked by a 9800x3d at 1440p so I'd say its overkill for that resolution, especially if your upper limit it gonna be 165fps.
 
The Hardware Unboxed review noted that it was only 12% faster on average than a 4090 @ 1440p in non RT scenarios due to heavy CPU bottlenecks, with that gap only increasing to 17% when using RT. I was also planning on a 5090 for 1440p as overkill and keeping it for several years but it's really not worth it when you break it down.
 
Surely it depends how long you'd plan on keeping it? If you think you'll cave and get a 60 series, then yeah, probably. You wouldn't see most of the benefits in those two years. If you plan on keeping it long term through more CPU/monitor upgrades then it makes more sense especially as games might get more graphically demanding.
 
The problem with getting the 5080 and an oled 4k is that the vram isnt enough for certain games already at 4k, and like I said I like to max out graphics settings without using upscaling and frame gen. It will **** me off as well if I buy a 5080 now and they release a super in the not too far distant future with the right amount of vram.

I think Im leaning towards getting a 5090 at the moment and then maybe a monitor upgrade at some point.
 
Clarence Boddicker said:
So would I be more cpu limited at 1440p than at 4k?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right.

At lower resolutions, it's a case of "how many frames can the CPU push".

At 4k, it's a case of "how many frames can the GPU push".

With some old games, you can't run them faster at 1440p than 4k - this is because the limiting factor is still the same: the CPU.

Both matter though and it's a balancing act. The main thing to avoid is matching a really high end GPU with a really low end CPU (and vice versa). Have a look at some benchmarks on youtube and you should get an idea of what each CPU / GPU is capable of.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom