• 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.

Rx 6800 good enough?

Grim5 said:
It's the gamecache, it's fine for lower resolution but it starts to choke performance at 4k or higher - the card is still capable at 4k, just it's less optimal when the gamecache can't feed the shaders so the card falls back to the gddr6 which has too little bandwidth from its mid range bit rate
Click to expand...

I have read this many times, yet I cannot understand how the 6800XT being ~7% slower than a 3080 on average at 4K is "choking". AMD have an architecture that allows a much smaller bus width to adequately supply a top end GPU at 4K. It's an amazing advancement in GPU architecture and will serve the latest consoles and Big Navi well.
 
I've never understood the need for 4k on anything approaching normal size monitors, sure if you have a 50+inch TV hooked up.

I'll be running at 3440x1440.
 
Its all subjective - depends on screen sizer and distance you are viewing it from. The convention is up to 24" for 1080, then up to 27 is 1440 and lastly up to 43 is 4k. Above 43 is recommendation will be 8k. But its all down to what you, as the viewer - wants. Personally ive had a 4k screen for 5 years anow.
 
Harlequin said:
Its all subjective - depends on screen sizer and distance you are viewing it from. The convention is up to 24" for 1080, then up to 27 is 1440 and lastly up to 43 is 4k. Above 43 is recommendation will be 8k. But its all down to what you, as the viewer - wants. Personally ive had a 4k screen for 5 years anow.
Click to expand...

I've always gone by Pixels per inch with a 24" being about 92ppi at 1080p and I happily gamed on one of these for years, 1440p doesn't reach that density until you hit 32" so I considered a 32" 1440p would be fine with a 27" being fantastic. Admittedly i've not tried 1440p at 32" so I don't know for sure, i'm just going by the numbers.

I wouldn't have thought 4k becomes necessary until you start to hit sizes of around 48" and 8k around 95". 8K at 43" is 205 ppi, that's more than double that 24" 1080p monitor, is that really needed?

I've got a 3440 x 1440 34" Monitor coming next week though which works out at around 110ppi so i'll see if my theory holds true I guess.
 
Iamzod said:
I've never understood the need for 4k on anything approaching normal size monitors, sure if you have a 50+inch TV hooked up.

I'll be running at 3440x1440.
Click to expand...

Because owning a high end PC with a gaming GPU is not always just about gaming. Try not to limit your understanding to your own specific requirements and desires. Funny thing is I could say I want ultra-wide to die a death because that way monitor manufacturers will stop focusing on a pointless screen format. But hey, who am I to judge what other peoples requirements may be.

People may need 4K for production such as image editing but may have limited desk space to accommodate more than a single monitor and 4K is the best compromise option. Or may just prefer the sharpness a 4K 27" monitor provides for gaming.

Basically what your pixel density example shows is that you have taken a low bar and scaled it up to 4K. For many (myself included) 1080p at 24" is an inadequate pixel density for anything other than some basic stuff. But like I said I can see why different people have different requirements.
 
Last edited:
ICDP said:
Basically what your pixel density example shows is that you have taken a low bar and scaled it up to 4K. For many (myself included) 1080p at 24" is a woefully inadequate pixel density.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, it'd be a boring existence if we all agreed on everything. I've played on a 27" 1080p before too and that was pushing for me it but it was very much game dependent. Eve online for example looked iffy whereas Forza 7 & Assassins Creed looked great.
 
nitram100 said:
Why are they so expensive on ocuk? I can literally put in a pre order for 599 on another website I found. Yeh they don't have any at the moment (probably because ocuk have them all) but the price is fixed and it won't go up. Just don't understand the justification for some of the ridiculous pricing I'm seeing.
Click to expand...
Because people buy them, sure OCUK could charge MSRP but they would sell out in a day or less and while supply is constrained I suspect OCUK would rather sell with a large markup even if that means they take a few weeks to sell out.
 
nitram100 said:
Why are they so expensive on ocuk? I can literally put in a pre order for 599 on another website I found. Yeh they don't have any at the moment (probably because ocuk have them all) but the price is fixed and it won't go up. Just don't understand the justification for some of the ridiculous pricing I'm seeing.
Click to expand...

The difficulty there for someone like me is even at £720 it's still worthwhile over paying £599 but having to wait as the current issues are meaning that whilst yes I can save £120 it means I have to wait and at the moment even used prices are up so the difference is absorbed by selling my old card, I paid £199 for the RX580 and sold it for £250 after 2 years of usage, at normal times it's worth £120ish tops now. So in reality i've saved a tenner maybe and I don't have to wait.
 
Iamzod said:
The difficulty there for someone like me is even at £720 it's still worthwhile over paying £599 but having to wait as the current issues are meaning that whilst yes I can save £120 it means I have to wait and at the moment even used prices are up so the difference is absorbed by selling my old card, I paid £199 for the RX580 and sold it for £250 after 2 years of usage, at normal times it's worth £120ish tops now. So in reality i've saved a tenner maybe and I don't have to wait.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I sold my un-needed 6800 in minutes here on the MM at the price I paid for it. I could have got much more on ebay for example but I don't need the money and it wouldn't sit right with me.
 
Last edited:
Iamzod said:
I've always gone by Pixels per inch with a 24" being about 92ppi at 1080p and I happily gamed on one of these for years, 1440p doesn't reach that density until you hit 32" so I considered a 32" 1440p would be fine with a 27" being fantastic. Admittedly i've not tried 1440p at 32" so I don't know for sure, i'm just going by the numbers.

I wouldn't have thought 4k becomes necessary until you start to hit sizes of around 48" and 8k around 95". 8K at 43" is 205 ppi, that's more than double that 24" 1080p monitor, is that really needed?

I've got a 3440 x 1440 34" Monitor coming next week though which works out at around 110ppi so i'll see if my theory holds true I guess.
Click to expand...


Yes - its subjective. My own 5 year old panel is an Acer CB280HK , with a PPI of 157. It might not have all the toys - and if i do change it, HDR will be my next top feature.
 
ICDP said:
As a 4K owner ever since 4K was a thing I can confirm this to be accurate. I use 4K because my main reason for PC is gaming with significant Photoshop thrown in. So 4K at a decent size is a must for texture creation. Prior to VRR you needed to get as close to 60FPS to get smooth gameplay, or you had to put up with tearing and or stuttering.
  • When 980Ti was top dog it could not push Witcher 3 anywhere near 60 FPS average, even with reduced settings.
  • When GT1080 was top GPU it had Deus Ex Mankind Divided that brought it to it's knees. The 1080Ti helped a bit but the same game was not close to 60FPS average on ultra settings.
  • 2080Ti, massively overpriced but allegedly the first true 4K 60Hz GPU. Except you now had Ray Tracing to contend with (when some actual games where eventually released).
  • RTX 3080 and even the 3090 can't push CP2077 RT, or some other recent non-RT titles to 60Hz 4K ultra.
So there is always some new game out there that destroys the "top end" GPUs at 4K.

When driving 4K in the latest and most demanding games, it has always been 100% necessary to reduce settings to achieve playable FPS at 4K. Honestly the biggest impact to 4K gaming is not GPU power, but the introduction of VRR. The 4K 32" Freesync screen I use has a 33-60Hz VRR range. Without VRR even 45-50 FPS can be unplayable, with VRR even mid 30s can be playable.

So for me the next biggest thing in 4K is not higher refresh (it would still be nice of course), but HDR.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest thing for me. People play at 4k because they want the best image quality but then you have to reduce graphical fidelity to get respectable framerates. I'd rather not have that trade off. I'd rather have the higher graphical fidelity and framrate with a slight loss to image quality that comes with 1440p/UW.

As for HDR I'm a bit on the fence in all honesty. I have a Sony XH90 with a peak 700 nits and my folks have a Samsung with a peak of 900 nits. In both instances it looks good but nothing so great that it makes a material impact on my viewing experience. I can over my girlfriend's who has a 4K non HDR set and tbh I don't even miss HDR not being there. Again it's personal preference but I've never once watched a movie on her TV and thought this looks so much better at home. For HDR gaming I have much the same feeling and a lot of games' HDR implementations at the moment are simply woeful anyway.

My advice to anyone with a top high refresh or 4k monitor is don't be in a rush to upgrade, HDR especially on PC isn't worth right now IMO.
 
6800 is just about enough for non-ray tracing 4k gaming @60 FPS now and maybe the next 1-2 years but any ray tracing titles or next gen titles like cyberpunk, probably not, tbh, no current card will be.



If people want the best IQ for gaming they really need to grab an OLED display.

It is by far the best purchase I have ever made for "gaming", it has made the most difference in every way possible and the only thing that has been worth the ££££/asking price, tbh.

Resolution and refresh rate aren't the be all that some make it out to be either imo, I much rather game on my 55" oled, even at 1920x1080 @60hz (when sitting 7 feet from it) than game on my 3440x1440" 144hz 34" LCD monitor.

Throw in true HDR support and you're set for the best gaming experience there is.
 
rallyslag said:
Agree. I run 32" 1440 x 2560@144hz . It is perfect for me but i still hear people saying anything over 27" is to big for 1440??
Click to expand...

I ran a 32" 1440p display for a while but it gave a substantially softer image than a 27" so whilst it was ok the decrease in ppi was clearly visible even from several feet away.
 
darket said:
I ran a 32" 1440p display for a while but it gave a substantially softer image than a 27" so whilst it was ok the decrease in ppi was clearly visible even from several feet away.
Click to expand...

There are so many variables tho. My 32" 1440p is brilliant its only 75mhz but I could not give up the real estate and go back to 27" even at 144mhz. I've even been eyeing up a 34" UW but its just a little too wide for my desk which is another consideration you need to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom