4K & 1440p gaming - Select CPU and GPU generations

[J7SC_Orion]

Hello folks  ...When wanting to game at 4K (and at times 1440p) with decent framerates, it doesn't always have to be the absolute latest CPU and GPU generation, IMO. To that end, below are some select comparisons for three AMD CPU generations - a 2950X, a 3950X and a 5950X, paired with 2x 2080 Tis, a 6900XT and a 3090. These three systems have different functions for my work and play, and all three are fully custom water-cooled.

 

I recently upgraded everything to 4K monitors/TVs (40 inch, 48 inch, 55 inch) and compared these setups - the 2950X / 2x 2080 Ti combo was built in late 2018, while the other two stem from 2021...I was a bit surprised how well the older 2950X combo held up. While it can clearly not compete with the latest gens in terms of absolute 'peak' numbers, it is often more than enough to afford reasonably smooth gameplay, even with ray tracing. As it is connected to a 4K 60 Hz tv, the minimum requirements re. the rest of the system are not as demanding as for example the setup that serves a 48 inch 120Hz OLED.

 

Please note that these are not meant as a hardcore benchmark comparison; GPU clocks used are game stable (rather than full bench mode) and temps remain low. The purpose is to see whether 'last gen' tech in terms of CPU and GPU can still deliver decent 4K (and 1440p). While not included below, the original test bench for the 3090 acquisition was actually an Intel i7 5960X 8c/16t Haswell-E setup from 2014...even that then-seven-year old system managed to break 15,000 with a stock air-cooled (now water-cooled) 3090. Generally speaking and from my subjective perspective, those wishing to game (mostly) at 4K and who have a decent 8c/16t processor with good 32GB of RAM are better off spending their money on a good GPU rather than the latest CPUs and mobos, especially with an eye on upcoming next-gen CPU releases. Single-core performance does of course also matter a lot in gaming, and in my opinion, a 8 core CPU which can manage at least a single thread score of 480 and up in CPUz should be good enough when paired with a GPU that will run 4K easy...after all, at the higher resolutions, CPU performance is relatively less of an issue.

 

...a quick note on the 2080 Ti SLI/NVLink system include below....surely, folks will groan that 'SLI is dead', and support for it in new games has clearly been waning. Nevertheless, a surprisingly large number of games (DX11, even DX12 RTX/DLSS) I play still work very well in SLI/NVLink, especially at 4K. Wherever possible, I use an undocumented driver feature that allows for SLI-CFR ('checker board') which doesn't do micro-stutter, for example, though the relevant drivers are getting a bit long in the tooth...

 

With that in mind, here are the setups and select DX11 and DX12 bench results...

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Edit - some Superposition 8K runs for 'the usual suspects'...

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by J7SC_Orion

[schuck6566]

I still get decent 4k game play on my Ryzen 7 2700x and my RTX 2070 (Non Super) Most game play is on at least High for my settings with some ultra. Strange as it sounds, the only ones I had to tune down to medium-high settings were some of the Metro's and Witcher 3 (only because of the distance shots in Witcher)The Benches were all done at highest settings where possible.Display is a 27" 4k 60Hz BENQ HDR optional with a button.(I tend to leave HDR off because I'm only 2.5 feet away from the monitor so it's a bit overwhelming... )Added a txt file with 1 more benchmark result on it. Oxide's Starswarm benchmark for CPU's.

Output_22_05_25_0836.txt

Edited May 25, 2022 by schuck6566

[Sir Beregond]

It's funny how much resolution changes things. I upgraded from a 1080p to a 1440p monitor in 2019 and suddenly I wasn't happy with my 4790k/GTX 980, while on 1080p it was still perfectly fine performance wise. Though should be noted I wasn't always playing the latest and greatest. But once I upgraded to 1440p, there were suddenly situations where I couldn't effectively run certain games at the setting I wanted, or even at all.

[J7SC_Orion]

3 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

It's funny how much resolution changes things. I upgraded from a 1080p to a 1440p monitor in 2019 and suddenly I wasn't happy with my 4790k/GTX 980, while on 1080p it was still perfectly fine performance wise. Though should be noted I wasn't always playing the latest and greatest. But once I upgraded to 1440p, there were suddenly situations where I couldn't effectively run certain games at the setting I wanted, or even at all.

 

...that's how it goes ! Monitor upgrades really drove my latest GPU purchases, not gaming or benching per se. Once you have a big 4K+ 120Hz monitor, you want a GPU that can properly drive it in games re. min fps (I restrict max fps to 350, given the 1000+ fps in some game menus ).  

 

On another note, the 2x 2080 Ti SLI/NVLink setup really only 'wakes up' at 1440 and above, perhaps because they're held back by the 2950X at lower resolutions. 

[UltraMega]

2 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

It's funny how much resolution changes things. I upgraded from a 1080p to a 1440p monitor in 2019 and suddenly I wasn't happy with my 4790k/GTX 980, while on 1080p it was still perfectly fine performance wise. Though should be noted I wasn't always playing the latest and greatest. But once I upgraded to 1440p, there were suddenly situations where I couldn't effectively run certain games at the setting I wanted, or even at all.

1080P = ~ 2.1 million pixels

1440p = ~ 3.7 million pixels

4K = ~ 8.3 million pixels

 

The jump from 1080p to 1440p is big, but not even quite double the pixels. from 1440p to 4K the pixel count is more than double and that's when the real GPU hunger kicks in. 

 

4K 120hz is the goal we should all hope to get to one day, and once there I think the whole industry can rest at that point for a good long time. I think it will be at least a year or two before I start thinking about replacing my 4K 60hz to a 4k 120hz VRR, partly because even if I had a 4K 120hz VRR today there is hardly anything I could play to really take advantage of it, and with GPU prices how they are, going that route is excessively expensive right now, at least compared to normal market conditions. 

[Sir Beregond]

1 hour ago, UltraMega said:

1080P = ~ 2.1 million pixels

1440p = ~ 3.7 million pixels

4K = ~ 8.3 million pixels

 

The jump from 1080p to 1440p is big, but not even quite double the pixels. from 1440p to 4K the pixel count is more than double and that's when the real GPU hunger kicks in. 

 

4K 120hz is the goal we should all hope to get to one day, and once there I think the whole industry can rest at that point for a good long time. I think it will be at least a year or two before I start thinking about replacing my 4K 60hz to a 4k 120hz VRR, partly because even if I had a 4K 120hz VRR today there is hardly anything I could play to really take advantage of it, and with GPU prices how they are, going that route is excessively expensive right now, at least compared to normal market conditions. 

Yeah, I don't think many, including myself, know/knew how many more pixels even just going from 1080p to 1440p translates to. It was an eye opener for sure.

 

I agree that is the goal for now. I am also hoping that in the next year or two they make some smaller 4k OLEDs I can use as a monitor. Really liked the LG C1 I looked at at Best Buy a few weeks ago, but even 48" was just too much in my opinion. At least for my use. But it's definitely where I want to get to!

[UltraMega]

16 minutes ago, Sir Beregond said:

Yeah, I don't think many, including myself, know/knew how many more pixels even just going from 1080p to 1440p translates to. It was an eye opener for sure.

 

I agree that is the goal for now. I am also hoping that in the next year or two they make some smaller 4k OLEDs I can use as a monitor. Really liked the LG C1 I looked at at Best Buy a few weeks ago, but even 48" was just too much in my opinion. At least for my use. But it's definitely where I want to get to!

Do you have a 4K HDR TV right now?

[Sir Beregond]

3 hours ago, UltraMega said:

Do you have a 4K HDR TV right now?

Nope.

[J7SC_Orion]

4 hours ago, UltraMega said:

1080P = ~ 2.1 million pixels

1440p = ~ 3.7 million pixels

4K = ~ 8.3 million pixels

 

The jump from 1080p to 1440p is big, but not even quite double the pixels. from 1440p to 4K the pixel count is more than double and that's when the real GPU hunger kicks in. 

 

4K 120hz is the goal we should all hope to get to one day, and once there I think the whole industry can rest at that point for a good long time. I think it will be at least a year or two before I start thinking about replacing my 4K 60hz to a 4k 120hz VRR, partly because even if I had a 4K 120hz VRR today there is hardly anything I could play to really take advantage of it, and with GPU prices how they are, going that route is excessively expensive right now, at least compared to normal market conditions. 

 

...yeah, it all adds up:

~ 8.29  mpix 3840x2160 4K (sort of)
~ 8.85 mpix 4096x2160 4K (definitely)
~ 14.75 mpix 5120x2880 5K (mostly)
~ 33.2 mpix 7680x4320 8K (says Jensen) 

~ 132.7 mpix 15360 × 8640 (military grade)

 

I game mostly at 4096x2160 on the C1 (120Hz OLED), and the w-cooled 3090 Strix can easily handle that (same for the 6900XT which uses that as a 2ndary monitor)...FS2020 can exceed 70 fps at 4096x2160, in spite of its 60 fps 'limit'. I've run 5K a few times in other apps, including with the 6900XT, but mostly just for kicks.

 

I guess when the RTX4K and RDNA3 series come out, we'll be treated to a more serious marketing campaign towards 'ready for 8K gaming' . FYI, a friend of mine runs a specialty software firm that is working on 16K compression algorithms...10 G networking better get a move on 

[UltraMega]

35 minutes ago, J7SC_Orion said:

I game mostly at 4096x2160 

Oh, is that a 16:10 screen? 4096 x 2160 is a 16:10 aspect ratio, but 16:9 is the standard aspect ratio. 4096 is kind of a legacy option to ensure compatibility with HD blue-ray players and things like that, unless you do indeed have a 16:10 screen. 

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Sir Beregond said:

Nope.

Half the reason I got into 4k was because of how cheap standard 4k TVs got. If you aren't dead set on OLED, you can get a good TV for cheap. OLED will probably be a lot cheaper in a few years too, along with 120hz and VRR.

[Sir Beregond]

24 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

Half the reason I got into 4k was because of how cheap standard 4k TVs got. If you aren't dead set on OLED, you can get a good TV for cheap. OLED will probably be a lot cheaper in a few years too, along with 120hz and VRR.

I'm in no rush. Will properly drive my 1440p display for it's first time for a bit and maybe look at that next year come bonus time.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Sir Beregond

[pio]

So I too, accidentally fell for the GPU marketing campaign that is, buying a new monitor. -_-

When I originally got going on my build, this is what I had:
 

i7 3770k / RX 580 8GB
1920x1080 @ 60Hz (40" LED TV) (but I could upscale with drivers, and I did to 1440p usually)

 

I then upgraded:
 

Ryzen 3600 / RX 580 8GB

 

I then realized that a 40" 1080p LED TV was horrible to actually use daily......., so I bought my new monitor.

 

Ryzen 3600 / RX 580 8GB

5120x1440 @ 120Hz

 

Now all of a sudden, I couldn't play my games at all hardly anymore.  I had to set custom resolutions to like 2560x720, just to get some titles to even play at a movie framerate of 23 FPS.  Somebody here at EHW was kind enough at this point to step in and offer me an upgrade I couldn't ignore:

 

Ryzen 3600 / 5700XT
5120x1440 @ 120Hz still

 

Finally I could play all of my older games beautifully!  However, I was still struggling hard with newer titles like Cyberpunk and RDR2.  RDR2 I was getting into, and I could only really manage to play on the Digital Foundries XBox One X equivalent settings.  It worked, but man oh MAN was that game gorgeous cranked up to the max.  I could do it with the 5700XT, but it was a stable 30 FPS thing.  That new monitor is Freesync, so that wasn't exactly a good framerate target.

 

Finally......

 

Ryzen 5800x / 6900XT

5120x1440 @ 120Hz

FINALLY, I can max out most titles.  Cyberpunk and any other non DX RT titles struggle with RT on, but it plays.  I have no problems playing Cyberpunk 100% maxed out now, with RT even, albeit at 3840x1080 resolution, and using RSR to bring it up to native.  Or I can turn on Quality FSR at native res.  Either way, its a beautiful experience finally.  I do wish I could do it at maximum, and a 6950XT might get me there, but I might be able to OC this thing too and get me there.  So whatever.

 

/rant

 

Yes, monitors are an absolutely HORRIBLE way to force users to upgrade!   Had I stuck with my original 1080p TV I was using, or had I bought a regular 16:9 1080p or 1440p monitor, I'd have been FINE on older cards.  But nooooo, I just had to have an ultrawide with stupid high resolution.  I bring this all up because 5120x1440 is dang near native 4k 3840x2160 in total pixels rendered.  4k is 8.3m pixels, my resolution is 7.3m pixels.  So really close.

[J7SC_Orion]

3 hours ago, UltraMega said:

Oh, is that a 16:10 screen? 4096 x 2160 is a 16:10 aspect ratio, but 16:9 is the standard aspect ratio. 4096 is kind of a legacy option to ensure compatibility with HD blue-ray players and things like that, unless you do indeed have a 16:10 screen. 

 

The big LG's are indeed 4096x2160, though they also run 3840x2160 just fine. Some LG owners mod the TV software via CRU to make 3840x2160 the default, but I prefer the max pixel count .

 

I don't mean to wax on lyrically about the C1 48 OLED, but it is simply incredible at 120Hz HDR, Dolby Vision/Atmos, HLG and on and on. The response in gaming is also as near-instantons as I've ever experienced. Below is an excerpt from FS2020 with the settings used, and powered by the 520W 3090...because I have HDR on, the screenies look a bit bleached, but the real thing looks breathtaking.  BTW, I use similar settings for the IPS HDR 55 powered by the older 2xRTX2ks which really wake up at 4K+ via SLI/NVL/CFR. 'Max' fps is supposed to be 60 in FS2020, but who cares. BTW, DX11 in FS2020 still beats the DX12 beta....hopefully they'll fix that one of these years 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by J7SC_Orion

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, J7SC_Orion said:

 

The big LG's are indeed 4096x2160, though they also run 3840x2160 just fine. Some LG owners mod the TV software via CRU to make 3840x2160 the default, but I prefer the max pixel count .

 

I don't mean to wax on lyrically about the C1 48 OLED, but it is simply incredible at 120Hz HDR, Dolby Vision/Atmos, HLG and on and on. The response in gaming is also as near-instantons as I've ever experienced. Below is an excerpt from FS2020 with the settings used, and powered by the 520W 3090...because I have HDR on, the screenies look a bit bleached, but the real thing looks breathtaking.  BTW, I use similar settings for the IPS HDR 55 powered by the older 2xRTX2ks which really wake up at 4K+ via SLI/NVL/CFR. 'Max' fps is supposed to be 60 in FS2020, but who cares. BTW, DX11 in FS2020 still beats the DX12 beta....hopefully they'll fix that one of these years 

So your TV is 4096 native and 16:10? Curious what the model is. I haven't seen a 16:10 in a long time. 

 

My TV also goes to 4096 but it's a 16:9 and it's native res is 3840.

 

Edit: is this your TV? Amazon.com: LG OLED C1 Series 48” Alexa Built-in 4k Smart TV (3840 x 2160), 120Hz Refresh Rate, AI-Powered 4K, Dolby Cinema, WiSA Ready, Gaming Mode (OLED48C1PUB, 2021) : Clothing, Shoes & Jewelry 

Edited May 26, 2022 by UltraMega

[bonami2]

My Lg cx 48 always set by default at 4096 but i put it back at 3840x2160. Never really noticed if i have black border.

If i don't forget am gonna check tomorrow.

[UltraMega]

4 minutes ago, bonami2 said:

My Lg cx 48 always set by default at 4096 but i put it back at 3840x2160. Never really noticed if i have black border.

If i don't forget am gonna check tomorrow.

If you set games to 4096 on a 16:9 screen you won't get black boarders, the aspect ratio will just be wrong and the image will be vertically compressed/horizontally stretched. 

[bonami2]

Just now, UltraMega said:

If you set games to 4096 on a 16:9 screen you won't get black boarders, the aspect ratio will just be wrong and the image will be vertically compressed/horizontally stretched. 

Oh that make sense. Always ran 3840x2160 because i know it the 16:9 ratio. Will report back if it stretch or not.

[UltraMega]

1 minute ago, bonami2 said:

Oh that make sense. Always ran 3840x2160 because i know it the 16:9 ratio. Will report back if it stretch or not.

No need to test it, if you have a 16:9 and you use a 16:10 aspect resolution, the image will be skewed for sure. Same as if you set it to a 4:3 aspect ratio on a modern screen, just less obvious. 

Occasionally I think there are games that are smart enough to detect the proper aspect ratio of your screen and will adjust to fit even if you choose a resolution that goes to a different aspect ratio, but it's rare. 

[bonami2]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

No need to test it, if you have a 16:9 and you use a 16:10 aspect resolution, the image will be skewed for sure. Same as if you set it to a 4:3 aspect ratio on a modern screen, just less obvious. 

Occasionally I think there are games that are smart enough to detect the proper aspect ratio of your screen and will adjust to fit even if you choose a resolution that goes to a different aspect ratio, but it's rare. 

Yes but why my 6800xt would default to this resolution while my other 4k display always defaulted to 3840. Something is wrong with the TV or Driver maybe?

Just strange that it want to default at 16:10 res

 

 

[J7SC_Orion]

3 minutes ago, bonami2 said:

Yes but why my 6800xt would default to this resolution while my other 4k display always defaulted to 3840. Something is wrong with the TV or Driver maybe?

Just strange that it want to default at 16:10 res

 

 

 

...as mentioned, you can re-set it to 3840x2160 in the LG software though apparently, subsequent LG 'updates' will set it back to default...either way, I prefer the 4096x2160 because our 4K tv box (also over the same fibre connection as the internet) outputs at 4096x2160. 

 

Of MUCH MORE INTEREST is this > ultrawide setting on LG OLED 48 (at least with a RTX3k) 

[bonami2]

1 minute ago, J7SC_Orion said:

 

...as mentioned, you can re-set it to 3840x2160 in the LG software though apparently, subsequent LG 'updates' will set it back to default...either way, I prefer the 4096x2160 because our 4K tv box (also over the same fibre connection as the internet) outputs at 4096x2160. 

 

Of MUCH MORE INTEREST is this > ultrawide setting on LG OLED 48 (at least with a RTX3k) 

AHH i need to try this.. Should work with amd too!!

I tried HDR on mine but it looked like crap and did not seem to work correctly? Did you have issue on youtube?

My other 4k display ran hdr perfectly.

[J7SC_Orion]

Just now, bonami2 said:

AHH i need to try this.. Should work with amd too!!

I tried HDR on mine but it looked like crap and did not seem to work correctly? Did you have issue on youtube?

My other 4k display ran hdr perfectly.

 

No issue w/ HDR on mine...YT vids look gorgeous as well. Only real issue is the screenshots of HDR content when shared on a non-HDR monitor.

[bonami2]

1 minute ago, J7SC_Orion said:

 

No issue w/ HDR on mine...YT vids look gorgeous as well. Only real issue is the screenshots of HDR content when shared on a non-HDR monitor.

Worked on my nvidia card with my 4k 28" brighter light and everything was gorgeous. But on my cx48 and 6800xt even when HDR is enabled and set on youtube only some light are a little brighter and most of them aren't look like it run without hdr.

 

Must be an amd issue  got some brand new high res hdmi cable in case and it did not fix the issue.

[J7SC_Orion]

11 minutes ago, bonami2 said:

Worked on my nvidia card with my 4k 28" brighter light and everything was gorgeous. But on my cx48 and 6800xt even when HDR is enabled and set on youtube only some light are a little brighter and most of them aren't look like it run without hdr.

 

Must be an amd issue  got some brand new high res hdmi cable in case and it did not fix the issue.

 

...may be a setting either in the AMD menu or the LG ? FYI, I just used the 6900XT on the same LG C1 OLED (both GPUs are connected to each of the two monitors). 4K HDR YT vids are working great on the 6900XT...