• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Making the jump from 1440p to 4k?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

SPL Tech

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
I am running 1440P on a 1080ti right now. I was thinking of making the leap to a 2080Ti and trying for 4k. How reasonable is it to get 4k 75 FPS on an overclocked 2080Ti on all max settings with modern AAA games? Can the GPU do it?
 
I'd say no for 75 fps on all AAA titles with ultra settings. Some games will, most won't.

I'd rather upgrade to 144/165 hz 2560x1440. I won't go 4k until 120hz+ is reasonable and there is a video card to drive it.
 
I'd say no for 75 fps on all AAA titles with ultra settings. Some games will, most won't.

I'd rather upgrade to 144/165 hz 2560x1440. I won't go 4k until 120hz+ is reasonable and there is a video card to drive it.

^As much as I hate these posts, this.

And honestly, I've got a pair of 1440p 27" screens. At standard desk distance, (2-3') they're still pretty sharp, so unless you're sitting a few feet from a larger screen the higher resolution won't help.

One of the screens is a 1440p, 144hz (165hz if I poked at it) GSynced monitor. I was playing Wolfenstein 2 last night, and while the EVGA Precision OSD wasn't playing nice to give FPS numbers it was *smooth* with a base 2080. While I can't say if it was >60hz or GSync that pushed me over the edge, it was one of the times I fully realized I made the right choice over 4k.
 
I'm in the same boat... 2560x1440 144hz and 2560x1440 75hz.

A 2080 super does well enough there to push 144 hz in many titles, some with lowered IQ.
 
I’d think that 144Hz 1440p is a more demanding workload than 4K at 60 FPS. And yes I do sit about 3’ from a 32” monitor. I don’t run 27s. 32” is the smallest monitor I’ll ever buy.
 
I’d think that 144Hz 1440p is a more demanding workload than 4K at 60 FPS.
It isnt all about fps. 4k is alao over double the number of pixels per frame than 2560x1440 (3.7M pixels to 8.3M). Additionally, in order to push those frames more bandwidth and vRAM are needed. So it depends on what you mean by demanding. Id guess there are more cares/titles capable of reaching 144 fps at 2560x1440 than 60 fps at 4k using the same IQ settings. ;)
 
It isnt all about fps. 4k is alao over double the number of pixels per frame than 2560x1440 (3.7M pixels to 8.3M). Additionally, in order to push those frames more bandwidth and vRAM are needed. So it depends on what you mean by demanding. Id guess there are more cares/titles capable of reaching 144 fps at 2560x1440 than 60 fps at 4k using the same IQ settings. ;)

Well the VRAm doesent matter. Either you have enough or you dont. Unused RAM is wasted RAM so anything less than 100% usage is not saving you anything. The 2080Ti is a 4k capable card and 11GB of VRAM is more than enough for all titles. So I am just speaking to core usage since that is the limiting factor. I wonder how 4k looks compared to 1440p. I have never been able to compare side by side.
 
I simply responded to your statement.

Using more RAM, regardless if it is filling the vram or not, is "more demanding" on the card in general. More vram is needed and higher bandwidth helps at that extreme resolution. So I'd think because it is usikg more resources it's 'working harder'.

Anyway, 4k looks more detailed compared to 2560x1440, no doubt. My test bench monitor is 4k so I see the difference weekly. You'll enjoy the pixel density considering your 32" 2560x1440 setup.

That said, while a 2080ti is a 4k/60 card in some titles, it certainly isn't in all. As mentioned previously, I'm in a similar situation in that I'm running high hz 2560x1440. So there is no way I'd move 'back to 60/75hz. There isn't a card out that can run 4k/120 with ultra settings... not to mention any 4k uhd 120hz monitors are expensive. See post 2 again. For 75 fps... some games, sure.. but I'd never go back to 75hz just to move up in res.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, when speaking of ultra, is that including maxed out antialiasing? I thought that when you get above 1080p the need to have it on, let alone maybe 2x decreased dramatically. But obviously when you're adding rtx features, dynamic shadows, etc it's going to put a hurting on your card.

 
That's a great point I forgot about. When I gamed at 4k, I typically set AA to 2x or 4x at max. Disabled is still WAY better than low at 1080/1440.

For me, the IQ difference isn't worth the smooth frame rates of 144hz+.
 
Agreed on that. I wish more things supported HDR and monitors were more readily available.

That said adaptive sync I think is almost required for 4k to be enjoyable so that framerate dips are not (as) noticeable.

 
Is HDR noticeable? Does the game need to support it or is it supported on all apps?
 
With HDR, it gets tricky as not all HDR is equal. I've tried HDR400 monitors and honestly I don't even notice it in-game, I needed to be paying attention and looking out for it. Supposedly the higher tiers are a lot better.

But I don't think a game needs to "support" it, it's kinda built in.
 
I believe you're right Joe. Maybe in future drivers/etc they will find a way to force it to work in HDR, but I thought that it was a graphics design/programming choice to have HDR enabled on various games. At least I don't think if I load any game on my PS4 will it switch over to HDR, but RDR2 will.
 
Huh, didn't know the games needed to support it, figured it was like traditional dynamic contrast/dynamic backlighting and most screens did it on their end. Learned something new.
 
The problem with 1440p 240 Hz is the card wont be able to push that in all titles. That's even harder to push than 4K at 60 Hz so that means tons of screen tearing which is not worth the extra FPS just to see lots of tearing. I can turn V sync on, but it wont do anything if the card cant push 240 FPS while the monitor expects it.
 
I ended up going 4k. Considering I was only gaming at 75 Hz before (and I was getting frame skipping, so not even really 75 Hz), there is not a huge loss in smoothness, but it sure looks really nice. What I really want is a 4k monitor that does more than 60 FPS with GSync and then I will be in business. But no one makes that around the 32" size. Only 27" or like 44"+. Disappointing really.
 
Back