4 ms·

4k@144fps would be a dream, but even with my 2080 Ti, I can't run AAA titles at 1920x1024@144fps without severely cutting down on graphics settings. I doubt th

by wdroz 7y ago

4k@144fps would be a dream, but even with my 2080 Ti, I can't run AAA titles at 1920x1024@144fps without severely cutting down on graphics settings. I doubt that the 3xxx series will be strong enough to support consistent 4k144fps.

gigatexal 7y ago
The new need cards are said to be 50% faster (speculation of course). I just hope they are so that I can get a 2080ti for around 500 USD.
- bluecalm 7y ago
  I think 500$ for 2080ti won't happen that quickly. There are many hobbyists now who would happily grab several of them for a deep learning project of choice. If they become that cheap I would buy 6 (or however many I could reasonably put in one mining rig like box) just to run Leela Chess Zero training and analysis. I know a few more people in the same boat. The biggest hope for cheap GPUs is AMD actually delivering something. While I don't doubt they will get there in hardware department I am pessimistic about software.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mosselman 7y ago
You don't need 144fps for a 144hz monitor. You didn't say that that is your setup, so I am just assuming here, but the 144 sounds too specific for it to be coincidence. The thing about refresh rates for screens, as I understand it, is not that you need to have a 1:1 relation between your fps and hz, but you don't want to 'lose' frames due to your hz being too low. The lower both are, the more likely you are to miss frames as the image might enter the monitor exactly at a moment where it can't render it. That is why running a game @ 40fps will still be smoother on a 144hz monitor than it is on a 60hz monitor. Higher hz, just means you have a better chance at seeing all the rendered frames. Sure 144fps sounds like a great situation for a 144hz monitor, but I think in reality it just means that you are missing a higher percentage of your frames. So you'd either need some sort of syncing technology (which AMD and NVIDIA have) or an even higher hz monitor. Again, I think, that if you don't, you will just be rendering many of your frames for nothing, as your fps and hz are not aligned. So you might as well get a GPU that renders your games at 80fps for your 144hz monitor. The difference between 144fps and 80fps in terms of money is probably a lot higher than lets say going from 40 to 80. This is all based on my limited knowledge that I acquired from my research I did when I bought my own 144hz monitor.
- iad 7y ago
  For the competitive games where higher framerate is most advantageous (i.e. shooters), I come to the opposite conclusion. Games like that tend to have long periods of low activity where you aren't being challenged, with short periods of chaotic fighting where framerates are significantly worse. It's only during those chaotic times where the performance (of both the hardware and the player) actually has an effect on the outcome of the match. I think it's far more important to have a consistent framerate than it is to worry about wasting potential (fast) frames. Inconsistent smoothness and input lag will create a disadvantage compared to just playing at a capped (lower) framerate. So I think a balanced system (both the hardware and the graphical settings) with a 144hz monitor should be able to run games at far beyond 144 fps most of the time, so that the framerate will only drop down to around 144 in the worst moments. I would even suggest setting a framerate limit near the worst framerate your system often drops down to in the game. How much your hardware needs to be "overprovisioned" depends on how poorly optimized the game is. For many games this can as much as a factor of two difference. So you might only be putting 50% load on your GPU most of the time, but peak at 100% load at important times.
alkonaut 7y ago
That depends mostly on the game. Look at it from the game developers perspective. If I launch a game at the same time as these cards, how much performance do I have available at the highest graphics settings? I make the ultra setting play smoothly on the beefiest graphics card. But I don't release the game where the ultra setting is 144Hz on the beefiest graphics card, because so few users have that anyway. Perhaps a good target to aim for is not dropping below 60Hz in Ultra on the top hardware. Some probably aim even lower, e.g. a higher percentile of frames under 60Hz. "Consistent 144fps" is extreme, and isn't really useful unless you are a competitive gamer. If you use a 144Hz screen without adaptive sync (I thought that was pretty uncommon?) then frame drops might lead to stuttering or tearing, but with adaptive sync you'll likely never notice if frame rates drop temporarily because there is non tearing or stuttering. Hopefully card manufacturers assume that anyone who is even remotely interested in 100+Hz also has adaptive sync. Because if you have $800+ to spend on a graphics card you should could get an adaptive sync screen and a cheper card really.
romanovcode 7y ago
Maybe it's the CPU that's throttling? I cannot believe that 2080TI cannot run at fullHD@144fps. I have 2080TI and I get constant AAA 4k@60fps.
- 1_player 7y ago
  I’m not informed on the PCI specs but I bet the bottleneck is simply bandwidth (or CPU), the GPU is capable enough. I have a 2080ti as an Thunderbolt 3 eGPU, which has an even smaller bandwidth than PCI Express so the effect is accentuated. I lose about 10% perf on 4K compared to a desktop computer, and 40% at 1080p. I don’t recall the exact numbers but a benchmark would do 80fps on 4K and 120fps on 1080p, even though it’s 1/4th the amount of pixels. This is because most of the time is spent transferring data on the bus.
- wdroz 7y ago
  I can get close to fullHD@144fps depending of the graphics options. But if I set the settings to ultra and/or add ray tracing, the fps drop to 80-100.

by wdroz 7y ago

gigatexal 7y ago

The new need cards are said to be 50% faster (speculation of course). I just hope they are so that I can get a 2080ti for around 500 USD.

bluecalm 7y ago
I think 500$ for 2080ti won't happen that quickly. There are many hobbyists now who would happily grab several of them for a deep learning project of choice. If they become that cheap I would buy 6 (or however many I could reasonably put in one mining rig like box) just to run Leela Chess Zero training and analysis. I know a few more people in the same boat. The biggest hope for cheap GPUs is AMD actually delivering something. While I don't doubt they will get there in hardware department I am pessimistic about software.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mosselman 7y ago

You don't need 144fps for a 144hz monitor. You didn't say that that is your setup, so I am just assuming here, but the 144 sounds too specific for it to be coincidence. The thing about refresh rates for screens, as I understand it, is not that you need to have a 1:1 relation between your fps and hz, but you don't want to 'lose' frames due to your hz being too low. The lower both are, the more likely you are to miss frames as the image might enter the monitor exactly at a moment where it can't render it. That is why running a game @ 40fps will still be smoother on a 144hz monitor than it is on a 60hz monitor. Higher hz, just means you have a better chance at seeing all the rendered frames. Sure 144fps sounds like a great situation for a 144hz monitor, but I think in reality it just means that you are missing a higher percentage of your frames. So you'd either need some sort of syncing technology (which AMD and NVIDIA have) or an even higher hz monitor. Again, I think, that if you don't, you will just be rendering many of your frames for nothing, as your fps and hz are not aligned. So you might as well get a GPU that renders your games at 80fps for your 144hz monitor. The difference between 144fps and 80fps in terms of money is probably a lot higher than lets say going from 40 to 80. This is all based on my limited knowledge that I acquired from my research I did when I bought my own 144hz monitor.

iad 7y ago
For the competitive games where higher framerate is most advantageous (i.e. shooters), I come to the opposite conclusion. Games like that tend to have long periods of low activity where you aren't being challenged, with short periods of chaotic fighting where framerates are significantly worse. It's only during those chaotic times where the performance (of both the hardware and the player) actually has an effect on the outcome of the match. I think it's far more important to have a consistent framerate than it is to worry about wasting potential (fast) frames. Inconsistent smoothness and input lag will create a disadvantage compared to just playing at a capped (lower) framerate. So I think a balanced system (both the hardware and the graphical settings) with a 144hz monitor should be able to run games at far beyond 144 fps most of the time, so that the framerate will only drop down to around 144 in the worst moments. I would even suggest setting a framerate limit near the worst framerate your system often drops down to in the game. How much your hardware needs to be "overprovisioned" depends on how poorly optimized the game is. For many games this can as much as a factor of two difference. So you might only be putting 50% load on your GPU most of the time, but peak at 100% load at important times.

alkonaut 7y ago

That depends mostly on the game. Look at it from the game developers perspective. If I launch a game at the same time as these cards, how much performance do I have available at the highest graphics settings? I make the ultra setting play smoothly on the beefiest graphics card. But I don't release the game where the ultra setting is 144Hz on the beefiest graphics card, because so few users have that anyway. Perhaps a good target to aim for is not dropping below 60Hz in Ultra on the top hardware. Some probably aim even lower, e.g. a higher percentile of frames under 60Hz. "Consistent 144fps" is extreme, and isn't really useful unless you are a competitive gamer. If you use a 144Hz screen without adaptive sync (I thought that was pretty uncommon?) then frame drops might lead to stuttering or tearing, but with adaptive sync you'll likely never notice if frame rates drop temporarily because there is non tearing or stuttering. Hopefully card manufacturers assume that anyone who is even remotely interested in 100+Hz also has adaptive sync. Because if you have $800+ to spend on a graphics card you should could get an adaptive sync screen and a cheper card really.

romanovcode 7y ago

Maybe it's the CPU that's throttling? I cannot believe that 2080TI cannot run at fullHD@144fps. I have 2080TI and I get constant AAA 4k@60fps.

1_player 7y ago
I’m not informed on the PCI specs but I bet the bottleneck is simply bandwidth (or CPU), the GPU is capable enough. I have a 2080ti as an Thunderbolt 3 eGPU, which has an even smaller bandwidth than PCI Express so the effect is accentuated. I lose about 10% perf on 4K compared to a desktop computer, and 40% at 1080p. I don’t recall the exact numbers but a benchmark would do 80fps on 4K and 120fps on 1080p, even though it’s 1/4th the amount of pixels. This is because most of the time is spent transferring data on the bus.
wdroz 7y ago
I can get close to fullHD@144fps depending of the graphics options. But if I set the settings to ultra and/or add ray tracing, the fps drop to 80-100.