New system/3090 Decisions... Triple 1440p Ultrawide or Triple 4K?

[Fennario]

Still speccing the system - waiting until mid-October before finalizing and starting the build. Plan is to build out a high end dual-purpose system which can also handle my photography and graphic design work. Production gets run through my Ezio, but for simracing am wondering about triple ultrawide (3440 x 1440) vs 4k.

Assuming the 3090 can render (i) triple 4k at 60+ fps on ultra or 100+ fps with DLSS and less than ultra settings; and/or (ii) Triple Ultrawide at 144+fps on ultra... Basically not sure if 4k's additional vertical resolution is worth the the lower FPS and smaller FOV when compared to ultrawides. The wildcard option is something like a 49" G9 + VR headset, but am nearsighted + astigmatism and do not want to wear glasses under a headset (I hate contact lenses).

Otherwise system is shaping up to be:
Case: 011XL
Power: 1200w
MB: Asus Hero or Formula
CPU: Ryzen 3 CPU (4900x or 4950x) or i9 10k (hopefully able to upgrade to 11k next year). 99% AMD at this point with the usual nagging thoughts re: drivers/etc.
GPU: 3090
RAM: 32gb 3600mhz CL16
Storage:
1tb M.2 (Boot)
2tb Seagate Barracuda M.2 (operations)
4tb SSD (local data)
32tb external RAID (existing Pegasus2)
Cooling: EKWB Open Loop, soft tubing (CPU & GPU)
720mm total radiator (2x 360)
7 fans (7x 120mm)
Distro Plate

 

[Emery]

If you want to do this for ACC, then don't bother. I expect other sims will be borderline 60 fps on stormy nights depending on how much AA you prefer instead of the Ultra settings. Overall, I think you'll be happier with 1440p than 4k and for triples you don't need the ultrawides because it's the vertical FOV that's more important IMHO when you have triples (5 years of 27" triple 1080p and now 3 months of 43" triple 4k, both sets IPS for the stunning color). If you only race in daytime with no rain, then you probably will be satisfied with either choice.

On the other hand, with the 43" monitors, I can tell you it's been very immersive to glance OVER my shoulder and still have screen filling my vision. Not only can I see the side mirrors, but I can see an opponent's car nose just poking past a B-pillar. Much easier to judge car width when inches matter, too.

There are far more suitable choices in 27"-32" 1440p than there are in 43" 4k, too. My 43" Dell monitors are not as good as I'd like, having some black ghosting at times. 43" 4k has 104 pixels per inch and 32" 1440p has 93 pixels per inch (both noticeably better than 27" 1080p at 81 pixels per inch). 27" 1440p is 108 pixels per inch, so similar to the larger 4k monitor.

 

[stigs2cousin]

I think it depends on the distance from your eye to the screens.

At around 65cm ( aprox. 26 inches) 1080p for triples is ok, 1440 p would be nice.
It only bothers me in the starting screen, when driving its totally fine.

I think 4k would not give a better ( crisper )picture, but you would loose at FPS and probably reaction time of the monitors.
The pixels at the outer corners of the monitor have to move quite fast, on a bumpy track like Pikes Peak the sidemonitors sometimes are blurry for me. ( LG 144hz nominaly 1ms 1080 p monitors, driven to around 100 FPS.)

I don´t think 4k 60 FPS would look any better there, rather the contrary.

Is there any chance you can "testdrive" a 4k 60FPS rig before you buy?

MFG Carsten

 

[Fennario]

Agree that 1440 would be best for today - particularly given the cost of 144 fps 4k monitors. However, think that triple 4k/120-144fps will be feasible at a much lower cost within 2-3 years. Would like to avoid trying to cram more stuff into the basement closet of obsolete tech (think it will be easier to re-task/sell a 4k when time to upgrade).

Am basing a lot of my guestimation on the 3090 promo slide showing 8k gaming frame rates between 60-100fps... as such, based on 3x4k's pixel dimensions am hoping 75-125fps is feasible.

43" Asus is interesting, but (i) too pricey for three at $1k each; and (ii) VA panel vs. IPS. If I end up going 4k then would probably get 60fps monitors for now and upgrade them in a year or three.

 

[BillyBobSenna]

Still speccing the system - waiting until mid-October before finalizing and starting the build. Plan is to build out a high end dual-purpose system which can also handle my photography and graphic design work. Production gets run through my Ezio, but for simracing am wondering about triple ultrawide (3440 x 1440) vs 4k.

Assuming the 3090 can render (i) triple 4k at 60+ fps on ultra or 100+ fps with DLSS and less than ultra settings; and/or (ii) Triple Ultrawide at 144+fps on ultra... Basically not sure if 4k's additional vertical resolution is worth the the lower FPS and smaller FOV when compared to ultrawides. The wildcard option is something like a 49" G9 + VR headset, but am nearsighted + astigmatism and do not want to wear glasses under a headset (I hate contact lenses).

Otherwise system is shaping up to be:
Case: 011XL
Power: 1200w
MB: Asus Hero or Formula
CPU: Ryzen 3 CPU (4900x or 4950x) or i9 10k (hopefully able to upgrade to 11k next year). 99% AMD at this point with the usual nagging thoughts re: drivers/etc.
GPU: 3090
RAM: 32gb 3600mhz CL16
Storage:
1tb M.2 (Boot)
2tb Seagate Barracuda M.2 (operations)
4tb SSD (local data)
32tb external RAID (existing Pegasus2)
Cooling: EKWB Open Loop, soft tubing (CPU & GPU)
720mm total radiator (2x 360)
7 fans (7x 120mm)
Distro Plate

I also have a dual purpose photo editing / sim rig. When I am in photo editing mode, I have a 32" 4K BenQ display. When I am in sim rig mode I have triple 32" 1440 Dell gaming displays. I don't think the jump to 4K gaming displays is a good move today. I am planning to get an RTX 3080 and this should be able to run the sim rig with good fps and max details. I am projecting my system will run ACC on "elite" setting at 60 fps. All other titles should run even faster.

 

[Kek700]

Oh to be able to afford a rtx3090, by that time i would be able afford triple 27” 1440p 144Hz monitors that would be as good as it gets. You most certainly do not need triple 4K monitors.
Next I would probably have enough horse power to drive an in the future next gen VR.

 

[2stains]

3090 benchmark reviews are out and it's exactly what we thought. 15% faster for double the price haha

 

[M D Gourley]

Watching some reviews on YT 'Gamers Nexus', 'Jayz 2 Cents', 'Linus' etc it seems to me anyway that this is targeted more towards high end Workstations that will be content creation, rendering, CAD etc, but it can also be used for Gaming...as for 8K, well, not convinced anymore.
The RTX 3090 is not fully unlocked, driver optimizations that have not been enabled as suggested by Linus, so that makes me think, is there going to be a TITAN 3090 variant or Ti released later on.

 

[Kek700]

Correct me if I am wrong but the rtx3090 would make a lot of sense driving 12,000,000 pixels of a triple 1440p monitor setup.
It is more of a question really.

 

[Trebormoore84]

The RTX 3090 is not fully unlocked, driver optimizations that have not been enabled as suggested by Linus, so that makes me think, is there going to be a TITAN 3090 variant or Ti released later on.

Yes I think so, recently confirmed in leaks the new Quadro 6000 rtx which uses the full die and 48gb has more cuda cores than the 3090 so likely will be a Titan, with 48gb one would assume. $3000 GPU?

Correct me if I am wrong but the rtx3090 would make a lot of sense driving 12,000,000 pixels of a triple 1440p monitor setup.
It is more of a question really.

No not in terms of value no, its a lot of money for 10-15% uplift over the 3080. The 3090 makes no sense to anyone other than people who need it for work. A yet to be announced 20gb 3080 might make more sense if 10gb of vram is your issue at that resolution.

 

[M D Gourley]

A yet to be announced 20gb 3080 might make more sense if 10gb of vram is your issue at that resolution.

Yes, the 3080 20GB variant card makes more sense to me as a Triple Screen user as there is more head room than the already released 3080 with only 10GB

 

[Emery]

Yes, the 3080 20GB variant card makes more sense to me as a Triple Screen user as there is more head room than the already released 3080 with only 10GB

Have you measured VRAM usage at triple 1440p or 4k? I did and only rF2 willingly uses more than 6 GB, occupying the whole 8 GB on my GTX 1080 while playing on triple 4k.

Most sims seem to have an internal limit on using VRAM. ACC, for instance, stopped at 6 GB even with triple 4k monitors. Madness engine and Raceroom both stopped at 4 GB.

I strongly suggest everybody doublecheck the assumption that you need 10 GB of VRAM with the current sims, even when playing at high resolutions.

 

[Emery]

Yes, the 3080 20GB variant card makes more sense to me as a Triple Screen user as there is more head room than the already released 3080 with only 10GB

Yes, there is more head room with the 3090.

Ignoring the VRAM issue, however, the 3090 overclocks more easily because of that massive heatsink on the Founders Edition. The Asus Strix has also proven easy to overclock, so compared to a stock 2080, +20% fps seems reliable without being hardcore.

 

[M D Gourley]

Have you measured VRAM usage at triple 1440p or 4k? I did and only rF2 willingly uses more than 6 GB, occupying the whole 8 GB on my GTX 1080 while playing on triple 4k.

Oh, that's fantastic, triple screen at 4K on a 1080, what Sim settings and FPS are you getting though?

Might have to fire up Afterburner again and double check the data on my triple screen specs using my 2070 at only 5760x1080.

 

[2stains]

Have you measured VRAM usage at triple 1440p or 4k? I did and only rF2 willingly uses more than 6 GB, occupying the whole 8 GB on my GTX 1080 while playing on triple 4k.

Most sims seem to have an internal limit on using VRAM. ACC, for instance, stopped at 6 GB even with triple 4k monitors. Madness engine and Raceroom both stopped at 4 GB.

I strongly suggest everybody doublecheck the assumption that you need 10 GB of VRAM with the current sims, even when playing at high resolutions.

On Nordschiefe in rF2 with 44 cars I was using 10.3GB on my 1080ti (well that's what was being shown in MSI AB) at 4k Max settings.
It does not seem as much now at 5760x1080 though.

 

[Trebormoore84]

On Nordschiefe in rF2 with 44 cars I was using 10.3GB on my 1080ti (well that's what was being shown in MSI AB) at 4k Max settings.
It does not seem as much now at 5760x1080 though

I have the same thing at nords in rf2 with triple ultrwide 1080p. However only time ive seen it go over 8gb.
Also not sure if this is just allocation? Or if it is really using that much. Rf2 is badly optimised but might be the only reason you would need more vram.

Yes, there is more head room with the 3090.

Where did you see this? All the reviews im seeing are saying it doesnt. Der8auer for one tried it under a waterblock and said it had next to no overclocking headroom without power mods.

 

[Trebormoore84]

Saying 5% overclock at best.

 

[Emery]

Saying 5% overclock at best.

I may be misrepresenting the results for overclocking, so here's a direct quote from https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-3090-strix-oc/38.html about factory overclock of 1860 vs. standard 1700.

"When averaged over our whole benchmarking suite at 4K resolution, the RTX 3090 STRIX beats the RTX 3080 by 18%—quite nice. The RTX 3080 has 8704 shaders, and the RTX 3090 has 10496, which is 20% more, so where's the rest of the performance? On the RTX 3090 reference, the power limit has been set only marginally higher than on the RTX 3080 to keep power/heat/noise at reasonable levels, 320 W vs. 350 W. ASUS was wise to raise that limit much further, to 390 W, which helps gain additional performance over the base RTX 3090. The difference from 320 to 390 W is 22%, pretty close to the 19% performance difference we measured. It looks like Ampere performance mostly scales with the power limit, not clocks or shaders."

From what I saw, no one had troubles going from 1700 to 1800+ with the 3090 FE on air.

 

[Emery]

Oh, that's fantastic, triple screen at 4K on a 1080, what Sim settings and FPS are you getting though?

Typically 40-45 fps with 15 random GT3 AI while driving the Bentley 2020 at Nurburgring 24 hr with the following settings for testing purposes. Daylight, overcast sky, no rain. Min is 24-25 during a standing start. Le Mans is similar and Sebring is better by 3-5 fps.

Would I really race with that low of fps? No, I definitely turn graphics down to get closer to 60 fps. I'm projecting my new computer will have 2.5x higher fps due to factory overclocked RTX 3090 without counting any gains from a better CPU (currently a vintage 3.4 GHz i7-4770 and going to i9-10850). Since I failed to get a 3090 yesterday, it looks like I'll get a chance to measure the benefit of just the new CPU.

 

[Trebormoore84]

I may be misrepresenting the results for overclocking, so here's a direct quote from https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-3090-strix-oc/38.html about factory overclock of 1860 vs. standard 1700

Hmm, that review is a confusing read they are comparing it to the 3080 FE instead of the 3090 FE. But on the overclocking page they quote "Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 3.4%."

Bit thats not clear is factory overclock uplift over stock 3090 FE, but it looks like around 3%? So a total uplift over 3090FE with max oc is something like 6% tops.

Strix OC looks like a good card though and a better bin chip than the gigabyte der8auer reviwed. So maybe overclocking will improve on these cards later as the quality of the silicone improves and higher end cards come out.

So you have to be careful which card you get if you want to overclock. Maybe there will be one soon that can do upto 10% as silicone yields improve.

Anyway my point is to guys reading this who don't understand how binning works, not every card is the same. Average uplift a 3090 gives you is 10-15% at stock settings. You want more do your research carefully.