I just wish games didn't remove the 16:9 1440p rendering and display options when they detect you have an ultrawide, there are some visually impressive games that do suffer in ultrawide on mid tier and budget hardware, especially if they are an Nvidia tech demo. Control is a good example.

Problem is I hate curved screens, but all the good super/ultrawides are…

It is also worth to mention than in ultrawide you can activate vrs without really notice it, increasing even more the performance with basically no quality difference.

Im currently still using my 3060ti with 8gb of vram with my 34" 3440 x 1440. Ill upgrade soonish though hopefully, because cyberpunk and other modern games are really close to the limit of playable... One really intersting thing was lies of p. That is what happens if you really optimize your game

Interesting data. I'd just go with the 33% faster card because as games get more demanding, you'll be happy you did it. But that goes for any resolution honestly. One note, Horizon Zero Dawn's built in benchmark uses the most cpu bound area in the whole game, so it's worse case scenario, not ideal for testing the game's average GPU performance. No other area on the map has such high cpu utilization.

I got ultrawide monitor and since then I can't imagine life without it.

I don't like the distortion is the reason why I don't. Until games provide perspective options I'm out.

gpu companies should start pushing out software that lets you render those edges at a lower detail or something since most of the time its just to fill your peripheral anyway

What the hell were you thinking with those bar colours? Utterly idiotic.

This is the kind of data I've always wanted to see but no one else seems to do it. Subbed!!

Oh god, what's wrong with my nutso Odysseys now?

I didn't like my 34" ultrawides. I prefer a 32" monitor, it's about the same width but also fills my vision vertically, a much nicer experience.

*Fun Fact...* The "Rise of the Tomb Raider" benchmark got a higher FPS score with a hard drive than it did with an SSD. Why? Because many of the textures didn't load in quickly enough to get processed. So you got more pop-in but a higher FPS. Benchmarking can get weird (I'm referring to the lack of VRAM for this video causing difficulties).

After using 21:9 monitor I will NEVER go back to 16:9.

How to watch yt videos with ultrawide and play games that doesn't support Ultrawide in not streched Ultrawide?

i run all my games on ultra most with RT on quality with my RTX 3070 8GB, the only time i had to disable RT was during The Witcher 3 because the card would hit the VRAM limit and stay at around 40FPS on average with DLSS on quality. so for a 3440x1440p a 70 is enough and a 70 ti is better i'd say (especially the 4070 ti super which has 16GB of VRAM).

I never heared anyone saying that, u make shit up to hype up ultrawide.

I made the switch to 3440x1440 4 years ago and did enjoy it till recently going to a larger 1920x1080 and don't regret it to be honest just a lot easier to see everything at my age lol

It is not complicated: 3440/2560, that is the maximum performance cost. Roughly 1/3rd. Worst case scenario if the game uses assets at that resolution all the time, which mostly is not the case (textures and all that). The hidden cost is that not all games support that resolution, non-equally lighted 'black' sidebar on a LCD-monitor isn't pretty. Also annoying with movies.

Well, with existence of Dell U4025QW (and my interest in it) it would be great if you an check difference between 1440p and 2160p ultrawide!

I love you thx, trying to make sense of benchmarks to have an idea where my ultrawide frame rate would be, was a nightmare.

Ultrawide is a ratio, not a fucking resolution my guy

I think there is a faster way with basic math skills. say if you have a 4k display, 4096x2160=8,847,360 times your target frame rate say 60frames per second =530,841,600 is pixels every second the GPU has to process, which does not make sense cause the theoretical performance of the card i use right now (4070ti super) lists 254.9 Giga pixels per second that it can process. and before I bought the parts. CPU, ram and gpu, my math showed that i would have a target somewhere between 70-90 (@ 3840x2160)at the end of that math quiz. I cant remember the math that i used the equation that i figured on ended up being almost exactly on target. The equation minuses 50% to the final numbers for any errors listed by the manufacturer, but at the end of the day I wanted to build a PC that gave a playable frame rate as close to 60fps with all the eye candy maxed at 4096x2160 that was the best price to performance ratio build that i could design. saying all that i nailed it almost perfectly and saying that my 4070ti super will more than likely be traded in to save a few bucks on the 5090 as soon as they show up, as my next project will be to see if the other PC parts I built (less PSU) will be able to saturate the max band width of HDMI 2.1 and or 120FPS at 120Hz @ 4096x2160 with 12 bit color per channel that ends up being almost 69 billion colors as per the math, but i am really hoping the next gen Nvidia GPU's support 14 or 16 bit color per channel and have other pixel enhancement technologies to make the eye candy pop on screen like every other Nvidia GPU has had in the past. saying all that, the numbers are looking like that the 5090 will end up running about 85% of its max performance to saturate the 2.1 Hdmi channel of 120Hz @ 4096x2160 on games like 2024 flight sim.

I mostly play CS2 in the evening with friends but mostly single player titles/mmorpgs when I'm by my self to chill out. I have a 6700xt + ryzen 7 5800x3d. Not looking to upgrade soon. On 1080p 240hz everything is just smooth as butter and fast. Looking into buying a 3440x1440 LG 240hz OLED monitor. I was just not sure if I can push games on it with no issues. I have no interest in RT. Most of the times I don't even care about graphics. I can play on low / medium if I'm getting better smoothness. What would you think, will it be able to run anything without any issues ? Is there any website to test values ?

3840x1600 is a wonderful resolution that doesnt seem common enough with monitors. Those 45 ultrawides released in 2022-2023 with 3440x1440 resolution really should have been 3840x1600 instead.

Rocking ultra wide on my 3070ti and instead of ultra everything dropping a couple things that you don’t really notice in games to high settings grants me more then 60 fps in every game i play. (Dlss quality). 120 FPS locked dlss quality ultra/ high on payday 3. With a 5600x I actually notice I’m more cpu bottlenecked in most cases.

Idk I have switched to 3440x1440 and looking into all the benchmark videos and even asking people who have standard 1440p my performance seemed way off so I tried 2x1080p 16:9 to run 4K and see how that works and the difference compared to UWQHD was negligible so Im pretty sure that 1440p to UWQHD switch has quite serious impact on performance 🤷

You made no graphical quality comparisons.

It sounds like he says ultwawide or ultawide.

Huh, it would never have occurred to me to do the calculation that way (divide by pure increase of pixel count), precisely because that doesn't work between 1440P and 4K either. My thought process was to say this resolution includes about 25% of the extra pixels you'd render when going from 1440P to 4K. So i'll estimate performance by adding 75% of the 1440P framerate to 25% of the 4K framerate. I'd be interested to know how far off I am with this approach. I figure it would work pretty well when there are no memory walls involved - it'd likely still underestate cards where 4K would be memory walled but 3440x1440 isn't, but it should do OK where that isn't the case.

Cyberpunk in 5120 x 1440 made me buy a 4090

Damn, so the 4090 can't even run a basic triple 4k setup? 😢

Hi. I just subscribed to the channel, but I have to say, you speak WAY too low for a content creator. I just switched apps to check if my earphones were dying or something, and they're not, they're still quite loud. This is all you. So please change your audio settings, your voice is so low that I need complete silence around me to be able to understand what you're saying, which isn't realistic. I think that even if you doubled your voice volume I still would stay at maximum volume, but at least I would be comfortable in hearing you. I hope you accept this bit of feedback. 21:9 best ultrawide. ✌️

Budget or old gpu gamers have a second chance with some of the games with the implementation of upscaling and frame generation. I play talos principle 2, with both upscaling and frame gen. With a gtx 960 (2gb) and rx 470 (8gb). Some people do not have budget to get even the value king rx 6600.

I have a 3440x1440 monitor and an RX6800XT. Probably slight CPU bottleneck with my R7 5700G, but it's a good combo for this resolution and 100Hz panel.

you can have all the fps boots you want but what about image quality?

Its having to render 3.7 million pixels every second versus 5 million pixels, or 26% difference. In reality it is typically having to render lesser used sides of the displayed content, so the difference should be 10-20%, not the full 26%. I recently picked up a new 16GB RX6750XT for under $300 and it handles almost everything at 1440 no issues (with 5600X and 32GB DDR4-3200).

I did build a system using 4070ti and 5800x a couple years ago. Great 16:9 1440p rig. Then without much research I got an ultrawide a month after. I don’t regret it, and most games look and run well, but I do wish I had a 4080 or didn’t need to lean too heavily on Frame generation. I think the biggest problem is legacy and some newer games don’t natively support UW. I mean… Elden Ring… what are we doing Fromsoft? And UW “fixes” can trip the anti-cheat

I do think it’s funny seeing 2080 and then none of the 30 series

wider image is like changing fov in game, there is more to render, more complex objects more performance drop

Afmf 2 is out now full version

I think you are really onto something in this video. Still really hard to follow all the variations and know what to get based on the specific scenario.

Better deal is 4070TI Super with 16gb☺

2:50 you should compare vs the ti super to be fair

Few days ago i loaded cp2077 on my rx 7800xt and turn on everything to the max, even PT on 1440p with FSR perf and FG got 60 to 70 fps while not looking like complete trash like it used to look with AFMF1 and old FSR. I was quite shocked how it runs and look. I would still rather played with more than 100fps on high setting on native res but its nice to know.

Well it would be good to compare both methods of frame gen not only for visual clarty but also for input lag. You can even add Losless Scaling to the mix as universal solution for both cards.

This is why I also factor in Panel size + Seating distance into my performance budget. It saves me a lot. My usual seating distance of 2.5 - 3 feet away allows me to use 2560 x 1080P @ 29" quite comfortably, including with the panel size. With a 3440 x 1440P monitor, I'd need to sit much closer, but lose peripheral vision benefits of having the full monitor in view without needing eye movement. I would also need to use 125% @ 3440 x 1440p windows scaling to see better. Cards like the 6950 XT ($499)/7900 GRE ($550) become much for viable for me versus needing $1000 cards, like 7900 XTX to satisfy the 7 million pixel budget of UW1440P. UW1080P is nice.

i upgraded from a 4070ti to the best 7900xtx there is on air cooling and the performance difference is huge, no need for metrics.

This video makes no sense at all

Would it be possible for you to do some CPU benchmarks, just to see what kind of CPU performance is required to keep up with higher mid-range cards for 3440x1440 gameplay? I plan on building a pc in the near future with either 6950XT, 7900 GRE or 7900 XT. If I could get away with DDR4 platform (i.e. B450 board and 5700x3D), that would save a bit of cash to use on GPU and monitor