Question Will Radeon 9070 XT be enough for 3840x1600 resolution?

[Velsu]

I am building a gaming rig because i decided its time to upgrade. Already planned 9800x3d and i have 38" ultra wide monitor with g-sync and freesync. Currently running RTX 3080 and using DLSS to keep up in games or lowering the details.

All this time i was watching benchmarks for 1440p UW gaming and saw 9070 XT was doing nice job, but just now i realized my resolution is different - it is 3840x1600. I think it falls between 4k and 1440p?

Now i am not sure if i should grab 9070 XT Red Devil which is around 950 euro in my country or wait a little and go for RTX 5080 which is 1450 euro. I was dead set on AMD because i saw the performance gains in 1440p are not worth the huge price difference, but now with my current resolution i am not sure anymore. To be honest spending SO MUCH on 5080 feels weird and i was hoping i can play comfortably with 9070 XT for 2-3 years and then change again. But not sure if my resolution is closer to 1440 or 4k and how much it will affect framerates.

I play all kinds of games from AAA titles to multiplayer games if that matters. I just wish after all this money spent i could just launch most games, set ultra and go. If game allows for RT and good performance, even better, if not i think i can live without RT (unless more games start forcing it...)

Thanks for any help.

 

[Lutfij]

Welcome to the forums, newcomer!

I think it falls between 4k and 1440p?
Yes.

but now with my current resolution i am not sure anymore
You do have an odd resolution to your monitor. What is the make and model of your monitor btw?

I play all kinds of games from AAA titles to multiplayer games if that matters. I just wish after all this money spent i could just launch most games, set ultra and go. If game allows for RT and good performance, even better, if not i think i can live without RT (unless more games start forcing it...)
What games are we talking about here? If the titles you play are heavier with Nvidia's support, then Nvidia is your logical step forward. If not then you know who the other guy in the roo is(and it's not Intel's discrete GPUs).

You should be good to go with the RX 9070 XT but with reduced details, IMHO.

 

[alceryes]

All this time i was watching benchmarks for 1440p UW gaming and saw 9070 XT was doing nice job, but just now i realized my resolution is different - it is 3840x1600. I think it falls between 4k and 1440p?

That is a weird resolution. Definitely non-standard. What is your monitor make/model?

The 9070 XT is about 15% slower than the RTX 5080 in straight raster. This will vary, game to game, of course. Remember that all new RTX cards require the new 12VHPWR/12V-2x6 power connector. This may add more to your RTX 5080 cost.

In the end, it's your call on whether the extra €500 is worth the performance difference. The 9070 XT can definitely play AAA titles at 4K (and lower resolutions). Some games may require settings quality adjustments. Although the 9070 XT got way better at RT than AMD's last gen, it is still a bit behind NVIDIA.

 

[Velsu]

Welcome to the forums, newcomer!

but now with my current resolution i am not sure anymore
You do have an odd resolution to your monitor. What is the make and model of your monitor btw?

Thank You!

My monitor is LG 38WN95C.

That is a weird resolution. Definitely non-standard. What is your monitor make/model?

The 9070 XT is about 15% slower than the RTX 5080 in straight raster. This will vary, game to game, of course. Remember that all new RTX cards require the new 12VHPWR/12V-2x6 power connector. This may add more to your RTX 5080 cost.

In the end, it's your call on whether the extra €500 is worth the performance difference. The 9070 XT can definitely play AAA titles at 4K (and lower resolutions). Some games may require settings quality adjustments. Although the 9070 XT got way better at RT than AMD's last gen, it is still a bit behind NVIDIA.

My monitor is LG 38WN95C. I was told my resolution is closer to 4k than to 1440p so i should look at 4k benchmarks and add 10-15% more FPS to the result.

Im just worried that if i decide i want to play, lets say Alan Wake 2 or Silent Hill 2 i won't be able to reach 60 fps and play because of the resolution stopping me to have good experience. Im not crazy about reaching 120fps in games, 60-90 would be fine, in more demanding games stable 60 is okay for me too.

 

[alceryes]

Im just worried that if i decide i want to play, lets say Alan Wake 2 or Silent Hill 2 i won't be able to reach 60 fps and play because of the resolution stopping me to have good experience. Im not crazy about reaching 120fps in games, 60-90 would be fine, in more demanding games stable 60 is okay for me too.

Again, it's you who must decide whether the €500 more for the 5080 is worth it.

There is no way anyone can tell you how a game will run on your system. There are too many variables involved from OS issues/cleanliness, to cooling, to power delivery, to overclocking (some motherboard do it automatically).

 

[Velsu]

It will be a clean build on Windows. x870 Tomahawk, 9800X3D, Arctic Liquid Freezer III, 64gb ram CL30. But i am not sure if it matters that much. I was sure GPU is the main thing for this.

 

[alceryes]

It will be a clean build on Windows. x870 Tomahawk, 9800X3D, Arctic Liquid Freezer III, 64gb ram CL30. But i am not sure if it matters that much. I was sure GPU is the main thing for this.

At near-4K, the GPU will be the primary factor in AAA titles with graphics settings turned up. However, even at 4K, some games have heavy CPU usage areas.

 

[helper800]

3840 x 2160 (4k) = 8,294,400 pixels
2560 x 1440 (2k) = 3,686,400 pixels (44.44% of of 4k)
3840 x 1600 = 6,144,000 pixels (74.07% of 4k)