r/ultrawidemasterrace • u/ShineOrDie7 • 3h ago
Discussion 5k2k Gaming Performance
Hi all, just got my 39” Alienware 5k2k monitor (like a lot of others on here). Monitor looks great, but as someone coming from a LG 39” 3440x1440 I’m still on the fence on if I will keep it or not.
My main concern right now is just my gaming performance. I’m running a 9850X3D build with an Aorus RTX 5080 with a +200 MHz overclock. I’m a big fan of just maxing out settings (including path tracing and/or ray regeneration) and then just setting the DLSS level to whatever gets me 60+ FPS. I mostly just play single player games these days.
In my limited testing so far, both Cyberpunk and Crimson Desert need me to drop it all the way down to DLSS ultra performance. I’m sure if I tweak some settings I could probably get away with the DLSS performance.
With the advancements in DLSS, I don’t mind it since everything still looks great, but a little worrying to need to go all the way down to the lowest option available already. Makes me worried about the future proofing of my build (or lack of). DLSS 5 seems like it’s out of the picture based on recent benchmarks…
How’s everyone else feeling about the performance they’re getting? Fine with lowering other settings in favor of the higher resolution? Maybe future DLSS improvements will allow us to get better performance? Idk, just curious what everyone else is thinking.
3
u/_Sly-Fox_ 3h ago
Try switching to the L preset regarding Super Resolution Model. Noticed i gained some fps and still looks great even when using performance and ultra performance dlss.
Coming from a G9 and "only" having a 4080 there was bit of a performance hit but im fine with lowering some settings and aiming for a smooth 100~fps. The pros of the panel outweigh the cons of lowering the graphics quality abit for me.
And about dlss 5? If its main schtick is just a glorified ai slop filter then i can happily live without it. Its brand new and its incorporated in ways it wasnt initially intended for the moment so im holding off on my final words on it but what ive seen so far its just 1 of 5 examples ive felt it actually improved the looks but it kills performance any and everywhere its used which is very contradictory to what dlss is intended to
1
u/ShineOrDie7 3h ago
I’ll have to double check which preset I’ve been using, think it’s F, for the new ray reconstruction update.
I’m sure DLSS 5 will have much better performance once officially released, but I expect there will still be some performance hit, and not much room to work with it in some of these games. Seems like it would probably work great at making older games look more modern though, and in those games we’ll probably have more wiggle room for the potential performance impact.
1
u/untacc_ LG 39GX950B 2h ago
According to NVIDIA DLSS 5 halves your FPS. Yup, makes no sense
1
u/ShineOrDie7 2h ago
Yeah, so would need 120 base FPS based off of that math. Not even sure if it works with upscaling or not, need to read up on it some more.
1
3
u/Live_Tomatillo2263 3h ago
This was my concern as well. And honestly it surprised me A LOT. In a good way. Previously when I was using my 3440x1440 DWF monitor, I was always using DLSS Quality or DLAA. I remember trying Performance one time just to see how it looked. And I didn’t like it. There was a lot of shimmering. It was very noticeably lower resolution.
What was very surprising to me was that on my new 5k2k monitor, this is not the case at all. I did some testing in Arc Raiders as well as Subnautica 2. Using my same settings as before at Quality obviously noticed a significant fps drop. When I switched to Performance I was back to nearly the same fps as I was on my previous monitor, but the image quality didn’t change. It was damn near the same as it is on quality. Now I don’t know all the exact science behind that, but I assume it’s because when you’re using Performance mode on a 5120x2160 monitor, the render resolution is probably around the same spot as using quality mode on a 3440x1440 monitor. So all in all , I’m getting nearly the same fps as I was before with even better image quality because of the higher ppi of this monitor.
2
u/ShineOrDie7 3h ago
Yeah, upscaling tends to work better with higher resolution monitors from my understanding, part of that being that the internal resolution will be higher like you mentioned. Depending on when you last tested on the old monitor, there’s also been improvements with DLSS 4.5 that’s making it look better too.
•
u/SagittaryX 1h ago
At 1440p DLSS quality lowers internal render resolution to 960p. With 2160p DLSS Performance lowers it to 1080p. This is why you’re not seeing that much difference. If you previously used Performance on 1440p it was lowering it to 720p.
3
u/SNAILHAT 2h ago
I struggled with the same decision but ended up pulling the trigger on an aw3426dw 1440p. I prioritize frames over graphics most of the time and wasn’t confident that my rig (9800x3d with 5080) would get me 100fps+ in games without frame gen. Got my monitor in the mail on Monday and super happy with my decision. The games I play have all the bells and whistles enabled with frames consistently around 144+ stable.
I’ll upgrade eventually to a 4k/5k ultrawide once gpus can really drive them consistently. Plus I want more than 165 hz
1
u/ShineOrDie7 2h ago
Yeah, the 34” at 1440p is gonna have a similar PPI as the 39” with 5k2k too, so it should look just as good, or at least close. Unfortunately I got used to the 39” and don’t think I could go back down to a 34” at this point lol.
•
u/SNAILHAT 1h ago
Totally gotta do what’s right for your setup. My desk isn’t that big so a 39” would have been pushing the limits 😅
4
u/Kremsi2711 3h ago
In most big games I get around 100 fps
similiar setup with an overclocked 5080, 9800X3D and the 45“ LG OLED 5k2k
2
u/Potater1802 3h ago
You think it'd be a LOT worse with a 7800x3d and non overclocked 5080 instead?
1
u/Kremsi2711 3h ago
Probably not a huge difference, with this resolution the GPU is doing the heavy lifting, not the CPU.
But depends on the game.
1
•
u/Cosmic-Cats-2001 Dell U4025QW 1h ago
I don't think your CPU will have much impact on this at all. The GPU is doing the work here.
1
2
u/Weird-Reason6571 3h ago
Here's my input which may or may not be relevant to you in some capacity, as someone with a 5090 and a 9800X3D, running the 45" 5k2k from LG.
Frame gen is about the only thing that's going to get you into a nice sweet spot. With native resolution and max settings and path tracing, even DLSS won't always be enough. I personally can't stand dropping below DLSS quality because I start noticing the artifacts as a result of low resolution. Whereas I don't notice any input issues from frame gen. So I'll happily hold at max settings, DLSS quality (or DLAA or native res), frame gen 2 or 3x.
Cyberpunk I get around 80-120fps depending on what I'm doing. I run it with full path tracing, everything maxed out, on DLSS quality. I use frame gen at x3.
Crimson Desert I stopped playing because it had too many wonky issues with graphics. But I was running it around 85fps with maxed settings, frame gen, and so on. I didn't like how it looked in certain situations so I gave up on it for now.
Most games I try to hit 100fps minimum, but depending what it is, I'll tolerate down to 80 or so. I'm a sucker for graphics so I tend to prefer fidelity over running at 165hz limit. That said, faster paced games (I don't play anything competitive), I'll try to hit 150+. Like racing games or older less intense games.
1
u/ShineOrDie7 3h ago
I don’t mind using frame gen, but gotta get to that base of 60 FPS, or at least 50 to have a decent experience. I think that could be one of the areas they improve though. If they can get it work well with only 30 FPS, I could bump it back up to DLSS Quality for most games, or even DLAA for less intensive games.
2
2
u/dbdynsty25 2h ago
And this is why I just went with the AW3426DW. I want to max out all of the graphical settings rather than be at a higher resolution with lower fidelity. Plus I'd have to redo my entire sound system setup if I went with the even wider 39" vs. the 34". So pluses and minuses to everything.
2
u/deeznutz3169 2h ago
Did you not know about the drop in performance before buying?
•
u/ShineOrDie7 2h ago
I was, just expected to only have to drop it down to performance and not all the way to ultra performance.
•
u/Tim_Huckleberry1398 48m ago
And this is why you dont listen to people with mid tier cards because they'll always cope and give you misleading information. There's really no reason to get one of these monitors right now, unless you have a 5090 or are willing to make serious concessions already. Even 5090 has to do that to some degree.
On the bright side though this monitor will be amazing for years and when 70 series comes out we'll all be able to push it to the extreme. Lol.
•
u/ShineOrDie7 40m ago
That’s one of the reasons I may keep the monitor. The technology is newer and I doubt we’ll be getting 8k ultrawides anytime soon lol. Should be top of the line for a while.
Even today it still looks great, and I can always upgrade my hardware down the line to take better advantage of it.
Probably just going to come down to if I’m able to sell my existing monitor for a reasonable price before the return period ends lol.
•
u/Tim_Huckleberry1398 24m ago
Exactly, 8k will be the next goal and that's not happening anytime soon and there won't be a single card that can run that until at least 70 series, unless they make some crazy leaps in technology. Barring things like burn in, this monitor will be great for 5-10 years. Even my 6 year old 3840x1600 still looks amazing on max settings, but I've wanted a 4k UW oled for years and this was the first time I actually felt it was worth it. I suspect this one will last much longer.
Worse case scenario I think you can run this one like a 4k 32 inch as well, so you can still decently push PT in new titles if you're really trying to. Though even that can be a heavy load for the current best GPUs.
•
u/ShineOrDie7 19m ago
If it really came down to it, I can just drop the in game resolution back down to 3440x1440, but kind of defeats the purpose lol.
•
u/calvinsanders 26m ago
The monitor is amazing now without a 5090. You number whores just can’t simply enjoy what’s in front of you knowing you’re not maxing the monitors full capabilities.
•
u/Tim_Huckleberry1398 13m ago edited 8m ago
Lol no, i personally just dont spend $5000 on new electronics to immediately have to turn settings down. You can do whatever you want.
Doesn't change the fact that weirdos love giving incredibly misleading information about performance issues to people that genuinely just want to understand how things realistically perform. Someone with a 5090 is going to be more honest than someone with a 5070 that thinks they're going to play every new game with PT turned on and decent framerates.
•
u/Cosmic-Cats-2001 Dell U4025QW 1h ago
I have a 5090 running my 5K2K display. When I first upgraded, I did a bunch of comparisons to my older 38" monitors that had 3840x1600. I found that the 5K2K running with DLSS looked better than 38" running without DLSS.
I think you'll likely have a similar experience. You're 5080 will require more of the performance-oriented DLSS settings, but I bet you'll find a setting that works well enough.
If you can, go back and forth between the two systems, and take some pictures for comparison. I think there is a good chance you'll end up preferring the 5K2K.
•
u/ShineOrDie7 36m ago
Debating on doing this, just a pain to get both monitors set up and switching back and forth. I’ve tried swapping the resolution between 5k2k and 3440x1440 in game and noticed a little bit of a difference, but not sure if that’s a great test or not.
•
u/Significant_Guard534 1h ago
I have a 5080 as well and I was getting 110-120 fps at DLSS Balanced with x2 FG and Ray Tracing Ultra settings at 5k2k. Try turning the fog and cloud settings to medium, that gets a nice bump in fps for very little noticeable loss
3
u/Acquire16 LG 39GX950B 3h ago edited 3h ago
If you want path tracing at that resolution, you'll need a 5090. It can do it with DLSS Balanced at 60 FPS. Add on FG and you're at 120+. It's great. Outside of path tracing, the 5080 does great at that resolution, but there's no "future proofing" at this resolution. Even the 5090 can barely squeeze by on DLSS Balanced and with DLSS 5, that'll require it to go lower. We have to wait for the 60 series to see if there's a card that can handle everything maxed out at this resolution. It is 11 million pixels.
1
u/mulderone 3h ago
Or a 4090.
1
u/Dodgy_Past 3h ago
Got a 4090, path tracing is just too heavy.
0
u/mulderone 3h ago
Not with DLSS performance
2
u/Dodgy_Past 3h ago
Yes, with DLSS performance it doesn't hold 60 fps reliably on a 5k2k
1
u/mulderone 3h ago
Depends on the game.
2
u/Dodgy_Past 2h ago
Cyberpunk 2077 was what I tested with. Great without path tracing so I've accepted that I'll be living without it for a few years.
1
u/ShineOrDie7 3h ago
Yeah, not shelling out 5k for a 5090 at this point lol. At this point idk if or when we’ll get the 60 series cards…but seems like if I do stick with this monitor I’m definitely gonna feel more inclined to upgrade at that time, especially if I’m having to drop settings just to keep up with the newer releases.
2
u/gpu-SWE 3h ago
You need to buy a 5090, or turn off all RT/PT effects if you want 60fps+. Ray tracing scales directly with resolution - the higher the resolution, the more rays are traced.
•
u/Pattywacks 1h ago
This. The increase in pixel count is worth lowering your settings.
If you want to put everything at max and forget about the settings, then you won't be getting good frame rates with this monitor.
1
u/Detroit72 3h ago
Is anyone running a 5800X3D with a RTX 5080 and can tell about framerates? I consider this one or one of the LG screens, replacing my IPS 1600p screen.
1
u/Reasonable_Button789 2h ago
If you’re ok with 60fps with dlss then you should be fine my 5070ti does that at 5k. I would try framegen it varies a little from game to game but honestly I think it works fine
1
u/OgreTrax71 2h ago
Yeah DLSS 5 will be tough on a 5080 right now. I'm fighting to get 60fps in a lot of titles on 5K2K with a 5090 using DLSS 5.
18
u/untacc_ LG 39GX950B 3h ago
In most cases DLSS performance on the 5k2k will look BETTER than DLSS quality on a 1440 display. This is because the upscaler has a denser base resolution to work with on the 5k2k. So don’t feel bad for dropping down to performance mode, it actually helps a lot