Downgrading from 4k on a 3900x/2080Ti (not wanting to spend on a 3090 at the moment) due to poor performance (27-34 FPS Very High) vs 1440p (tried on the 4k monitor) on Medium/High (35-50)
I see that the gain over a 27" 1080p (a second monitor I’ve tried to MSFS before) is of about 28 ppi (81.59 on 1080p vs 108.79) whereas 4K on 28" gives me 157.35 total. I might not be that ready to unload 220 GBP (cheapest I could find 1440p IPS/27"/tilt, height, pivot enabled) if sharpness is to be compromised, meaning just a fraction on top of horrible 1080p on 27".
On 1080p the jetliners cockpit is a mess to read and everything seems so blurry.
Is it worth it, to do the upgrade?
1 Like
meaning good compromise between image quality and performance?
Is it a solid step-up over 1080p or just a patch-up
I’ve recently upgraded from 27" 1080 to 27" 1440…a day and night difference.
A very small, but expected loss of performance in MSFS.
2 Likes
I downgraded a few months ago from 4K to 1440p, absolutely not regretting it. Better performance and after an hour the slight difference is gone. The difference might have been cause I increased monitor size from 28 to 32. If you can afford it, go for it!
Take care
Mick
2 Likes
Have you tried running the 4K monitor with render scaling to render at a lower resolution? I’m pretty sure the 2080 Ti can handle more than 1440p.
Resolution/render scaling of 66.66…% would give you 1440p, so try render scaling at 70 (2688x1512) and see how the performance is. 80 might work just as well but be a bit sharper.
This will render the UI etc. at 4K and AFAIK also use TAA more effectively than setting the sim to 1440p which probably looks far worse.
3 Likes
Theoretical you’re right, I had mine running @80 render scale with a 2080TI it didn’t help much. Now I’m running 1440p @120 render scale with a better performance. If that wasn’t the case back then, I would have sent it back. But systems are different, so who knows.
2 Likes
agree to this one … I think 1440p runs better than scaling to 70 (in-game) on 4k
1 Like
AFAIK all monitors look by far the best at their native resolution.
1 Like
1440p is the sweet spot for performance and visuals.
4 Likes
1440 is my sweetheart truly, I dont see much difference from 4k, I am 63 so don’t have eyes like a hawk anymore. I never ever investigate fps, I don’t want to go down that road. Some people spend more time watching fps than scanning their instruments, not very flightdeck professional haha. For me if there are no jaggies and stutters I am good to go
3 Likes
I literally don’t know what to do and think I’ll be giving up soon in this hobby.
+3000 GBP worth of hardware (dismissing joysticks, throttles, etc.) spent in Mar 2020 just to struggle at Medium and High settings when using 1440p on the 4K monitor. This is unreasonable. Not asking for 60FPS but this is not acceptable, I think, apologies for the ranting.
Not sure if getting that 1440p monitor would actually make me feel better or worse of having spent additional money and not experiencing any improve.
These two images were taken minutes ago while landing on EGSS under Medium, I believe, if not High.
Yes and if you go with 1440p 3440x1440 is one of the best resolution for this sim.
I went from 1080p monitor to 4k tv then to 2560x1440 now 1440p ultrawide the best compromise.
you spent 3000 GBP on a 3900X and a 2080TI before the whole covid / chip shortage situation started?
1440p is the sweet spot. Running 60fps locked in ultra. I won’t touch 4k when my 3 y old 1440p goes out. One thing people forget is the cpu is more than likely the one holding you back. Traffic items eat the cpu up heavy. I turn off the airplane traffic, run car and other traffic at 30.
Yes and no.
Don’t expect a huge performance boost simply by dropping a few pixels. The issue isn’t with the GPU pixel pushing side anyway.
I’m running 3090 @1440 and performance is hit and miss. Probably frame rates not far from what you are seeing.
If I drop the settings to absolute minimum. - I see little performance increase.
If I drag everything to max and push the render scaling slider all the way to the right I see little performance degradation.
Yes, I do see some differences in performance across this spectrum. But they aren’t as large as you would imagine. Indeed if I increase the render scaling at least it starts to feel like the GPU is finally earning it’s money but I don’t magically get a guaranteed 20fps extra and no stutters from dumping all settings to low/basic I just game a game that still runs pretty poorly but also looks rubbish.
I’ve started playing other titles a lot more just to remind myself that it’s not actually my PC that’s the problem.
1 Like
I can suggest 34" 3440x1440 ultrawide. The VA 144hz panels are quite cheap and I think they should be ideal as a budget MSFS monitor.
Just not for fast pace FPS games. Even my Acer X34a 100hz 1440p is noticeably slower than my Acer 16:9 144hz IPS Gsync monitor.
1 Like
LOL after reading this topic,i went from 4k native all ultra except building and bushes,to 1440p with slider at 120% and all ultra.
I really can’t see much visual difference but i can see the gained smoothness.
Thanks for bringing that up.
Specs Radeon Sapphire 6800xt Nitro Plus S.E
Ryzen 7 2700
This is interesting. But at least, if FPS are to stay about the same than 1080p, at least get better visual fidelity than the total sacrifice of pumping 4K at much lower FPS.
Thanks everyone. I finally ordered the cheapest 2K monitor I could find that includes four degrees of freedom (swivel, height, rotation and tilt). I will let you know tomorrow how that goes, to see if someone can benefit off this topic. I got the triforce now, one 4K, one 1080p and one 1440p… think I ll open a monitor store.
1 Like
