Best monitor help for RTX3090.

[Noel 4,483]

If the native resolution of the textures being rendered and displayed is lower than the display's resolution, what is the advantage of the higher display resolution in this scenario?  As an analogy, if you viewed a motion picture captured at standard definition on a 4K TV, it would still be a standard def image.  I'm not in a place to answer my own question until I get back home where I can run an HDMI or DP cable to a wall mounted 50" 4K TV and see.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

@Noel, no idea on your question but most of the time flying is spent inside the cockpit where the higher resolution will be very obvious.

I’m pretty sure textures in MSFS are higher than standard resolution of 640*480.

[Noel 4,483]

Well of course textures are higher than SD in MSFS or P3D that was as stated only to illustrate the idea that, for example, texture complexity might be well less than 4K, was my point, such that rendering at 4K that doesn't really get you anything.

[rwy12 16]

Ray, many thanks for the link. I don't have a big budget,a retiree...lol. The card was a reluctant birthday present from kids who want their dad to grow up!

They all look great. The 32'' range looks appealing ,especially the SAMSUNG U32R592 and BenQ EW3270U .

Stock seems to big issue ,amazon saying 1-2 months.

Hopefully things will improve worldwide and availability will improve.

Many thanks everybody for your help and advise.

Qas

 

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

8 hours ago, Noel said:

Well of course textures are higher than SD in MSFS or P3D that was as stated only to illustrate the idea that, for example, texture complexity might be well less than 4K, was my point, such that rendering at 4K that doesn't really get you anything.

There are plenty of people perfectly happy with 4K in MSFS. You're the first person I've seen who had intimated it might not be worth it. Surely a debate for the MSFS forum, not the hardware one.

23 minutes ago, rwy12 said:

Ray, many thanks for the link. I don't have a big budget,a retiree...lol. The card was a reluctant birthday present from kids who want their dad to grow up!

They all look great. The 32'' range looks appealing ,especially the SAMSUNG U32R592 and BenQ EW3270U .

Stock seems to big issue ,amazon saying 1-2 months.

Hopefully things will improve worldwide and availability will improve.

Many thanks everybody for your help and advise.

Qas

Qas, you have a major retailer close to you who I have bought kit from. Keep an eye on this site.

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/315-benq-ew3270u-4k-monitor-3840x2160-hdr-va-60hz-freesync-4ms-12m1-300cd-m-vesa-dp-hdmi-usb-type-c

[Noel 4,483]

6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

There are plenty of people perfectly happy with 4K in MSFS. You're the first person I've seen who had intimated it might not be worth it.

It was just a valid theoretical question Ray.  And yes, you're absolutely correct--given the extreme GPU penalty, it very well might not be worth it.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

@Noel, what’s the extreme GPU penalty you refer to?

[Noel 4,483]

VRAM for starters, then total processing required to render to 4K vs 1440P, is all.  Ray, I'm not saying 4K isn't good, better, I'm just saying it's quite possible the real problem isn't pixels but texture resolution, in the case of any of the current flight sims, such that the added screen resolution doesn't improve the fact the texture itself is lower resolution than the screen resolution.  For example, let's say a particular texture's native resolution is 10 pixels per meter of surface area involved.   If it is rendered it to 4K, which for the sake of discussion will use 20 pixels per meter, the limit of image quality is still 10 pixels per meter.  Doubling the pixel count doesn't change that, it just means the GPU now has to render 20 pixels instead of 10 to display the same thing.  Of course, the other huge factor is screen size, viewing distance and pixel pitch of the screen involved.

I really like ultra-wide formatting.  To me it's more similar to looking out of the cockpit of an airplane, where the top and bottom are obscured by framing, IOW one can view horizontally much more than vertically, and that is more similar to ultra-wide than the aspect ratio of 4K.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

@Noel, clearly you’re referring to settings in MSFS and not other sims like P3D. As I don’t have MSFS I can’t really relate to what your discussing.

In principal I agree you cannot enhance something if the base resolution is too low. But the power of the 3090 should be able to cope with pretty much anything you throw at it. For around 1800GBP I’d be pretty frustrated if it couldn’t.

[Noel 4,483]

12 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@Noel, clearly you’re referring to settings in MSFS and not other sims like P3D. As I don’t have MSFS I can’t really relate to what your discussing.

In principal I agree you cannot enhance something if the base resolution is too low. But the power of the 3090 should be able to cope with pretty much anything you throw at it. For around 1800GBP I’d be pretty frustrated if it couldn’t.

Nope, not referring to MSFS I'm referring to any software displayed on a screen representing surfaces w/ textures.

No disagreements w/ 3090 being able to handle anything....and then some.  Sadly, it appears there won't be an nV card w/ better than 12Gb and less than 24Gb.   16Gb I feel would be perfect for the next 5y, at 1440p that is.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

6 minutes ago, Noel said:

Nope, not referring to MSFS I'm referring to any software displayed on a screen representing surfaces w/ textures.

No disagreements w/ 3090 being able to handle anything....and then some.  Sadly, it appears there won't be an nV card w/ better than 12Gb and less than 24Gb.   16Gb I feel would be perfect for the next 5y, at 1440p that is.

The ground textures in default P3Dv4 are not that demanding. I don’t have photo scenery which is probably higher. Nvidia are making a real pig’s ear of their cards. I want more than 11Gb but I don’t need 24. I agree 16Gb would be the perfect card for 4K.

[Tektolnes 184]

7 hours ago, rwy12 said:

I don't have a big budget,a retiree...lol. The card was a reluctant birthday present from kids who want their dad to grow up!

There isn't a huge amount of choice at the 4K 32" range - especially if you want to get a true G-Sync one as there's only the Acer Predator XB321HK. There's a few Freesync ones but you'd have to check how G-Sync works with them as it can be a bit hit and miss. From what I could see on Rtings the Benq and Samsung have been tested as "G-Sync compatible" so you get the basic G-Sync support. If it was a straight choice between those two I'd go with the Benq.

There's also the Benq EW3280U. It's a bit more expensive at £589 but it's an IPS screen which would deliver a better picture than the EW3270U's VA screen. Also it's in stock now on Scan for example. One thing to note with both of those Benq models is that the stand adjustments are pretty limited - you can't adjust the height and can only adjust forward and back tilt. You could get a monitor arm though to get around this if it was an issue.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

@Tektolnes, I was going to recommend my BenQ PD3200U but once Qas mentioned his budget I decided against it. It doesn't have FreeSync / GSync but I don't find that an issue. It supports 30Hz which translates to 30fps 99% of the time with my hardware (see sig).

It's a superbly built IPS calibrated monitor with height adjustment and the screen can rotate through 90 degrees for portrait mode. Not useful for FS but helpful when accessing connections. It  serves as a USB hub too if you're running short.

Image quality is superb and I expect it to give me service for many more years.

[Noel 4,483]

11 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The ground textures in default P3Dv4 are not that demanding. I don’t have photo scenery which is probably higher. Nvidia are making a real pig’s ear of their cards. I want more than 11Gb but I don’t need 24. I agree 16Gb would be the perfect card for 4K.

I really don't get it.  i guess most other gameware does not need this sort of VRAM that is needed for something like P3D or MSFS, hence there is nothing offered at that 16Gb level.  I've got the $$ for it too 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,903]

3 hours ago, Noel said:

I really don't get it.  i guess most other gameware does not need this sort of VRAM that is needed for something like P3D or MSFS, hence there is nothing offered at that 16Gb level.  I've got the $$ for it too 

I remember someone saying normal video games have a game radius of a few hundred metres or thereabouts. Hence why the fps can hit 100 or greater and VRAM requirements are fairly modest.

Now look at flight sims where the game radius is scores of miles. That requires more VRAM and of course fps are much more modest. I imagine there are far more games than flight sims so we're not the priority. In P3Dv4 I'm using around 6Gb VRAM and around 10Gb of RAM and that's at 4K. That would be higher in v5 of course.

There is also the problem of the pandemic and chip supplies being affected.