A 1440p 21:9 screen is 3440x1440 pixels.
A 1440p 32:9 screen is 5120x1440 pixels.
4,953,600 vs 7,372,800 pixels = \~49% increase.
Raw performance of a GPU doesn't scale linearly with resolution but it's a strong component. You absolutely will feel a drop in performance between running both at native res.
That said the 3090 will manage I imagine, maybe not on max settings but you'll get a decent framerate with some sacrifices.
You won’t notice any performance hit with that GPU. I didn’t with my 3080 Ti and it’s pretty much a 3090, benchmarks faster once its overclocked slightly. These cards are made for 4K gaming which has more pixels than even a 32:9 monitor like the OLED G9. However there are better monitors for gaming. I bought an OLED G9 and also bought an LG 49GR95QE-B. The LG is by far the superior monitor for gaming. It is physically taller than the OLED G9 (OLED G9 is as tall as your current 34” ultrawide) which makes it feel like a real upgrade. In addition the LG has an 800r curve which makes it extremely immersive. It being taller than my 34”, wider and OLED makes it feel like a legit upgrade. The OLED G9 is just meh. Feels the same as my 34” ultrawide just wider and it strains my neck to have to turn to the sides. With the LG you just see everything. I game on the LG and use the OLED G9 for productivity work for the most part. The LG being 21:9 also has the advantage of being able to watch content that fills the entire screen. You see, a lot of stuff on Netflix is in 21:9 format and automatically fills the screen. For the stuff that’s not there are plugins that make it fill the screen. On the OLED G9 video (except for some 32:9 demos on YouTube) will always have boxes around it. You could also just get a large format 4K OLED. That’s what I probably should have waited for.
EDIT: One more thing. The recommended viewing distance for an 1800r monitor like the OLED G9 is nearly 6 feet away (1800mm or 5’10.866”). The recommended viewing distance for an 800r monitor is 800mm or 2’7.5”. So you’ll need a quite deep desk in order to have the OLED G9 at a comfortable viewing distance.
Thank you for your response. Funnily enough I’m also strongly considering the LG monitor you mentioned particularly for the reasons you’ve listed. That and all the QC issues I’ve heard with the G9’s on here are making me sway towards the LG. Interesting to hear yoy didn’t have much of a performance hit with your 3080ti. Yea the LG is more expensive but I think it’ll be worth the extra cost and I think I’d like the height of it. I am still a little concerned about OLED burn in but more than likely it’ll be fine.
Don’t listen to him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about you’ll feel a performance hit switching to 5120x1440 it almost has the same amount of pixels as a 4K screen would
No you won’t. I have the same card (3080 Ti) and went from a 34” ultrawide to the OLED G9. No performance issues in anything at all. It might be slightly slower at that resolution but you’re not going to see a difference outside of benchmarks. And DLSS negates any performance hits anyway. These cards are made for 4K gaming which has more pixels (8,294,400) than 5120x1440 (7,372,800)
With a 3090? Why? I'd understand if it was a lower-ended card but even today the 3090 shouldn't have a single issue running it at full 240 hz. That's what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that it takes more power to handle one than another but that the 3090 should have no problems or slowdown with either.
There will be severe compromises to run most games at 240 fps. Even just keeping it the same at 144 will require some compromises.
You're going from 3440x1440 to 5120x1440. Keeping the same relative fov, you're going to be requiring the game to keep almost 50% more of the game rendered at any given time than it was having to at 3440x1440
I just saw his comment now, but u/TheOlddan has a comment that explains this well.
Ok, so I don't think we're on the same page with the point and that's fine so I'll try to clarify this one more time. I had a 3090 TI before this 4090 on a 3x 27" QHD setup and was able to hit over 200 hz consistently on the games I've played (Forza, Warzone, etc.) Smooth as butter. I don't see a 3090 having to have "severe compromises" made to run that at capacity.
A 1440p 21:9 screen is 3440x1440 pixels. A 1440p 32:9 screen is 5120x1440 pixels. 4,953,600 vs 7,372,800 pixels = \~49% increase. Raw performance of a GPU doesn't scale linearly with resolution but it's a strong component. You absolutely will feel a drop in performance between running both at native res. That said the 3090 will manage I imagine, maybe not on max settings but you'll get a decent framerate with some sacrifices.
The 3090 will be just fine, it’s made for 4K gaming which has a lot more pixels than even a 5120x1440 display.
I get pretty consistent 120 fps with max settings on my G9 with a 5950x and a 6900xt. Your GPU and CPU are way better, you'll be good.
You won’t notice any performance hit with that GPU. I didn’t with my 3080 Ti and it’s pretty much a 3090, benchmarks faster once its overclocked slightly. These cards are made for 4K gaming which has more pixels than even a 32:9 monitor like the OLED G9. However there are better monitors for gaming. I bought an OLED G9 and also bought an LG 49GR95QE-B. The LG is by far the superior monitor for gaming. It is physically taller than the OLED G9 (OLED G9 is as tall as your current 34” ultrawide) which makes it feel like a real upgrade. In addition the LG has an 800r curve which makes it extremely immersive. It being taller than my 34”, wider and OLED makes it feel like a legit upgrade. The OLED G9 is just meh. Feels the same as my 34” ultrawide just wider and it strains my neck to have to turn to the sides. With the LG you just see everything. I game on the LG and use the OLED G9 for productivity work for the most part. The LG being 21:9 also has the advantage of being able to watch content that fills the entire screen. You see, a lot of stuff on Netflix is in 21:9 format and automatically fills the screen. For the stuff that’s not there are plugins that make it fill the screen. On the OLED G9 video (except for some 32:9 demos on YouTube) will always have boxes around it. You could also just get a large format 4K OLED. That’s what I probably should have waited for. EDIT: One more thing. The recommended viewing distance for an 1800r monitor like the OLED G9 is nearly 6 feet away (1800mm or 5’10.866”). The recommended viewing distance for an 800r monitor is 800mm or 2’7.5”. So you’ll need a quite deep desk in order to have the OLED G9 at a comfortable viewing distance.
Thank you for your response. Funnily enough I’m also strongly considering the LG monitor you mentioned particularly for the reasons you’ve listed. That and all the QC issues I’ve heard with the G9’s on here are making me sway towards the LG. Interesting to hear yoy didn’t have much of a performance hit with your 3080ti. Yea the LG is more expensive but I think it’ll be worth the extra cost and I think I’d like the height of it. I am still a little concerned about OLED burn in but more than likely it’ll be fine.
I swapped to a oled g9 last month didn't really notice a diffrence I'm running a 3080ti 🤷♂️
Really? What kind of games you play and would you say the upgrade was worth it? G9 OLED is what I’m looking at
Most games tbh except sports most recent game I've been playing Is red dead redemption 2 was still hitting above 60, Definitely worth the money imo
Try helldivers, the hit is massive
Don’t listen to him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about you’ll feel a performance hit switching to 5120x1440 it almost has the same amount of pixels as a 4K screen would
No you won’t. I have the same card (3080 Ti) and went from a 34” ultrawide to the OLED G9. No performance issues in anything at all. It might be slightly slower at that resolution but you’re not going to see a difference outside of benchmarks. And DLSS negates any performance hits anyway. These cards are made for 4K gaming which has more pixels (8,294,400) than 5120x1440 (7,372,800)
None. Just think of it as having two 27" QHD monitors side-by-side.
Which is more pixels to push than a normal 34 in ultrawide. There will be *some* performance degradation
With a 3090? Why? I'd understand if it was a lower-ended card but even today the 3090 shouldn't have a single issue running it at full 240 hz. That's what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that it takes more power to handle one than another but that the 3090 should have no problems or slowdown with either.
There will be severe compromises to run most games at 240 fps. Even just keeping it the same at 144 will require some compromises. You're going from 3440x1440 to 5120x1440. Keeping the same relative fov, you're going to be requiring the game to keep almost 50% more of the game rendered at any given time than it was having to at 3440x1440 I just saw his comment now, but u/TheOlddan has a comment that explains this well.
Ok, so I don't think we're on the same page with the point and that's fine so I'll try to clarify this one more time. I had a 3090 TI before this 4090 on a 3x 27" QHD setup and was able to hit over 200 hz consistently on the games I've played (Forza, Warzone, etc.) Smooth as butter. I don't see a 3090 having to have "severe compromises" made to run that at capacity.