Screen resolution Vs performance

[DavidMk7]

Does anyone know whether there is a general principle that can be applied to figure out what level of performance loss would occur at different screen resolutions?

My current monitor is a very old 5:4 19” 1280 x 1024 model and I’m looking to upgrade to something bigger, preferably a 34” ultra-wide. These only seem to come in 1080 and 1440 versions (why no 1200?) and, as I sit quite close to the screen, feel a 1080 model would be much too pixelated for my liking. This leaves me with the prospect of moving from a 1280 x 1024 screen with around 1.3 million pixels to a 3440 x 1440 one with nearly 5 million, plus a sizable increase in viewable area. Would a 4x increase in overall resolution equate to something like a 4x drop in frame rate, or is it just not as simplistic as this? My current Assetto Corsa benchmark figure is around 250 and I don’t think I could accept anything less than 120, after all, there’s no point in buying a 100Hz monitor (the minimum I plan on getting) if you can’t maintain at least 100fps most of the time.

Incidentally, this will be run from an i5-7600K/GTX1080 PC (wish I’d gone for the 1080Ti!).

 

[Emery]

In AC, with triple 1920x1080 multiview, a GTX1080 will score in the 90fps range, so you'll have little trouble getting 100 fps on a widescreen 3440x1440.

Just remember that an ultrawide 34" or 35" is nothing more than a widescreen 27", so if you want 1440p on an ultrawide, you'd also want 1440p on a 27".

after all, there’s no point in buying a 100Hz monitor (the minimum I plan on getting) if you can’t maintain at least 100fps most of the time.

You've been misinformed. The vast majority of people will see no benefit of refresh rates above 90 Hz and even the rare few who can enjoy a benefit will stop getting any benefit by 120 Hz refresh. However, the real benefit of high refresh rate monitors is when they work in adaptive refresh rate modes (gSync, etc.), so there is no screen tear when fps drops.

 

[DavidMk7]

Thanks for the reply Emery. What sort of detail setting are you using though? I’m lucky enough to be able to run everything on pretty much max these days and, whilst I fully accept that some reductions will be needed to accommodate a larger display, I’m reluctant to compromise too much.

I’ve looked at 27” widescreen as an alternative and, had there been one that perfectly suited my needs, I’d have probably gone down that route. However, ultra-wide is my preference and part of the reason is that I’m thinking that if I struggle to run some games at full resolution, I could always drop down to 2560 x 1440 and effectively run as a widescreen 27”. I run my current monitor on 1280 x 960, just to get a better aspect ratio, so I’m quite used to having black bars on the screen. Older games, such as AMS and RRE should run fullscreen OK and then much later, when the market settles down somewhat, I could consider upgrading my GPU and be able to use the full display with all titles.

I think the refresh rate thing is very much down to the individual and I’ve seen plenty of reports from people who say that it does make a difference. The monitor I’m looking at is a 100Hz unit and it would be interesting to see what difference, if any, this made to me. It is, after all, only a 33% increase from the 75Hz I’m currently using and I noticed no difference at all when I moved to this from 60Hz, which was a 25% increase.

I’m tempted just to buy one and test it for a couple of days, and then return it if I find I can’t get on with it. It’s just that I fear that after using such a large screen, I might have trouble going back to the tiny one I use at the moment.

 

[PicoBp]

My current Assetto Corsa benchmark figure is around 250 and I don’t think I could accept anything less than 120

Hey David! Here are some benchmarks for reference, with an 8700k and a 1080. I'm using a 34" LG UltraWide (2560x1080 @ 75Hz), and did some tests with 2.0x DSR, which means it rendered in 3620x1527. Settings are pretty much maxed out, except for smoke and some of the eye-candy effects. Full specs in my signature.

AC VERSION: 1.16.3 (x64)
POINTS: 21313
FPS: AVG=145 MIN=88 MAX=168 VARIANCE=0 CPU=47%

LOADING TIME: 13s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (3620x1527)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 12
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:4096 BLUR:0
WORLD DETAIL: 5 SMOKE:1
PP: QLT:5 HDR:1 FXAA:0 GLR:5 DOF:0 RAYS:0 HEAT:0

 

[DavidMk7]

Thanks PicoBP, they’re certainly interesting figures. My i5 is 3.6GHz, overlocked to 4.6 in turbo mode, so, in theory, our systems are reasonably similar, given that I don’t believe AC makes use of your extra cores. I would certainly consider those sort of frame rates acceptable and I’m definitely thinking that I should give it a punt.

 

[Beef36]

.

 

[DavidMk7]

Actually, the only thing that has improved since moving to 75Hz is my eyes, Beef. I have poor eyesight and used to find that my eyes could tire greatly after just a few minutes of game time, especially if the game was particularly dark, or too bright. However, that doesn’t seem as much of an issue nowadays, which I can only put down to the higher refresh, though I can’t explain why (although I don't play as much as I used to these days, which could be a factor).

I can, however, tell that the movement is not quite as fluid as it could be, and I understand why higher refresh rates are appealing. I’ve seen frame rates as high as 700 in AMS on occasions and yet there’s still the nagging sense that the action could be smoother. I suspect you’re right though, that 100Hz could be the sweet spot.

After BicoBP’s post, I decided to do some experimentation with DSR myself, something that I’d never used in the past and hadn’t considered as a potential simulation of running on a higher resolution monitor. Selecting 4x gave me a maximum resolution of 2560 x 2048, which is 5.2 million pixels, slightly more than a 3440 x 1440 screen. The corresponding AC benchmark was 154, which is similar to that obtained by BicoBP. Obviously, it’s not a complete test, as I’m still using a restricted field of view, due to my 5:4 monitor, and I’m unsure whether the DSR process could be less, or even more, intensive than simply running the specified resolution for real. However, it still gives me hope that playing on a 34” screen might be feasible. However, I wasn’t able to test with AMS or rFactor 2, due to the menus not working properly at the higher settings, and it’s rF2 which gives me the most cause for concern, given what a pig it is to run.

Unfortunately, my plans have taken a bit of a hit though. It appears that UK law does not, as I had thought, allow you to test out products bought on-line and return them no questions asked within 14 days, if not found to be satisfactory. So I’m going to have to be pretty certain before I decide to splash out, on what will be a quite expensive purchase. I’m pretty sure it’ll be OK, but whether I can pluck up the courage to actually go for it, remains to be seen. After all, the only thing Jim Clark and I have in common, is a complete inability to make decisions!

 

[Emery]

However, I wasn’t able to test with AMS or rFactor 2, due to the menus not working properly at the higher settings, and it’s rF2 which gives me the most cause for concern, given what a pig it is to run.

Ah, you didn't mention rF2. Yes, you'll possibly have to compromise a bit on settings. Might want to wait on monitor purchase until you see how much of an fps improvement the next update brings if it is one of your favorite sims.

AMS is easy. Will perform better than AC.

 

[Emery]

Performance update for rF2 is available now.

At 5760x1080, as one big wide screen rather than multiview's 3 separate cameras, on my GTX1080, I noted the following fps on the first lap behind 15 AI driving Callaway Corvettes at Silverstone GT circuit and overcast sky:
Min Max
58 100 with No post processing
60 92 with Low post processing
47 70 with Medium post processing

(for those who aren't used to rF2's post processing, there's no need to use more than Medium post processing when racing because cockpit views do not render any more. Different story if you're generating screenshots or video from other camera views, where High and Ultra will provide effects).

 

[DavidMk7]

Yes, I’ve upgrade too Emery and feel I’m definitely getting better performance, though I have no before and after benchmarks to back this up. How do your new stats compare to what you were getting previously?

It may be just placebo, but it seems that the dreaded rF2 excessive brightness has reduced slightly as well, although the game visuals haven’t changed otherwise and still leave a lot to be desired imo.

I hadn’t realised about the pp levels and this might explain why I see so many screenshots and videos in which rF2 looks so much better than it ever has on my rig. Although there’s no doubt that external views do look better than the in-car visuals anyway, and the game’s appearance improves at lower light levels.

I’m still not convinced that rF2 would cope satisfactorily with a 3440 x 1440 screen though. But I suppose there’s always the 2560 x 1440 option.

I’ve also had the ‘distance selling’ laws confirmed to me by my local TSO and I can legally return products within 14 days, no questions asked. Turns out that it was the store where I recently bought a TV being complete dicks (anyone from the UK will be familiar with this particular merchant being infamous for their staff not knowing what they are talking about!). So the purchase is on again, if I can just pluck up the courage to press that last button.

 

[Emery]

Yes, I’ve upgrade too Emery and feel I’m definitely getting better performance, though I have no before and after benchmarks to back this up. How do your new stats compare to what you were getting previously?

I'm around a 20% fps gain for same conditions before/after this update. I was hoping they'd manage +15% and they've solidly exceeded it in all my testing. Rain is still not fps-friendly.

 

[PicoBp]

I’m still not convinced that rF2 would cope satisfactorily with a 3440 x 1440 screen though. But I suppose there’s always the 2560 x 1440 option.

Just tried the new update with 2.0x DSR (3620x1527), PostFX on Low, in-game settings on High. 20 AI GT3 @ Silverstone GP, 5:00PM race start, light clouds. Lowest fps was 83, average around 110, starting from the back of the grid.

 

[DavidMk7]

Thanks for all the help everyone. I've just placed the order for my new monitor. I'll let you know how I get on.

 

[DavidMk7]

I’ve had my new monitor for a fortnight now and thought it time to report back.

Generally, it’s brilliant, with improved colours and contrast producing better images, and the 100Hz refresh and wider view giving a smoother and faster looking gameplay.

Performance wise, it has run relatively smoothly, with one exception.

As expected, AMS and RRE run fine, with fps well into 3 figures and no issues at all.

rFactor2 also runs surprisingly well, with frame rates often in the 150 to 200 bracket. Although I have seen races where the rates drop down into the 80 to 110 range. It seems that the S397 performance updates have had more effect than I first imagined and overall, I feel rF2 may have suffered the least from the increase in screen size. It certainly has the most fluid movement and a terrific sense of speed.

The test performed by PicoBp and myself suggested AC benchmark figures around 147 to 150 and that is precisely what I have found in practice. AC also looks great and moves well and is probably, overall, the best sim on this screen in terms of looks, performance and handling.

I’ve not made any adjustment to the setting for any of the above games, they’re all still running in the same high detail that I used with my previous monitor. So there is still room for improvement performance-wise, should I feel it necessary. Note that I ran the AC benchmark with PP turned off, just for a comparison, and got a figure of 230. So, if deemed necessary, perhaps to run a particularly large field, or at a power hungry track, I can easily turn off PP and instantly get a 50% performance gain. And it still looks better than rF2, even with HDR off!

My big problem has been Project Cars 2. This was clearly struggling at full resolution and even when I dropped down to a widescreen aspect (2560x1440). In fact, I saw frame rates in the 30s whilst running at Monza 1966 at the lower resolution, even though I was practicing and was the only car on track! I started turning features off, but eventually had to drop down to 2560x1080 to get what I considered a playable frame rate. It was still noticeably slower and less smooth than the other games though. However, after posting on the PC2 forum, I have discovered that this is mainly due to my insistence on running Super-sampling. I have now turned SS off, running medium level Multi-sampling instead, and performance has greatly improved, enough to go back to 3440x1440, and it looks better into the bargain. I’m still running greatly reduced detail levels, including turning PP off, but the game still looks good and runs acceptably. It still probably has the lowest frame rates of all the games, and suffers from the lowest sense of speed, but I’m pretty happy with it overall now.

I’m very pleased with my new screen - although it’s amazing how quickly it becomes the norm and you become almost blasé about it - and couldn’t go back to my tiny old monitor now. Thanks to everyone who assisted me in coming to the decision to make the purchase.

 

[Mr Latte]

Samsung seem to be releasing a new version of the Super Ultrawide, that is cheaper than last years model. Not checked the specs for full comparison but seems they dropped the HDR (limited on previous model anyways).

LC49J890DKUXEN
Info
While the res is limited vertically (Lowish PPI) these do seem to be rather awesome for sim racing.
I think its also great for multitasking if some of you use your rigs as main PCs too. Built-in KVM and nice Picture & Picture mode.