UWQHD cpu performance

[Neezie]

Hello
Looking into upgrading my CPU from ryzen 1700 to a 3000 series main purpose is gaming.
Just wondering if CPU performance matters at all when running 3440x1440 resolution ? otherwise I'll look into putting that money into GPU.

I'm struggling to find any benchmarks at that resolution tested across different CPU's

Any thoughts?
Thanks.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Huge resolution will take a superior GPU to keep the FPS out of the basement. Try different search terms,,like '4K gaming'. Things are changing fast - new cpus - new gpus... take your time... while I know your monitor is not 4K - my thought is that if it is good enough to push 4K it will probably work OK for you.

 

[TheDevopsGuy]

Overall, as @Cycloid Torus said with the increase in the resolution the GPU will be more prevalent than the CPU performance wise.

Will you see an improvement? Yes, for sure.
Is it worth the money? No, not really.

You'd benefit much more by upgrading to a better GPU than a new CPU albeit the CPU right now might still be holding you somewhat back due to dated single threaded performance.

TLDR: You'll see a bigger fps/performance increase from a GPU upgrade than a CPU upgrade.

What are your current system specs apart from a ryzen 1700? Also is the 3440x1440 monitor running at 144hz or 60?

 

[Neezie]

Overall, as @Cycloid Torus

What are your current system specs apart from a ryzen 1700? Also is the 3440x1440 monitor running at 144hz or 60?

Vega64 and 3440x1440 @ 100hz

I've found videos of a 8700k vs dual core intel celeron @ 4k and the fps difference is around 2%

just can't seem to find any benchmarks for UWQHD ... maybe something for hardware unboxed to investigate??

 

[TheDevopsGuy]

Vega64 and 3440x1440 @ 100hz

I've found videos of a 8700k vs dual core intel celeron @ 4k and the fps difference is around 2%

just can't seem to find any benchmarks for UWQHD ... maybe something for hardware unboxed to investigate??

Pixel count for a 3440x1440 resolution display is ~4.9 million. Comparatively, 1080p (1920x1080) produces about 2 million pixels, with 1440p (2560x1440) producing ~3.7 million pixels

While this may not be 100% relevant and useful I did some quick calculations on the above and resulted in a

27% performance difference related to 3440x1440 having 27% more pixels.

If you watch any benchmark and reduce 27% from the performance graphs of a 2560x1440 benchmark you should have an approximation of what to expected on 3440x1440.

Note:This isn't a linear calculation and may be inaccurate but I found it to work most of the times.

It should be noted that the further you scale the resolution the Less the CPU reliance will be. Which is why most of the times in 4k the performance difference from several CPU's is practically the same.

 

[neeyik]

Depending on the application, fill rate at 4K+ seriously drops off. For something to do, one rainy Sunday, I ran through 3DMark tests at various resolutions and created graphs of fillrate (frame resolution x average frame rate) against frame resolution:

http://www.neeyik.info/pix/fillrate1.jpg

It's a logarithmic scale for fillrate and most of the 3DMark tests behave as expected; the Fire Strike Custom one was different though:

http://www.neeyik.info/pix/fillrate2.jpg

Here you can see the fillrate trend starts to significantly plateau after 1440p. This is with an i7-9700K and a Titan X (Pascal) and although such a system would be heavily advertised as being "4K-ready/capable", it's too marginal for my liking; this is why the majority of the games I play are run at 1440p (only racing games, like F1 2019, are happy at 4K).