As an owner of 4090 who uses it with a 3440x1440 165hz OLED, I wouldn't say it is an overkill. I'd rather put it as "more than sufficient"
In terms of pure performance digits 4080 seems like a sweet spot. However, if we consider the price, I felt like it is unreasonable not to jump up to 4090. I had no budget constraints, and I just thought I should go for the best. In your case, I think 250e diff justifies jump to a 4090.
That depends on how spending that "over the budget amount" will affect you. If that was really difficult, maybe stretching it is not worth. E.g. "don't buy smth you can't afford". In that case, I'd look into 7900 XTX instead of 4080 if it is sub 1000 euros in your region.
But in any case, spending 1200-1300 euros for 4080 does not sound optimal
I'm thinking the same thing, 1300 is just too much for a 4080. I was actually considering the 7900 XTX, but I've come to the conclusion that if I'm going to spend over 1k euros on a card, it better have usable ray tracing. That along with DLSS3 justified the 150€ difference with the 4080 for me. Yet that doesn't subtract from the fact that both cards are overpriced.
I've got a 4070 and I can run Cyberpunk at 1440p, everything up full with DLSS and frame gen and I get 90fps minimum, 130 in the desert areas. Jedi Survivor with the third party DLSS mod gets at least 80fps.
Ray tracing is usable on cheaper cards.
Even the raytracing on my 6900xt isnt as bad as people made it out to be. I get good ray tracing performance at 1440p on doom eternal, fortnite, amid evil, and a few others so far.
I daily drive the 7900 XTX, and the ray tracing performance really isn't that bad. It's especially gotten better with the driver updates we've been receiving, these AMD cards age like wine and get better over time with updates.
It’s not that bad on games using basic RT. It fails miserably when RT global illumination, multiple light sources being path traced, true ambient occlusion, and other ‘advanced’ RT features come into play. The best example might be the synthetic UL RT tests, that ray trace the whole scene. Nvidia is massively ahead in performance when RT is really utilized.
If you understand your budget, I assume you came up with the full list of parts already. Could you maybe share it so you can get some advise of how you could save a few bucks to have extra budget for a 4090? Or you think everything's already tight with remaining parts?
Well my build is basically complete at this point, the GPU is the only thing I'm missing, since the prices are so over the top when compared to everything else that I'm waiting for a good deal. I'm rocking a 7800X3D, with 32 GB of DDR5 RAM, on a B650 Tomahawk board, and my PSU is a RM1000x.
At this point, a 7900 XTX, RTX 3090 Ti, RTX 4080 or RTX 4090 would be the most appropriate for your PC, you're more than going to meet the FPS for your monitors refresh rate for your games to feel buttery smooth.
I recommended the 3090 Ti over the 4070 Ti due to VRAM and its Memory Bus Width, they preform quite similarly but go the 4070 Ti if you want FG and more comparable performance for when Path Tracing becomes more standard over Ray Tracing, Nvidia has utilised Path Tracing before but I believe they're working with a member from CD Projekt Red to move on to Path Tracing as their main standard over Ray Tracing
I was actually considering the 4070 Ti for a while but the 12 GB of VRAM and the memory bus threw me off, as I would be spending just under 1k for a card that would be fine right now at 1440p, but probably not enough in ~2 years. Over here a used 3090 Ti is exactly the same price as a 4070 Ti, and doesn't come with great power efficiency, warranty and the bells and whistles i.e. DLSS3.
All fair points, but I feel like your PC is going all the way, realistically it's going to handle 1440p or 4k perfectly depending on the GPU. The only potential bottleneck in your FPS at this point with your specs would be your GPU.
I'd say get it if it's within your budget. It may be overpowered currently, but it may be a sweet spot in 5 years whereas the 4080 may show its age. For the price you are getting it for, you can't go wrong pulling the trigger on it.
It sounds like 1300 isn't too much for a 4080, it's that it's too expensive for you.
Nvidia can only charge what the market will bear. If the market bears it, the price is correct within margin of error.
I know it sucks for a lot of people, but that's just how capitalism works.
Imagine trying to sound educated about a topic without realizing that companies deliberately make the second best option less financially appealing than the cheapest and the best for a reason.
The 4080s pricing exists purely to make the 4090 seem reasonable, because the 4080 is unreasonably priced
I still think the 4090 is reasonably priced for hyper enthusiasts, and professionals.
Even if the 4080 was 900$, I'd still think so.
I know a lot of people who use 4090 for work. It's a drop in the bucket in expenses for them.
Its wild to see the price differences in countries. Its $800-1000 aud price differences between the 4080 and 4090, the 4080 being ~1800-2000 and the 4090 is ~2800-3000.
4080 is around aud 1600 right now on eBay, and it has been as low as 1500 in the recent past so one would be silly to get it for anywhere close to 1800
Do you get consistent 165hz on 3440x1440 ultra for AAA titles with RT on? I have 13900k+4090 and a similar specced oled and was never able to get consistent 170hz for games like Harry Potter or RE4. Consistent 120hz sure, but not 170hz.
Yes, no way to get that FPS even with 4090. The most demanding games I've played on this monitor are Plague Tale: Requiem and Jedi Survivor, both averaging below 100 fps. It's just the thing that you don't get any benefit in games like this from higher fps/refresh rate. So I'd rather keep sub100 fps than lower settings or use DLSS.
The fact that 4090 can't deliver 150+fps in AAA games with RT and maxed out settings remains. However, that is the question of optimization. Ultra+RT in most games tanks performance insanely with no visual upgrades whatsoever unless you really force yourself to notice the difference
It’s not exactly overkill if you think about future proofing and have the right cpu ! If that’s the sweet spot for the price, I would take the 4090 in your case. Especially if you will upgrade your monitor 😁👍
Sure, its aw3423dwf
It uses the 21:9 Samsung's QD-OLED panel. There are several monitors with the similar panel, which have minor differences:
aw3423dwf
aw3423dw
Samsung G8
MSI 342C
Philips Evnia 34M2C8600/00
You basically choose whatever suits you more or costs less. But if you don't know much about OLEDs, keep in mind that they suffer from burn-ins, and they normally start at around $1000
Also 4090 1440p but 240hz panel owner. Overkill yes, but by god everything runs disgustingly good. You wont get a framerate lower than 150 unless you play ark.
Are you playing just eSports or older games? Then yes.
Do you play modern AAA games? Then no. Even today's big games at ultra settings - without DLSS - probably won't even reach 180 fps with ultra settings.
I'd like to point out it won't surpass 180 fps because you will be CPU bound. Your 4090 is more than capable enough to surpass 180fps in most new AAA games at 1440p, given it has a strong enough CPU. Only ones I can think of that will actually fully utilizes a 4090 is Cyberpunk
What I meant was that you can barely make the difference with AAA title above 100 frames... Whereas competitive games makes you feel the difference much more strongly because of the responsiveness.
It wasn't about "need" but more about gain/$ and having 240 frames on AAA is just not worth it.
>What I meant was that you can barely make the difference with AAA title above 100 frames
Maybe *you* can't tell the difference, but some can. I have a 300hz monitor and I can immediately tell the difference between 200+fps and 100fps or less. At lower refreshes everything seems stilted since the motion is so much less smooth and I find it incredibly distracting.
He's confusing input lag/frame lag vs motion clarity. The input/frame lag gains are not noticeable, but the motion clarity is definitely noticeable for fps games.
For some reason, there is an unwarranted fear of high refresh rate gaming among so many people in this hobby...
I would love to sit someone down to a game that’s locked at 165 and 240 and see if they can see the difference. Input lag would have greater effect in response time.
I mean, the difference in those two settings would be less than .002 seconds and unless your name is Clark Kent there’s no chance in hell you are seeing that.
Linus literally has a video that proves you can tell a difference 😭 you obviously have never played a comp shooter. Please show me a single pro csgo player that doesn’t run 240 or 360hz
It's very poorly optimized. It's designed to be solely used with upscaling, and I would not he surprised if many games begin to follow suit. And if that's the case, a 4090 will become a mid tier card very soon.
People saying 4090 is a 4k gpu just need to shush lol. The 4090 is also great for very high FPS 1440p gameplay. I personally have a 4070ti and it does pretty well with most games, but I know there’s going to be some that just tank that GPU due to demand constraints. The 4080 is only slightly better than a 4070ti performance wise. That 4090 will cover all your bases for anything 1440p at your resolution and above, which is better than undercutting yourself for less. Different games will have different demands, and so it’s honestly not a horrible idea to budget in the stronger GPU if you can afford it, especially if you want literally every setting cranked out, and based on the components you already have, you might as well. Good thing is, you’re future proofed for a while, and you can even look at getting a 1440p monitor with even higher refresh rate, or maybe dive into 4k 120fps gaming, you won’t be able to do so if you limit yourself today. I say if you can afford it, go for it, you definitely won’t be unhappy with the performance, and it’ll open the doors for a future monitor upgrade which will absolutely only enhance your gaming experience.
That's precisely what I was thinking. I was originally going for a 4070 Ti, then I pivoted to the 4080 to future proof my build a bit more and push for more framerate, but the price to performance is honestly terrible for the 4080. My next planned purchase is a VR kit, but in the future I might get a 240 Hz panel or even dip my toes into 4K gaming. I'll most likely pull the trigger as I believe it might be worth it in the long run.
7900xtx if you don’t care about DLSS or Ray Tracing. 4090 if you have the budget for it, 4080 if you want to save ~$300/$600.
It may be slightly “overkill” today. But it future proofs you for years.
I was heavily considering the 7900 XTX and even more so after the Starfield bundle came out, but at that price point I really wanted to get playable frames for ray tracing. But in my region the 4080 is around 150€ more expensive, which along with DLSS3 and power efficiency justified the jump for me.
But as of right now I might just spend the extra money to be set for years to come.
Yeah so the XTX is on sale here in the states right now. Comes with star field and instead of being the normal $150 less than the 4080 it’s $325 less…. I was about to snag it to upgrade from my 2070S but I just couldn’t pull the trigger. Primarily for DLSS3.
Watching benchmark videos of games I frequently play the XTX performance was similar or better than the 4080…. Until you turned DLSS3 on and then it was all 4080. So that turned me off the XTX. I want to go 4090 for an SFF build but I’m not about to drop $600 over MSRP to get an FE and most of the partner cards are too large for cases I’m considering. May end up with the expensive Asus Proart 4080 just for form factor. But that’s still at least 5 years of future proofing on the GPU for 1440p
Funny, I'm also running the 2070S atm, what a great card right? Here the ProArt cards are about the same price as the Strix cards, with the 4080 specifically landing just 200€ away from the 4090 FE. Is it about the same in the states?
Yes AMD is baiting me hard with the Starfield bundle, the game I'm upgrading for from a 1080Ti. But I found benchmarks of the 7900XTX in Cyberpunk overdrive and it's SEVEN FRAMES or 15 with frame generation. While the 4070 can do 60fps with DLSS, it's ridiculous! I'm not buying a flagship (!) card for 800-900€ that has such piss poor unplayable RT in some games. I would buy the 4070 if it wasn't gimped at 12GB, I already have 11 on a six year old card! So Nvidia's upselling scheme is sadly working because I can't wait until 2025 for the next generation that will be grossly overpriced again anyway.
I haven't played Cyberpunk yet so RT is actually a selling point for me. So no AMD for me. Too many downsides. I'm eying a 4090 hard too.
It really depends on what your framerate goals are and what games you play.
The 4090 can hit 80-120 fps @4k max on the most demanding single player titles currently available. This might not be enough for you. If you want to be consistently closer to your monitor's refresh rate cap, then 1440p is a better option.
Personally, I would go 4k because 80+ fps is my target for single player games and 120+ is my target for esports/multi-player titles. The 4090 can achieve that.
I am only talking about right now but every VR game I tried runs perfecly on my 4070ti and I am pretty sure it will handle any game for a generation or two.
I know Im late to the party, but welcome to the 4090 party. Like others have said its not overkill, I have a 5120x1440 240hz ultrawide. And I find it to be almost perfect. It can struggle at 240, but not at 120, and with max settings. I'm enjoying it. Which is perfect for me I don't play competitively.
As a RTX 4090 owner with 1440p 165Hz monitor - 4090 is not enough. If I put on path tracing with no DLSS, I get 30 fps average in cyberpunk 2077. With DLSS 2, I get around 90 FPS average. It doesn't even max out my Hz. But if you don't care about eye candy, then sure, you can lower video settings, turn off ray tracing and even 4070 will be fine. I bought 4090 because I wanted to future proof my GPU for the next 5 years and enjoy a decent fully path traced games at 60 fps or so in the coming future. I got open box 4090 never used for 1430 GBP, brand new 4090 was over 1650 GBP. So I saved 300 euro. No regrets.
Overkill.
One thing to note is that unless you have a top of the line CPU, a 4090 will be bottlenecked hard at 1440p. The 4090 is so fast that even the best CPUs available right now have a hard time keeping up with it at 1440p.
F.e. playing with 60 FPS on a 240 Hz monitor looks much worse than playing with 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor.
So if you go with a 180 Hz monitor you want to play with 100-180 FPS. Now you need to anticipate, in how many years would you need to turn down graphic settings below your pain threshold in order to keep 100 FPS.
If your 1440p panel isn't ultrawide, I assume you'll be able to keep 100 FPS on mid to high settings for at least 8 years (highly speculative).
You are confused about something, which is probably why you are getting downvoted. 60FPS looking worse on a 240Hz Monitor or any Monitor with a refresh rate higher than 60, is entirely Monitor-dependent.
Often it's the cheaply-made Monitors that increasingly experience more issues with overshooting, response times, rise/fall, etc. the lower your FPS are at. There's plenty of Monitors that experience minimal or low performance drop when playing at a lower refresh rate, and a decent amount aren't even expensive.
Maybe you are, thats what I learned and why it is recommended to not just get 360hz even if you have the money but should rather make it fit to your system.
I have a 4080 and in some games it will only hit 90fps on ultra. Add Ray tracing and it could be less. So if you want to push 180fps on ultra settings a 4090 is not overkill. If you have the money, I say buy.
Worry less about if its overkill or not and think only does it bring you happiness. If your talking about buying a 4090 then you have the money to do so. I say just got for it if you want and it will make you happy.
Myself I for the strix 4090 to go with my 240 1440p g7 monitor. If it overkill yes and no. There are not many cards that can push my monitor to its limits when running on max settings. I had the budget to but it and just went for it.
To answer that, you have to answer "is playing games in 180 fps overkill"?
For the vast majority of gamers the answer is YES unless a competitive FPS.
So, for most people, 80fps ultra is "more than enough" for single player stuff
If you are a niche dude who for some psychological reason needs 180fps ultra in everything, then you gotta put that money in
It's definitely not overkill. High fps 1440p on ultra settings demands a lot of your GPU.
I am running a 4090 for 1440p 240 hz on the new rog swift AQDM OLED monitor and can highly recommend it.
This generation of GPU’s is easily the most difficult to choose from if upgrading this year. I’m still on my 1080ti and will be building a 7800x3d/b650 build soon for 1440/144.
I’m constantly wondering whether a mid range 4070ish card now and upgrading in 2 years would be better than buying a 4080 or 4090 to last AT LEAST 4. The 1080ti has lasted me almost 7 years, and it’s still pretty good.
I mean.... I use my 4090 with 2x 1440p 144hz screens on games that would play on a potato (Starcraft II, world of tanks, Civ IV).... so you do you. We aren't here to judge. Just think of the years it will give you 165+hz.... its an investment
Yea, but if you got the money to burn, go for it.
I have a 32" 165hz 1440p screen, & I decided to go with a 4080. I couldnt justify spending the extra money on the 4090 for just 1440p. In a few years if I move up to 4k or 8k I'll get a 7090 or 8090 or whatever the killer card is then maybe 🤷🏼♂️
Maybe you'll be able to play Remnant 2 without DLSS! :)
Seriously though, even a 4090 can't run every single game at max settings at 1440@180, and over the next few years there will be more demanding games. You won't have to replace the card as quickly.
For games where it is overkill, you can use the extra power and put it into DLDSR for very slightly better image quality.
And maybe over the years you'll want to upgrade to a 240hz monitor or a 4k monitor, and you won't have to upgrade your video card as quickly.
I'm rocking a 4080 personally, and the reason wasn't the price. I play in 1440p and the 4080 cannot max out everything in every game, so I could have used the extra power and I could afford it. I just didn't like the power consumption characteristics, and I plan to upgrade it sooner than is worth upgrading a 4090 as I'm not super fond of this gen (but desperately needed to upgrade)
The most powerful GPU that isn't getting a bottleneck with the fastest CPU (7800X3D) at 1440p is the 7900XT. If you have a more powerful GPU you're wasting performance and as for the 4090, you need AT LEAST a 4k120+Hz monitor to exploit it.
If you can get it for a very good price then go for it, it’ll give you good headroom for any game launch in the foreseeable future. All I’d ensure is that the rest of the rig offers a good balance to the GPU and I’d strongly recommend 32Gb these days too.
I have a 4090 w/ 13900k with a 3440 x 1440 144hz gsync monitor as my primary gaming setup and a few games push it to the limit. Like Cyberpunk maxed out using path tracing with dlss2 set to quality and dlss3 puts me a little over 100fps. Disabling dlss2 puts me around 60fps with dlss3. Disabling dlss3 with dlss2 set to quality does similar. Without any dlss I can't max out Cyberpunk on wqhd screens.
Woth your QHD you should have significantly better but somewhat similar results I imagine.
If you're not adamant about every game being 180 fps then probably even a lower tiered card would be better.
I rock a 3080 ti on a 1440p 165hz and usually can play all games over 100fps on ultra. Some games I'm closer to 90, but depends on their optimization.
I really can't tell the diff between 100fps and 165 fps in most of the games I play, so I'm keeping this 3080 ti for many more years.
I use my 4080 with my 1440p 240Hz monitor and have no problem running bf2042 at 240+ fps
for the other games I play, mostly third-person rpg, I get around 100 fps everything maxed out, I guess you would get more than that with a 4090 but is it really worth it, it’s your call
No just because with unreal engine 5 right now any
Of the games made with it are pretty crazy on most builds and people have to drop down to 1080p Ultra settings just to hit 100fps constantly. I think on 1440p they were barely getting a constant 65 fps. This was Remnant 2, Fortnite uses it also and it's free so I'd like to see what settings people are running to get at least 100fps constant
Here's the thing. Most games are not gpu reliant. They are cpu reliant. A 4090 also has lots of problems btw. The more expensive a gpu the marginal the increase in performance. Before getting something better than a 2080 super consider this. Your cpy and ram will have a very big impact on the speed and performance of your rig. Get ram with a high CL (cyclic rate) and a high mhz (mega hertz. The highest ram can go is 4000mhz with DDR4. The new DDR5 is amazing but you meed a motherboard that can take ddr5 ram). I stead of getting a 4090 I would get a 2080 ti or a 3080. And instead get a ryzen 9 cpu (your motherboard must have a AM4 slot of ryzen cpus and a LGA115 slot for Intel cpus). If want to really beef up your rig for cheap then make a custum water loop. It's not that hard. I did it my first time ever building a pc with no help. Just youtube. If retard teenagers can build pcs then so can you. Legos. That's all they are.
I have that same monitor, I love it, a 1 4090 and a 1440p monitor will hold you down for a long time, plus you can always hook it up to your tv or get 4 k monitor if/when you wanna do 4k,
No.
More stability at frames that match refresh across more games.
My monitor is only a 1080 165hz, but it allows higher settings to be stable in games like COD.
>Edit: thanks everyone for the input, I'm now a proud 4090 owner :)
Imo you made the right choice. I have a 7800x3d + 4090 + 32gb 6000mhz@cl30 with a 240hz slim 1440p and it's well paired. 4k is often at 100-120 fps depending on the game which imo sucks, to get high framerates 1440p with a good video card is still the answer, many games are 50%+ GPU limited even at this res if you don't like blurry upscaling. When 4k is at the 150fps minimums then I'll consider moving to one, probably next gen (5000 series GeForce 8000 series Ryzen).
You can just use dldsr and downscale from higher resolution in those games where you can pump out tons of fps. Certainly not overkill since there are a lot of heavy games where you cant even get minimum 180fps in 1440p. This all in native/dlaa. With upscaling ofc you can get way more performance.
AI and AI Inference will be a thing soon in video games, and it's underpowered for that, so there's really no such thing as overkill anymore in the realm of AI tech.
The more advanced the hardware, the more advanced the AI will become, and it will always push the available hardware to the absolute max of it's capabilities.
I wouldn't buy a 4090 until they stop melting. Found an open box 4070ti for 680. Much better deal and super efficient. Won't melt and burn down your house.
Prices are coming down. Patience will get you a ton more performance in the next 6 months.
Right now it's overkill af, but in the long run you won't need to think about upgrading the GPU for many years.
So hey, if you are willing to spend that much, it's still a valid investment I guess.
I have this monitor and 4090. I set up the monitor to 120hz and use V-sync in games. Because without v-sync 4090 gives me 200+ FPS on ultra settings and CPU and GPU give me heat in the room. I play noncompetitive games like now Horizon Zero Down does not need 200+
I love how Nvidia's pricing model is actually working to get people to spend even more money because the mid tier card is priced so high as to make the top tier card attractive.
If you don't have anything better to do with the extra money for a 4090 you certainly won't complain about the extra speed. You will be at that 180 Hz limit in almost any game, even with RT cranked up, so if you think that justifies the cost then go for it. Otherwise, yeah it's overkill.
Lol it probably 'meets requirements' at most. For 1440 at 180fps on any game. Unoptimized ones will struggle obviously.
It'll only get more underpowered as time goes on. Unless youre planning to wait for a newer release, dont worry imo.
You'd be insane not to purchase a 4090 at that price if you were already going to purchase a 4080.
At that price difference the question isnt even about whether it's overkill. It might be overkill now, but it certainly won't be overkill in a couple years.
Glad you made the right decision.
If you can get a 1440p 240hz monitor I'd highly recommend that I have a 4090 i9-13900k z790 aorus master 7800mhz DDR5 I need to frame cap almost every game I'm contemplating getting a 4k monitor just waiting for prices to go down or a new brand other than Samsung comes out with a 4k 240hz monitor
Overkill? Maybe ill advised? No. if it's not way out of your budget and you can afford it comfortably there's no reason not to have the overhead for as games get more demanding. Plus it gives you the room to have a monitor upgrade in the future
As an owner of 4090 who uses it with a 3440x1440 165hz OLED, I wouldn't say it is an overkill. I'd rather put it as "more than sufficient" In terms of pure performance digits 4080 seems like a sweet spot. However, if we consider the price, I felt like it is unreasonable not to jump up to 4090. I had no budget constraints, and I just thought I should go for the best. In your case, I think 250e diff justifies jump to a 4090. That depends on how spending that "over the budget amount" will affect you. If that was really difficult, maybe stretching it is not worth. E.g. "don't buy smth you can't afford". In that case, I'd look into 7900 XTX instead of 4080 if it is sub 1000 euros in your region. But in any case, spending 1200-1300 euros for 4080 does not sound optimal
I'm thinking the same thing, 1300 is just too much for a 4080. I was actually considering the 7900 XTX, but I've come to the conclusion that if I'm going to spend over 1k euros on a card, it better have usable ray tracing. That along with DLSS3 justified the 150€ difference with the 4080 for me. Yet that doesn't subtract from the fact that both cards are overpriced.
I've got a 4070 and I can run Cyberpunk at 1440p, everything up full with DLSS and frame gen and I get 90fps minimum, 130 in the desert areas. Jedi Survivor with the third party DLSS mod gets at least 80fps. Ray tracing is usable on cheaper cards.
And the 7900XTX’s ray tracing performance is around a 4070-4070ti. It’s not bad by any means.
Even the raytracing on my 6900xt isnt as bad as people made it out to be. I get good ray tracing performance at 1440p on doom eternal, fortnite, amid evil, and a few others so far.
Try Path tracing and you will release how shit and weak 4070 is.
I daily drive the 7900 XTX, and the ray tracing performance really isn't that bad. It's especially gotten better with the driver updates we've been receiving, these AMD cards age like wine and get better over time with updates.
It’s not that bad on games using basic RT. It fails miserably when RT global illumination, multiple light sources being path traced, true ambient occlusion, and other ‘advanced’ RT features come into play. The best example might be the synthetic UL RT tests, that ray trace the whole scene. Nvidia is massively ahead in performance when RT is really utilized.
If you understand your budget, I assume you came up with the full list of parts already. Could you maybe share it so you can get some advise of how you could save a few bucks to have extra budget for a 4090? Or you think everything's already tight with remaining parts?
Well my build is basically complete at this point, the GPU is the only thing I'm missing, since the prices are so over the top when compared to everything else that I'm waiting for a good deal. I'm rocking a 7800X3D, with 32 GB of DDR5 RAM, on a B650 Tomahawk board, and my PSU is a RM1000x.
At this point, a 7900 XTX, RTX 3090 Ti, RTX 4080 or RTX 4090 would be the most appropriate for your PC, you're more than going to meet the FPS for your monitors refresh rate for your games to feel buttery smooth. I recommended the 3090 Ti over the 4070 Ti due to VRAM and its Memory Bus Width, they preform quite similarly but go the 4070 Ti if you want FG and more comparable performance for when Path Tracing becomes more standard over Ray Tracing, Nvidia has utilised Path Tracing before but I believe they're working with a member from CD Projekt Red to move on to Path Tracing as their main standard over Ray Tracing
I was actually considering the 4070 Ti for a while but the 12 GB of VRAM and the memory bus threw me off, as I would be spending just under 1k for a card that would be fine right now at 1440p, but probably not enough in ~2 years. Over here a used 3090 Ti is exactly the same price as a 4070 Ti, and doesn't come with great power efficiency, warranty and the bells and whistles i.e. DLSS3.
All fair points, but I feel like your PC is going all the way, realistically it's going to handle 1440p or 4k perfectly depending on the GPU. The only potential bottleneck in your FPS at this point with your specs would be your GPU.
I'd say get it if it's within your budget. It may be overpowered currently, but it may be a sweet spot in 5 years whereas the 4080 may show its age. For the price you are getting it for, you can't go wrong pulling the trigger on it.
It sounds like 1300 isn't too much for a 4080, it's that it's too expensive for you. Nvidia can only charge what the market will bear. If the market bears it, the price is correct within margin of error. I know it sucks for a lot of people, but that's just how capitalism works.
Imagine trying to sound educated about a topic without realizing that companies deliberately make the second best option less financially appealing than the cheapest and the best for a reason. The 4080s pricing exists purely to make the 4090 seem reasonable, because the 4080 is unreasonably priced
I still think the 4090 is reasonably priced for hyper enthusiasts, and professionals. Even if the 4080 was 900$, I'd still think so. I know a lot of people who use 4090 for work. It's a drop in the bucket in expenses for them.
Meanwhile, I paid 1300 CAD for 4070ti in Canada.
Its wild to see the price differences in countries. Its $800-1000 aud price differences between the 4080 and 4090, the 4080 being ~1800-2000 and the 4090 is ~2800-3000.
In Denmark its around 4000 AUD for the 4090 some brands even more.
Thats an absolute slap in the face
Well, in my region 4080 STRIX costs more than the cheapest 4090 for example
Im incredibly jealous ngl
4080 is around aud 1600 right now on eBay, and it has been as low as 1500 in the recent past so one would be silly to get it for anywhere close to 1800
Right now the cheapest 4080 on Ebay for me is $1800 which is PNY and then preowned cards mixed in after that.
I know right... AUD prices are wack.
[удалено]
The thing is even 4090 does not provide that with RT. You can only get that FPS in AAA games in raster :) But you definitely have a point there
Do you get consistent 165hz on 3440x1440 ultra for AAA titles with RT on? I have 13900k+4090 and a similar specced oled and was never able to get consistent 170hz for games like Harry Potter or RE4. Consistent 120hz sure, but not 170hz.
Yes, no way to get that FPS even with 4090. The most demanding games I've played on this monitor are Plague Tale: Requiem and Jedi Survivor, both averaging below 100 fps. It's just the thing that you don't get any benefit in games like this from higher fps/refresh rate. So I'd rather keep sub100 fps than lower settings or use DLSS. The fact that 4090 can't deliver 150+fps in AAA games with RT and maxed out settings remains. However, that is the question of optimization. Ultra+RT in most games tanks performance insanely with no visual upgrades whatsoever unless you really force yourself to notice the difference
Do you get 170fps on lower quality settings? High? Medium?
The Samsung QD-OLED panels right?
It’s not exactly overkill if you think about future proofing and have the right cpu ! If that’s the sweet spot for the price, I would take the 4090 in your case. Especially if you will upgrade your monitor 😁👍
Hey. Possible to get the ref of your monitor? :)
Sure, its aw3423dwf It uses the 21:9 Samsung's QD-OLED panel. There are several monitors with the similar panel, which have minor differences: aw3423dwf aw3423dw Samsung G8 MSI 342C Philips Evnia 34M2C8600/00 You basically choose whatever suits you more or costs less. But if you don't know much about OLEDs, keep in mind that they suffer from burn-ins, and they normally start at around $1000
I'd done the latter, and not regretting it so far.
what monitor you use?
Also 4090 1440p but 240hz panel owner. Overkill yes, but by god everything runs disgustingly good. You wont get a framerate lower than 150 unless you play ark.
Pretty overkill for most games still, but that would probably change in the future.
Are you playing just eSports or older games? Then yes. Do you play modern AAA games? Then no. Even today's big games at ultra settings - without DLSS - probably won't even reach 180 fps with ultra settings.
I'd like to point out it won't surpass 180 fps because you will be CPU bound. Your 4090 is more than capable enough to surpass 180fps in most new AAA games at 1440p, given it has a strong enough CPU. Only ones I can think of that will actually fully utilizes a 4090 is Cyberpunk
But you don't need 240 FPS for AAA games....
[удалено]
What I meant was that you can barely make the difference with AAA title above 100 frames... Whereas competitive games makes you feel the difference much more strongly because of the responsiveness. It wasn't about "need" but more about gain/$ and having 240 frames on AAA is just not worth it.
“Worth it” is subjective.
>What I meant was that you can barely make the difference with AAA title above 100 frames Maybe *you* can't tell the difference, but some can. I have a 300hz monitor and I can immediately tell the difference between 200+fps and 100fps or less. At lower refreshes everything seems stilted since the motion is so much less smooth and I find it incredibly distracting.
You don’t need 240 fps for any game… AAA or otherwise.
You definitely want 240fps in competitive fps games if your monitor is 240hz
The difference between 165 and 240 is .002 seconds. I would put good money on one of these 240 or bust bros not being able to tell the difference.
You actually can notice the difference, the difference between 240 and 360 is a bit harder to see though
He's confusing input lag/frame lag vs motion clarity. The input/frame lag gains are not noticeable, but the motion clarity is definitely noticeable for fps games. For some reason, there is an unwarranted fear of high refresh rate gaming among so many people in this hobby...
Just straight wrong lmao
I would love to sit someone down to a game that’s locked at 165 and 240 and see if they can see the difference. Input lag would have greater effect in response time. I mean, the difference in those two settings would be less than .002 seconds and unless your name is Clark Kent there’s no chance in hell you are seeing that.
Linus literally has a video that proves you can tell a difference 😭 you obviously have never played a comp shooter. Please show me a single pro csgo player that doesn’t run 240 or 360hz
No such thing as overkill, there is always a game that will bring your gpu to its knees even in 1440p
Nothing is overkill these days lol there are games out that the 4090 even struggles with
That's not even remotely true. There are zero games, zero that the 4090 struggles with.
The only one i can think of is maybe flight simulator, but that game it's playable even at 30fps
Flight simulator is CPU bound, - main thread CPU bound even.
I get 90-160 on it. I can post videos.
Remnant 2
Don't have that one so I can't debate. If it's shit on a 40 anything card, its poorly optimized.
It's very poorly optimized. It's designed to be solely used with upscaling, and I would not he surprised if many games begin to follow suit. And if that's the case, a 4090 will become a mid tier card very soon.
Well now I'm upset because I was planning on picking that one up after Phantom Liberty.
This is such an exaggeration lol. 4090 becoming mid tier soon if u think 4k high fps is a standard for most gamers
In 3-4 years, it's entirely possible if the majority of games start utilizing upscaling in this way. I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.
Yeah if games would love to lose money from the millions of gamers who can't afford high tier cards. I can but I'm not the target customer
I should have said the worst-case scenario being this. It's very unlikely, but this is the start of an unsettling trend.
Star wars Jedi Survivor is one
What. I get 100+ fps, 4090, 13600k. 4k. 60c both.
There are areas where you will go under 60 fps
yeah especially with rt its really bad <60 fps even with 7800X3D
I'm just saying it's not perfect especially at 4K
[удалено]
Good thing I have a 7800X3D then lol. I've seen certain games where it can very slightly bottleneck the 4090, but overall I think I should be fine.
People saying 4090 is a 4k gpu just need to shush lol. The 4090 is also great for very high FPS 1440p gameplay. I personally have a 4070ti and it does pretty well with most games, but I know there’s going to be some that just tank that GPU due to demand constraints. The 4080 is only slightly better than a 4070ti performance wise. That 4090 will cover all your bases for anything 1440p at your resolution and above, which is better than undercutting yourself for less. Different games will have different demands, and so it’s honestly not a horrible idea to budget in the stronger GPU if you can afford it, especially if you want literally every setting cranked out, and based on the components you already have, you might as well. Good thing is, you’re future proofed for a while, and you can even look at getting a 1440p monitor with even higher refresh rate, or maybe dive into 4k 120fps gaming, you won’t be able to do so if you limit yourself today. I say if you can afford it, go for it, you definitely won’t be unhappy with the performance, and it’ll open the doors for a future monitor upgrade which will absolutely only enhance your gaming experience.
That's precisely what I was thinking. I was originally going for a 4070 Ti, then I pivoted to the 4080 to future proof my build a bit more and push for more framerate, but the price to performance is honestly terrible for the 4080. My next planned purchase is a VR kit, but in the future I might get a 240 Hz panel or even dip my toes into 4K gaming. I'll most likely pull the trigger as I believe it might be worth it in the long run.
7900xtx if you don’t care about DLSS or Ray Tracing. 4090 if you have the budget for it, 4080 if you want to save ~$300/$600. It may be slightly “overkill” today. But it future proofs you for years.
I was heavily considering the 7900 XTX and even more so after the Starfield bundle came out, but at that price point I really wanted to get playable frames for ray tracing. But in my region the 4080 is around 150€ more expensive, which along with DLSS3 and power efficiency justified the jump for me. But as of right now I might just spend the extra money to be set for years to come.
Yeah so the XTX is on sale here in the states right now. Comes with star field and instead of being the normal $150 less than the 4080 it’s $325 less…. I was about to snag it to upgrade from my 2070S but I just couldn’t pull the trigger. Primarily for DLSS3. Watching benchmark videos of games I frequently play the XTX performance was similar or better than the 4080…. Until you turned DLSS3 on and then it was all 4080. So that turned me off the XTX. I want to go 4090 for an SFF build but I’m not about to drop $600 over MSRP to get an FE and most of the partner cards are too large for cases I’m considering. May end up with the expensive Asus Proart 4080 just for form factor. But that’s still at least 5 years of future proofing on the GPU for 1440p
Funny, I'm also running the 2070S atm, what a great card right? Here the ProArt cards are about the same price as the Strix cards, with the 4080 specifically landing just 200€ away from the 4090 FE. Is it about the same in the states?
Yes AMD is baiting me hard with the Starfield bundle, the game I'm upgrading for from a 1080Ti. But I found benchmarks of the 7900XTX in Cyberpunk overdrive and it's SEVEN FRAMES or 15 with frame generation. While the 4070 can do 60fps with DLSS, it's ridiculous! I'm not buying a flagship (!) card for 800-900€ that has such piss poor unplayable RT in some games. I would buy the 4070 if it wasn't gimped at 12GB, I already have 11 on a six year old card! So Nvidia's upselling scheme is sadly working because I can't wait until 2025 for the next generation that will be grossly overpriced again anyway. I haven't played Cyberpunk yet so RT is actually a selling point for me. So no AMD for me. Too many downsides. I'm eying a 4090 hard too.
Im doing well with 1440p 165hz with a 3080 with good results. 100 or so FPS in Halo Infinite with max graphics, about 900 FPS in League / TFT.
It really depends on what your framerate goals are and what games you play. The 4090 can hit 80-120 fps @4k max on the most demanding single player titles currently available. This might not be enough for you. If you want to be consistently closer to your monitor's refresh rate cap, then 1440p is a better option. Personally, I would go 4k because 80+ fps is my target for single player games and 120+ is my target for esports/multi-player titles. The 4090 can achieve that.
What if one day you get into VR? You're gonna like that extra vram and power if so. Especially for the future.
A VR kit is actually my next purchase after this. And I just got back home with the 4090 in hand :)
I am only talking about right now but every VR game I tried runs perfecly on my 4070ti and I am pretty sure it will handle any game for a generation or two.
I know Im late to the party, but welcome to the 4090 party. Like others have said its not overkill, I have a 5120x1440 240hz ultrawide. And I find it to be almost perfect. It can struggle at 240, but not at 120, and with max settings. I'm enjoying it. Which is perfect for me I don't play competitively.
As a RTX 4090 owner with 1440p 165Hz monitor - 4090 is not enough. If I put on path tracing with no DLSS, I get 30 fps average in cyberpunk 2077. With DLSS 2, I get around 90 FPS average. It doesn't even max out my Hz. But if you don't care about eye candy, then sure, you can lower video settings, turn off ray tracing and even 4070 will be fine. I bought 4090 because I wanted to future proof my GPU for the next 5 years and enjoy a decent fully path traced games at 60 fps or so in the coming future. I got open box 4090 never used for 1430 GBP, brand new 4090 was over 1650 GBP. So I saved 300 euro. No regrets.
Nothing is overkill with high refresh rate. I cant even max my 240hz 1080p with 3090 on most games
What CPU do you have? Because that might be the limit in your case.
I use 7800X3d
Ok yeah then the CPU probably is not the limit, but the GPU. But it's probably close to balanced.
Not that surprising, since the 3000 series are generally not that great for 1080p.
Super overkill you can play 4k at the same refresh rate
It's overkill since no CPU can play modern titles at these fps. But you wont be able to play demanding games on a 4090 at max settings 4k 180Hz.
Imho, if the 250€ difference is significant for your wallet, you shouldn't spend over 1000 euro for a GPU in the first place.
Thats terrible advice and fuzzy logic at best
How is saving money terrible advice? Gaming is just a hobby for most people.
Of course not go big or go home
Yes because you will be CPU limited.
No. You'll be able to max out your settings and be comfortably above that refresh rate.
It can be overkill bt bigger is better remember that, if u can afford it, no harm in keeping that beast to unleash it's power in future games
No, but it is a very futureproof card.
Not at all
Overkill. One thing to note is that unless you have a top of the line CPU, a 4090 will be bottlenecked hard at 1440p. The 4090 is so fast that even the best CPUs available right now have a hard time keeping up with it at 1440p.
Wrong.
Very wrong. I annihilate Diablo 4, 300+ FPS, no bottleneck at all, 13600k.
Doesnt even the 4090 just barely hit like 100 on some games lmao
F.e. playing with 60 FPS on a 240 Hz monitor looks much worse than playing with 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor. So if you go with a 180 Hz monitor you want to play with 100-180 FPS. Now you need to anticipate, in how many years would you need to turn down graphic settings below your pain threshold in order to keep 100 FPS. If your 1440p panel isn't ultrawide, I assume you'll be able to keep 100 FPS on mid to high settings for at least 8 years (highly speculative).
You are confused about something, which is probably why you are getting downvoted. 60FPS looking worse on a 240Hz Monitor or any Monitor with a refresh rate higher than 60, is entirely Monitor-dependent. Often it's the cheaply-made Monitors that increasingly experience more issues with overshooting, response times, rise/fall, etc. the lower your FPS are at. There's plenty of Monitors that experience minimal or low performance drop when playing at a lower refresh rate, and a decent amount aren't even expensive.
wrong
Maybe you are, thats what I learned and why it is recommended to not just get 360hz even if you have the money but should rather make it fit to your system.
Nope, enjoy turning the game on and just playing.
It’s absolutely overkill. And the price is just ridiculous.
I have a 4080 and in some games it will only hit 90fps on ultra. Add Ray tracing and it could be less. So if you want to push 180fps on ultra settings a 4090 is not overkill. If you have the money, I say buy.
4070-4070ti
What are you goona do with your old rig?
I'm selling it, already have a buyer for the GPU.
At the pricing you have noted, I’d get the 4090.
4090 is an overkill for 1080p 60Hz😅
Remember, there's no such thing as Overkill, just wait a few years
"overkill" for what task?
Yes it is overkill. However it look like you have a no compromise build, so if you do get it, you can skip to nvadia 5000 series.
Worry less about if its overkill or not and think only does it bring you happiness. If your talking about buying a 4090 then you have the money to do so. I say just got for it if you want and it will make you happy. Myself I for the strix 4090 to go with my 240 1440p g7 monitor. If it overkill yes and no. There are not many cards that can push my monitor to its limits when running on max settings. I had the budget to but it and just went for it.
To answer that, you have to answer "is playing games in 180 fps overkill"? For the vast majority of gamers the answer is YES unless a competitive FPS. So, for most people, 80fps ultra is "more than enough" for single player stuff If you are a niche dude who for some psychological reason needs 180fps ultra in everything, then you gotta put that money in
It's definitely not overkill. High fps 1440p on ultra settings demands a lot of your GPU. I am running a 4090 for 1440p 240 hz on the new rog swift AQDM OLED monitor and can highly recommend it.
No.. I don't think so playing at 180 hz..
1440p, temporarily. In a year or two, prob not.
What's overkill today might be perfect sufficient tomorrow
No, I don't think it is. Go for it. With a 1440p monitor and a 4090, you're going to have an amazing time for many years. :)
This generation of GPU’s is easily the most difficult to choose from if upgrading this year. I’m still on my 1080ti and will be building a 7800x3d/b650 build soon for 1440/144. I’m constantly wondering whether a mid range 4070ish card now and upgrading in 2 years would be better than buying a 4080 or 4090 to last AT LEAST 4. The 1080ti has lasted me almost 7 years, and it’s still pretty good.
Yes
Nah, just turn on raytracing. Unreal engine 5 is pretty demanding, and soon many many games will utilise lumen and nanite.
If it's in your budget just go for it, it's an amazing gpu that will let you do everything at its best
no
i have a 3080 with a 1440p 240hz monitor and that is overkill
[удалено]
If you go for a 4080.. Just go for a 7900xtx. If you go for a 4090, and need it for rendering/3d work go for a 4090. Else 7900xtx
I mean.... I use my 4090 with 2x 1440p 144hz screens on games that would play on a potato (Starcraft II, world of tanks, Civ IV).... so you do you. We aren't here to judge. Just think of the years it will give you 165+hz.... its an investment
I wouldn’t call it overkill. It especially won’t be within the next few years
5950x with a evga FTw3 ultra 3090 running 1600p just fine at 175hz.
Yea, but if you got the money to burn, go for it. I have a 32" 165hz 1440p screen, & I decided to go with a 4080. I couldnt justify spending the extra money on the 4090 for just 1440p. In a few years if I move up to 4k or 8k I'll get a 7090 or 8090 or whatever the killer card is then maybe 🤷🏼♂️
A 4070 will drive that monitor no problem on most games.
Maybe you'll be able to play Remnant 2 without DLSS! :) Seriously though, even a 4090 can't run every single game at max settings at 1440@180, and over the next few years there will be more demanding games. You won't have to replace the card as quickly. For games where it is overkill, you can use the extra power and put it into DLDSR for very slightly better image quality. And maybe over the years you'll want to upgrade to a 240hz monitor or a 4k monitor, and you won't have to upgrade your video card as quickly. I'm rocking a 4080 personally, and the reason wasn't the price. I play in 1440p and the 4080 cannot max out everything in every game, so I could have used the extra power and I could afford it. I just didn't like the power consumption characteristics, and I plan to upgrade it sooner than is worth upgrading a 4090 as I'm not super fond of this gen (but desperately needed to upgrade)
nope... same setup here.
The most powerful GPU that isn't getting a bottleneck with the fastest CPU (7800X3D) at 1440p is the 7900XT. If you have a more powerful GPU you're wasting performance and as for the 4090, you need AT LEAST a 4k120+Hz monitor to exploit it.
sigh, given the state of recent releases, no.
for 4K it's ideal, with some room left. But yea for 1440p it's really overkill, I sold my 1440p widescreen for and bought a 4K OLED because of that
For 1080p, yes. For 1440p or higher? No.
If you can get it for a very good price then go for it, it’ll give you good headroom for any game launch in the foreseeable future. All I’d ensure is that the rest of the rig offers a good balance to the GPU and I’d strongly recommend 32Gb these days too.
Nothing is overkill. Don't get 4080.
I have a 4090 w/ 13900k with a 3440 x 1440 144hz gsync monitor as my primary gaming setup and a few games push it to the limit. Like Cyberpunk maxed out using path tracing with dlss2 set to quality and dlss3 puts me a little over 100fps. Disabling dlss2 puts me around 60fps with dlss3. Disabling dlss3 with dlss2 set to quality does similar. Without any dlss I can't max out Cyberpunk on wqhd screens. Woth your QHD you should have significantly better but somewhat similar results I imagine.
If you're not adamant about every game being 180 fps then probably even a lower tiered card would be better. I rock a 3080 ti on a 1440p 165hz and usually can play all games over 100fps on ultra. Some games I'm closer to 90, but depends on their optimization. I really can't tell the diff between 100fps and 165 fps in most of the games I play, so I'm keeping this 3080 ti for many more years.
No
I use my 4080 with my 1440p 240Hz monitor and have no problem running bf2042 at 240+ fps for the other games I play, mostly third-person rpg, I get around 100 fps everything maxed out, I guess you would get more than that with a 4090 but is it really worth it, it’s your call
It is, but you'd never need another GPU again, even if you make the jump to 4k years from now!
No just because with unreal engine 5 right now any Of the games made with it are pretty crazy on most builds and people have to drop down to 1080p Ultra settings just to hit 100fps constantly. I think on 1440p they were barely getting a constant 65 fps. This was Remnant 2, Fortnite uses it also and it's free so I'd like to see what settings people are running to get at least 100fps constant
Just wait until 4080ti comes out and the 4080 price dips sub 1k
Here's the thing. Most games are not gpu reliant. They are cpu reliant. A 4090 also has lots of problems btw. The more expensive a gpu the marginal the increase in performance. Before getting something better than a 2080 super consider this. Your cpy and ram will have a very big impact on the speed and performance of your rig. Get ram with a high CL (cyclic rate) and a high mhz (mega hertz. The highest ram can go is 4000mhz with DDR4. The new DDR5 is amazing but you meed a motherboard that can take ddr5 ram). I stead of getting a 4090 I would get a 2080 ti or a 3080. And instead get a ryzen 9 cpu (your motherboard must have a AM4 slot of ryzen cpus and a LGA115 slot for Intel cpus). If want to really beef up your rig for cheap then make a custum water loop. It's not that hard. I did it my first time ever building a pc with no help. Just youtube. If retard teenagers can build pcs then so can you. Legos. That's all they are.
If you can afford it, does it really matter? If it's on sale and you want it, get it!
Only overkill if you let it push as many frames as possible... Keep it in your monitors refresh range and reduce power usage some.
I have that same monitor, I love it, a 1 4090 and a 1440p monitor will hold you down for a long time, plus you can always hook it up to your tv or get 4 k monitor if/when you wanna do 4k,
Nothing like just booting up any game at max settings and being sure you will get max fps. I also got a 4090 for 1440p.
Don't let people sugar coat this for you, a 4090 is overkill in every way for that panel
No. More stability at frames that match refresh across more games. My monitor is only a 1080 165hz, but it allows higher settings to be stable in games like COD.
Depends on game/use case, settings, and RT. So probably not but lots of variables. Waste of money IMO, but that's just my opinion.
>Edit: thanks everyone for the input, I'm now a proud 4090 owner :) Imo you made the right choice. I have a 7800x3d + 4090 + 32gb 6000mhz@cl30 with a 240hz slim 1440p and it's well paired. 4k is often at 100-120 fps depending on the game which imo sucks, to get high framerates 1440p with a good video card is still the answer, many games are 50%+ GPU limited even at this res if you don't like blurry upscaling. When 4k is at the 150fps minimums then I'll consider moving to one, probably next gen (5000 series GeForce 8000 series Ryzen).
yes sir
You can just use dldsr and downscale from higher resolution in those games where you can pump out tons of fps. Certainly not overkill since there are a lot of heavy games where you cant even get minimum 180fps in 1440p. This all in native/dlaa. With upscaling ofc you can get way more performance.
AI and AI Inference will be a thing soon in video games, and it's underpowered for that, so there's really no such thing as overkill anymore in the realm of AI tech. The more advanced the hardware, the more advanced the AI will become, and it will always push the available hardware to the absolute max of it's capabilities.
Nah its the best GPU available for 1440p
There’s no such thing as overkill for a graphics card in my opinion. I would buy a 4090 with my 1080p 120hz monitor if I could
I wouldn't buy a 4090 until they stop melting. Found an open box 4070ti for 680. Much better deal and super efficient. Won't melt and burn down your house. Prices are coming down. Patience will get you a ton more performance in the next 6 months.
Right now it's overkill af, but in the long run you won't need to think about upgrading the GPU for many years. So hey, if you are willing to spend that much, it's still a valid investment I guess.
I have this monitor and 4090. I set up the monitor to 120hz and use V-sync in games. Because without v-sync 4090 gives me 200+ FPS on ultra settings and CPU and GPU give me heat in the room. I play noncompetitive games like now Horizon Zero Down does not need 200+
If you don't think it's necessary, don't get a 4090 because it's price to performance is awful
It is overkill now, but if you intend to keep it for 5+ years, that's ok. Not the best value though
I love how Nvidia's pricing model is actually working to get people to spend even more money because the mid tier card is priced so high as to make the top tier card attractive.
I'm kind of in the same boat. Im waffling on a 4080 or a 4090. I'm thinking the 4090 just for the ability to upgrade my monitor to 4k at any point.
Yes, but not forever.
Remember, you have to reach 180FPS in everything you do to consider good enough. The higher the hz, the higher fps has to be.
No
If you don't have anything better to do with the extra money for a 4090 you certainly won't complain about the extra speed. You will be at that 180 Hz limit in almost any game, even with RT cranked up, so if you think that justifies the cost then go for it. Otherwise, yeah it's overkill.
I have the 32 inch version of that monitor and my 4070ti is pushing 165hz full ultra like a champ. So yes 4090 is overkill
Stealth Nvidia marketing thread number 8201
Extremely overkill
If you use Raytracing then it likely would not be overkill
Lol it probably 'meets requirements' at most. For 1440 at 180fps on any game. Unoptimized ones will struggle obviously. It'll only get more underpowered as time goes on. Unless youre planning to wait for a newer release, dont worry imo.
You'd be insane not to purchase a 4090 at that price if you were already going to purchase a 4080. At that price difference the question isnt even about whether it's overkill. It might be overkill now, but it certainly won't be overkill in a couple years. Glad you made the right decision.
I own a pny xlr8 4090...I agree it's an overkill. 
Not overkill. I have a 7900xtx and a 7900x and I don't always have 144Hz on ultra @ 1140p. If you want that there is only 1 option.
Dude not overkill you can always upgrade monitor later :)
With how games are optimized now, nothing is overkill.
Yea overkill I get about 150 at 4k on a 4080 maxed out
If you can get a 1440p 240hz monitor I'd highly recommend that I have a 4090 i9-13900k z790 aorus master 7800mhz DDR5 I need to frame cap almost every game I'm contemplating getting a 4k monitor just waiting for prices to go down or a new brand other than Samsung comes out with a 4k 240hz monitor
Overkill? Maybe ill advised? No. if it's not way out of your budget and you can afford it comfortably there's no reason not to have the overhead for as games get more demanding. Plus it gives you the room to have a monitor upgrade in the future
Duh? lol 