4090 vs 2k 270 what's your choice?

Armenius

Armenius

Extremely [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
36,175
That is a big jump from a $250 monitor to a $1,600 video card. I'd never buy anything smaller than 24", anyway, let alone a 1920x1080 monitor.

You can see what I have in my signature.
 
GoodBoy

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,456
He means a 2k 270Hz lcd.

We would need to know where you are coming from GPU and LCD wise to help make a smart choice about which upgrade path to take. Would also want to know what LCD you have picked out.
 
G

gvx64

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2022
Messages
236
xDiVolatilX said:
I thought 2k meant 1440p?
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia 2k == 1080p, at least for television and consumer media. It sounds like for cinematography (film) it is closer to being 1440p but I don't know much about that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

Yeah, it is extremely unclear. I am just going to assume that the OP is referring to 1080p. I honestly have no idea why they stopped labelling resolutions according to horiz. pixel row numbers and started using no. vertical columns. It makes it confusing to convert especially when we have different aspect ratios floating around out there.

As for the topic. At 1080p, I am pretty sure that a GTX 1660 Super is enough to let you max out even the most demanding games at probably close to 50 fps min framerate. That said, in 2023 it seems like there are more gamers out there who care about maintaining insanely high fps in games as opposed to the older days when all we cared about was that min fps didn't fall below 30 during the most demanding gameplay segments. I guess if the OP is absolutely dead set on getting 120 fps in even the most demanding games then maybe a 4090 could be beneficial on a 1080p monitor, I am just not sure that making the jump from 50 fps to 100+ fps is worth the pricetag of a 4090 (I honestly don't think that my eyes could even perceive the difference between those two framerates).

My recommendation to the OP would be GTX 1660 for 1080p gaming (RTX 3060 if you want to build in some future-proofing). Without having more detail or clarification, I can't see a clear benefit in buying a 4090 in this application.
 
Last edited:
Zepher

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,514
gvx64 said:
According to Wikipedia 2k == 1080p, at least for television and consumer media. It sounds like for cinematography (film) it is closer to being 1440p but I don't know much about that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

Yeah, it is extremely unclear. I am just going to assume that the OP is referring to 1080p. I honestly have no idea why they stopped labelling resolutions according to horiz. pixel row numbers and started using no. vertical columns. It makes it confusing to convert especially when we have different aspect ratios floating around out there.

As for the topic. At 1080p, I am pretty sure that a GTX 1660 Super is enough to let you max out even the most demanding games at probably close to 50 fps min framerate. That said, in 2023 it seems like there are more gamers out there who care about maintaining insanely high fps in games as opposed to the older days when all we cared about was that min fps didn't fall below 30 during the most demanding gameplay segments. I guess if the OP is absolutely dead set on getting 120 fps in even the most demanding games then maybe a 4090 could be beneficial on a 1080p monitor, I am just not sure that making the jump from 50 fps to 100+ fps is worth the pricetag of a 4090 (I honestly don't think that my eyes could even perceive the difference between those two framerates).

My recommendation to the OP would be GTX 1660 for 1080p gaming (RTX 3060 if you want to build in some future-proofing). Without having more detail or clarification, I can't see a clear benefit in buying a 4090 in this application.
Click to expand...

GoldenTiger said:
I don't get why no one just writes the resolutions out like they used to... It's a lot clearer.
Click to expand...
I blame this on Samsung since they used "2K" for the marketing of their 2560x1440p screen on their cell phones.
 
P

pippenainteasy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
1,124
Seems like a false dichotomy. What 2k 270 monitor costs as much as a 4090? Get the 4090 and figure out your monitor budget separately.
 
G

greyboxer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
358
the laziness of the OP's request

followed by being rude af, who would have guessed. He cant afford a 4090 anyway
 
FighterAce124

FighterAce124

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
5,127
GoldenTiger said:
I don't get why no one just writes the resolutions out like they used to... It's a lot clearer.
Click to expand...

Because I would wager most people using phrases like 1080 2k and 4k dont actually know the resolutions numbers or what the number they are parroting actually means, they know the pretty number they were told to repeat and that it means "something".
Nevermind the fact that 2k and 4k have no matching to actual resolution, unlike 720 and 1080 which properly were named for their vertical. I personally tend to use 1080/1440/1600/2160p as the "correct" way to shorthand for widescreen resolutions, as at least that properly covers the various resolutions and maintains the naming scheme from the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top