RTX 3060 @ 60FPS on 2K

[YOU]

Can you guys please suggest whether it will be okay to buy a 2K monitor like LG Ultra gear 27GN 800 for my rig. I want to game at 2K resolution with max settings with a minimum FPS of 60. I do not need ray tracing though.
Games I own are : Cyberpunk 2077, Assassin's creed Valhalla, Odyssey, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, etc.
My gaming craze is almost over, a few more games I would likely buy are the Witcher games, Horizon Forbidden West if it releases on pc and Hogwarts Legacy.
Do you guys think I will be okay with my rig at 2K resolution aiming for 60FPS or I should stick to 1080p?

My rig:
RTX 3060 Ti
Ryzen 5 5600x
32 GB RAM
2TB HDD
2 X 512 GB SSD nvme 2.0

[Ogami]

If you mean 1440p, that should be doable. I play on a RTX 2080 which is comparable in performance to your RTX 3060 and i play everything in 1440p/60 FPS.
I might have to turn on DLSS in some more demanding games like Cyberpunk to keep 60 FPS with high settings but so far it works fine.
But i would recommend HIGH instead of ULTRA settings in more demanding games, the visual difference is minimal but the performance gain is most of the time quiet substantial.

[YOU]

Isn't 2K is same as 1440p i.e. WQHD? And I am using a 3060 ti not a 3060

[Ogami]

Technically what most people nowadays call "4k" is actually 2k and some call it that, so i just wanted to clarify.
Anyway, your system is completely fine for 1440p/60 with high/max settings.
The 3060/Ti is wasted on 1080p.

[YOU]

You are right that 3060 ti to is too much 1080p....I mean 350 fps in doom eternal on max settings? Lol, I mean what will I do with that much FPS?
And for clarification what is the actual resolution of 2K? Isn't it something like 2560x1440?

[Illusion of Progress]

I have the impression that 1440p at maximum settings (sans ray tracing) and 60 FPS+ might be a bit of a tall ask of an RTX 3060 Ti. Some games might want a bit more, and the VRAM is possibly going to be a concern in some games too, like the Hogwarts Legacy title you mentioned. If you are willing to compromise with some settings (including using DLSS) then it would certainly do 1440p and mostly 60 FPS though.

But you can readily test this with your existing games at least right now. Use DSR to create a custom resolution. At 1080p, use the scale of 1.78x to make a 1440p internal resolution. Then use this in games to see what type of performance you get. it wills cale things down to fit your 1080p display (ala, super sampling) but it will internally be rendering at 1440p so you'll get the performance you would as though you were running at that resolution.

Originally posted by Nomad:

Isn't 2K is same as 1440p i.e. WQHD?

Marketing is trying to (or rather, is) call 1440p as 2K that, but it's not.

Officially, the real 4K (4096 x 2160) is a cinema resolution on a slightly different scale altogether, but the TV/PC one called 4K (3840 x 2160) is "close enough" so it's pretty much accepted that it is that.

But if you follow the same "scale translation" with 2K (2048 x 1080), it lines up with perfectly is 1080p, not 1440p.

Since they don't call 1080p anything K, and they don't call 4K anything P (it would be 2160p if it were), and 1440p needs a new buzzword to sell it... here we are. "2.6K" doesn't roll off the tongue as well so they chose to round it way down, even though the chosen number matches an already existing resolution. Why not round up? No idea. None of it makes sense as it is.

[DevaVictrix]

I always thought xk approximately referred to the horizontal resolution at 16:9...

1280*720 - 1k
1920*1080 - 2k
2560*1440 - 2.5k
3840*2160 - 4k
5120*2880 - 5k
7680*4320 - 8k

(or cropped DCI, not 16:9)

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by DevaVictrix:

I always thought xk approximately referred to the horizontal resolution at 16:9...

If they were consistent, yes, that is more or less how it would be. But resolutions are resolutions and especially when you involve different aspect ratios but only refer to them by one dimension, it gets muddy.

In my own subjective opinion, if we're going to use some standard that labels them as one number, then in a world where things are as they are, with the vertical (not horizontal) resolution determining "detail level" in things like media (movies, video, and games, etc.), then it would be better to use that scale to refer to them by their vertical value. In other words, the old way of ####p, not the new way of #K, is more apt to me.

For example, a 3840 x 2160 and 3840 x 1600 would both be called 4K on a system that works on labeling them by their horizontal offering, but in reality, the former has a much higher level of detail and the latter is just equal to the old 2560 x 1600 in that regard, but much wider.

In reality, different physical screen sizes make for different PPI values which make comparing "detail level" not like for like, so it's a complicated thing.

But getting back to 4K and 2K, the "real" cinema K resolutions actually have a slightly higher horizontal resolution than the number denotes. For example, 4K is 4096 x 2160. TVs quadrupled their resolutions from 1920 x 1080 to 3840 x 2160 and just adopted the 4K label for marketing reasons, even though they're below the value they adopt (so 2560 would have to be like 2.6K or even 2.66K to be "accurate" with the rest of the 16:9 resolutions using that scale). But again, marketing had their own ideas. "Just call it 2K". Calling it 3K might be overselling it a bit much and damper them trying to push the advantages of 4K (which are already more mute to begin with on smaller screen sizes like those used by PCs).

[ulasamosa]

3060ti will 100% run mostly anything out there right now at 1440p 60fps+ without issue.

[YOU]

Yeah I am willing to scale down to high or turn off a few settings, but I just want to experience the glorious crystal clear display of a 1440p monitor which a 1080p monitor cannot deliver. For almost 9 years now I am still stuck at 1080p.
So is it really possible to enjoy the AAA games out there at 1440p max settings with RT off completely and if needed I can always turn on DLSS.
I am just trying to confirm here because if after buying a 1440p monitor my rig cannot perform well then it will be a total waste of money.

[antoniobennett72]

Generally it will be fine and even exceed those expectations on existing titles, you can do some ray tracing as well especially if you are willing to upscale.

I find DLSS pretty good on most games at 1440 even down to balanced but mileage seems to vary greatly.

VRAM will likely be an ever increasing concern going forward though.

[_I_]

Originally posted by DevaVictrix:

I always thought xk approximately referred to the horizontal resolution at 16:9...

1280*720 - 1k
1920*1080 - 2k
2560*1440 - 2.5k
3840*2160 - 4k
5120*2880 - 5k
7680*4320 - 8k

(or cropped DCI, not 16:9)

*k is meaningless
its not a res or anything
monitors/displays are not in megapixels

'4k' is the approx horizontal pixel count on 3840x2160
if so 4k could also be the 3840x1080, but thats half of 4k, so 2k? maybe
or 1440p is similar pixel count

[YOU]

I am not much worried about future games because if I'd stick to gaming I would most likely buy a ps5 instead. As long it can run the new witcher titles, Hogwarts Legacy and HFW(when it releases) I have no wish to buy any future titles.

[YOU]

Even on 1080p I do not use RT ever. So it is not a concern for me.

[Illusion of Progress]

As I said, you can cut out the guess work and find out yourself how well it will run at 1440p. That will give your answers with firsthand experience.

Originally posted by ulasamosa:

3060ti will 100% run mostly anything out there right now at 1440p 60fps+ without issue.

Not necessarily at maximum settings, though. And not in at least one of the mentioned titles, and another is a future unknown title.

Which was the criteria OP stated originally, but now is stating that they will compromise on if need be (which IMO that's the smart thing anyway, as maximum settings are not the efficient way to go).

[przemomtb]

Rtx 3060 12gb 4k Ultra 60fps GTA5 Fallout 76 im play