I have 5120x2160 monitor. In destiny 2 I hold 100fps max settings. Borderlands 3 I get 70fps, ultra settings.

You meant 5120x1440 right? I don’t think there is a 5120x2160 Super ultrawide, i have a 49’ and handles it well, it’s a million pixels less than 4K. The only issue is that some games that use DLSS don’t support that resolution like Control (since DLSS isn’t supported I have to set ray tracing to medium and get around 50fps, with high goes to low 30s). I hope more games support super ultrawide.

5120x1440 performance has been excellent on my 3090.
Finally a card that'll actually run games like RDR2 at over 40 fps with everything maxed.

I'll just throw this in here for clarity's sake:
 
 
Why "4k" is a stupid term that we all pretty much have to use anyway
 
I've never like the term "4k" because there was never any need for it in the first place and now it needlessly complicates things due to there being ultrawide and super-ultrawide monitors.  4k was meant to describe the number of vertical lines of pixels in a display.  It was stupid of the industry to introduce this term to begin with because for decades now, resolutions were described in terms of horizontal lines - 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.  There was zero reason to change that.  When "4k" came out, it was used to describe 3840x2160 displays (which is a 16:9 ratio).  3840 was close enough to 4000 for them to call it a 4k display, although calling it a 2k display would have made just as much sense - or more sense really since it goes by the same naming standards that we've always used and would have avoided problems with ultrawide resolutions.  If you have a 1440p ultrawide (ultrawide usually meaning 21:9) monitor, that's 3440x1440, which incidentally is just shy of 5 million pixels, whereas traditional (16:9) 4k displays, being 3840x2160, are a little over 8 million pixels.
 
What people usually refer to as "4k ultrawide" typically means 5120x2160.  Note that none of those numbers are close to 4000, hence LG and some others calling them 5k2k displays.  It's the same number of horizontal lines as a 16:9 4k display, but there are more vertical lines.  There are also a little more than 11 million pixels.  When figuring out how a video card will perform, it's really all about the number of pixels it's driving as opposed to how many horizontal or vertical lines there are.  So going from a 1440p ultrawide (3440x1440) to a 2160p ultrawide (5120x2160) will involve driving a little more than twice as many pixels (11 million as opposed to 5 million).  Going from a 4k 16:9 display (3840x2160) to what we'll call a 5k2k (or what some people call 4k ultrawide) display (5120x2160) involves pushing about 33% more pixels. (11 million as opposed to roughly 8 million).

Dabadger84

Ciddharthas
I'll just throw this in here for clarity's sake:
 
 
Why "4k" is a stupid term that we all pretty much have to use anyway
 
I've never like the term "4k" because there was never any need for it in the first place and now it needlessly complicates things due to there being ultrawide and super-ultrawide monitors.  4k was meant to describe the number of vertical lines of pixels in a display.  It was stupid of the industry to introduce this term to begin with because for decades now, resolutions were described in terms of horizontal lines - 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.  There was zero reason to change that.  When "4k" came out, it was used to describe 3840x2160 displays (which is a 16:9 ratio).  3840 was close enough to 4000 for them to call it a 4k display, although calling it a 2k display would have made just as much sense - or more sense really since it goes by the same naming standards that we've always used and would have avoided problems with ultrawide resolutions.  If you have a 1440p ultrawide (ultrawide usually meaning 21:9) monitor, that's 3440x1440, which incidentally is just shy of 5 million pixels, whereas traditional (16:9) 4k displays, being 3840x2160, are a little over 8 million pixels.
 
What people usually refer to as "4k ultrawide" typically means 5120x2160.  Note that none of those numbers are close to 4000, hence LG and some others calling them 5k2k displays.  It's the same number of horizontal lines as a 16:9 4k display, but there are more vertical lines.  There are also a little more than 11 million pixels.  When figuring out how a video card will perform, it's really all about the number of pixels it's driving as opposed to how many horizontal or vertical lines there are.  So going from a 1440p ultrawide (3440x1440) to a 2160p ultrawide (5120x2160) will involve driving a little more than twice as many pixels (11 million as opposed to 5 million).  Going from a 4k 16:9 display (3840x2160) to what we'll call a 5k2k (or what some people call 4k ultrawide) display (5120x2160) involves pushing about 33% more pixels. (11 million as opposed to roughly 8 million).

The naming conventions drive me bonkers too.  "4K" should be called 2160p or something at all times in my opinion, but everyone & their mother calls it 4K.
Going from 1440p ultrawide to 2160p ultrawide is indeed a large jump in pixels & thereby horsepower required to drive such pixels, some people don't understand why people like us WANT Ultrawide benchmark numbers for games... because otherwise we have to "guesstimate" based on 1440p & "4K" 2160p numbers for game results, and usually we're about right in the middle, since 3440 by 1440 is an extra half-monitor worth of pixels, basically, compared to regular 16 by 9 1440p.  Going up to Ultrawide 2160p is gigantic... 
Like I said in my post, that resolution does look & run well on my 3080, in GTA V at least, haven't run it in other games yet, hoping other games also have the resolution scaling option so that I can run that instead of anti-aliasing... it seems like going from 3440 x 1440 to 5120 x 2160 with 2x MSAA is less of a performance hit than running 8x MSAA at 3440 x 1440, at least in that title, and it looks just as good/better in most cases.  My brain is trying to figure out how I could effectively run 2580 x 1080p (which is the next 21 by 9 step down) with 8x MSAA just to see what it looks like... would that be 3/4 scaling (think so).
I'm interested in what theyre going to do for the 3840 x 1600 class of monitors next.  That resolution doesn't seem to have caught on much, but it seems like it fits really well with 38" ultrawides.  Ideally I'd like a 2160p ultrawide 38" monitor to come about, preferably with 120Hz, but I imagine those won't be in the sub 1250 dollar mark price point for years even if they come out this year.

 +1
 
Yeah I really wish there were ultrawide benchmarks available too.  This LG monitor looks pretty nice if you're interested in a 1600p ultrawide:

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38GL950G-B-gaming-monitor
 
144Hz, g-sync, and HDR, although it's not as bright as some other HDR monitors.  Like you, I'm hoping that a good 2160p ultrawide HDR monitor with a decent refresh rate (at least 120Hz ideally), and at least 34 inches comes out sometime soon.  There are a few 2160p ultrawides out there, but they top out at 60 Hz so far from what I've read.  Apparently HDR doesn't eat up as much GPU bandwidth as one might think since the "extra" colors are generally already calculated by GPU's even without HDR monitors.  They just round the floating point decimal that represents a given color to a less accurate degree for non-HDR monitors.

Dabadger84

Ciddharthas
I'll just throw this in here for clarity's sake:
 
 
Why "4k" is a stupid term that we all pretty much have to use anyway
 
I've never like the term "4k" because there was never any need for it in the first place and now it needlessly complicates things due to there being ultrawide and super-ultrawide monitors.  4k was meant to describe the number of vertical lines of pixels in a display.  It was stupid of the industry to introduce this term to begin with because for decades now, resolutions were described in terms of horizontal lines - 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc.  There was zero reason to change that.  When "4k" came out, it was used to describe 3840x2160 displays (which is a 16:9 ratio).  3840 was close enough to 4000 for them to call it a 4k display, although calling it a 2k display would have made just as much sense - or more sense really since it goes by the same naming standards that we've always used and would have avoided problems with ultrawide resolutions.  If you have a 1440p ultrawide (ultrawide usually meaning 21:9) monitor, that's 3440x1440, which incidentally is just shy of 5 million pixels, whereas traditional (16:9) 4k displays, being 3840x2160, are a little over 8 million pixels.
 
What people usually refer to as "4k ultrawide" typically means 5120x2160.  Note that none of those numbers are close to 4000, hence LG and some others calling them 5k2k displays.  It's the same number of horizontal lines as a 16:9 4k display, but there are more vertical lines.  There are also a little more than 11 million pixels.  When figuring out how a video card will perform, it's really all about the number of pixels it's driving as opposed to how many horizontal or vertical lines there are.  So going from a 1440p ultrawide (3440x1440) to a 2160p ultrawide (5120x2160) will involve driving a little more than twice as many pixels (11 million as opposed to 5 million).  Going from a 4k 16:9 display (3840x2160) to what we'll call a 5k2k (or what some people call 4k ultrawide) display (5120x2160) involves pushing about 33% more pixels. (11 million as opposed to roughly 8 million).

The naming conventions drive me bonkers too.  "4K" should be called 2160p or something at all times in my opinion, but everyone & their mother calls it 4K.
Going from 1440p ultrawide to 2160p ultrawide is indeed a large jump in pixels & thereby horsepower required to drive such pixels, some people don't understand why people like us WANT Ultrawide benchmark numbers for games... because otherwise we have to "guesstimate" based on 1440p & "4K" 2160p numbers for game results, and usually we're about right in the middle, since 3440 by 1440 is an extra half-monitor worth of pixels, basically, compared to regular 16 by 9 1440p.  Going up to Ultrawide 2160p is gigantic... 
Like I said in my post, that resolution does look & run well on my 3080, in GTA V at least, haven't run it in other games yet, hoping other games also have the resolution scaling option so that I can run that instead of anti-aliasing... it seems like going from 3440 x 1440 to 5120 x 2160 with 2x MSAA is less of a performance hit than running 8x MSAA at 3440 x 1440, at least in that title, and it looks just as good/better in most cases.  My brain is trying to figure out how I could effectively run 2580 x 1080p (which is the next 21 by 9 step down) with 8x MSAA just to see what it looks like... would that be 3/4 scaling (think so).
I'm interested in what theyre going to do for the 3840 x 1600 class of monitors next.  That resolution doesn't seem to have caught on much, but it seems like it fits really well with 38" ultrawides.  Ideally I'd like a 2160p ultrawide 38" monitor to come about, preferably with 120Hz, but I imagine those won't be in the sub 1250 dollar mark price point for years even if they come out this year.

 are you Able to use a 5780x1080p resolution to see if you like it?.

Also 60Hz:
 
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/msi-led-monitor-white/6406791.p?skuId=6406791
 

Anything that's 49" is (probably) Super Ultrawide 32 by 9, and thereby not 5120 x 2160, which is 21 by 9.