TR Forums

Hello,

I have an RX480 and a decent Freesync monitor (27" 1440p/144Hz). Upgrading the monitor is out of the question. If I get a shiny new nVidia GPU, at which point do I get sufficient performance to completely offset the lack of adaptive sync? I was thinking of a 1070Ti if prices drop after 20X0 launch. Don't want to cross the $500 mark. I am not considering Vega unless the price goes below $450 for a new Vega 56 (no 2nd hand crypto card).

Alternatively, I could splurge for the 2080 hoping to keep it for at least 3 years, given the lack of competitiveness from AMD on the GPU side for the short/medium term. But still that would be the most I've ever spent on a GPU since the term GPU was invented.

Losing freesync is a very big deal. I wouldn't do it.

TheEmrys wrote:

Losing freesync is a very big deal. I wouldn't do it.

That's what I thought, but then I got a gtx 1080ti and kept using my freesync monitor. It doesn't really bother me. Of course my frames literally doubled so you know. (R9 fury to gtx 1080ti).

ptsant wrote:

I am not considering Vega unless the price goes below $450 for a new Radeon RX Vega 56 (no 2nd hand crypto card).

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... 6814202318
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX Vega 56 with a three-game bundle and 1¢ change.


Using a new GeForce RTX card with your existing 144 Hz monitor could be okay. A "game ready" driver release a few months ago finally fixed the long-standing nVidia driver bug that was causing problems with GeForce GTX cards and high-refresh monitors that lacked expensive proprietary G-Sync. Of course, as long as nVidia blocks support for VESA standard adaptive sync, you would not get the benefit of variable refresh rate. The good news is that at a fixed 144 Hz, the negative effects of juddering with V-sync on or tearing with V-sync off are reduced compared to lower fixed refresh rates.

Losing Freesync is fine if you can reliably get to the monitor's max framerate without issue.

The problem you have is that the RX480 probably gets you somewhere in your freesync range at all times, whilst only delivering around 70fps. Nvidia cards are likely to frameskip on a freesync monitor unless they're run at exactly 60, 120, or 144Hz - so you will need to force your monitor to run at 120Hz, most likely, and then hope that the 1070Ti can deliver 120Hz without ever dropping a frame.

• Freesync/G-Sync is the elegant/efficient way to get smooth gameplay.
• VSync with a more powerful card is the brute-force method.

You already have smoothness so I wouldn't bother trading up the GPU unless you can get a very significant performance boost. Probably GTX1080 at a minimum, Vega56 would make a lot more sense at that sort of money to make the best of what is a nice monitor (My ideal monitor would be a 32" 2560x1440 144Hz VRR, and I'd expect that to keep me satisfied for several years).

What games are you playing on your RX480 (and at what sort of framerates are you getting in those games)?

A 1070 Ti isn't going to get you even 120Hz/120FPS on 1440p at all times unless you're dropping the details a fair amount in certain games. The only games I play and get that with a 1080+6700K+32GB RAM are Overwatch and a few smaller titles. I personally run at 120Hz as I don't really think 144Hz gives me personally anything over 120, and I've found that's about the sweet spot for FPS for me with the setup I have.

edit: Looks like our systems are fairly comparable, though my 6700K @ 4.5 is probably a bit faster in games, plus the 1080. If you're going to upgrade, I really think you're looking at a 2080/2070 if you want 100-120FPS.

What's your CPU and what sort of games do you play most?

Hello all

Thanks for your helpful answers. A few details:
1. I live in Europe. I cannot yet find a Vega 56 at anything below 550. I hope price drops after the 20x0 launch.
2. I recently finished Witcher 3 and Skyrim with a bunch of extras textures. Performance was good in both. Next game I intend to play for some time is probably the next Battlefield. I also played Guild Wars 2, Dota 2 and some older or casual games that would be ok on any GPU.
3. I usually am happy with consistent 80-90 FPS in twitchy games and 60+ in slower paced games. I can almost always get this with some concessions in settings. Ideally I would want 100+ at high/ultra in fast-paced games.

Honestly I'd wait for the next gen AMD cards. It seems a total waste to run a Freesync monitor on Nvidia. Navi should be out next year.

Navi is not going to be a high end part. Plan accordingly.

So, to sum it up, I see the following options:
1. Buy 1080[Ti] or 2080 and brute force 120+ fps. Expensive, but should last a while.
2. Hope that Vega 56/64 goes down in price.

Rumors seem to indicate that Navi is not going after the high-end, so may or may not be a decent upgrade.

Things will become a bit clearer in the 1-2 following months... I can afford to wait.

I suggest paying close attention to the 99th percentile stats when the new cards get reviewed. Your use case as described isn't that of a hardcore twitch gamer so my suspicion is that you don't want 120+ fps so much as you want not frequently bouncing between 120 and 40 or 50 fps.

Yeah, in those sorts of games at those sorts of framerates, you're looking at a Vega56.

Going from 80-90fps freesync to anything less than 120Hz without VRR is going to feel horrible. So yes, a 1070Ti might be 30-40% faster, but you're not going to get any real-world smoothness benefits in your gaming. It's either back to the bad old days of continuous screen tearing, or VSync jumping wildly between 120fps and 60fps, causing obvious animation stuttering and variable input lag.

• Money no object, Either get MUCH more GPU or buy a G-Sync screen to go with the planned 1070Ti.
• Snice money does actually matter, either stay with AMD graphics cards, or look for a factory-overclocked 1080 or even a 1080Ti on eBay/Craigslist once the 2000-series Nvidia cards give 1080 and 1080Ti owners a reason to upgrade.

I'm currently playing No Man's Sky since it was on sale and the developer has spent almost two years fixing it after a pretty unforgiving launch. I figured it was worth a punt for €20 and I think the game is actually pretty good now - performance notwithstanding. My i7-4790 is not happy - providing framerates as low as 40fps in certain areas, regardless of how much I turn down the graphics. I wouldn't still be playing it without a VRR display, simply because I'm not a peasant and I demand better than the stuttery framerates we tolerated in the 486 DX2-66 days.

I have your exact setup: RX480, 1440p 144Hz FreeSync monitor (Samsung C27HG90). I bought my RX480 a year before I bought my monitor, which is why I'm not running a Vega56 (which is what I would've chose if I bought my monitor and GPU together)

1) Yes, the RX480 requires some settings tuning to hit >60fps on today's most demanding games, but there are plenty others that it will push >100fps on high settings.
2) I have yet to play a game that my RX480 can't handle at >60fps at medium-high settings.
3) I can never tell the difference between "high" and "ultra" settings.
4) Games are either going to look amazing at medium-high to high settings or they aren't. Going to Ultra doesn't change the artwork and level design of a game.
5) If I need >high settings to enjoy a game, the problem isn't the visuals, it's the gameplay
6) Yes, it sucks that Nvidia continues to pull away from AMD on the high end GPU arena. That said, I'm not sure it makes sense to get a Vega56 right now at >$450. You'll have your monitor for...6 more years(?), maybe more. What's another 6-8 months on your current GPU until next-gen AMD? If you buy a high end Nvidia card right now, you're going to be VRR-less for another 2-3 years while you ride out the lifespan of that card.
7) A GTX1070Ti or GTX1080 might give you high enough fps to overcome the benefits of VRR now, but what about 3 years from now?
8 ) You're going to have to spend $100+ MORE on an Nvidia card compared to a decently priced Vega56 to give you enough overpower to overcome the benefits of VRR. Worst case, maybe just search/wait another month or two for a good Vega56 sale price.
9) The Nvidia RTX2080 will initially launch according to current-gen price-performance structure, especially since it's only competing against Nvidia's own GTX1080, they have all the time in the world to sell off existing stock of GTX1080's at current prices. After that, when RTX2080 prices start to drop, Vega prices are going to have to decline to keep pace.
10) Have you looked on Ebay? Here in the US, it looks like you can land a used Vega56 for $375

DPete27 wrote:

4) Games are either going to look amazing at medium-high to high settings or they aren't. Going to Ultra doesn't change the artwork and level design of a game.

This is the key thing about modern games. The visual experience from Ultra to Medium changes so little that you wonder if the higher settings are anything other than a devious ploy to sell more high-end GPUs.

Wolfenstein II Mein Leben (Ultra++) and Medium which generally runs 2-3x faster than the highest setting in shadow/dynamic lighting-intensive scenes.

ptsant wrote:

Don't want to cross the $500 mark. I am not considering Vega unless the price goes below $450 for a new Vega 56 (no 2nd hand crypto card).

Assuming this is US pricing convention (excl. tax), Vega 64 @ £375+VAT = $478 excl. tax. Though this is = £450 incl. tax = $573 incl. tax.

If it's non-US pricing convention and your limit is incl. tax, I can't see under it but if you're flexible up to 1.96% over then $509.78 (IRL £399.95 incl.) for a preorder Vega 56 is decent.

Chrispy_ wrote:

DPete27 wrote:

4) Games are either going to look amazing at medium-high to high settings or they aren't. Going to Ultra doesn't change the artwork and level design of a game.

This is the key thing about modern games. The visual experience from Ultra to Medium changes so little that you wonder if the higher settings are anything other than a devious ploy to sell more high-end GPUs.

Wolfenstein II Mein Leben (Ultra++) and Medium which generally runs 2-3x faster than the highest setting in shadow/dynamic lighting-intensive scenes.

"Ultra" settings for most games are really just "high-medium" using lossless textures/no optimization tricks and disabling smart LOD bias.

DPete27 wrote:

I have your exact setup: RX480, 1440p 144Hz FreeSync monitor (Samsung C27HG90). I bought my RX480 a year before I bought my monitor, which is why I'm not running a Vega56 (which is what I would've chose if I bought my monitor and GPU together)

1) Yes, the RX480 requires some settings tuning to hit >60fps on today's most demanding games, but there are plenty others that it will push >100fps on high settings.
2) I have yet to play a game that my RX480 can't handle at >60fps at medium-high settings.
3) I can never tell the difference between "high" and "ultra" settings.
4) Games are either going to look amazing at medium-high to high settings or they aren't. Going to Ultra doesn't change the artwork and level design of a game.

Some great remarks, thanks. It is true that I don't expect much to gain in visual quality with the current generation of game engines from medium/high to ultra. I'm just not completely comfortable with the RX480 at 1440p/144Hz. Anyway, given the prices you and others listed I don't think the current local price ($550) for the cheapest Vega 56 will last. I'll wait a little then for it to settle. If no improvement, I may order abroad (and pay $20+ in custom fees).

I get that. And it definitely sounds like you've got realistic expectations. I feel the same way when I'm playing the more demanding games. The whole: "here I am, chugging along at 60-70fps on medium-high details when my monitor is capable of so much more."
We all want bigger and better, but hey, VRR smooths over the shortcomings of the here-and-now. I could certainly afford to buy a Vega64 today and still feed my family and pay the bills, I just can't personally justify it with the ~6 hours per week that I game. When I get the itch, I just stop and think about all the games I can play at >100fps on high settings, ask myself if I'm able to keep the visual settings at an acceptable level so that visuals don't detract from the gameplay on the others, and that my monitor will far outlast my RX480. The current setup might not be ideal (is it ever?), but it's a [comparatively] short wait until a truly justifiable GPU upgrade path comes along.

Krogoth wrote:

Chrispy_ wrote:

DPete27 wrote:

4) Games are either going to look amazing at medium-high to high settings or they aren't. Going to Ultra doesn't change the artwork and level design of a game.

This is the key thing about modern games. The visual experience from Ultra to Medium changes so little that you wonder if the higher settings are anything other than a devious ploy to sell more high-end GPUs.

Wolfenstein II Mein Leben (Ultra++) and Medium which generally runs 2-3x faster than the highest setting in shadow/dynamic lighting-intensive scenes.

"Ultra" settings for most games are really just "high-medium" using lossless textures/no optimization tricks and disabling smart LOD bias.

It's a pity so many websites insist on using Ultra. It does make for a very clear target ("put everything to the max") but may misrepresent the actual user experience. I suspect many people mistakenly believe that their gaming experience could be so much better from High to Ultra...

I rarely run my 1080Ti on stock "ultra" presets at 3440x1440, and will happily start toning down individual settings to maintain 85-100 FPS. I find that there are usually one or two settings that cause a GPU hit way out of line with their IQ improvement (e.g. volumetric lighting in Monster Hunter, which looks worse to my eye). Sometimes I will default to ultra if FPS doesn't dip, but I'm usually tweaking individual settings to turn off the annoyances - e.g. lens flare, motion blur, and the like - anyways.

Vega56 is a logical next step for you. It's a shame that monitors are vendor-locked, as a fire-sale 1070 or 1080 would be a fantastic upgrade from an RX 480.

I wonder if the reports on Navi not being in time or not a high end card are due to intel poaching talent...

**off rails
I've said this in other threads, but I like all the frequency and voltage tuning features AMD includes in their driver software. It represents a very commonsense thought process in an easy to use package:
1) Not every game is going to require your GPU to run at max speed to get you >(target) fps at a given setting. Nvidia's GPUBoost3.0 is fantastic, but why does it always have to be on?
2) If nobody can tell the difference between high and ultra settings, why would you ever use ultra?
3) Most people have a hard time telling the difference in fps once you're over 100-120fps.
4) What if I can [easily] limit the frequency of my GPU for games/scenes where I've got an abundance of GPU horsepower to save power/heat/noise?

While I'm on that topic (and off this thread's topic): When is Nvidia going to change their 20 year old driver software UI?

Kretschmer wrote:

Radeon RX Vega56 is a logical next step for you. It's a shame that monitors are vendor-locked.

There is no technical reason that new GeForce RTX graphics cards should not support VESA standard adaptive sync for variable-refresh on the OP’s existing VESA standard DisplayPort monitor.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

Radeon RX Vega56 is a logical next step for you. It's a shame that monitors are vendor-locked.

There is no technical reason that new GeForce RTX graphics cards should not support VESA standard adaptive sync for variable-refresh on the OP’s existing VESA standard DisplayPort monitor.

As a buyer, I don't care if these monitors are vendor-locked due to the immutable laws of physics or due to Nvidia being meanies. At the end of the day, I'm going to buy the parts that serve me best. That said, if you're willing to take a gamble on AMD RTG not wandering in the wilderness for years again, you could do a lot worse for your wallet than a 1440P IPS and a Vega 56.

Pville_Piper wrote:

I wonder if the reports on Navi not being in time or not a high end card are due to intel poaching talent...

I read somewhere that Navi was planned for the PS5 (or Xbox, don't remember) and is therefore by design not going to be competitive in the high-end. Some people claimed that AMD will use MCM Navi for the high-end, Threadripper style, but the basic block will be relatively modest (1024 shaders?).

Whatever the situation, it's either nVidia 1080/2070 or Vega 56. Despite the fall in crypto, Vega prices have been steadily high but I bet (hope) they are going to fall soon. Could be the HBM, too.

Kretschmer wrote:

Vega56 is a logical next step for you. It's a shame that monitors are vendor-locked, as a fire-sale 1070 or 1080 would be a fantastic upgrade from an RX 480.

It's also unfortunate that with TV sizes exploding and prices plummeting, PC monitors have stayed relatively stable. I would even switch to G-Sync if there was a meaningful reason to change monitor (OLED, HDR, 4k with high-refresh etc), but this is still ultra-high-end territory (looking at the ROG PG27UQ at only $1800). It's a shame, because the 20x0 cards are very exciting but not enough to justify a monitor side-grade.

ptsant wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

Vega56 is a logical next step for you. It's a shame that monitors are vendor-locked, as a fire-sale 1070 or 1080 would be a fantastic upgrade from an RX 480.

It's also unfortunate that with TV sizes exploding and prices plummeting, PC monitors have stayed relatively stable. I would even switch to G-Sync if there was a meaningful reason to change monitor (OLED, HDR, 4k with high-refresh etc), but this is still ultra-high-end territory (looking at the ROG PG27UQ at only $1800). It's a shame, because the 20x0 cards are very exciting but not enough to justify a monitor side-grade.

But the 20x0 cards aren't really exciting at all. Without any information on how fast they are compared to 1080 Ti or 1080, I'd say wait until reviews (or at least, some kind of hype) before believing in the next gen.

I personally am a believer in raytracing. It will take years however before most games take advantage of it. DX12 for example, has been around for... years... and no one is using it yet. DirectX-Raytracing IS A DIRECTX12 feature. So first, Games have to be DX12 before they can even THINK about using this raytracing feature (which I fully admit, looks quite nice. I wasn't a believer before today's conference, but NVidia really seems to have figured out this Raytracing thing correctly. It "smells" about right).

That's a lot of "ifs / and / buts" behind this feature. Its great to see raytracing pushing its way towards mainstream, but it was also great to see DX12 revolutionize the game engine pipeline. And how far along are game devs on that??