TR Forums

1080p60 is the popular resolution - you can get away with a $150 RX570 for that.
1440p60 is just fine on a $250 Vega56 or $280 1660Ti. Yeah, you can spend more but accept that you're already well into the above-average category at this point so you'll rapidly hit diminishing returns in terms of performance/$ and a good chunk of the current games/experiences will not be optimised by the developer for >60Hz and >1080p resolution. If you like indie games or an older back-catalogue, be prepared to run at a non-native resolution or deal with some issues.

1080p144 is typically the realm of competitive esports titles and those playing will likely turn down graphics settings to the point where your CPU is the primary bottleneck. However, >60fps performance is HIGHLY game dependent and whilst the single-player experiences do look great at 144Hz, it's unrealistic to expect a consistent 144fps with any card at all times. You're better off aiming for hardware and settings that'll guarantee 60Hz at all times, exploiting the extra frames from a 130fps average via VRR.

1440p144 or 4K60 are pipe dreams that simply aren't within the budget of 99.9% of people. I have a Titan RTX (for work) and there are games twice the age of the Titan RTX that still dip below 4K60 alarmingly frequently (non-VRR television requires VSYNC and dropped frames are jarringly obvious).

I haven't tried 1440p but once again, spending ridiculously huge budgets on your graphics card just exposes all the other bottlenecks in your system AND THE GAME ITSELF.

Chrispy_ wrote:

ptsant wrote:

where I live the #1 selling CPU in the biggest e-shop is the 9900K and the #1 selling GPU is the Asus 2080 Ti. So there's also that.

Christ, there's one born every minute.
You can't seriously believe what the e-shop tells you is 'trending' or 'best-selling'. It's quite the opposite of impartial advice and far from true.

Perhaps you're right. But the point I'm making is that you can't seriously use a worldwide survey as representative of people reading an english-language, US-based site for tech fans. So I don't see why everyone keeps quoting the Steam survey.

ptsant wrote:

Perhaps you're right. But the point I'm making is that you can't seriously use a worldwide survey as representative of people reading an english-language, US-based site for tech fans. So I don't see why everyone keeps quoting the Steam survey.

If you would have set the frame of reference as only this site people may agree with you, but you didn't. And even then, I would very much bet that most people on this site don't consider 500 dollar video cards mid-range. I know I don't, and I run a GTX 1080 and an i7.

edit: and if we are using "english, US based" as the frame of reference, I can't imagine that anecdote about where you live and the best selling items being the 9900K and the 2080 as being in the US so now i'm lost.

Chrispy_ wrote:

1080p60 is the popular resolution - you can get away with a $150 RX570 for that.
1080p144 is typically the realm of competitive esports titles and those playing will likely turn down graphics settings to the point where your CPU is the primary bottleneck. However, >60fps performance is HIGHLY game dependent and whilst the single-player experiences do look great at 144Hz, it's unrealistic to expect a consistent 144fps with any card at all times. You're better off aiming for hardware and settings that'll guarantee 60Hz at all times, exploiting the extra frames from a 130fps average via VRR.

I agree that 144Hz is a bit exotic, but many people like me want to be above 60 using VRR. In my case, the Freesync range of my monitor goes from 45-90 and, since I often play multiplayer FPS, I'd like to hit close to 80 fps if possible. With my RX480 this is becoming a bit hard, even though I don't mind playing at med/high instead of ultra. Navi hits the sweet spot at a price that is reasonable. So does the 2060.

DancinJack wrote:

ptsant wrote:

Perhaps you're right. But the point I'm making is that you can't seriously use a worldwide survey as representative of people reading an english-language, US-based site for tech fans. So I don't see why everyone keeps quoting the Steam survey.

If you would have set the frame of reference as only this site people may agree with you, but you didn't. And even then, I would very much bet that most people on this site don't consider 500 dollar video cards mid-range. I know I don't, and I run a GTX 1080 and an i7.

edit: and if we are using "english, US based" as the frame of reference, I can't imagine that anecdote about where you live and the best selling items being the 9900K and the 2080 as being in the US so now i'm lost.

OK, let's just forget the definition of "midrange" and "high end". I really don't care enough to argue about that, as it is obviously context-specific. Can I just say that I'm happy to see a new generation of cards at $350? As an individual, this is a price point that I find acceptable and I'm happy to see more competition there. Cards at $1200 are not my thing.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/am ... ,6216.html

The benchmarks explain my problems with the 1070, dang. I knew Div2 was painful but that explains why.

I may end up getting one of these sooner than I planned...if I can.

ptsant wrote:

OK, let's just forget the definition of "midrange" and "high end". I really don't care enough to argue about that, as it is obviously context-specific. Can I just say that I'm happy to see a new generation of cards at $350? As an individual, this is a price point that I find acceptable and I'm happy to see more competition there. Cards at $1200 are not my thing.

Happy to agree on that.

Sapphire e-mailed me to say that Radeon RX 5700 series GPUs have arrived.
https://www.sapphiretech.com/en/consume ... t-8g-gddr6
AMD's bundle includes 3 months of Xbox Game Pass for PC.
I believe that it'll actually be a few more days before they're available for purchase from Newegg, Amazon, etc.

Anandtech reports high temps and some fan ramping issues with the stock reference cooler. While I do like designs which exhaust out the back, those sorts of issues give me pause. Aftermarket cooling solutions can sometimes take longer to arrive on the market for AMD cards as well.

Anyone find any reviews that actually test input delay and anti-lag? It appears to be the elephant in the room only people who shop around for monitors talk about.

Seems the 5700XT has some very favorable results at 1080p, which might make it great for competitive gaming (or really anyone on 1080p).

The Egg wrote:

Anandtech reports high temps and some fan ramping issues with the stock reference cooler. While I do like designs which exhaust out the back, those sorts of issues give me pause. Aftermarket cooling solutions can sometimes take longer to arrive on the market for AMD cards as well.

The Egg wrote:

Anandtech reports high temps and some fan ramping issues with the stock reference cooler. While I do like designs which exhaust out the back, those sorts of issues give me pause. Aftermarket cooling solutions can sometimes take longer to arrive on the market for AMD cards as well.

Apparently the blower design is decent, compared with the horrible reference designs from 5 years ago, but still not competitive with the excellent nvidia 20x0 coolers. I think it's definitely worth waiting for the aftermarket solutions. Can't say whether there will be tangible performance differences (stock OC etc) but noise is a deal-breaker for me.

Bensam123 wrote:

Seems the 5700XT has some very favorable results at 1080p, which might make it great for competitive gaming (or really anyone on 1080p).

You've got rich blood. I'd never consider a $400 GPU for 1080p gaming.

DPete27 wrote:

Bensam123 wrote:

Seems the 5700XT has some very favorable results at 1080p, which might make it great for competitive gaming (or really anyone on 1080p).

You've got rich blood. I'd never consider a $400 GPU for 1080p gaming.

Yeah it definitely depends on what you want. I think the point he's making is that it'd be a great card for ~100+ FPS @ 1080p (read: >60Hz gaming @ 1080p). At least that's how I read it. It does seem more like a 1440p card for "casual" gamers if those FPS numbers aren't your main target.

Radeon RX 5700XT looks like a good card for 2560x1440 with a 90+ Hz FreeSync display. If some games dip to 60 Hz, Freesync will still make that tolerable.

Looks like I can order one on the 17th, assuming they're still around.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Radeon RX 5700XT looks like a good card for 2560x1440 with a 90+ Hz FreeSync display. If some games dip to 60 Hz, Freesync will still make that tolerable.

Perfect move up from my 1070 with this 32CHG70

LostCat wrote:

$400 Radeon RX 5700XT looks like a ...
Perfect move up from my 1070 with this 32CHG70

Since NVidia quit blocking FreeSync, a $500 GeForce RTX2070^SUPER should also do well on our monitor.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Since NVidia quit blocking FreeSync, a $500 GeForce RTX2070^SUPER should also do well on our monitor.

400 is already past my price cap. If this mess with Division 2s perf wasn't happening I'd probably just move along.

I see Newegg is bundling monitors again, so they're likely expecting stock to run out.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

LostCat wrote:

$400 Radeon RX 5700XT looks like a ...
Perfect move up from my 1070 with this 32CHG70

Since NVidia quit blocking FreeSync, a $500 GeForce RTX2070^SUPER should also do well on our monitor.

Looks like the three of us all have the same display. While my OSD now reports a Freesync signal (and I'm able to select Adaptive Sync in the NVidia control panel), it's hard to tell if it's actually functioning, or in what capacity. Having used an genuine G-Sync monitor in the past, my gut tells me it isn't functional (or is being given a poor range). I remember reading that a 10-series card was required for Freesync on NVidia cards (and I'm still on a 970), so it's likely non-functional.

In any case, NVidia seems to be painfully slow at adding monitors to their verified list. There's only one Samsung model so far, and whether a 10 or 20-series card would grant me working adaptive-sync without being on the list is hard to know. Even if it does, we'd likely be looking at some level of reduced features/functionality compared to an AMD card.

I'm leaning heavily towards the 5700-series, pending arrival of improved HSFs.

Nvidia's "approved" list doesn't mean diddly. One of the biggest reasons their list hasn't grown is because one of their requirements is that VRR be enabled by default out of the box. Not many "old" models are going to satisfy that.
You can manually enable FS on any monitor manually like this. You'll need a GTX10xx or newer card and the monitor connected via DP cable though.

One thing I'd like to see someone explore is comparing FreeSync2 on an AMD card vs. FreeSync (1?) on an Nvidia card. (is that how it would work?)

DPete27 wrote:

Nvidia's "approved" list doesn't mean diddly. One of the biggest reasons their list hasn't grown is because one of their requirements is that VRR be enabled by default out of the box. Not many "old" models are going to satisfy that.
You can manually enable FS on any monitor manually like this. You'll need a GTX10xx or newer card and the monitor connected via DP cable though.

One thing I'd like to see someone explore is comparing FreeSync2 on an AMD card vs. FreeSync (1?) on an Nvidia card. (is that how it would work?)

Thanks for the info. On the topic of Freesync 2: Techspot article

My understanding is that unlike regular Freesync, Freesync2 is pseudo-proprietary, and thus, any additional features it offers would never be available on an NVidia card. It also has some form of HDR, but it's somewhat half-baked, and not as good as Gsync "Ultimate".

FWIW my monitor is Freesync 2

The Egg wrote:

It also has some form of HDR, but it's somewhat half-baked

Since almost nothing meets the actual default standard in full I'm not sure that means much.

*shrug* I'm more interested in HDMI 2.1s VRR at this point, but we're not really there yet.

The Egg wrote:

Samsung 32CHG70 Looks like the three of us all have the same display.

I don't believe that you can do FreeSync with a GeForce GTX970, but if you haven't already updated to the latest firmware for the monitor, you should definitely do that. It should allow you to display more information about the operating mode. I linked to the firmware update in the Hot Deals thread about this monitor.

One advantage that you would get with the Navi based Radeon RX 5700XT is support for FreeSync2, which includes HDR. I don't believe that NVidia currently supports both HDR and FreeSync at the same time, even with that swanky GeForce RTX2070^SUPER card that I've been eyeing.

https://www.techpowerup.com/257393/rx-5 ... gistry-mod

btarunr wrote:

Igor Wallossek of Igor'sLAB Germany postulated a method by which an AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT "Navi" graphics card can be made to run at clock-speeds of over 2.20 GHz (engine clock)... You make any changes to your machine at your own risk, be sure to have proper custom cooling for your graphics card.

Melt down that brand-new graphics card, you overclocking fiend.

Amazingly enough, water blocks for the Radeon RX 5700 & XT are already available.

It looks like anti-lag can be done on GCN-era SKUs if 19.7.1 drivers are any indication.

Thanks for the reminder, and I can confirm it's awesome on a 480. I care about latency a lot more than average, but this is the kind of killer feature that'd get me to pick my 480 over a 1070 Ti (or 5700XT over 2080 Ti, etc) on the basis of delivered performance alone. It does exactly what it says on the tin, which is exactly what I've wanted to be able to ask my graphics drivers to do for years now.

It's also the kind of killer feature that might get me doing more gaming on Windows by default again, instead of always seeing if things will run on Linux first.

Awright! I bought the ASUS 5700XT...it should be here tomorrow. I'll have to upgrade my RAM (2400 to 3200) next month to finish out this build.

___
ahh, scratch that. Finances are a bit tight for that. I'll buy it next month though.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c ... view_5130/

...yeah. I hope to have mine mid August since I'm being more careful with my budget than usual.

According to this Techspot article, OC'ing the 5700 XT to 2.1Ghz falls quite a bit short of expectations; providing only about a ~7% average performance boost, but causing a staggering 70-100 watt increase in system power usage under load. Indeed, Anandtech listed their max voltages as 1.025v for the vanilla and 1.2v for the XT. Seeing such a voltage delta shows that they're already pushing the XT about as hard as they can, and I've got to wonder if 1.2v means the lifespan of the chips will take a hit.

I'm more about compute performance... so strangely enough... the Radeon VII is the most interesting AMD GPU to me. NAVI doesn't seem supported in ROCm yet, and there's no instruction-set manuals or optimization manuals released for Navi yet. AMD needs to work on their documentation.

NVidia CUDA has some exciting things going on. But two roads diverged on a yellow wood, and I took the one less traveled... I think anyone who is seriously thinking of GPU-compute should focus on NVidia CUDA instead. But AMD hardware is still quite exciting, especially for its price point.