Quick question - 1440p

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:13

Hey guys, Ive looked but cant find a good answer to my question. I have a 290x 4GB currently, and I'm using the BenQ 1440p 144hz freesync monitor.

Now my 290x is starting to fail, and its tremendously hot, and I am looking at replacements. Now I am looking at the 1070 as thats what I can afford, but would it be worth getting that over an AMD offering just to use freesync.

At the moment the 290x performs well and looks smooth because of freesync but if I get the 1070 wouldn't that also look smooth because instead of running at 40-50 fps Ill probably get 60?

I know the RX 480 won't be the card because it doesn't seem to be a 1440p card, more of a mid range and I like to have everything on max.

If this is a silly question I apologise but I would like to have a new card in place before this space heater hits super nova.

doodah · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:15

In the same boat, I would imagine a 1070 will handle your requirements easily.

For such a high frame rate monitor do you not want to be achieving 60 or (well) above?

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:23

doodah said:
In the same boat, I would imagine a 1070 will handle your requirements easily.

For such a high frame rate monitor do you not want to be achieving 60 or (well) above?

Yes definitely, the issue was I won the monitor and didnt have the spare cash to upgrade the card so had to stick with the 290x. It hasnt been that bad because of the freesync and dropping some of the settings, but I like all the bells and whistles and now have come to a point where I can afford to upgrade.

I know crossfire/SLI isn't 100% otherwise I might look at sourcing a second 290x

karik666 · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:27

Wait for the 480 reviews on wed 29th,you never know amd might suprise us.
A few months ago,amd did show the 480 running hitman at 1440p 60fps,but they didnt say what the settings were.

Relentless81 · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:30

Have you considered fitting an aio cooler to the card? Mine never goes over 60c and is silent. Assuming it's cooling that's at fault

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:35

Relentless81 said:
Have you considered fitting an aio cooler to the card? Mine never goes over 60c and is silent. Assuming it's cooling that's at fault

Actually I haven't. Might be an idea

I do have some spare money burning a hole though. Tough one

smogsy · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:36

to help you out

on a 1080 most games on 1440p run at 140FPS+ (overwatch BF4, etc)

only Witcher 3 only pulls in 70FPS.

Seanspeed · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:36

That's a tricky one.

That said, a capped and solid 60fps will always be smoother than variable sub-60fps framerate, even with a variable refresh rate monitor.

BUT, you can't count on every situation being 40-50fps vs solid 60fps. What if 60-70fps is possible on the 480? Maybe you could do 80-90fps on the 1070, but would it look as smooth without the variable refresh rate advantage? I'm not entirely sure. Obviously the advantages of variable refresh rate goes down as framerate goes up, so this could be a very close situation.

That said, 40-50fps or so with variable refresh rates could certainly be 'acceptably' smooth, depending on your sensitivity to performance. And if you're used to a 144hz display, there's a chance you are more sensitive than most.

So this is a very tricky situation. Clearly wait til reviews come out for the 480, but chances are it is going to be somewhat predictable where it lands, so......yea, I dunno man. That's tough.

I will say that if you're as picky about using 'max' settings as you say, then I'd say nothing short of a 1080 should be on your wishlist. You bought an expensive 1440p/144hz monitor and now you need something to run it properly. Even a 1070 cannot 'max out' certain games at 1080p/60fps. My biggest advice before you do anything is to manage expectations and learn to deal with turning down settings once in a while. You can get visuals that are 95-99% as good most of the time.

smogsy said:
to help you out

on a 1080 most games on 1440p run at 140FPS+ (overwatch BF4, etc)

But not most newer graphics-heavy games. Lots more games than just The Witcher 3 cant run at 1440p/140fps+ on a 1080. Please dont give people misleading information.

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:40

Seanspeed said:
That's a tricky one.

That said, a solid 60fps will always be smoother than variable sub-60fps framerate, even with a variable refresh rate monitor.

BUT, you can't count on every situation being 40-50fps vs solid 60fps. What if 60-70fps is possible on the 480? Maybe you could do 80-90fps on the 1070, but would it look as smooth without the variable refresh rate advantage? I'm not entirely sure. Obviously the advantages of variable refresh rate goes down as framerate goes up, so this could be a very close situation.

That said, 40-50fps or so with variable refresh rates could certainly be 'acceptably' smooth, depending on your sensitivity to performance. And if you're used to a 144hz display, there's a chance you are more sensitive than most.

So this is a very tricky situation. Clearly wait til reviews come out for the 480, but chances are it is going to be somewhat predictable where it lands, so......yea, I dunno man. That's tough.

I will say that if you're as picky about using 'max' settings as you say, then I'd say nothing short of a 1080 should be on your wishlist. You bought an expensive 1440p/144hz monitor and now you need something to run it properly. Even a 1070 cannot 'max out' certain games at 1080p/60fps. My biggest advice before you do anything is to manage expectations and learn to deal with turning down settings once in a while. You can get visuals that are 95-99% as good most of the time.

But not most newer graphics-heavy games. Lots more games than just The Witcher 3 cant run at 1440p/140fps+ on a 1080. Please dont give people bad advice.

Oooh curveball, I thought a 1070 may be enough. Id like to upgrade 3+ years so the 1080 could be the winner. I dont see much from AMDs side to envoke much confidence at the moment.

Also I was lucky as I won the monitor from my supplier at work

smogsy · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:45

Seanspeed said:
That's a tricky one.

That said, a capped and solid 60fps will always be smoother than variable sub-60fps framerate, even with a variable refresh rate monitor.

BUT, you can't count on every situation being 40-50fps vs solid 60fps. What if 60-70fps is possible on the 480? Maybe you could do 80-90fps on the 1070, but would it look as smooth without the variable refresh rate advantage? I'm not entirely sure. Obviously the advantages of variable refresh rate goes down as framerate goes up, so this could be a very close situation.

That said, 40-50fps or so with variable refresh rates could certainly be 'acceptably' smooth, depending on your sensitivity to performance. And if you're used to a 144hz display, there's a chance you are more sensitive than most.

So this is a very tricky situation. Clearly wait til reviews come out for the 480, but chances are it is going to be somewhat predictable where it lands, so......yea, I dunno man. That's tough.

I will say that if you're as picky about using 'max' settings as you say, then I'd say nothing short of a 1080 should be on your wishlist. You bought an expensive 1440p/144hz monitor and now you need something to run it properly. Even a 1070 cannot 'max out' certain games at 1080p/60fps. My biggest advice before you do anything is to manage expectations and learn to deal with turning down settings once in a while. You can get visuals that are 95-99% as good most of the time.

But not most newer graphics-heavy games. Lots more games than just The Witcher 3 cant run at 1440p/140fps+ on a 1080. Please dont give people misleading information.

did i say it did? no. i said most and i also stated which. their no misinformation their

if a user wants 1440p with 100fps on every game SLI+ is your only option.

Seanspeed · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:46

Carta said:
Also I was lucky as I won the monitor from my supplier at work

Ah, gotcha, I missed that.

You could sell the monitor and get something that will fit your needs a bit better. 1080p/144hz Freesync maybe.

A 480 would probably be a very ideal card for that. You might not get 1080p/120fps+ in every game, but if you can deal with turning down some settings, you could well be in a very smooth 60-90fps range for plenty of demanding titles.

And hell, in that situation, even if you really have to max everything out, you'll still probably at least get 40fps+ in just about anything that you can throw at it, all while having the variable refresh rate to smooth things over enough.

That, or you could just turn games down to 1080p on your 1440p monitor and deal with the upscaling?

Seanspeed · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:49

smogsy said:
did i say it did? no. i said most and i also stated which. their no misinformation their

You didn't say which, but you also didn't specify that it doesn't count for most newer games, which is kind of important to note, no? In fact, you specifically said 'only Witcher 3' gets 70fps, making it sound like it's the only game he couldn't do 1440p/140fps+ with, which isn't even close to being true. If it wasn't misinformation, it was at least incredibly misleading.

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:51

Good points thanks for that.

Definitely food for thought. If my monitor was just 1440p 144hz id have no issue buying 1070/1080, just feel like I might not make full use of it.

My thinking is that the RX 480 isn't an enthusiast card therefore a moot upgrade on a 290x.

Might just get the GTX and bask in the higher quality and higher frames till Vega.

smogsy · 27 Jun 2016 at 14:59

Seanspeed said:
You didn't say which, but you also didn't specify that it doesn't count for most newer games, which is kind of important to note, no? In fact, you specifically said 'only Witcher 3' gets 70fps, making it sound like it's the only game he couldn't do 1440p/140fps+ with, which isn't even close to being true. If it wasn't misinformation, it was at least incredibly misleading.

lol, so everyone has to list EVERY game & their FPS now?

first:
everyone knows people do not own EVERY game in the world i mentioned the games i have tried EG
i stated that overwatch & BF4 have 1440p 140FPS+

I also stated that only Witcher 3 could get 70FPS

Does this mean that every other game runs at 140FPS, Hell no but it does mean that every game ive played & can vouch for yes.

If the OP wanted more info they could ask me. but it was to show & rough indication so they can research futher

Stop being so bloody picky.

Sargatanas2511 · 27 Jun 2016 at 15:02

I just upgraded to 1440p with my 390X. It's actually not that bad though ARK (an unoptimised mess) doesn't run well the rest of the games I have tried are fine. a 1070 or 1080 should be great.

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 15:02

smogsy said:
everyone knows people do not own EVERY game in the world i mentioned the games i have tried EG
i stated that overwatch & BF4 have 1440p 140FPS+

Both games I play a lot so that is a big help thank you, I get 60 on overwatch but I have dips and the same with BF

jupiter_man · 27 Jun 2016 at 15:10

Have you considered 480 CF? It looks good on those tests

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 15:47

jupiter_man said:
Have you considered 480 CF? It looks good on those tests

I have, but CF isn't always reliable and 100% effective. I'll keep my eye on it, but will 2 RX480's beat a 1070/1080.

I'll have to wait till Wednesday but I doubt it, the RX is a mid range card

Seanspeed · 27 Jun 2016 at 17:03

smogsy said:
lol, so everyone has to list EVERY game & their FPS now?

first:
everyone knows people do not own EVERY game in the world i mentioned the games i have tried EG
i stated that overwatch & BF4 have 1440p 140FPS+

I also stated that only Witcher 3 could get 70FPS

Does this mean that every other game runs at 140FPS, Hell no but it does mean that every game ive played & can vouch for yes.

If the OP wanted more info they could ask me. but it was to show & rough indication so they can research futher

Stop being so bloody picky.

I am not being 'bloody picky'. And no, you dont have to list every single game that doesn't run to that standard. But when you say 'most games will run' at that, it's important to note that most NEW games wont.

You wanted to give a 'rough indication' and my point was that your 'rough indication' was highly misleading.

I dont think this is picky at all, but either way, I dont see any harm in being clear about these things when it comes to giving advice on products that cost hundreds of pounds.

Carta said:
will 2 RX480's beat a 1070/1080.

In best-case situations, sure.

But there will be plenty of situations where it wont, where it might not have any scaling whatsoever, where it will give you poor frametimes(stuttering that even Freesync wont be able to smooth out), comes with potential cooling issues, blah blah. All that fun stuff.

Plus multi-gpu setup(SLI or Xfire) support is getting worse overall, not better. Really wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking to find reliable top end performance.

Carta · 27 Jun 2016 at 17:58

Seanspeed said:
In best-case situations, sure.

But there will be plenty of situations where it wont, where it might not have any scaling whatsoever, where it will give you poor frametimes(stuttering that even Freesync wont be able to smooth out), comes with potential cooling issues, blah blah. All that fun stuff.

Plus multi-gpu setup(SLI or Xfire) support is getting worse overall, not better. Really wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking to find reliable top end performance.

Yeah exactly what I was trying to say, I don't fancy two mid range cards to compete with one high end.

I'll get a 1070/1080 and sell if Vega produces something, if not get a new monitor also