1440p 144hz vega 64

Hotspot · January 23, 2019

As title says, i got the xfx vega 64 for quite a steal imo (300€), now i'm looking for a new monitor (currently 1080p/60hz). CPU is R5 2600 and 16gb 3200 ram.

I want to always be a bit futureproof, so it makes sense to go 1440p+144Hz, now I always try to keep the budget as low as possible, so I found the Samsung C27JG50 - cheap, just no freesync(in my country for around 320€, but i havent found that many reviews, does anyone have it? Is it a good monitor?). So here comes the question, can I game on this vega 64 (considering it with undervolting/overclocking) on high settings in AAA games like GTA V / Witcher / Doom / AC / Tomb raider without freesync and not experience substantial screen tearing etc? If i get around 100 fps or more on 144hz monitor, do I actually need freesync or is more for 70-80fps? A cheap freesync 1440p/144hz would be MSI optix which is 80€ more.

Fasauceome · January 23, 2019

12 minutes ago, Hotspot said:

I want to always be a bit futureproof

Good luck with that, unless you can see the future.

13 minutes ago, Hotspot said:

If i get around 100 fps or more on 144hz monitor, do I actually need freesync

If your framerate is consistent in games with few drops or jumps, then you'd be fine without it.

CharminUltraStrong · January 23, 2019

12 minutes ago, Hotspot said:

As title says, i got the xfx vega 64 for quite a steal imo (300€), now i'm looking for a new monitor (currently 1080p/60hz). CPU is R5 2600 and 16gb 3200 ram.

I want to always be a bit futureproof, so it makes sense to go 1440p+144Hz, now I always try to keep the budget as low as possible, so I found the Samsung C27JG50 - cheap, just no freesync(in my country for around 320€, but i havent found that many reviews, does anyone have it? Is it a good monitor?). So here comes the question, can I game on this vega 64 (considering it with undervolting/overclocking) on high settings in AAA games like GTA V / Witcher / Doom / AC / Tomb raider without freesync and not experience substantial screen tearing etc? If i get around 100 fps or more on 144hz monitor, do I actually need freesync or is more for 70-80fps? A cheap freesync 1440p/144hz would be MSI optix which is 80€ more.

High settings? Probably not. To give you a point of reference, the RX Vega 64 slots in between the GTX 1070/1070ti and the 1080 with minimal gains over the 1070ti. I run a 1070 OC'd to 2100Mhz which is significantly higher than a 1070ti plus an i5 9600k @5.2 ghz. At 1080p, highest settings on a 144hz display in Assassins Creed I get 62 FPS average, 31 at the lowest and 102 at the highest. I can only assume that you'd be getting 30 FPS just barely at 1440p with maxed settings on games as intensive as Witcher, GTA etc. esp. with how reliant they are on threads/core count/and how hyper threading hungry they are.

Jurrunio · January 23, 2019

A 1440p 144Hz that's cheap (and as a result, only good because it's cheap) because of future proofing, that's wrong. Either you spend as little as possible to get to high refresh rate gaming (1080p 144Hz), or you go to the top for a good and as a result, expensive 1440p 144Hz. In other words, go small or go big. Middle routes are always a bad idea.

11 minutes ago, CharminUltraStrong said:

I run a 1070 OC'd to 2100Mhz which is significantly higher than a 1070ti

Yet you have only 79% the cuda cores. Many 1070ti can overclock to 2GHz anyway and 5% extra clock wont balance out the cut cores.

Origami Cactus · January 23, 2019

17 minutes ago, CharminUltraStrong said:

I run a 1070 OC'd to 2100Mhz which is significantly higher than a 1070ti plus an i5 9600k @5.2 ghz.

Have you heard of the funky fact that the 1070ti and rx vega64 can also be heavily overclocked?

It is like saying that your i3 8350k is the same as 9900k, because you have the i3 at 6ghz and the 9900k at the stock 3.6ghz.

CharminUltraStrong · January 23, 2019

20 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

Have you heard of the funky fact that the 1070ti and rx vega64 can also be heavily overclocked?

It is like saying that your i3 8350k is the same as 9900k, because you have the i3 at 6ghz and the 9900k at the stock 3.6ghz.

Not what I was referring to but okay. Was referring to it in terms of clock speed and the incredible similarities between the 2 cards. Last I checked, the major complaint from reviewers regarding the ti's vs. non ti's for the Pascal GPU's was that there was not enough of a tangible difference in real world benchmarks/gameplay (outside of synthetics) that would warrant an upgrade from a 1070 to a 1070ti or purchasing a 1070ti over a 1070 when the 1070 could be had for a much more competitive price. Furthermore, that's a pretty awful comparison. An i3 8350k is so incredibly behind an i9 9900k that there's not even a comparison where as the 1070 and 1070ti's are stupidly close in real world game-play. Bottom line, I was comparing MY 1070 to 1070ti vs. RX Vega 64 benchmarks for a point of reference, not to say a 1070 was better. Any video regarding 1070 OC vs. 1070ti benchmarks will tell you the exact same thing I've already said and their OC's aren't as extreme. Please read and understand the post next time before throwing out some bogus statement that completely ignores the prior statement/reasoning.