Could my PC handle 1440p 144hz?

[Clydfrog]

Hi everyone,

 

I am currently running a 3930k (OC 4.4ghz) with a GTX 1080 (OC to 2ghz) and I am currently debating of upgrading my monitor from a 1080p 120hz to a 1440p 144hz IPS display.

 

My only worry is about my CPU. I know when you go up in resolution you are more so relying on GPU power than CPU, but I am worried the CPU might not be able to push that 144hz.

 

I am currently looking at upgrading my CPU, but wondering to upgrade to 9900k, or wait until Zen 2 (I know the 9900k is a big cost but Ryzen 2700x isn't a big enough performance jump for me).

 

Also anyone have any recommendations for a 1440p 144hz IPS monitor?

 

Thanks for the help in advance

 

 

[Bananasplit_00]

you wont be maxing out any AAA games but esports games should be fine

[Clydfrog]

14 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

you wont be maxing out any AAA games but esports games should be fine

I pretty much play most games a mix of Ultra/low because I play games semi competitively.  So kind of worried about the AAA games. Thanks for the help

[Crunken]

Any specific reason you would upgrade to 1440p 144hz? if you're playing competitively 1440p isn't really necessary

[Clydfrog]

1 hour ago, Crunken said:

Any specific reason you would upgrade to 1440p 144hz? if you're playing competitively 1440p isn't really necessary

My monitor is one of the first gens of high refresh rates (BenQ xl2420t) and it's only 120hz, doesn't have the most accurate colors, and is also a  TN panel.

 

I kind of want to just dive into IPS 1440p 144hz because I don't see response time as a huge deal if it's under 5ms. Just kind of researching at the moment to see if I want it or not. And if I do choose in the end I want the most info I can get.

[Crunken]

3 hours ago, Clydfrog said:

My monitor is one of the first gens of high refresh rates (BenQ xl2420t) and it's only 120hz, doesn't have the most accurate colors, and is also a  TN panel.

 

I kind of want to just dive into IPS 1440p 144hz because I don't see response time as a huge deal if it's under 5ms. Just kind of researching at the moment to see if I want it or not. And if I do choose in the end I want the most info I can get.

If you don't care about graphics you can play on medium/high with good enough fps in most games, but might want to look into CPU before new monitor.
but most competitive players play on 1080p 144hz/240hz monitors, no real benefit in competitive games to play 1440p, you could look into dual monitors depending on your budget and you could have one 1080p 144hz/240hz tn for comp games, and one higher res (1440p/4k) for everything you need better resolution and color accuracy for

[Octavzz]

I am in a similar dilemma, because i just bought an Asus PG279Q 165hz 1440p monitor. My computer runs on a i5 3570K and a GTX 980, and I already feel the need for an upgrade. Everything runs pretty laggy except CS:GO and Rocket League.

[Clydfrog]

5 hours ago, Crunken said:

If you don't care about graphics you can play on medium/high with good enough fps in most games, but might want to look into CPU before new monitor.
but most competitive players play on 1080p 144hz/240hz monitors, no real benefit in competitive games to play 1440p, you could look into dual monitors depending on your budget and you could have one 1080p 144hz/240hz tn for comp games, and one higher res (1440p/4k) for everything you need better resolution and color accuracy for

Yeah that is always a possibility. My CPU handles most games fine because of the OC. But it's absolutely showing its age in more graphically intensive games.

[Clydfrog]

3 hours ago, Octavzz said:

I am in a similar dilemma, because i just bought an Asus PG279Q 165hz 1440p monitor. My computer runs on a i5 3570K and a GTX 980, and I already feel the need for an upgrade. Everything runs pretty laggy except CS:GO and Rocket League.

Have you OC'd that CPU? I have one in my mini ITX build that I bring to lans. I have it at 4.2 but I'm thinking of trying 4.4ghz.

 

The CPU isn't the best performer anymore but it can OC pretty well.

[Octavzz]

Just now, Clydfrog said:

Have you OC'd that CPU? I have one in my mini ITX build that I bring to lans. I have it at 4.2 but I'm thinking of trying 4.4ghz.

 

The CPU isn't the best performer anymore but it can OC pretty well.

I never overclocked anything in my life... This probably would be a good start. Do you think it would make a difference?

[Zando_]

For 120+ fps, an Intel 8600K or higher will be better than the R7 2700X, and for 1440p 144Hz you'll be fine with a 1080 if you tweak settings. I'm also eventually getting a 1440p 144Hz monitor (hopefully with FreeSync, my main rig is an R7 2700X + Vega FE, but I do have an 8600K/1080SLI setup if that can't pump out the fps). 

[Clydfrog]

35 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

For 120+ fps, an Intel 8600K or higher will be better than the R7 2700X, and for 1440p 144Hz you'll be fine with a 1080 if you tweak settings. I'm also eventually getting a 1440p 144Hz monitor (hopefully with FreeSync, my main rig is an R7 2700X + Vega FE, but I do have an 8600K/1080SLI setup if that can't pump out the fps). 

The only issue is that I do some heavy load work with my CPU as well.  Its why I went with the 3930k in the past.  Was looking at getting an 8 core for this generation.

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, Clydfrog said:

The only issue is that I do some heavy load work with my CPU as well.  Its why I went with the 3930k in the past.  Was looking at getting an 8 core for this generation.

If you can afford a 9900K + mobo that should give you the best of both worlds, it's an 8c/16t like the R7 IIRC, but with the single core perf of an 8700K, or a teeny bit better. 

[Clydfrog]

49 minutes ago, Octavzz said:

I never overclocked anything in my life... This probably would be a good start. Do you think it would make a difference?

The 3570k does turbo boost on two cores at 3.8ghz (if I am not mistaken) and 3.6ghz on 4 cores.  If you overclocked it to even 4.2 ghz on all cores, you are looking at around a 12%-15% performance improvement overall.  Not amazing, but free performance.  There are a lot of guides for this sort of thing, and its scary but as long as you don't put too much voltage on and watch temps, you are generally okay.

[Clydfrog]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

If you can afford a 9900K + mobo that should give you the best of both worlds, it's an 8c/16t like the R7 IIRC, but with the single core perf of an 8700K, or a teeny bit better. 

That is what I am in the middle of deciding. I have the money for it right now as I have been waiting for release of the 9900k since the rumors came out around a year ago. But I am a little dissappointed in its performance/Overclocking performance.  It also runs hot as shit and it just feels like I would be investing in a modified old school CPU if that makes sense. As soon as 7nm/10nm hits I feel we are going to get much better performance from CPU's.  And I feel like spending 800 dollars on a mobo/CPU combo on an old architecture is just kind of a waste.  I was hoping the CPU would have some more OC headroom to balance that out.

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Clydfrog said:

That is what I am in the middle of deciding. I have the money for it right now as I have been waiting for release of the 9900k since the rumors came out around a year ago. But I am a little dissappointed in its performance/Overclocking performance.  It also runs hot as shit and it just feels like I would be investing in a modified old school CPU if that makes sense. As soon as 7nm/10nm hits I feel we are going to get much better performance from CPU's.  And I feel like spending 800 dollars on a mobo/CPU combo on an old architecture is just kind of a waste.  I was hoping the CPU would have some more OC headroom to balance that out.

If you don't need an upgrade right now, I'd wait for a few months and Zen 2. It's gonna be 7nm and should boast a pretty good IPC improvement, and if they can break the 4.2-4.3Ghz barrier reliably across all their chips, they may give Intel even more of a headache than they have already. 

[Clydfrog]

Just now, Zando Bob said:

If you don't need an upgrade right now, I'd wait for a few months and Zen 2. It's gonna be 7nm and should boast a pretty good IPC improvement, and if they can break the 4.2-4.3Ghz barrier reliably across all their chips, they may give Intel even more of a headache than they have already. 

Yeah, thats what I have been wanting, but it might not be until later in the year because Zen 2 architecture will be going towards server rollout first. So while it might release early, it might not actually hit until midsummer or something. And I really wanted higher frames for BFV (I am a BF fanboy). I am almost debating buying a Ryzen 2700x, OC to 4.2 with some high speed ram, and then just buying Zen 2 when it releases as I am pretty sure it will work with AM4 motherboards. I think in the end that would still be cheaper than buying a 9900k and motherboard.

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Clydfrog said:

Yeah, thats what I have been wanting, but it might not be until later in the year because Zen 2 architecture will be going towards server rollout first. So while it might release early, it might not actually hit until midsummer or something. And I really wanted higher frames for BFV (I am a BF fanboy). I am almost debating buying a Ryzen 2700x, OC to 4.2 with some high speed ram, and then just buying Zen 2 when it releases as I am pretty sure it will work with AM4 motherboards. I think in the end that would still be cheaper than buying a 9900k and motherboard.

You could defo do that. I have an R7 2700X with a Vega FE rn, actually downloading my BFV trial I get with EA access so I could let you know how it performs (Vega FE/64 is around 1080 performance in games). I have a Crosshair VII mobo as well, incredibly overkill for my current CPU, but I'm planning to do the same thing and upgrade to Zen 2 or maybe Zen 3, since AMD promised support for AM4 till 2020 and they haven't forced us to move chipsets yet. 

[Clydfrog]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

You could defo do that. I have an R7 2700X with a Vega FE rn, actually downloading my BFV trial I get with EA access so I could let you know how it performs (Vega FE/64 is around 1080 performance in games). I have a Crosshair VII mobo as well, incredibly overkill for my current CPU, but I'm planning to do the same thing and upgrade to Zen 2 or maybe Zen 3, since AMD promised support for AM4 till 2020 and they haven't forced us to move chipsets yet. 

Yeah tell me how it runs, have you overclocked it?

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, Clydfrog said:

Yeah tell me how it runs, have you overclocked it?

IIRC it's running on auto rn, boosts to 4.3Ghz for a short bit, but sits at around 4.1Ghz in games. I've had it stable at 4.2Ghz as well though, so I may take it back to that. Haven't overclocked the Vega FE at all though, I only have a 650W PSU in this rn (I have a 1000W G3 but that's in my 1080 SLI rig) so I don't wanna push it. 

[Clydfrog]

2 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

IIRC it's running on auto rn, boosts to 4.3Ghz for a short bit, but sits at around 4.1Ghz in games. I've had it stable at 4.2Ghz as well though, so I may take it back to that. Haven't overclocked the Vega FE at all though, I only have a 650W PSU in this rn (I have a 1000W G3 but that's in my 1080 SLI rig) so I don't wanna push it. 

I think it only boosts the first two cores, I heard it can get 4.2 across all cores easily. But not everyone likes OC'ing

[Zando_]

4 minutes ago, Clydfrog said:

I think it only boosts the first two cores, I heard it can get 4.2 across all cores easily. But not everyone likes OC'ing

Looking in HWMonitor, all cores show a max of around 4.3Ghz, and under full load they drop to 4.1Ghz across all 8 cores/16 threads in realtime. 

[Clydfrog]

9 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Looking in HWMonitor, all cores show a max of around 4.3Ghz, and under full load they drop to 4.1Ghz across all 8 cores/16 threads in realtime. 

Cool, might be a motherboard feature?

[Zando_]

Just now, Clydfrog said:

Cool, might be a motherboard feature?

On higher end mobos it'll boost to 4.3 quite regularly, apparently it does the same on the Gigabyte Gaming 7 and other mobos around the Crosshair VII's price point. Just be aware the auto boost can totally violate safe voltages, max reccomended is 1.45v and it'll happily pull 1.5v or a little more. 

[Clydfrog]

56 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

On higher end mobos it'll boost to 4.3 quite regularly, apparently it does the same on the Gigabyte Gaming 7 and other mobos around the Crosshair VII's price point. Just be aware the auto boost can totally violate safe voltages, max reccomended is 1.45v and it'll happily pull 1.5v or a little more. 

Yeah the u have more room for voltage on Ryzen. I'd probably go in manually and manage it all myself.