5700 XT, 1080p 144Hz vs 1440p 144Hz?

[mattyt1991]

Evening all,

 

Just wanted to gauge a bit of opinion about what people would lean towards in my situation. Just bought a 5700 XT, seemed to be my best option for around £400. I want to now get a more gaming specific monitor with FreeSync, my current Dell U2715H is a good monitor but has no FreeSync/g sync and only 60Hz. As someone who is a casual gamer, mainly play games like RDR2, GTA, think I might start The Witcher 3. Basically games with a good story/campaign. But currently don't play any multiplayer games but thinking of dabbling in Call of Duty for that. 

 

Rest of system is i5 8400, 16GB 3000MHz RAM, 650W PSU. I would like to avoid any further major upgrades for at least 2-3 years. The Dell monitor will be repurposed as a "work" monitor to be connected to MBP, so this monitor will be about gaming. Budget is up to around £500. Would you get a 1080p 24 or 25 inch to get higher FPS and better longevity or 27 inch 1440p? I know it is all up to me but just wanted to see what other people would do. 

 

 

[SPARTAN VI]

I'm running a 5700 XT on my wife's gaming PC, so 1440P all the way. You can always turn things down to improve your framerate (e.g. shadow quality is the first to go, IMO), but you cannot magically improve your image quality on a 1080P display to match a 1440P display. Even with VSR (AMD's virtual super resolution), which is poorly implemented compared to Nvidia DSR, it doesn't beat native 1440p rendering.

[BTGbullseye]

1 hour ago, mattyt1991 said:

Rest of system is i5 8400

That is a significant bottleneck for 1080p gaming. You're going to have issues getting to 144FPS either way with it, so might as well go for the better looking resolution.

 

Of course, I wouldn't be overly worried about resolution if either of the options were a TN panel. TN is very much not a good panel technology, and you should look for VA or IPS only. (VA has much better blacks, IPS has slightly better viewing angles)

[mattyt1991]

2 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

That is a significant bottleneck for 1080p gaming. You're going to have issues getting to 144FPS either way with it, so might as well go for the better looking resolution.

 

Of course, I wouldn't be overly worried about resolution if either of the options were a TN panel. TN is very much not a good panel technology, and you should look for VA or IPS only. (VA has much better blacks, IPS has slightly better viewing angles)

is that actually true? There are plenty of laptops that have 1080p 144Hz screens that have processors in them that will not sustain 3.8ghz on 6 cores. 

[BTGbullseye]

14 hours ago, mattyt1991 said:

is that actually true? There are plenty of laptops that have 1080p 144Hz screens that have processors in them that will not sustain 3.8ghz on 6 cores. 

Yes, and those are already having issues right now with AAA titles. Single-core performance is still king for gaming right now, and will be for quite some time.

[Otto_iii]

19 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

That is a significant bottleneck for 1080p gaming. You're going to have issues getting to 144FPS either way with it, so might as well go for the better looking resolution

Textures + view distance + (depending on game) cerain types of post processing but on everything else on minimum, but 1440p is a meme sadly, 4k is actually recognized by hollywood (pedo illuminati?) film producers but is terrible for gaming, 1080p is "low res" but actually what you want

since you have 5700 try RIS with 1080p render and RIS tbh, linus has over 5 earings don't worry about his opinion none of my gay friends respect him, he doesn't know what hes talking about, upscale is valid 

[NineEyeRon]

20 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

That is a significant bottleneck for 1080p gaming.

You are going to need to back that statement up a bit.

 

I have the 8600 and a RX580 and I get 250FPS easy in esports games @ 1080p.

 

So far its never held me back for 1080p, often stuck at the FPS cap.

[Rotta]

23 minutes ago, NineEyeRon said:

You are going to need to back that statement up a bit.

 

I have the 8600 and a RX580 and I get 250FPS easy in esports games @ 1080p.

 

So far its never held me back for 1080p, often stuck at the FPS cap.

 

250FPS in what e-sports games? You just listed hundreds of games that could be considered e-sports because they have an e-sports scene.

[BTGbullseye]

3 hours ago, NineEyeRon said:

I have the 8600 and a RX580 and I get 250FPS easy in esports games @ 1080p.

That low?

3 hours ago, Rotta said:

250FPS in what e-sports games? You just listed hundreds of games that could be considered e-sports because they have an e-sports scene.

Exactly this.

[NineEyeRon]

3 hours ago, Rotta said:

 

250FPS in what e-sports games?

Counterstrike 1.6 and Unreal Tournament

[BTGbullseye]

18 hours ago, NineEyeRon said:

Counterstrike 1.6 and Unreal Tournament

Those have engine limits on the framerates. Just like CS:GO requires modification to go above 250FPS, these games can't either by default.

 

Also, I can get 250FPS on those games using nothing but a Ryzen 5 2200G and 8GB of single-channel RAM in a B350 motherboard. (that's a Vega 8 integrated GPU)

[NineEyeRon]

I’m still waiting for evidence that the 8400 is the issue, I don’t think it is. Its probably holding a top end GPU back 10% at most. Its a lot of money to buy better CPUs for a 10 frame gain when your already over 100 FPS...

 

Stick a top end GPU in the OP’s system and you have a very good rig, yes there is a “bottleneck” but its well within acceptable.

[Mister Woof]

The CPU will hold you back sometimes in some games.

 

In some games it will be irrelevant because even a 5700xt isn't pulling 144fps at 1080p anyway.

 

Personally, I would go for a 1080p/144 because

 

1. At typical screen sizes such as 24", there isn't a huge visual difference between 1080p and 1440p, and you will find that for both the GPU and CPU, that resolution is much easier to populate and your components will "last" longer before they start feeling really slow.

 

2. If youhave a 1440p display and can play games at 80fps today, in three years that will be 50-60 and it will be terrible feeling to play games at that FOS, or look like garbage dropping down to 1080p on a 1440p display, whereas on a 1080p display you might get 100-120fps today and in three years your hardware will still do 60+ without any need to reduce resolution.

 

3. You will have an easier time today getting super high refresh at 1080p than 1440p on a 5700xt in most games, even with a locked 8600.

[Mathieu9836]

On 12/24/2019 at 2:40 PM, BTGbullseye said:

TN is very much not a good panel technology, and you should look for VA or IPS only. (VA has much better blacks, IPS has slightly better viewing angles)

That is not true at all, TN panel have the fastest reponse time, VA panel struggle to get more then 10ms response time, IPS can get as low as 4ms and the cheap TN panel can get 1ms (3ms in reality) which is really what matter in E-Sport titles.

 

The 8400 will be the bottleneck here BUT most people don't see any difference between 75 and 120FPS anyway sooooo yeah, if you want to extra frames get something with more cores even if single core speed is still important, multicore is also  a thing for 1% lows. I've seen a 10% increase going from a R5 2400G with an RX580 to an R7 2700, when you have 60fps average it doesnt make much difference, but it's what can hold you to 120fps instead of 144fps.

[BTGbullseye]

25 minutes ago, Mathieu9836 said:

VA panel struggle to get more then 10ms response time

Except that mine does 4ms by default, and has an option to go down as far as 1ms, and that's pretty typical of any VA panel made in the last 5 years. You're running off VERY outdated info here.

[Mathieu9836]

2 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

Except that mine does 4ms by default, and has an option to go down as far as 1ms, and that's pretty typical of any VA panel made in the last 5 years. You're running off VERY outdated info here.

What is you particualr model?

1ms TN panels usually get around 3ms in real world testing, i doubt any 4ms VA panels can get better then 6-7ms. TN panel are still the faster panels available, i will stick to my TN panels for FPS gaming, other then that IPS an VA panels are better depending of what you want \ need.

[BTGbullseye]

4 hours ago, Mathieu9836 said:

What is you particualr model?

1ms TN panels usually get around 3ms in real world testing, i doubt any 4ms VA panels can get better then 6-7ms. TN panel are still the faster panels available, i will stick to my TN panels for FPS gaming, other then that IPS an VA panels are better depending of what you want \ need.

https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/17881443

[Rotta]

15 hours ago, Mathieu9836 said:

The 8400 will be the bottleneck here BUT most people don't see any difference between 75 and 120FPS anyway 

 

120FPS is a huge upgrade from 75, the more frames the less input lag. I can see a HUGE difference while playing when my FPS drops from 120 to 70-80.

[Boyohan]

On 12/24/2019 at 6:46 PM, mattyt1991 said:

Evening all,

 

 I might start The Witcher 3. Basically games with a good story/campaign.

 

 

Just to give you an examble of the FPS you can expect.

I recently finished the Witcher 3 (for the second time) and I averaged about 80-100 fps on high settings (not ultra) in 1440p.  

I have started playing Jedi Fallen Order with similar settings (high settings at 1440p) and I average about 70-90 fps. 

 

I haven't tweaked my settings (shadow quality etc) so I could get a bit better frames with similar graphics if I wanted. 

 

Of course in old games like WoW and CS:GO I always get max FPS (165hz with G-Sync)

 

You can see my spec in my signature. 

[mattyt1991]

Thanks for all the responses! 

 

I think I am probably leaning towards a 1440p 144Hz monitor to be honest. 

 

There seem to be pretty mixed responses as to whether the i5 8400 would be much of a bottleneck. I am not totally convinced it would be really, besides, something has to bottleneck doesn't it

[LOST TALE]

Ryzen 2600 has a comparable passmark score and running 60-84 fps on bf1 takes 50% cpu usage, without any oc. I trust my info more than that guy.

10 minutes ago, mattyt1991 said:

Thanks for all the responses! 

 

I think I am probably leaning towards a 1440p 144Hz monitor to be honest. 

 

There seem to be pretty mixed responses as to whether the i5 8400 would be much of a bottleneck. I am not totally convinced it would be really, besides, something has to bottleneck doesn't it

I would prefer 90fps 1440p over 144 1080p. The fps loss seems to be less than pixel multiplier, a doubling in pixels only requires 50% more processing power. so actually it looks like this:

 

1080p 120fps, 1440p 80fps, 4k 53fps

 

if you care about not being blind with far away objects, 

 

you can go on isthisretina.com and unzoom until the text is pixel tin and see how good your vision is. then do arithmetic to find out how well you'll see the monitors from your chosen sitting distance.

 

I'm a resolution guy, besides the fact that the comprable 4k monitor was half the price of the 144hz 1440p ones.

[Husky]

I would go for 1440p. Especially since the RX 5700 XT seems to do very well with that resolution.

Your CPU may be a problem and cause a bottleneck in certain games. I have an i7 6700K that is overclocked and it bottlenecks my R9 390X in some games, especially Battlefield V where it is pegged at 100% utilization the whole game.

 

If you play other games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, your CPU becomes less of an issue and you probably don't need to worry too much, but as multiplayer games such as the Battlefield series get more advanced, you may need to look into upgrading your CPU sometime in the future.

[mattyt1991]

11 minutes ago, Husky said:

I would go for 1440p. Especially since the RX 5700 XT seems to do very well with that resolution.

Your CPU may be a problem and cause a bottleneck in certain games. I have an i7 6700K that is overclocked and it bottlenecks my R9 390X in some games, especially Battlefield V where it is pegged at 100% utilization the whole game.

 

If you play other games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, your CPU becomes less of an issue and you probably don't need to worry too much, but as multiplayer games such as the Battlefield series get more advanced, you may need to look into upgrading your CPU sometime in the future.

Yeah that is going to be my tactic i think. Any suggestions on what a good CPU would be for a Z370 mobo and just wanted to use air cooling? I have a cryorig H7.

[Zando_]

4 minutes ago, mattyt1991 said:

Yeah that is going to be my tactic i think. Any suggestions on what a good CPU would be for a Z370 mobo and just wanted to use air cooling? I have a cryorig H7.

Wait till you actually have issues, then hunt for a used i7 8700K (they're still killer chips 2 years after their release). 8400 should do fine for most games though, I didn't have much issue using mine with a Radeon VII at 1080p. And that was on literally the cheapest H310 mobo I could find, with super basic 2400Mhz RAM. 

[Husky]

1 minute ago, mattyt1991 said:

Yeah that is going to be my tactic i think. Any suggestions on what a good CPU would be for a Z370 mobo and just wanted to use air cooling? I have a cryorig H7.

Your only upgrade options on that platform would be a newer Core i7 or something like that, but I think you should keep your current CPU until it becomes an issue and then just jump ship to an AMD platform. Depending on what games you play, you might be able to hold out on your current CPU until DDR5 and AM5 becomes a thing.

 

But I say don't worry too much about your CPU at the moment (just know that it may become a weak point later), and just enjoy 1440p. As I said, depending on what games you end up playing, you could need a new CPU very soon, or you could only need one in a year or two.