Can an rx5600xt support 1440p 60fps gaming

[Flyingchickennugget27]

i have an rx 5600 xt and a 24" 1080p 144hz monitor, i want to upgrade my monitor to a 27" 1440p 165hz monitor but idk if my gpu can handle it, can my gpu play games at 60fps 1440p, i play games like rdr2, gtav, battlefield 5, cod cold war and some other games with lower requirements

[Zando_]

Timestamped to the start of the benchmark numbers:

HWUB shows the numbers for both 1080p and 1440p, take a gaggle and see if those numbers are acceptable then pull the trigger. They mention the settings they run so if you run lower ones you'll get higher fps, so keep that in mind. 

[Entropy.]

2 minutes ago, Flyingchickennugget27 said:

i have an rx 5600 xt and a 24" 1080p 144hz monitor, i want to upgrade my monitor to a 27" 1440p 165hz monitor but idk if my gpu can handle it, can my gpu play games at 60fps 1440p, i play games like rdr2, gtav, battlefield 5, cod cold war and some other games with lower requirements

Depends on your settings. You might not get 60fps on max or very high settings on those more intensive games, especially with mods. However, it's not going to be too hard to get 60fps+ provided the settings are reasonable. 1440p high refresh is a little beyond the 5600xt sometimes, but you should usually be fine, especially on the less intensive titles. On the more intensive titles, Just play around with the settings and see what works.

[LOST TALE]

You can usually double fps or triple res if you go from ultra to a blend of low with ultra textures.

so 1080p ultra = 1800p low

1080p60 ultra = 1080p120 low

 

4k has been playable for ages, but everyone is stuck with their subjectively superior mega leet pro shaders 9000. 

[Mister Woof]

It should be able to if you tune your settings appropriately. 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, LOST TALE said:

You can usually double fps or triple res if you go from ultra to a blend of low with ultra textures.

so 1080p ultra = 1800p low

1080p60 ultra = 1080p120 low

 

4k has been playable for ages, but everyone is stuck with their subjectively superior mega leet pro shaders 9000. 

I'm mean the problem is that alot of times 1440p very high detail looks better than 4k with medium detail yet the 4k is still harder to run. Sure you run 4k but unless you can do so at high detail you are better off playing at 1440p and high refreshrate with high detail settings. I mean I love my 4k monitor but unless I can play it at high detail settings with decent fps I usually simply play it on my high refreshrate monitor. Granted my 4k monitor is also 120hz(technically can do 144hz with compression but that doesn't count to me) the chances of my hitting 120 fps at 4k is near impossible on any modern game that I would be interested in playing at 4k. 

[Brooksie359]

14 minutes ago, Flyingchickennugget27 said:

i have an rx 5600 xt and a 24" 1080p 144hz monitor, i want to upgrade my monitor to a 27" 1440p 165hz monitor but idk if my gpu can handle it, can my gpu play games at 60fps 1440p, i play games like rdr2, gtav, battlefield 5, cod cold war and some other games with lower requirements

I would always say that you buy the monitor you want and you can always grow into it. I may upgrade my gpu evey 2 to 4 years but I often keep my monitors far longer than that. You may not be able to fully utilize the 1440p 165hz monitor now but you could in some games and you can always upgrade your gpu later take full advantage of it. Also its not like you have to get rid of the 1080p monitor as it could be your second monitor for games that you want to play competitively and want higher fps. 

[Mister Woof]

More games are also starting to support CAS Fidelity FX which can help improve performance a tiny bit.

 

Then there's also some other tricks with reducing render scale and increasing sharpening in the driver.

[LOST TALE]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I'm mean the problem is that alot of times 1440p very high detail looks better than 4k with medium detail yet the 4k is still harder to run. Sure you run 4k but unless you can do so at high detail you are better off playing at 1440p and high refreshrate with high detail settings. I mean I love my 4k monitor but unless I can play it at high detail settings with decent fps I usually simply play it on my high refreshrate monitor. Granted my 4k monitor is also 120hz(technically can do 144hz with compression but that doesn't count to me) the chances of my hitting 120 fps at 4k is near impossible on any modern game that I would be interested in playing at 4k. 

This is only true if you look at close range detail, and is fatally wrong if you look at long range detail. The detail level is as good as the lowest of detail res, res and eyesight. And most of the time spent focusing on detail during action is exclusively on far away targets where 4k becomes the bottleneck as close as 10 meters away meaning anything less than 4k looks like utter garbage. Just do the math and see how objects quickly  are covered by less than standard definition as they move away from your character.

 

I will admit that framerate is a bigger problem with target tracking than I thought. And the mesh setting makes a huge difference in BF1. However, details are almost always non-functional, whereas both res and fps are function. and to be honest, res is mostly about me not experiencing the game as if I'm visually handicapped and can't resolve detail at a distance.

 

As things stand if I had extra money after maxing a monitor on low details, I would spend it on increasing hz and res and zero for details.

[LOST TALE]

If you look at something that covers an 8th of a 4k screen, you're down to 720p, 16th, down to 480p. I hope you're smart enough to know the difference including when  when you put on eye glasses not meant for you. Avoiding shit eyesight is more important than shadows looking 'different'.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, LOST TALE said:

This is only true if you look at close range detail, and is fatally wrong if you look at long range detail. The detail level is as good as the lowest of detail res, res and eyesight. And most of the time spent focusing on detail during action is exclusively on far away targets where 4k becomes the bottleneck as close as 10 meters away meaning anything less than 4k looks like utter garbage. Just do the math and see how objects quickly  are covered by less than standard definition as they move away from your character.

 

I will admit that framerate is a bigger problem with target tracking than I thought. And the mesh setting makes a huge difference in BF1. However, details are almost always non-functional, whereas both res and fps are function. and to be honest, res is mostly about me not experiencing the game as if I'm visually handicapped and can't resolve detail at a distance.

 

As things stand if I had extra money after maxing a monitor on low details, I would spend it on increasing hz and res and zero for details.

I would have to very much disagree with you. I have both a 4k monitor and a 1080p 360hz monitor and honestly the 360hz monitor is better for playing most games 99% of the time. Sure 4k is nice and pretty but I would much prefer having an experience where it is much more fluid. I have never had issues making out details on my 360hz monitor especially because it's so fluid that you can pick on any motion so much easier and you don't feel like you eyes are seeing a sideshow because honestly 60 fps 4k is basically a sideshow compared to 1080p 360hz. 

[LOST TALE]

19 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would have to very much disagree with you. I have both a 4k monitor and a 1080p 360hz monitor and honestly the 360hz monitor is better for playing most games 99% of the time. Sure 4k is nice and pretty but I would much prefer having an experience where it is much more fluid. I have never had issues making out details on my 360hz monitor especially because it's so fluid that you can pick on any motion so much easier and you don't feel like you eyes are seeing a sideshow because honestly 60 fps 4k is basically a sideshow compared to 1080p 360hz. 

have never had issues making out details. well you don't experience it as issues but fact is you don't see as much details on almost everything on screen. It doesn't seem something you care about. I play wargame airline battle (allows huge zoom out) and battlefield. It had a huge effect AC origin (purely aesthetic past 1080p) and Fallout NV (a bit functional but mostly aesthetic here) too. What games do you play?

 

Notable visual examples are textures in older games looking amazing at 10+m (since modern games look no better due to res bottleneck) and fences or wooden bars on bf1 airplanes. anything you would expect to look better from 144p to 240p applies to the whole image, except textures that are really close and exceeded by rendering res.

 

Anything with alternations between an object and background are heavily affected, with tree branches, you can see branch, background, branch, and at lower res, or if you step back enough, you can only see a blob.

 

Also enemy detection of aircraft extends farther because even if it's visible in 1080p or 1440p, if it's too low res for the form of an airplane to stand out, it will be missed for much longer. Direction and type of an aircraft can be seen sooner, loadout too. I will admit the aircraft it blind if rotating because of MPRT smearing which is something I didn't expect when I bought 4k. 

 

I can spot things sometimes dozens of seconds before others do, it's a bit comical sometimes. 

 

Now a lot of less demanding games can pull high frame rates at 4k or even 1800p and these may be a better combination than 1080p360. I will say I only ever played 75hz and I can imagine the immense benefits of higher frame rate (144hz 1440p was 2x the cost of freesynched 4k60 at my time). I have trouble tracking targets and the MPRT smearing makes long range vision blurry if moving too fast on screen.

 

Going back to my original comment, I care more about how well I see something than how good it looks. 

[LOST TALE]

If you brought up 1080p240 and 4k60 I would have commented that it would have been cheaper to have a single 4k240hz screen if DP2.0 didn't take so long with all the 4k booing.

 

I think asus already has the tech for freesynched with the ultramotion thing at 4k240. Then I can choose based on the game without moving around monitors which seems like a huge inconvence. I also don't play or desire to play competitively so most players get owned anyway and higher fps would only really make a difference in more hardcore (old weapons with long reload or sniping) situations or against a marginal small % of players. 

[Brooksie359]

22 minutes ago, LOST TALE said:

have never had issues making out details. well you don't experience it as issues but fact is you don't see as much details on almost everything on screen. It doesn't seem something you care about. I play wargame airline battle (allows huge zoom out) and battlefield. It had a huge effect AC origin (purely aesthetic past 1080p) and Fallout NV (a bit functional but mostly aesthetic here) too. What games do you play?

 

Notable visual examples are textures in older games looking amazing at 10+m (since modern games look no better due to res bottleneck) and fences or wooden bars on bf1 airplanes. anything you would expect to look better from 144p to 240p applies to the whole image, except textures that are really close and exceeded by rendering res.

 

Anything with alternations between an object and background are heavily affected, with tree branches, you can see branch, background, branch, and at lower res, or if you step back enough, you can only see a blob.

 

Also enemy detection of aircraft extends farther because even if it's visible in 1080p or 1440p, if it's too low res for the form of an airplane to stand out, it will be missed for much longer. Direction and type of an aircraft can be seen sooner, loadout too. I will admit the aircraft it blind if rotating because of MPRT smearing which is something I didn't expect when I bought 4k. 

 

I can spot things sometimes dozens of seconds before others do, it's a bit comical sometimes. 

 

Now a lot of less demanding games can pull high frame rates at 4k or even 1800p and these may be a better combination than 1080p360. I will say I only ever played 75hz and I can imagine the immense benefits of higher frame rate (144hz 1440p was 2x the cost of freesynched 4k60 at my time). I have trouble tracking targets and the MPRT smearing makes long range vision blurry if moving too fast on screen.

 

Going back to my original comment, I care more about how well I see something than how good it looks. 

I play battlefield 5 and 1 and have done so at 4k and 1080p and without a doubt I preform better at 1080p 360hz. Its not even close. You can make out miniscule movements and its so much easier to track people meaning you are actually hitting them more often. Also at high refreshrate you are going to be able to see and aim down the sights and shooting faster than someone playing at 4k 99% of the time if both of you have similar reflexes and ping. have never had the issue that I can't make things out in 1080p that I would at 4k especially when most of the time there are things like scope glare that make anything at super far ranges super noticeable. And I would imagine in the game you say you make out the enemy dozen of seconds earlier is a an outlier as most games high res won't make much of a difference and often times high refreshrate makes up for that as you can clearly see movements significantly better. There is also a reason that almost all competitive fps players play at 1080p high refreshrate. If 4k was better than they obviously would play at that resolution. It hard to because battlefield does look amazing at 4k but honestly high refreshrate just generally feel better to play at the end of the day. 

[Brooksie359]

30 minutes ago, LOST TALE said:

If you brought up 1080p240 and 4k60 I would have commented that it would have been cheaper to have a single 4k240hz screen if DP2.0 didn't take so long with all the 4k booing.

 

I think asus already has the tech for freesynched with the ultramotion thing at 4k240. Then I can choose based on the game without moving around monitors which seems like a huge inconvence. I also don't play or desire to play competitively so most players get owned anyway and higher fps would only really make a difference in more hardcore (old weapons with long reload or sniping) situations or against a marginal small % of players. 

It would not have been cheaper in the least. I can almost guarantee that a 4k 240hz monitor would be so expensive it would cost significantly more than 4k 60hz monitor and a 1080p 240hz monitor. You can find a 4k 60hz monitor for less than 400 dollars. You can buy a 1080p 240 hz monitor for less than 400 dollars as well. A 4k 144hz monitor cost 900 dollars so 240hz would undoubtedly be more expensive than that so I would imagine the starting price to be easily over a thousand dollars. 

[LOST TALE]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I play battlefield 5 and 1 and have done so at 4k and 1080p and without a doubt I preform better at 1080p 360hz. Its not even close. You can make out miniscule movements and its so much easier to track people meaning you are actually hitting them more often. Also at high refreshrate you are going to be able to see and aim down the sights and shooting faster than someone playing at 4k 99% of the time if both of you have similar reflexes and ping. have never had the issue that I can't make things out in 1080p that I would at 4k especially when most of the time there are things like scope glare that make anything at super far ranges super noticeable. And I would imagine in the game you say you make out the enemy dozen of seconds earlier is a an outlier as most games high res won't make much of a difference and often times high refreshrate makes up for that as you can clearly see movements significantly better. There is also a reason that almost all competitive fps players play at 1080p high refreshrate. If 4k was better than they obviously would play at that resolution. It hard to because battlefield does look amazing at 4k but honestly high refreshrate just generally feel better to play at the end of the day. 

nearly all competitive games are close range. long range vision can be bridged by communication, doritos and scopes.

 

As for battlefield, I find it hard to believe you see enemies at any distance with 1080p unless you use a scope or have a very proficient brain vision. Even if something is technically visible, I will easily mistake it for background or something else. I experience higher res exactly as being zoomed in, but without the loss of peripheral vision. 

 

That game is blazing sails, you sail and I can see ships and items father. 

 

The price difference to manufacture 4k of 1440p is very low. only reason we don't have it sooner is because of bad mouthing. I've never seen someone outside of a videoproducer make the case for 4k. 

[Brooksie359]

37 minutes ago, LOST TALE said:

If you brought up 1080p240 and 4k60 I would have commented that it would have been cheaper to have a single 4k240hz screen if DP2.0 didn't take so long with all the 4k booing.

 

I think asus already has the tech for freesynched with the ultramotion thing at 4k240. Then I can choose based on the game without moving around monitors which seems like a huge inconvence. I also don't play or desire to play competitively so most players get owned anyway and higher fps would only really make a difference in more hardcore (old weapons with long reload or sniping) situations or against a marginal small % of players. 

If anything maybe 1440p 240hz would have been the sweet spot but honestly I think I like my current setup. If I want to play a game that is more about nice visuals then I can choose to do so but if I want to play ultra competitive I can simply switch to my 1080p monitor as enjoy that as well. 

[LOST TALE]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

It would not have been cheaper in the least. I can almost guarantee that a 4k 240hz monitor would be so expensive it would cost significantly more than 4k 60hz monitor and a 1080p 240hz monitor. You can find a 4k 60hz monitor for less than 400 dollars. You can buy a 1080p 240 hz monitor for less than 400 dollars as well. A 4k 144hz monitor cost 900 dollars so 240hz would undoubtedly be more expensive than that so I would imagine the starting price to be easily over a thousand dollars. 

is that 240hz monitor IPS? last time I checked 1440p144, I had to pay 100$ extra for the smooth IPS hentai color curves

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, LOST TALE said:

is that 240hz monitor IPS? last time I checked 1440p144, I had to pay 100$ extra for the smooth IPS hentai color curves

Yes it is ips. Actually most of the newer 240 hz 1080p monitors are ips same with my 360hz monitor. Granted my 360 hz monitor is much more expensive at 800 bucks but honestly the colors and visuals look stunning on it and it comes with it color calibrated. For the 1440p 240hz that is probably one of the best buys for monitors right now it is actually VA with surprisingly good latency that you wouldn't expect from a VA panel. If I were to buy now that might be what I would get but I have had my 4k monitor for a long time and at the time the best option available was a 1440p 165hz which tbh I had bought but wasn't impressed enough over my 1080p 240hz at the time so I bought a 4k monitor to have the option of high res or high refreshrate. Granted my 4k monitor can do 120hz but honestly I rarely try and push that. 

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, LOST TALE said:

nearly all competitive games are close range. long range vision can be bridged by communication, doritos and scopes.

 

As for battlefield, I find it hard to believe you see enemies at any distance with 1080p unless you use a scope or have a very proficient brain vision. Even if something is technically visible, I will easily mistake it for background or something else. I experience higher res exactly as being zoomed in, but without the loss of peripheral vision. 

 

That game is blazing sails, you sail and I can see ships and items father. 

 

The price difference to manufacture 4k of 1440p is very low. only reason we don't have it sooner is because of bad mouthing. I've never seen someone outside of a videoproducer make the case for 4k. 

I do generally have scopes for longer ranges but honestly even at 4k I would do the same. And things hardly are able to blend into the background when play at super high refreshrate as you can easily make out movements so as soon as someone moves you can tell its not the background but actually a person. I have had countless times where someone is hiding somewhere where even at 4k you likely wouldn't tell like in grass or bushes but once they move to start shooting i can tell and start shooting back before they can simply because of the higher refresh rate. I mean even the action of aiming down the sight of a weapon makes people move and can be made out at ultra high refreshrate. 

[LOST TALE]

16 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes it is ips. Actually most of the newer 240 hz 1080p monitors are ips same with my 360hz monitor. Granted my 360 hz monitor is much more expensive at 800 bucks but honestly the colors and visuals look stunning on it and it comes with it color calibrated. For the 1440p 240hz that is probably one of the best buys for monitors right now it is actually VA with surprisingly good latency that you wouldn't expect from a VA panel. If I were to buy now that might be what I would get but I have had my 4k monitor for a long time and at the time the best option available was a 1440p 165hz which tbh I had bought but wasn't impressed enough over my 1080p 240hz at the time so I bought a 4k monitor to have the option of high res or high refreshrate. Granted my 4k monitor can do 120hz but honestly I rarely try and push that. 

what was the rated refresh rate on your 4k then?

How much more expensive would a 4k verison fo the 1440p be though? 100$ 150$? I think. atleast once dp 2.0 is out for good. These hdmi 2.0 cards are goign to feel like pre 4k display standard cards.

[LOST TALE]

16 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I do generally have scopes for longer ranges but honestly even at 4k I would do the same. And things hardly are able to blend into the background when play at super high refreshrate as you can easily make out movements so as soon as someone moves you can tell its not the background but actually a person. I have had countless times where someone is hiding somewhere where even at 4k you likely wouldn't tell like in grass or bushes but once they move to start shooting i can tell and start shooting back before they can simply because of the higher refresh rate. I mean even the action of aiming down the sight of a weapon makes people move and can be made out at ultra high refreshrate. 

Interesting, do you sometimes miss long range moving targets in 4k whereas you wouldn't on 1080p360?

 

Also is the jump from 240 to 360 material in terms of clarity and functionality? I would think so.

[Brooksie359]

13 minutes ago, LOST TALE said:

Interesting, do you sometimes miss long range moving targets in 4k whereas you wouldn't on 1080p360?

 

Also is the jump from 240 to 360 material in terms of clarity and functionality? I would think so.

I would say 360hz from 240hz is noticeable but not enough for everyone to go out and buy a 800 dollar monitor if they already own a 240hz. I had one of the early tn versions of the 240hz monitor so stepping up to 360hz along with a really good ips panel was a significant difference. It does feel alot smoother for sure but if you aren't someone who plays competitive fps games im not sure you would be able to appreciate it as much. I mean you would still get that crazy smooth experience but some might think its underwhelming depending on the games they play. Like if you play an rts game you likely wouldn't be able to tell much if a difference at all. It is really mostly first person games where you move alot where it really shines. As for seeing people at long range at 4k vs 1080p I would say that yeah there are definitely times where I see subtle movements on my 360hz monitor that I wouldn't pick up at 4k simply because its only a couple of frames of movement on the 360hz while on the 60hz it might not even be 1 frame. 

[Brooksie359]

21 minutes ago, LOST TALE said:

what was the rated refresh rate on your 4k then?

How much more expensive would a 4k verison fo the 1440p be though? 100$ 150$? I think. atleast once dp 2.0 is out for good. These hdmi 2.0 cards are goign to feel like pre 4k display standard cards.

My 4k monitor does 144hz with compression but can do 120hz without. If i want to do hdr10 then I have to switch to 10 bit color and then I have to switch to 98hz. Honestly the best part about the monitor is the hdr10 and some games if I want to play in crazy good visuals in hdr I would switch to my 4k. It has 1000 nit peak brightness so its legit hdr vs some of lower end peak brightness hdr.