Should I even bother...?

[Eighjan]

Is there any point getting an ROG Swift OLED PG27UCDM if all I have to 'drive it' is an RX 9070XT?

I say 'all', as I fear I'm gonna be flooded with responses of "You need a 5090 to drive that!!"; please don't, if you're not prepared to back it up with reasoned support.

"Why are you asking?" I want to game/view content at 4K.
"Current games, no more than 5-10yo?"  No...

Yes, I am looking at upgrading my main platform to AM5/X3D when I get a monitor of this level...

[Dedayog]

9 minutes ago, Eighjan said:

Is there any point getting an ROG Swift OLED PG27UCDM if all I have to 'drive it' is an RX 9070XT?

I say 'all', as I fear I'm gonna be flooded with responses of "You need a 5090 to drive that!!"; please don't, if you're not prepared to back it up with reasoned support.

"Why are you asking?" I want to game/view content at 4K.
"Current games, no more than 5-10yo?"  No...

Yes, I am looking at upgrading my main platform to AM5/X3D when I get a monitor of this level...

While I won't say you need a 5090, my opinion is that 27" is too small for a 4K.  Pixel density isn't noticeable over a 1440p at that size, or if it is it isn't enough to justify the cost.

 

I think with Redstone, the 9070XT can push 4K... okayish.   Should be fine there.

 

But at the end of the day, if you want it.. get it.  Fuck em.

 

[the real sfpour]

I would either get a larger monitor for 4k to be noticable or get 1440p 

[spacepickle]

Go for it. If you aren't playing games newer than 10 years old then the 9070xt will be plenty.

[Omon_Ra]

51 minutes ago, spacepickle said:

Go for it. If you aren't playing games newer than 10 years old then the 9070xt will be plenty.

Yeah, definitely depends on the games you play. Older games and less demanding newer titles on my 7900xt are plenty playable at 4K up to 138hz (my monitor's max refresh rate). Clair Obscur is the newerest game I've been playing and I've had to run that at 1440 for smooth frame rates without having to lean on the FSR/scaling stuff very hard. But older titles and less demanding newer titles I can still run 4K at 138hz fine, even at max/near max settings. But I also agree at 27", you may was well just go with 1440 as far as pixel density.

[spacepickle]

7 minutes ago, Omon_Ra said:

Yeah, definitely depends on the games you play. Older games and less demanding newer titles on my 7900xt are plenty playable at 4K up to 138hz (my monitor's max refresh rate). Clair Obscur is the newerest game I've been playing and I've had to run that at 1440 for smooth frame rates without having to lean on the FSR/scaling stuff very hard. But older titles and less demanding newer titles I can still run 4K at 138hz fine, even at max/near max settings. But I also agree at 27", you may was well just go with 1440 as far as pixel density.

Heck, I'd go so far as to say that 60fps is perfectly fine for most singleplayer stuff. Millions of people play on PS5 after all. I've plugged my 7800xt into 4K tvs before and it's 100% playable every time. 

 

[Eighjan]

8 hours ago, the real sfpour said:

I would either get a larger monitor for 4k to be noticable or get 1440p 

Already got a 27" 1440p/240 monitor; I wouldn't entirely rule out a 32", 4K unit, though... but no bigger.

[Doobeedoo]

Ye sure, I have 4K with 7900 XTX can always tune settings anyway. I wanted 4K but also dual-mode these offer, one reason I went for 32". 

[Omon_Ra]

10 hours ago, spacepickle said:

Heck, I'd go so far as to say that 60fps is perfectly fine for most singleplayer stuff. Millions of people play on PS5 after all. I've plugged my 7800xt into 4K tvs before and it's 100% playable every time. 

 

100% agree. While I prefer to have >60fps if I can, plenty playable at 60 depending on the game. Was mostly using the framerate as a reference that a 7900XT can push higher framerates even at 4K, game/graphics settings dependent. Also my PC/monitor doubles as my 'TV' in my studio apt, so when I'm sitting on my couch, 60fps or dropping down to 1440 if I have to is completely fine.

[Mark Kaine]

On 3/22/2026 at 3:36 AM, Dedayog said:

I think with Redstone, the 9070XT can push 4K... okayish.   

I don't understand this sentiment, I've been playing at "4k" (DSR on a 1080p monitor) over 10 years ago and it never was a problem (with a 1060 lol) what changed? Game optimization? Probably, but then I also rarely encounter that problem, example they said my setup (a 3070 at the time) could barely run MH Wilds at 60fps... yet I was playing at 140+ fps with RAYTRACING... (at 1440p mind you, I can't play at 4k anymore because I stupidly downgraded to a 1440p monitor which makes 4k DSR look like poo because it doesn't scale properly, unlike 1080p... ) 

 

Just saying... I think a high end graphics card should run 4k more than "okay'ish"? Well, hopefully...

 

On 3/22/2026 at 5:47 AM, spacepickle said:

Heck, I'd go so far as to say that 60fps is perfectly fine for most singleplayer stuff. Millions of people play on PS5 after all. I've plugged my 7800xt into 4K tvs before and it's 100% playable every time. 

 

... I know several top 500 Overwatch players who play at 60fps... it's a myth that higher framerates make you play better... truth is being good or bad at comp games is a skill issue and not a framerate issue... the skill gaps are gigantic...

 

So even two pro players one at 60 the other at 100000 fps, there's no telling who's gonna win, there's much more at play, hero skills, map knowledge...

 

I get higher framerates can feel smoother, but the opposite is true also (often game engine limitations etc) 

[Dedayog]

5 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I don't understand this sentiment, I've been playing at "4k" (DSR on a 1080p monitor) over 10 years ago and it never was a problem (with a 1060 lol) what changed? Game optimization? Probably, but then I also rarely encounter that problem, example they said my setup (a 3070 at the time) could barely run MH Wilds at 60fps... yet I was playing at 140+ fps with RAYTRACING... (at 1440p mind you, I can't play at 4k anymore because I stupidly downgraded to a 1440p monitor which makes 4k DSR look like poo because it doesn't scale properly, unlike 1080p... ) 

 

Just saying... I think a high end graphics card should run 4k more than "okay'ish"? Well, hopefully...

 

... I know several top 500 Overwatch players who play at 60fps... it's a myth that higher framerates make you play better... truth is being good or bad at comp games is a skill issue and not a framerate issue... the skill gaps are gigantic...

 

So even two pro players one at 60 the other at 100000 fps, there's no telling who's gonna win, there's much more at play, hero skills, map knowledge...

 

I get higher framerates can feel smoother, but the opposite is true also (often game engine limitations etc) 

Unreal 5 happened.   Other engines happened.  A full base in Enshrouded can bring my 7900XTX to its knees in 1440p UW.  

 

Run Dune or Borderlands 4 in native 4K on that 1060, let me know how it goes.  Hence where the Redstone FSR 4.5 comes in, something has to give us back the frames we're losing.

 

Nature of the beast, games get more and more intense, adding features, more foliage density (see Windrose or New World), textures, etc.

 

If you play games that optimize the multiplayer experience, where LOW gets you 300+ fps then you're fine.  All depends what you're playing.

[spacepickle]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I don't understand this sentiment, I've been playing at "4k" (DSR on a 1080p monitor) over 10 years ago and it never was a problem (with a 1060 lol) what changed? Game optimization? Probably, but then I also rarely encounter that problem, example they said my setup (a 3070 at the time) could barely run MH Wilds at 60fps... yet I was playing at 140+ fps with RAYTRACING... (at 1440p mind you, I can't play at 4k anymore because I stupidly downgraded to a 1440p monitor which makes 4k DSR look like poo because it doesn't scale properly, unlike 1080p... ) 

There is zero chance whatsoever this happened. You might have been playing at minimum settings with RT and DLSS, but there is no way that you got 3 times the framerate that everyone else was getting on the same hardware at the same settings that everyone else was complaining about running poorly. Perhaps you just can’t feel the difference, which is fine. 
 

 

Quote

.. I know several top 500 Overwatch players who play at 60fps... it's a myth that higher framerates make you play better... truth is being good or bad at comp games is a skill issue and not a framerate issue... the skill gaps are gigantic...

Whoa, back up a little bit. That’s interesting that you know top 500 players that are capped at 60fps, but there’s a very real chance that’s capping them from getting any farther. This is also just misinformation in general. There is a lot of skill that needs to be accumulated but even when you’re terrible at a game a framerate jump can help quite a bit. 
 

I haven’t played much Overwatch but I do know that it has hitscan weapons. So if you can put your mouse on a player and click, you’ve shot them. At 60fps you are seeing another  player and where your crosshair was up to 16 milliseconds ago. In a highly competitive game you want your information to be as fresh as possible. If I’m at 60fps I don’t know if this person came through a gap now or 16ms later, which doesn’t sound like a lot but is notable. Perhaps in Overwatch it doesn’t matter so much, but for a lot of games (and probably even heroes within that one) lower fps directly harms player performance.
 

LTT themself did a video on it and concluded that a higher framerate was beneficial. Not the most scientific test but good enough to show a correlation. This graph alone makes it pretty hard to argue that 60fps is just as good. 

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, spacepickle said:

There is zero chance whatsoever this happened. You might have been playing at minimum settings with RT and DLSS, but there is no way that you got 3 times the framerate that everyone else was getting on the same hardware at the same settings

Ofc not, unlike certain "reviewers" I know how game settings work....also I used REframework which removes a lot of the engine overhead...

 

Why in the world would I play a game at mostly sub 60fps when I can play at 120+ with a few tweaks (also turn off volumetric lighting or at least on low, it's traditionally shit in RE engine games) and at HIGH settings instead of MEDIUM?

 

7 minutes ago, spacepickle said:

Whoa, back up a little bit. That’s interesting that you know top 500 players that are capped at 60fps, but there’s a very real chance that’s capping them from getting any farther.

I don't think so, this guy is regularly #1 in any role (if he really tries to) and additionally plays at 960p or something xD. 

 

(you can look up Apply if you want to, but lots of his videos aren't that serious lol)

 

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

Unreal 5 happened.   Other engines happened.  A full base in Enshrouded can bring my 7900XTX to its knees in 1440p UW.  

Ya, I mean that's why I said optimization matters, I do file this a bit under user error tbh, if you *already know* unreal (etc) sucks don't play them...?! (I haven't played a single game you mentioned...)

 

Only unreal game I "recently" played was SF6 and while it ran mostly ok, the story mode was quite the piece of work lol (I also think I had to tone down lighting, but at least I got it to run at 60 locked... )

 

Also that 1060 is old now, you should still be able to play most games at 4k (yes most) with a 2070, 3070 etc.... (might gotta do medium settings, but if you're smart and use DSR you don't need to worry about aliasing so that should still be a good experience)

 

 

 

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

Ofc not, unlike certain "reviewers" I know how game settings work....also I used REframework which removes a lot of the engine overhead...

 

Why in the world would I play a game at mostly sub 60fps when I can play at 120+ with a few tweaks (also turn off volumetric lighting or at least on low, it's traditionally shit in RE engine games) and at HIGH settings instead of MEDIUM?

 

I don't think so, this guy is regularly #1 in any role (if he really tries to) and additionally plays at 960p or something xD. 

 

(you can look up Apply if you want to, but lots of his videos aren't that serious lol)

 

Ya, I mean that's why I said optimization matters, I do file this a bit under user error tbh, if you *already know* unreal (etc) sucks don't play them...?! (I haven't played a single game you mentioned...)

 

Only unreal game I "recently" played was SF6 and while it ran mostly ok, the story mode was quite the piece of work lol (I also think I had to tone down lighting, but at least I got it to run at 60 locked... )

 

Also that 1060 is old now, you should still be able to play most games at 4k (yes most) with a 2070, 3070 etc.... (might gotta do medium settings, but if you're smart and use DSR you don't need to worry about aliasing so that should still be a good experience)

 

 

 

I can't argue with you on this, not because you're right, but because I don't know how to explain what I feel vs what you feel.

 

Never played Enshrouded?  Why not?  It's amazingly well done, the build options are insane, world is multifaceted, and it's just fucking fun!  But If you want to stay in your box and just play games you feel suit a certain level of XYZ... 100% FINE.

 

It's like saying you only eat at Subway, cuz Chipotle is too expensive. Sure, okay.  You're missing out, but then again you don't know what you're missing out on.

 

Tho I would suggest scaling back your opinions and information due to it being SEVERLY lacking.

 

If you can't understand buying a Porsche, that's fine.  If you say buying a Porsche is stupid and they ain't that good.... you've never driven one, so you can't say that.

 

Extrapolating your limited world view and applying it to all other things is just NOT how it works.

 

At least go look at videos of Enshrouded or Windrose and SEE the fidelity that is driving GPU issues.  Head in the sand is no excuse for bad research.

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, Dedayog said:

Never played Enshrouded?  Why not?  It's amazingly well done, the build options are insane, world is multifaceted, and it's just fucking fun!  But If you want to stay in your box and just play games you feel suit a certain level of XYZ... 100% FINE.

Oh, I tried many games because people said how great they are etc... 99.9% I left thoroughly disappointed and more importantly weirded out how anyone could enjoy something like that ...

 

And yes, it's mostly western "AAA" games... (you have no idea how many games I refunded on steam because I either just didn't have fun or found them to be outright trash...) 

 

And of course there are exceptions, but they're just very rare and usually I find those randomly - for example during ps360 era, I really thought I'd hate Resident Evil 5, it looked so "dudebro shooter"... but then I played the demo and was hooked!  Then playing RE HD remake and was even more hooked... (obviously those aren't western games, but the same thing applies, if the game is good and I'm having fun then I'll play it!) 

 

3 hours ago, Dedayog said:

You're missing out, but then again you don't know what you're missing out on.

 

I'm sure everyone is missing out at some point, however in case of the usual AAA slop I know exactly what I'm "missing out" on, and that's a good thing!

 

 

Also frankly I'm unsure how all this relates to the topic?  Yes, ok unoptimized games exist, and I'm saying anyone playing those is part of the problem, either agree or not, not changing my opinion on that.

 

(and funny enough "optimizing" your PC isn't gonna fix that!)

3 hours ago, Dedayog said:

If you can't understand buying a Porsche, that's fine.  If you say buying a Porsche is stupid and they ain't that good.... you've never driven one, so you can't say that.

Yeah.... you lost me there... 

 

At least it's not a Tesla! (unoptimized trash) But both are probably overpriced...  

 

PS: I would buy neither, I'd get a TVR or something, cheaper, and probably more fun!