[SOLVED] How "Future-Proof" is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT with 1440p and 144Hz?

Sep 23, 2019
7
0
10
0
Hello together,

so I'm planning on buying a new graphics card together with a new monitor. Currently im running on a GTX 970 with a 24" Full-HD 60Hz display.
My plan was to go for a Radeon RX 5700 XT (Sapphire Pulse or Powercolour Red Devil) and together with that, get a new display. For the display, I wanted to buy a 27", 1440p, 144Hz display (MSI Optix MAG271CQR), so I can also enjoy WQHD.

Now the consensus in the Internet seems to be, that the RX 5700 XT is sufficient to run on 1440p with decent frame-rates. I checked a lot of benchmarks and it seems, depending on the game you get between 50 (e.g. Anno 1800, Tomb Raider) to 100 (e.g. Far Cry, Battlefield V) FPS. Actually a lot of the results of newer AAA games vary around the magic 60 FPS mark.
Now I'm not a FPS junky, but I need at least constant 50 (rather 60) FPS, to enjoy my games.

So I feel like that today's games can run in the mentioned setup (5700XT, 1440p) - however if I see that already a lot of games run with a maximum of 60FPS I get a little bit afraid, that I may need to upgrade my graphics card very soon.

I know that there are always more powerful graphics cards, but actually I don't want to spend more than 450€ on this, so a RTX 2080 is unfortunately not an option.
So, what is your take on this? How future-proof do you think the RX 5700 XT is? My expectancy is, that I should be fine at least for the next 2-3 years (playing on 1440p, High Details, >50FPS).
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
It does play a role. But with Freesync and an AMD card, it should work fine even at lower FPS which is kind of the point. Also at higher FPS than 144. Obviously, with a 144hz display you kind of WANT to come as close as you can to that target FPS, because things will be smoother and there will be less requirement for the adaptive sync to play as much of a role. Honestly, I can't say I know for sure how capable, first hand anyhow, that XT actually is, but this seems to suggest that it can do what you are in need of it doing, pretty handily.

Those seem to be well above 60fps, the majority much higher in the 90-120fps category, even with mostly Ultra settings at 1440p. Dropping to high settings, which honestly still generally looks pretty superb on a 1440p display, probably nets you closer to the the target 144fps and at worst, likely well above the 60fps mark on just about everything. There might be a few really specific games that it struggles more with such as the scores on Metro weren't very good, but still good enough to be easily playable and on any games like that you can always make some in game adjustment to perk things up.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx_5700-rx_5700_xt,6216-2.html

The thing that MIGHT be a factor, is your Ryzen 1700, which is a lot less capable than the 12 thread Coffee lake CPU used in that review, in some ways, but having four more threads than that CPU, might also be MORE capable in others. It's single core performance isn't nearly as good so anything using 12 or fewer threads including the operating system, system processes, streaming applications or whatever else is going on at the time, will not be as good. Anything requiring more than that, or favoring the actual two additional physical cores on your 1700 compared to the six physical cores on the i7, will show up though. Overall, it's probably a fairly decent representation of what you could expect to see although obviously a similarly cored model with higher IPC/single core performance is going to pick those numbers up somewhat so that might be something you want to do at some point.

Even a 6/12 Ryzen 3600x outperforms your current CPU in both single and multicore performance, so that's something you'll want to think about if your FPS end up not living up to your expectations.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/2970vs3494

For 230 bucks, it's a nice quick upgrade.

For an even better option, at some point, the 3700x for another hundred bucks gives you two more cores and four more threads, plus a bump in clock speed, so that's something to think about as well.
 
Reactions: dotas1 and Flipp147

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
What kind of FPS you get is entirely dependent on how flexible you are with your quality settings requirements and what CPU you have.

What are you full hardware specs including CPU, motherboard, memory, case, case cooling, etc.? Those are all factors.

With the right CPU and memory configuration, and if you are willing to drop a few settings down on very demanding games, there is no reason you can't meet your FPS requirements. But if you have a CPU that just isn't capable enough of doing that, then it doesn't matter WHAT graphics card you get, it won't happen. Also, if you require Ultra everything, at 1440p, then you are probably going to get let down occasionally. Really overall 60fps at 1440p with that card should pretty pretty attainable, all other things being capable enough.
 
Reactions: Flipp147
Sep 23, 2019
7
0
10
0
What kind of FPS you get is entirely dependent on how flexible you are with your quality settings requirements and what CPU you have.

What are you full hardware specs including CPU, motherboard, memory, case, case cooling, etc.? Those are all factors.

With the right CPU and memory configuration, and if you are willing to drop a few settings down on very demanding games, there is no reason you can't meet your FPS requirements. But if you have a CPU that just isn't capable enough of doing that, then it doesn't matter WHAT graphics card you get, it won't happen. Also, if you require Ultra everything, at 1440p, then you are probably going to get let down occasionally. Really overall 60fps at 1440p with that card should pretty pretty attainable, all other things being capable enough.
Thanks for the quick response!
Yeah you are right, -> I should have mentioned, that I mean this considering there is no other Bottleneck. Currently I am running an Ryzen 1700 (OC to 3.8GHz). However I am willing to upgrade the CPU if it becomes the problem.

I mean I don't neet Ultra on everything but I would at least expect that I can run most things on High - what I don't want is to have to play around the graphics settings all the time.

Does the FreeSync Range of the display also play a role in this? The monitor I have chosen just has 48Hz-144Hz?
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
It does play a role. But with Freesync and an AMD card, it should work fine even at lower FPS which is kind of the point. Also at higher FPS than 144. Obviously, with a 144hz display you kind of WANT to come as close as you can to that target FPS, because things will be smoother and there will be less requirement for the adaptive sync to play as much of a role. Honestly, I can't say I know for sure how capable, first hand anyhow, that XT actually is, but this seems to suggest that it can do what you are in need of it doing, pretty handily.

Those seem to be well above 60fps, the majority much higher in the 90-120fps category, even with mostly Ultra settings at 1440p. Dropping to high settings, which honestly still generally looks pretty superb on a 1440p display, probably nets you closer to the the target 144fps and at worst, likely well above the 60fps mark on just about everything. There might be a few really specific games that it struggles more with such as the scores on Metro weren't very good, but still good enough to be easily playable and on any games like that you can always make some in game adjustment to perk things up.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx_5700-rx_5700_xt,6216-2.html

The thing that MIGHT be a factor, is your Ryzen 1700, which is a lot less capable than the 12 thread Coffee lake CPU used in that review, in some ways, but having four more threads than that CPU, might also be MORE capable in others. It's single core performance isn't nearly as good so anything using 12 or fewer threads including the operating system, system processes, streaming applications or whatever else is going on at the time, will not be as good. Anything requiring more than that, or favoring the actual two additional physical cores on your 1700 compared to the six physical cores on the i7, will show up though. Overall, it's probably a fairly decent representation of what you could expect to see although obviously a similarly cored model with higher IPC/single core performance is going to pick those numbers up somewhat so that might be something you want to do at some point.

Even a 6/12 Ryzen 3600x outperforms your current CPU in both single and multicore performance, so that's something you'll want to think about if your FPS end up not living up to your expectations.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/2970vs3494

For 230 bucks, it's a nice quick upgrade.

For an even better option, at some point, the 3700x for another hundred bucks gives you two more cores and four more threads, plus a bump in clock speed, so that's something to think about as well.
 
Reactions: dotas1 and Flipp147
Sep 23, 2019
7
0
10
0
Hey!

Thanks for the detailled answer again! Yeah the plan when I bought the 1700 back then was, that I could upgrade it to a 3600/3700 with no issues because of the socket.

Anyhow, I feel kinda confident with the RX 5700 TX now :) I mean I dont need all that Ultra/Extreme stuff, High should be enough.

However, I have a follow-up question on the Monitor. As stated above I am worrying a bit ouf Freesync.
So I have one monitor which I actually wanted to get:

iiyama G-MASTER GB2760QSU-B1 Red Eagle (Freesync 40Hz - 144Hz)

However, somehow I am also thinking about a Curved display, so I found the

MSI Optix MAG271CQR (Freesync 48Hz - 144Hz)

Both seem to be fine, but now I am a bit worried about the Freesync-Range of the MSI Monitor.

Could this become an issue?

//edit: I checked - both monitors have LFC - does it even matter then?
 
Last edited:

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Personally, just about everybody I've talked to that has tried the curved displays, does not like them for gaming. Have you sat in front of one on somebody else's system or in a store, to get a feel for it? I did, and I hated it. Everybody is different though, but if you haven't then I would do that FIRST because it's a PITA to return stuff you buy online, if you buy online, at least in some cases and depending on who the seller is.

What size display are you looking for, and what is your budget for the display?

What market (Country/Region) are you in?
 

dotas1

Reputable
Dec 5, 2015
1,239
78
5,790
197
Personally, just about everybody I've talked to that has tried the curved displays, does not like them for gaming. Have you sat in front of one on somebody else's system or in a store, to get a feel for it? I did, and I hated it. Everybody is different though, but if you haven't then I would do that FIRST because it's a PITA to return stuff you buy online, if you buy online, at least in some cases and depending on who the seller is.

What size display are you looking for, and what is your budget for the display?

What market (Country/Region) are you in?
I respectfully disagree with your opinion about curved monitors.
Most people that have used curved monitors find them better and after a few days, they can not notice the curve (me included). I happen to own 5 flat and 3 curved monitors. I definitely prefer the curved ones for any purpose (video, browsing, gaming). Most of my friends are switching to curved because they find it better as well.

MSI Optix MAG271CQR : This monitor is the one my best friend currently uses. He likes it a lot and he is very satisfied. His main use is browsing the net, word and excel. Secondarily for gaming, movies etc.
 
Sep 23, 2019
7
0
10
0
I think curved will come down to a matter of taste in the end.

About the display general: I am looking for 27", 1440p, 144Hz and I wanted to cap the money I spend on 400€ (living in Germany).

What confuses me is the fact, that I thought curved monitors need to be way more expensive than the flat ones. If I have a look at the MSI Optix MAG271CQR, I can get it for 350€. Does this mean I will have some major drawbacks in other parts of the monitor or is this maybe just a good/cheap price for the device?

I am a bit torn apart about the MSI. I hear some people say that MSI "is not able to build monitors" and that the display is too slow (since its VA). On the other hand I have some reviews at hand which actually testify this monitor as a good and fast gaming monitor (e.g. here on tomshardware.com also on rtings.com - both sites are legitimate sources imo).

Or should I rather expand my budged for now so I can save money later...?
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
That MSI monitor your friend likes a lot, must be that he hasn't ever actually used a good monitor, because it has lousy reviews. In fact, Rtings says it has very poor black uniformity, and that's pathetic for a VA panel because that's what they are typically BEST at.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/msi/optix-mag271cqr

So, you can respectfully disagree all you like, but I asked around and talked to a lot of veteran members of this forum before purchasing my current monitor, and went and got a feel for the curved panels, and while I'm sure it's true that you might not notice it as much after getting used to it, it's equally true that you can get used to losing an arm or leg, or driving a three wheeled scooter rather than a car, but it doesn't make either of those things something preferable given my druthers. So, again, as I said, it's likely that it comes down to personal preference and not everybody is going to have an identical one, But practically every person I spoke with is a long time gamer or enthusiast with decades of hardware knowledge and experience under their belts, and all but one person among them gave me the same answer which was that for gaming they didn't like it. Most of them didn't like it for watching movies or video either. Especially if the panel was smaller than 32".

But to each their own and no harm no foul as far as that goes.

If you can make a 32" display work, I'd HIGHLY recommend looking at this one. It is literally one of the very few panels out there that in real world usage has few to no glaring shortcomings anywhere that doesn't cost 600-1000 dollars.

https://www.amazon.de/LG-LG32GK650FB-LED-Bildschirm-Pixel-Schwarz/dp/B07GSFR7FZ/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&keywords=LG+32GK650F-B&qid=1569278729&sr=8-1
 
Sep 23, 2019
7
0
10
0
Thanks again for the in depth Feedback
I feel kinda unsure about the curved now^^. Maybe i will test it in a store or order and return one.
Unfortunately, 32" does not work for me. Are there any 27" recommendations in that price range?
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
I had the same dilemma, because I really wanted a 27" panel too. But after weeks of poring over reviews and asking other moderators and members, that was the only unit I could find that really had no shortcomings. Obviously, you being in a different region somewhat shakes that up a bit too because not everything available there is going to be something I looked at here, and visa versa. Or even able to be used.

Then again, I had a pretty strict requirement that it be Freesync AND have no issues working with G-sync since I have an Nvidia graphics card. Since you have an AMD card, it might be a lot easier to find a display that fits the bill. Let me look again.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Sorry man, from my end this looks like about the best unit I can find that meets all of your criteria and is within your budget. It does however seem to be a pretty decent unit but it does not have gamma controls and poor contrast. But the reviews say the color was so good they really didn't notice any of that and that it's color accuracy out of the box was excellent and really didn't require any calibration at all. I think it's the best option within your budget, for your region in that size. Being limited to 27" really reduces the number of units you have to choose from because the majority of 1440p units these days are larger than 27", still, it's an option. And, it's actually a 155hz panel.

PCPartPicker Part List

Monitor: Dell S2719DGF 27.0" 2560x1440 155 Hz Monitor (€399.95 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Total: €399.95
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-09-24 07:44 CEST+0200



https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dell-s2719dgf-155hz-gaming-monitor,5881-2.html


What I am able to see is a lot different from what might be actually available to you though, so it's possible there are significantly different choices for you in stores or other online sources.
 
Sep 23, 2019
7
0
10
0
Well the Dell Looks nice, however IT seems there are similar issues with black uniformity.
Whats your Take on the
iiyama G-MASTER GB2760QSU-B1 Red Eagle

It seems to have good Reviews and its available at a very good price.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Iiyama is an unknown quantity to me, having never dealt with them much. The only monitor of theirs I've ever seen or used was a professional CRT display, a huge beast of 30" back in the day and considering those were not widescreens, but 4:3 ratio monitors, 30" meant a VERY big display. That unit was good, but I didn't get it new and it likely isn't anything relevant to today's displays. The reviews on that seem mostly good but I do see a couple of reviews saying the color accuracy is terrible. Those might have been bad samples, but that itself can be a problem as some manufacturers make units that are great if you get a good one, but tend to have a too high ratio of bad panels making it out past the QA inspections. Maybe they are one of them. I'm not sure.

They have been around since 1972 though, and a Japanese manufacturer which is strange because MOST panels are manufactured in South Korea. I'd say it's worth a shot. Hopefully you buy it from a retailer that doesn't hassle about taking it back if there's something that's not right.
 
Reactions: Flipp147
Sep 23, 2019
7
0
10
0
Hi,
just a quick update (since I have been a bit busy recently).
I got both monitors (wanted to have a look at both):

The iiyama G-MASTER GB2760QSU-B1 Red Eagle actually seemed nice. Super-fast display, no blur. The colors were just mediocre but it was OK for me. The dealbreaker with this monitor is the coating. It's just so "grizzy" - if I look at a white background it just feels blurry and not sharp at all. So I'm gonna return it.

The MSI Optix MAG271CQR (Freesync 48Hz - 144Hz) also makes a good impression. Really good colours and contrast. However, running the UFO Test I noticed a lot of blur/ghosting. Now I don't know if this will affect me within the games, however (especially compared to the iiyama) it just doesn't seem so good.
Also I have some minor Freesync issues. Everytime I start a game the screen is somehow a bit flickering. When I turn Freesync Off and then On again everything is fine.
I don't know if this is a general freesync issue or if this is only related to the monitor? Maybe someone can answer me that?

Yesterday I did more research (even expanded the price range a bit) but actually the only thing which really strikes my eye is your suggestion. The DELL S2719DGF seems fine according to reviews.
So I also ordered this one (had the option to order it with free return shipment if needed). I expect it to arrive tomorrow.
This means either the DELL really convinces me tomorrow, or I'll just stick with the MSI.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Dell and LG make really good monitors. They use high quality panels and the tech around them is usually done right. Again, ALL monitors pretty much have one weak spot or another, but there are some things you can live with and some things you can't. Both those companies tend to eliminate the things you can't live with and make the things you can minimal. At least in my experience. I'm sure there are plenty of models that are comparable by other manufacturers but I've just had a lot better luck with them. I've had a bunch of Acer monitors as well and while they've been pretty good at first, they tend to develop problems after a while. Dead pixels, white spots on the panel that show up badly on lighter colors. A variety of things.

ASUS is always overpriced. MSI is USUALLY overpriced and has something you have to compromise on in one way or another. AOC and BenQ have some very good products but a lot of their product stack is hit or miss, with the panel you get and the panel I get not being the same experience despite being the same part number. That's my story, and, well, you know the rest...........
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY