Is this PC good enough for 1080p 144hz gaming

[emilhorne]

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600x

CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H60

Motherboard: Asus Rog Strix B350-F Gaming

RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000mhz 2x8GB

GPU: XFX Radeon RX 580 8GB GTS - XXX Edition

STORAGE: SSD 500GB Samsung 860 EVO

STORAGE: Seagate Barracuda 1TB

PSU: Corsair RM550x

CASE: Fractal Design Meshify C TG

Want to play games like CS:GO, PUBG, Battlefield and Rainbox Six Siege on a 1080, 144hz display, on high or ultra settings!

Thanks for the help 😉

 

[RememberThe5th]

The thing is if you wanna play on 144Hz monitor you got to achieve 144FPS+ to make it smooth, thats why high refresh rate monitors are used.
What is your budget?

 

[SgtScream]

No, you'll have to go Intel to reach FPS high enough to match the 144hz refresh rate. Sure AMD may hit FPS that high, but it won't be able to sustain it like an intel chip can, due to it's higher single core performance. You'll need an i5 8600k and gtx 1070 minimum to reach sustained 144 fps, when playing performance demanding triple A titles.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

No, you'll have to go Intel to reach FPS high enough to match the 144hz refresh rate. Sure AMD may hit FPS that high, but it won't be able to sustain it like an intel chip can, due to it's higher single core performance. You'll need an i5 8600k and gtx 1070 minimum to reach sustained 144 fps, when playing performance demanding triple A titles.

Please elaborate! I'm interested to know how you came up with that pearl of wisdom!

The suggestion that an AMD CPU cannot hit/sustain 144hz with an appropriate GPU is not true. BTW it's the GPU that will be the enabler for hitting such FPS. Yes, the CPU plays apart, but not like you are suggesting.

An example would be BF1. You are not going to get anywhere near 144hz/FPS with a 580. It's just not gonna happen. That has very little to do with the CPU. It's all about the GPU in that case.

A Ryzen 1600x can drive any high end card out there just fine.

A 1070 will not get any AAA game to 144hz/FPS at 1080p. Even with an 8600k!! Some games like CSGO will most certainly get there, as will others. But not BF1/COD/Wolfenstein etc.

 

[madmatt30]

Rx 580 = mid range gpu.

Itll do 144fps but more between medium & high than high & ultra on anything but csgo - which can be run on far weaker hardware at 150fps+

Likewise the ryzen , on aaa stuff it's more likely to top out at 100fps or therabouts.

I'm not sure with your but a 1600x & a h60 cooler though.

That'll cost more than a 2600x which has a decent stock cooler & much higher boost clocks.

 

[SgtScream]

No, you'll have to go Intel to reach FPS high enough to match the 144hz refresh rate. Sure AMD may hit FPS that high, but it won't be able to sustain it like an intel chip can, due to it's higher single core performance. You'll need an i5 8600k and gtx 1070 minimum to reach sustained 144 fps, when playing performance demanding triple A titles.

Please elaborate! I'm interested to know how you came up with that pearl of wisdom!

The suggestion that an AMD CPU cannot hit/sustain 144hz with an appropriate GPU is not true. BTW it's the GPU that will be the enabler for hitting such FPS. Yes, the CPU plays apart, but not like you are suggesting.

An example would be BF1. You are not going to get anywhere near 144hz/FPS with a 580. It's just not gonna happen. That has very little to do with the CPU. It's all about the GPU in that case.

A Ryzen 1600x can drive any high end card out there just fine.

A 1070 will not get any AAA game to 144hz/FPS at 1080p. Even with an 8600k!! Some games like CSGO will most certainly get there, as will others. But not BF1/COD/Wolfenstein etc.

I'm not here to answer your questions nor do I have to respond to your reply and elaborate as you haven't done so yourself. As I said in my post, for 144hz refresh rate triple A gaming, the hardware above is the absolute minimum. Sure AMD CPUs can drive high end graphics cards at 1440p resolutions or higher, but not at 1080p resolutions. They're severely bottlenecked at 1080p resolution. In fact until graphical performance demands are increased, all CPU's are a bottleneck for cards gtx 1070 and higher at 1080p resolution, as GPU load cannot be pushed to 100%. These cards were meant to push pixels at way higher than 1080p resolutions. The question is, what chip reduces this limitation the most, and the answer will always be intel due to better clock for clock IPC and the ability to reach frequencies of 5ghz or higher when overclocked (Not to mention most if not all game engines are better optimized for intel chips, as AMD Ryzen hasn't been out long enough).

 

[ElectrO_90]

No, you'll have to go Intel to reach FPS high enough to match the 144hz refresh rate. Sure AMD may hit FPS that high, but it won't be able to sustain it like an intel chip can, due to it's higher single core performance. You'll need an i5 8600k and gtx 1070 minimum to reach sustained 144 fps, when playing performance demanding triple A titles.

Please elaborate! I'm interested to know how you came up with that pearl of wisdom!

The suggestion that an AMD CPU cannot hit/sustain 144hz with an appropriate GPU is not true. BTW it's the GPU that will be the enabler for hitting such FPS. Yes, the CPU plays apart, but not like you are suggesting.

An example would be BF1. You are not going to get anywhere near 144hz/FPS with a 580. It's just not gonna happen. That has very little to do with the CPU. It's all about the GPU in that case.

A Ryzen 1600x can drive any high end card out there just fine.

A 1070 will not get any AAA game to 144hz/FPS at 1080p. Even with an 8600k!! Some games like CSGO will most certainly get there, as will others. But not BF1/COD/Wolfenstein etc.

I'm not here to answer your questions nor do I have to respond to your reply and elaborate as you haven't done so yourself. As I said in my post, for 144hz refresh rate triple A gaming, the hardware above is the absolute minimum. Sure AMD cards can drive high end graphics cards at 1440p resolutions or higher, but not at 1080p resolutions. They're severely bottlenecked at 1080p resolution. In fact all CPU's are a bottleneck for cards gtx 1070 and higher at 1080p resolution. The question is, what chip reduces this limitation the most, and the answer will always be intel due to better clock for clock IPC and the ability to reach frequencies of 5ghz or higher when overclocked (Not to mention most if not all game engines are better optimized for intel chips, as AMD Ryzen hasn't been out long enough).

You just make things up, don't you....
The 580 Card is more capable than a 1060 - please even check Tomshardware, as yesterday they did another GPU round up. Also, the difference between the top of the range Ryzen and top Intel is less than 5% closer to 2% in most.
As for 144hz, the GPU will be more than capable of pushing 100 in most games, depending on settings.
You can only get better if you spend more money on then 1070, then you can start to use the higher settings, but you won't be disappointed with a 580.

Most people who comment negatively on AMD is because they have never ever used AMD. Please read independent reviews about the 580 and 1060. You will see the 1060 loses a little to the 580 especially in modern DX12 games.

The 1070 will beat the 580 by quite a bit, and then you get into Vega 56 territory and it's just not worth it any more. It's just too expensive. So if you can get a 1070, get it if not the 580 IS better than a 1060 on most things.

The CPU you have is more than capable to do what you want it to do. If you can upgrade any more then go for the 2600X, if not choose something that is right for your budget. Also your motherboard is guaranteed to support any new chips into 2020. Where as if you go Intel, you probably will have to get a new motherboard by Q1 2019 when they release their next chip. Intels Series 7 chipset, lasted 9 months, no longevity in their products.

I still run Intel it 4790k - happy with it, but the next upgrade I do, won't be Intel, just not worth the extra cash and I don't want a motherboard that will be out of date before the warranty runs out.

Currenly

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

No, you'll have to go Intel to reach FPS high enough to match the 144hz refresh rate. Sure AMD may hit FPS that high, but it won't be able to sustain it like an intel chip can, due to it's higher single core performance. You'll need an i5 8600k and gtx 1070 minimum to reach sustained 144 fps, when playing performance demanding triple A titles.

Please elaborate! I'm interested to know how you came up with that pearl of wisdom!

The suggestion that an AMD CPU cannot hit/sustain 144hz with an appropriate GPU is not true. BTW it's the GPU that will be the enabler for hitting such FPS. Yes, the CPU plays apart, but not like you are suggesting.

An example would be BF1. You are not going to get anywhere near 144hz/FPS with a 580. It's just not gonna happen. That has very little to do with the CPU. It's all about the GPU in that case.

A Ryzen 1600x can drive any high end card out there just fine.

A 1070 will not get any AAA game to 144hz/FPS at 1080p. Even with an 8600k!! Some games like CSGO will most certainly get there, as will others. But not BF1/COD/Wolfenstein etc.

I'm not here to answer your questions nor do I have to respond to your reply and elaborate as you haven't done so yourself. As I said in my post, for 144hz refresh rate triple A gaming, the hardware above is the absolute minimum. Sure AMD cards can drive high end graphics cards at 1440p resolutions or higher, but not at 1080p resolutions. They're severely bottlenecked at 1080p resolution. In fact until graphical performance demands are increased, all CPU's are a bottleneck for cards gtx 1070 and higher at 1080p resolution, as GPU load cannot be pushed to 100%. These cards were meant to push pixels at way higher than 1080p resolutions. The question is, what chip reduces this limitation the most, and the answer will always be intel due to better clock for clock IPC and the ability to reach frequencies of 5ghz or higher when overclocked (Not to mention most if not all game engines are better optimized for intel chips, as AMD Ryzen hasn't been out long enough).

'game engines are better optimized for intel'. enough said.

and your other assertions are simply incorrect.

 

[jankerson]

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600x

CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H60

Motherboard: Asus Rog Strix B350-F Gaming

RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000mhz 2x8GB

GPU: XFX Radeon RX 580 8GB GTS - XXX Edition

STORAGE: SSD 500GB Samsung 860 EVO

STORAGE: Seagate Barracuda 1TB

PSU: Corsair RM550x

CASE: Fractal Design Meshify C TG

Want to play games like CS:GO, PUBG, Battlefield and Rainbox Six Siege on a 1080, 144hz display, on high or ultra settings!

Thanks for the help 😉

The GPU is weak for 144hz playing those games at those settings.

A GTX 1070 or better yet a GTX 1070Ti or GTX 1080 would be best.

 

[SgtScream]

No, you'll have to go Intel to reach FPS high enough to match the 144hz refresh rate. Sure AMD may hit FPS that high, but it won't be able to sustain it like an intel chip can, due to it's higher single core performance. You'll need an i5 8600k and gtx 1070 minimum to reach sustained 144 fps, when playing performance demanding triple A titles.

Please elaborate! I'm interested to know how you came up with that pearl of wisdom!

The suggestion that an AMD CPU cannot hit/sustain 144hz with an appropriate GPU is not true. BTW it's the GPU that will be the enabler for hitting such FPS. Yes, the CPU plays apart, but not like you are suggesting.

An example would be BF1. You are not going to get anywhere near 144hz/FPS with a 580. It's just not gonna happen. That has very little to do with the CPU. It's all about the GPU in that case.

A Ryzen 1600x can drive any high end card out there just fine.

A 1070 will not get any AAA game to 144hz/FPS at 1080p. Even with an 8600k!! Some games like CSGO will most certainly get there, as will others. But not BF1/COD/Wolfenstein etc.

I'm not here to answer your questions nor do I have to respond to your reply and elaborate as you haven't done so yourself. As I said in my post, for 144hz refresh rate triple A gaming, the hardware above is the absolute minimum. Sure AMD cards can drive high end graphics cards at 1440p resolutions or higher, but not at 1080p resolutions. They're severely bottlenecked at 1080p resolution. In fact all CPU's are a bottleneck for cards gtx 1070 and higher at 1080p resolution. The question is, what chip reduces this limitation the most, and the answer will always be intel due to better clock for clock IPC and the ability to reach frequencies of 5ghz or higher when overclocked (Not to mention most if not all game engines are better optimized for intel chips, as AMD Ryzen hasn't been out long enough).

You just make things up, don't you....
The 580 Card is more capable than a 1060 - please even check Tomshardware, as yesterday they did ampyjer GPU round up. Also, the difference between the top of the range Ryzen and top Intel is less than 5% closer to 2% in most.
As for 144hz, the GPU will be more than capable of pushing 100 in most games, depending on settings.
You can only get better if you spend more money on then 1070, then you can start to use the higher settings, but you won't be disappointed with a 580.

Most people who comment negatively on AMD is because they have never ever used AMD. Please read independent reviews about the 580 and 1060. You will see the 1060 loses a little to the 580 especially in modern DX12 games.

The 1070 will beat the 580 by quite a bit, and then you get into Vega 56 territory and it's just not worth it any more. It's just too expensive. So if you can get a 1070, get it if not the 580 IS better than a 1060 on most things.

The CPU you have is more than capable to do what you want it to do. If you can upgrade any more then go for the 2600X, if not choose something that is right for your budget. Also your motherboard is guaranteed to support any new chips into 2020. Where as if you go Intel, you probably will have to get a new motherboard by Q1 2019 when they release their next chip. Intels Series 7 chipset, lasted 9 months, no longevity in their products.

I still run Intel it 4790k - happy with it, but the next upgrade I do, won't be Intel, just not worth the extra cash and I don't want a motherboard that will be out of date before the warranty runs out.

Currenly

I mistyped. I meant to say AMD CPU's not AMD Cards. My post has been revised and the RX580 or the 1600x cannot match 144hz refresh rate at 1080p triple A gaming.

 

[Cioby]

Depends on what games you'll play. I'd recommend a better GPU tho they're expensive nowadays.
Also as stated before you could go for a Intel CPU. Even older generations. The performances and lifespan of a true and tested CPU will always beat a new AMD. I still run a overclocked 4770k for over 6 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxPC6ydwcCE

Even from this video (first I found) you can see you won't get those values of 144 on many hardcore games. You'd need like a 1070 and even then, you won't run Witcher 3 or such at max settings 144 fps (which is okay if you have gsync anyway tho I dislike my gsync monitor, it reacts weird with some games, truth be told, I do play alpha sandbox games, so it might be the game to blame)

 

[J_E_D_70]

So late to the party but BF1 was mentioned earlier - 8700k w/ a GTX 1070 won't hit 144fps on a 64 player map either. Just tried it! Hung out around 110-115 on Empire's Edge. Might pull it off on a smaller DM map.