Question Suitable gaming Radeon GPU for AsRock Z97X Killer series

[Metalrocks]

Currently I have a R9 290X with 4GB RAM and while it still does well, it does show its age with modern games. Just recently I got a new 32" curved monitor were I can play games at a resolution of 3200x1800, however for some reason the Display port is not working and was forced to use HDMI again.
Things still look good but obviously is prevents me from using the full potential of my monitor such as FreeSync. If it helps, my monitor is a Agon AOC Gaming AG322FCX.

I am still using Windows 7 Home Premium version, running on 16 GB RAM and I am not likely to change the OS at any time. That is why I like to know what GPU is still suitable for my current hardware and OS. I am not using VR nor do I want to overclock it.
I do not want Nvidia.

I was thinking on the RX 590 Fatboy 8GB. Unless a RX 580 is sufficient enough. Cheaper as well for my country (Australia). The ones with 16GB are too expensive and I think even Win 7 will not be able to run it well.
From these GPU's, which one will do the job just fine? I can order it from this site as it is located in my country.
https://www.pccasegear.com/category/193_877/graphics-cards/amd-graphics-cards

 

[ThatVietGuy]

Current make/model of PSU? Current CPU?

 

[Metalrocks]

Current make/model of PSU? Current CPU?

PSU is from Seasonic the model of it is: SS-SS-520GB Active PFC F3 at 520 Watts
CPU is intel i7-4790 3.6 GHz

 

[Metal Messiah.]

I was thinking on the RX 590 Fatboy 8GB. Unless a RX 580 is sufficient enough. Cheaper as well for my country (Australia). The ones with 16GB are too expensive and I think even Win 7 will not be able to run it well.
From these GPU's, which one will do the job just fine? I can order it from this site as it is located in my country.
https://www.pccasegear.com/category/193_877/graphics-cards/amd-graphics-cards

The link which you have provided, doesn't seem to work, IMO. I get the following warning message, "You don't have permission to access /category/193_877/graphics-cards/amd-graphics-cards on this server."

Anyways, go for the RX 580. There isn't too much of a performance difference/gap between the RX 590 and 580 GPUs. Why are you not willing to upgrade to an NVIDIA GPU instead ? These cards are more power efficient as well. But never mind, it's your choice in the end that matters the most.

 

[Metalrocks]

The link which you have provided, doesn't seem to work, IMO. I get the following warning message, "You don't have permission to access /category/193_877/graphics-cards/amd-graphics-cards on this server."

Anyways, go for the RX 580. There isn't too much of a performance difference/gap between the RX 590 and 580 GPUs. Why are you not willing to upgrade to an NVIDIA GPU instead ? These cards are more power efficient as well. But never mind, it's your choice in the end that matters the most.

Strange. The site is called PC Case Gear. A shop that is located in Australia. I wonder if it is restricted to other countries. The link just shows the types of GPU's they have.
Regarding the 580, there are several of them there.

1. ASUS Radeon RX 580 Dual Gaming OC 8GB for 299AUD

2. XFX Radeon RX 580 GTS XXX Edition 8GB for 319AUD

3. Gigabyte Radeon RX 580 Gaming 8GB for 329AUD

4. MSI Radeon RX 580 Armor OC 8GB for 329AUD

# 3 and 4 are almost the same. Unless 1 or 2 will do just fine as well.

I had bad experiences with Nvidia cards. To me they are overpriced when an AMD can do the same for far less. Also I keep reading in game forums about issues Nvidia users are having.

 

[logainofhades]

I would read this, before you buy anything.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3430-amd-r9-290x-revisit-in-2019-vs-rx-590-rtx-gtx-more

 

[King_V]

Currently I have a R9 290X with 4GB RAM and while it still does well, it does show its age with modern games. Just recently I got a new 32" curved monitor were I can play games at a resolution of 3200x1800

Wait, how? The specs I found list that monitor as having a 1920x1080 resolution, with a 144Hz max refresh.

 

[Metal Messiah.]

The specs I found list that monitor as having a 1920x1080 resolution, with a 144Hz max refresh.

Nice catch, by the way. The AOC Gaming AG322FCX is indeed a FULL HD monitor.

 

[King_V]

Nice catch, by the way. The AOC Gaming AG322FCX is indeed a FULL HD monitor.

I wouldn't have even thought to question it originally, except that the stated resolution was such an oddball number that the curiosity was killing me as to whether there really was a monitor that ran 3200x1800 natively.

 

[henry.j.kautz]

Get a Vega 56, the price-to-performance is great, also fits your CPU perfectly.

 

[Metalrocks]

I wouldn't have even thought to question it originally, except that the stated resolution was such an oddball number that the curiosity was killing me as to whether there really was a monitor that ran 3200x1800 natively.

Sorry that it confused you. Yes, it is 1920x1080 but it does allow me to go higher to the mentioned resolution. Before games were only limited to 1920x with my 22" monitor but now I can go to 3200x. Even the OS I can change to 3200x but then the icons are so small and blurry looking, even when i make the icons bigger, many sites just look terrible to look at that I am forced to go back to 1920x.

Get a Vega 56, the price-to-performance is great, also fits your CPU perfectly.

So that would be the MSI RX 580? #4 on the list I have made?

I would read this, before you buy anything.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3430-amd-r9-290x-revisit-in-2019-vs-rx-590-rtx-gtx-more

That was interesting. So even if I get a 580, the difference is not very big when I understood it correctly. Kind of surprising to be honest as you expect the new one to be better.

 

[King_V]

Sorry that it confused you. Yes, it is 1920x1080 but it does allow me to go higher to the mentioned resolution. Before games were only limited to 1920x with my 22" monitor but now I can go to 3200x. Even the OS I can change to 3200x but then the icons are so small and blurry looking, even when i make the icons bigger, many sites just look terrible to look at that I am forced to go back to 1920x.

That blurriness is not surprising. I am kind of surprised that Windows is letting you set the resolution higher than what the monitor's native resolution is.

Things are always going to look most crisp at your monitor's native resolution, in this case, 1920x1080. Higher resolutions force the video card to do more work, slowing things down. So, for example, if you had a 4K monitor, you have 4x as many pixels, and the video card would need to be MUCH more poweful to do that.

In fact, I'm almost certain that trying to run the 3200x1800 resolution is forcing your video card to work WAY harder than it needs to. Additionally, the adjustments the monitor has to make to try to mimic a resolution higher than what it can actually display are always going to be muddy-looking. My suggestion would be to always run in native resolution. Easier on the video card, and easier/more pleasing on your eyes.

Your monitor DOES have FreeSync, range of 48-144Hz through DisplayPort, or 48-120Hz through HDMI according to this page (filter on manufacturer AGON, and model number AG322FCX), as well as Low Framerate Compensation. I think that using Chill via the Radeon drivers, to allow the refresh to run as low as 30, and as high as . . well, whatever you want it to max out at, though I would probably recommend no more than 60 or 75 for most modern games with your video card, would make it still smooth and satisfying.

I haven't done a whole lot of experimenting with my GTX 1080 on a FreeSync (non LFC monitor with a fairly narrow 48-75Hz FreeSync range), and while it does seem to use dynamic refresh rates, I haven't found if there's a way to set the min and max the way you can in the Radeon drivers.

My suggestion is to stick with your video card for now, and see what happens when Navi comes out. Navi might be worth upgrading to, and you might be able to better take advantage of the higher refresh rates (and thus higher FPS in games) that you rmonitor will support, if that's something you think you'd want.


So . . quick summary: stick with your card for now, and definitely DON'T set the resolution higher than your monitor's native resolution - I cannot emphasize this enough. Setting it higher seems to have all downsides and no upsides to me.

 

[Metalrocks]

That blurriness is not surprising. I am kind of surprised that Windows is letting you set the resolution higher than what the monitor's native resolution is.

Things are always going to look most crisp at your monitor's native resolution, in this case, 1920x1080. Higher resolutions force the video card to do more work, slowing things down. So, for example, if you had a 4K monitor, you have 4x as many pixels, and the video card would need to be MUCH more poweful to do that.

In fact, I'm almost certain that trying to run the 3200x1800 resolution is forcing your video card to work WAY harder than it needs to. Additionally, the adjustments the monitor has to make to try to mimic a resolution higher than what it can actually display are always going to be muddy-looking. My suggestion would be to always run in native resolution. Easier on the video card, and easier/more pleasing on your eyes.

Your monitor DOES have FreeSync, range of 48-144Hz through DisplayPort, or 48-120Hz through HDMI according to this page (filter on manufacturer AGON, and model number AG322FCX), as well as Low Framerate Compensation. I think that using Chill via the Radeon drivers, to allow the refresh to run as low as 30, and as high as . . well, whatever you want it to max out at, though I would probably recommend no more than 60 or 75 for most modern games with your video card, would make it still smooth and satisfying.

I haven't done a whole lot of experimenting with my GTX 1080 on a FreeSync (non LFC monitor with a fairly narrow 48-75Hz FreeSync range), and while it does seem to use dynamic refresh rates, I haven't found if there's a way to set the min and max the way you can in the Radeon drivers.

My suggestion is to stick with your video card for now, and see what happens when Navi comes out. Navi might be worth upgrading to, and you might be able to better take advantage of the higher refresh rates (and thus higher FPS in games) that you rmonitor will support, if that's something you think you'd want.


So . . quick summary: stick with your card for now, and definitely DON'T set the resolution higher than your monitor's native resolution - I cannot emphasize this enough. Setting it higher seems to have all downsides and no upsides to me.

Actually with games, 3200x makes them look better. Shadow of the Tomb Raider, resi 2 remake, Doom 2016, all look great and did not notice any difference with my GPU. Especially with the latest game "A plague tale: innocent" the resolution from 3200x to 1920x was as clear as day and night. When I switched to 1920x the game looked blurry and unpleasant to look at. With 3200x, it looked so much sharper and easier on the eye.
The only game so far that had massive stutter was Mirrors Edge Catalyst. Have everything set to max at 1920x and the game run smooth. As soon i switched to 3200x, the game was worse than a slideshow.

I had Freesync on, which I could not do before with my older monitor and it ran well for some games but for some reason resi 2, the screen turned black every time I looked straight. When looking up- or downwards, the screen returned. I was forced to deactivate Freesync to eliminate this issue. Honestly speaking, I did not noticed a difference with Freesync on or off. But then, I could not use my Display cable, which I think would have made a difference.
I am no expert with all this Freesync stuff, how to meassure it and all that. That is why I never overclock anything or do changes I have no idea of and not eager to try out to see what happens for obvious reasons.

Thank you and everyone else for the help. In this case I keep my current card.