add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

5700 XT for 4K gaming: The card to beat for the price?

spitonastranger

2 months ago

I'm looking to upgrade from an R9 Fury to something better equipped to handle 4K gaming. I was initially leaning toward a 2080 SUPER (can't talk myself into paying for a 2080 ti, sorry), but now I'm nearly convinced the 5700 XT is the best bang for the buck. If I'm missing something, please chime in.

These 4K benchmarks for RDR2, for example. The 2080 SUPER has about 3 FPS (~8%) lead over the 5700 XT for 36-45% more money. The 2070 SUPER is neck-and-neck for $50 more. And this is compared to one of the most expensive 5700 XT models (Sapphire Nitro+ at $450), which is likely faster than the card used in the benchmark.

I'm looking at the Sapphire Nitro+ based on this PCWorld review and how it's not only a great card, but the Trixx Boost software combined with Radeon Image Sharpening could make it simple to cheat even better 4K performance with minimal loss to visual fidelity. Yes, you can set custom resolutions with other cards and software suites, but this seems to be the most painless and efficient way to accomplish that.

Is ray tracing really enough to justify the cost premium of an Nvidia card? Is there anything else I've missed? I heard driver support for the 5700 was poor out of the gate and I have seen negative feedback about the Sapphire PULSE, specifically, but otherwise not much else.

Comments

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

These 4K benchmarks for RDR2, for example.

I'd skip looking at RDR2 until the games gets a few optimization passes it runs terribly on everything so its more a case of bad and worse not which is better currently.

And so your aware that title doesn't use a fixed quality slider it adjusts settings based on the hardware configuration it is running on and what resolution is being used, so although the 2080ti looks like it's only a little ahead they are running at different quality settings.

RDR 2 has a number of quick presets, allowing you to easily configure your system using a slider. The quality presets offer a number of settings, with half a dozen ‘Performance’ modes, seven ‘Balanced’ profiles, and seven ‘Quality’ presets. That all sounds great, but problem is these settings don’t apply a static configuration. Rather each of the preset's 30+ options are dynamically configured depending on the graphics card used. For example, the mid balanced preset might use mostly ultra settings with an RTX 2080 Ti, but only medium with an RTX 2070 Super... it was all over the place.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1939-red-dead-redemption-2-benchmarks/

but the Trixx Boost software

Works the same as any other companies software.

with Radeon Image Sharpening could make it simple to cheat even better 4K performance with minimal loss to visual fidelity.

Some problems with this.

  1. RIS only works in DX12/Vulkan titles.

  2. Only effects the contrast within the frame. Not prebaked effects or the base textures.

  3. Doesn't effect anything else related to quality settings.

So its very hit and miss on what it can actually effect and you would be looking at a sharper medium-high quality frame not an actual higher quality frame.

NVidia now offers the same feature as well and it works on most API not just DX12/Vulkan.

The quality settings would still need to be tweaked to reach the desired frame rates as well so your not actually getting out of extra work this way.

I heard driver support for the 5700 was poor out of the gate and I have seen negative feedback about the Sapphire PULSE, specifically, but otherwise not much else.

Out of the gate entire features were ignored by AMD such as ReLive support, Freesync support, 75hz/240hz refresh rate support, among other lesser issues which have been somewhat resolved.

Poor quality control of the chips hasn't though, and if you get a troubled card don't wait around return it ASAP.

Most retailers will take it back within the first 30 days from date of sale, so it is very important on these to validate the card is properly working as soon as you get it so a return can be started.

Long and short of it is there is no "magic bullet" setting to make the card suddenly more capable, it is what it is.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Tbh, if you're seeking 4k ultra/v.high @ 60+ fps for 'AAA' games and looking forward to at least a few more years, then you're probably stuck with a choice of 2080 Super or better. Not because it's better value for money than the 5700XT or even the 2070 Super, but simply due to the raw performance deficit between it and the cheaper options.

The 2080 Super/Ti are completely awful value for money, but running many of the 'AAA' games in 4k with most of their graphics settings max/high simply necessitates the performance these overpriced cards offer, that cheaper and better value for money cards don't have.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

I was actually goong to say the same thing you did and I own a 5700xt. I play at 1440p 90+fps though.

Its a great card for the 1440p territory. But 4k? Nope. Also 4k is a gimmick in my opinion thst really doesnt offer more than 1440p.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

There is no card that runs 4K satisfactory right now. At least not in test where a box is ticked yay or nay in terms of running 1% low 60fps at ultra/high settings and all possible modern AAA titles.

If you are happy to play with settings, some high some low depending on game, and do not demand a consistently smooth 60fps experience for every single game, the 2080TI, 2080Super, 2070Super and 5700XT will all do it with varying levels of success. If you are such a customer the 5700XT is a good purchase. If you also have a 1440p or 1080p monitor with higher refresh, excellent also. Best of all worlds.

Read Dead Redemption 2? Get it on Xbox One X or PS4 Pro instead. I say that without kidding either, no trolling attempted. It runs great on Xbox One X. Runs like $#%^ on a PC. End of discussion. Maybe they will fix it maybe they will not.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Can't speak for RDR2 (not my kind of game) but I've been pleased enough with my 1080ti at 4K. At this point i need to do a platform upgrade at minimum, and my most demanding game would be Final Fantasy 15. So it probably favors nvidia more there.

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770 / AMD FX-8350.

RAM: 16 GB.

OS: Windows® 7 64 bit, Windows® 8.1 64 bit, Windows® 10 64 bit.

VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB VRAM Radeon RX 480.

Of which itself isn't that demanding, a R5 of any generation will easily handle :)

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, keep in mind the notes for that set of recommended specs is for 1080p gameplay. 4K is a whole other order. And the latest/final build of the game has a memory leak that allows it to creep past 20GB in my main system's usage. It probably hasn't affected me because of having such a cavernous amount of system memory on that setup, but something worth noting.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube