RX 580 8GB RAM and 1440 gaming?

[DWD1961]

I wish I could just ash in a top line card, but no way in my recurrent situation. My friend gave me a n RX580 and I had planned on getting a 32" monitor at 1080 to play on. However, you all talked me out of the 1080 after I bought an LG 32" 165hz monitor, and I really agreed. A 32" screen really deserve 1440.

So I finally bought a 1440 monitor:

GIGABYTE G32QC 32" 165Hz 1440P Curved Gaming Monitor, 2560 x 1440 VA 1500R Display, 1ms (MPRT) Response Time, 94% DCI-P3, VESA Display HDR400, FreeSync Premium Pro ​

It cost me $350.0.

Anyway, I was just wondering what type of gma play I'm going to get out of my RX580 8GB RAM. I dn't mind sacrificing settings for frame rate. I'm just hoping it's not like lowest settings and barely making 50FPS--lol. I know it has to do with the specific game, but I'm just looking for any ideas you all have on the subject.

 

[crazycrave]

Well , If you still owned a x58 board and had another card .. It does Crossfire well in games that still support it and about the level of a RX 5700

 

[DWD1961]

Well , If you still owned a x58 board and had another card .. It does Crossfire well in games that still support it and about the level of a RX 5700

Way over the X58. Nope. never going back. I looked on this site https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/com...um/medium/-vs-asus-rog-strix-rx-580-gaming-oc and it does pretty decent on medium settings. Not screaming 200FPS, but playable at mostly above 60-70.

E.g.,

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War
Low 84 / High 106

 

[pendragon1]

I dn't mind sacrificing settings for frame rate.

if thats the case, you should be able to run most things just fine but youre not gonna get the 144+ fps except in stuff like csgo and lol.

 

[DWD1961]

if thats the case, you should be able to run most things just fine but youre not gonna get the 144+ fps except in stuff like csgo and lol.

No, but from what I've researched, you still get a benefits from the faster refresh rate. Can't remember what they are. lol

 

[Darkswordz]

Skip to 5:40 in video.

 

[FrgMstr]

Well I hope you already grabbed a 580 by now as the prices just started going crazy due to miners buying back into those.

 

[drutman]

I have a 390X and it runs everything at approx 80-144 FPS with a mix of ultra and high settings with no RTX or advanced shadows. My 2K display is a 32 '' LG VA 144hz. Unless I want DLSS or RTX I see no need to upgrade, even though I am on the EVGA queue for a 3080 with is vaporware.

 

[jobert]

I have a 390X and it runs everything at approx 80-144 FPS with a mix of ultra and high settings with no RTX or advanced shadows. My 2K display is a 32 '' LG VA 144hz. Unless I want DLSS or RTX I see no need to upgrade, even though I am on the EVGA queue for a 3080 with is vaporware.

You are either not running modern demanding games or you're living in a fantasy world. Even something like a 1070 would blow a 390x away and it sure as heck is not a 1440p 80 to 144 FPS card. I'm using a 2060 Super right now which is about 80% faster than your card and it is not even remotely capable of that kind of performance in most modern demanding games at 1440p. In fact in some games I have to dial down a couple settings just to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p so how on earth would a much much slower 390x be able to get 80 to 144 FPS on anything approaching similar settings?

 

[jlbenedict]

Well I hope you already grabbed a 580 by now as the prices just started going crazy due to miners buying back into those.

I noticed that too.... damn 580's are creeping up toward $259 or more... some of the 570's are over $200 also (and these are 4 year old GPU's)

 

[DWD1961]

Skip to 5:40 in video.

Man, those speeds are very playable. Those are all on max settings too. What type of % increase would I get lowering them to medium settings (generally) as I know turning off specific items, such as shadows, can really improve FPS. But just generally, going from ultra or max to a medium setting, what would be the % increase in FPS?

 

[DWD1961]

Well I hope you already grabbed a 580 by now as the prices just started going crazy due to miners buying back into those.

My friend gave me the card 6 months ago. He was a miner back in 2017-2018 and had three of them running in a custom open air rig. So, yeah, I have it. I'll be posting pictures and a video of my rig soon. Not exactly how I wanted it because I don't have a scroll saw to cut some acrylic I need, but it is what it is. I just wish the 580 was white instead of black. However, I'm not going to spend a ton of time taking off the back plate, painting it, and reinstalling it because it is an old card. When I upgrade, I'll get a white card for my white theme build.

This was from a design phase asking a friend for a suggestion during lighting of bottom acrylic. Not a god picture, as it was just to show the acrylic lighting on a custom stand. Anyway, I'll soon get it all posted up. Ignore the work bench where I had stuff all torn apart and wires everywhere. The acrylic is even really dusty. Just ignore all that! I had to do a ton of detail painting and soldering, but I'll explain it all when I post it. I need to get the soldering station out again for the final light on the bottom. Hopefully I'll get that installed tonight.

 

[drutman]

You are either not running modern demanding games or you're living in a fantasy world. Even something like a 1070 would blow a 390x away and it sure as heck is not a 1440p 80 to 144 FPS card. I'm using a 2060 Super right now which is about 80% faster than your card and it is not even remotely capable of that kind of performance in most modern demanding games at 1440p. In fact in some games I have to dial down a couple settings just to maintain 60 FPS at 1440p so how on earth would a much much slower 390x be able to get 80 to 144 FPS on anything approaching similar settings?

When I post something I do not expect a immature comment, by altering a few settings one can achieve higher FPS with min visual impact. I have a thread on guess my video settings to show 5 yr EOL card in action.

For example dropping AO down will increase FPS with no real visual penalty. Dropping AA does the same and a slight decrease in render resolution(10 to 20%) helps tremendously. Do not argue this is what DLSS does with AI and some fancy uprez algorithms.

Now for some facts about me, I am a retired scientist who made a career publishing measurements, when I get home I want to have fun with my engineering rig/gaming rig not get into debates on measurements. Here are some comparisons between the 390X and a generic 2060 S.

Funny thing I am on the queue for a 3080 but will probably not buy it due to disappointment with CP2077 which ran fine and looked great even with no DLSS or RTX. I got engaged with GTA 5 but not playing CP.

390 X 2060 Super

2816 cores 2176 cores

64 ROP 64 ROP

44 CU 34 CU

176 TMU 136 TMU

512 bus 7000 MHZ 8 gig DDR5 256 bus 14000 8 gig DDR6

422 GB/s BW with max OC 448 GB/sec stock clocks

 

[jobert]

When I post something I do not expect a immature comment, by altering a few settings one can achieve higher FPS with min visual impact. I have a thread on guess my video settings to show 5 yr EOL card in action.

For example dropping AO down will increase FPS with no real visual penalty. Dropping AA does the same and a slight decrease in render resolution(10 to 20%) helps tremendously. Do not argue this is what DLSS does with AI and some fancy uprez algorithms.

Now for some facts about me, I am a retired scientist who made a career publishing measurements, when I get home I want to have fun with my engineering rig/gaming rig not get into debates on measurements. Here are some comparisons between the 390X and a generic 2060 S.

Funny thing I am on the queue for a 3080 but will probably not buy it due to disappointment with CP2077 which ran fine and looked great even with no DLSS or RTX. I got engaged with GTA 5 but not playing CP.

390 X 2060 Super

2816 cores 2176 cores

64 ROP 64 ROP

44 CU 34 CU

176 TMU 136 TMU

512 bus 7000 MHZ 8 gig DDR5 256 bus 14000 8 gig DDR6

422 GB/s BW with max OC 448 GB/sec stock clocks

And when I see somebody posting a comment about their performance I am expecting them to be posting something that's halfway true. You claiming to get 80 to 144 FPS on on a mix of high to ultra settings at 1440p with a 390x is absolute BS if you are talking about modern demanding games. The video posted right here in this thread right above where you commented shows how full of crap you are because it shows a 580 which is equivalent to a 390x getting nowhere near that performance at 1440p. In fact in something like red Dead redemption even on a balanced mix of settings which are pretty much below high it's not even getting anywhere near that performance at 1080p. The same would go for pretty much any demanding game.

And this was not some direct comparison between the 2060 super and your card. It was a simple example about a 2060 super being 80% faster than your card and still not even capable of the performance you're claiming in most games. It is hilarious that you try to brag about being a scientist and doing measurements and list 2060 super specs then draw some conclusion in your mind that a 2060 super is not much faster. It doesn't take a very smart person to actually figure out the architectures are completely different and to Google actual gaming benchmarks and reviews instead of making assumptions. Again if you go back and look at reviews of the 580 you know it's pretty much dead even with a 390x. Well here you go right here in the 2060 super review as the 2060 super is 82% faster than the 580 at 1440p just like I claimed. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-super/27.html

And again there's review after review after review with plenty of comparisons from different sites and all over YouTube that shows the nonsense that you are claiming is not even remotely possible if you are talking about modern demanding games. But I tell you what why don't you post a video showing your settings in some demanding modern games at 1440p and show us that magical 80 to 144 FPS.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Depends on the games and how high you want details...most games at medium you could prob do 1440p, others games at medium are going to have low FPS. I own a 580 8G as well and a 1440p Gigabyte monitor and Apex Legends to stay over 100FPS i need to run it at 1080 with most setting on med/low

 

[Krenum]

My dad Plays WOW Shadowlands with an RX 580 Red Devil. Plays pretty good at high / med settings at 1440p on an HP Omen 32" 75hz Freesync.

Definitely will not do 165hz but I cap it at 74.

 

[jobert]

Depends on the games and how high you want details...most games at medium you could prob do 1440p, others games at medium are going to have low FPS. I own a 580 8G as well and a 1440p Gigabyte monitor and Apex Legends to stay over 100FPS i need to run it at 1080 with most setting on med/low

The guy was saying he plays everything on mix of high to ultra settings at 1440p with 80 to 144 FPS. Any of us that keep up with video cards know that's absolute nonsense for nearly any halfway demanding modern games. Heck that would be a struggle at 1080p for that card in many games.

 

[DWD1961]

When I post something I do not expect a immature comment, by altering a few settings one can achieve higher FPS with min visual impact. I have a thread on guess my video settings to show 5 yr EOL card in action.

For example dropping AO down will increase FPS with no real visual penalty. Dropping AA does the same and a slight decrease in render resolution(10 to 20%) helps tremendously. Do not argue this is what DLSS does with AI and some fancy uprez algorithms.

Now for some facts about me, I am a retired scientist who made a career publishing measurements, when I get home I want to have fun with my engineering rig/gaming rig not get into debates on measurements. Here are some comparisons between the 390X and a generic 2060 S.

Funny thing I am on the queue for a 3080 but will probably not buy it due to disappointment with CP2077 which ran fine and looked great even with no DLSS or RTX. I got engaged with GTA 5 but not playing CP.

390 X 2060 Super

2816 cores 2176 cores

64 ROP 64 ROP

44 CU 34 CU

176 TMU 136 TMU

512 bus 7000 MHZ 8 gig DDR5 256 bus 14000 8 gig DDR6

422 GB/s BW with max OC 448 GB/sec stock clocks

I'll be coming back to this post to tweak my 580. thanks.

 

[DWD1961]

The video posted right here in this thread right above where you commented shows how full of crap you are because it shows a 580 which is equivalent to a 390x getting nowhere near that performance at 1440p.

That video is on Ultra or max settings. He didn't say a 390 would to 80-144FPS on preset settings. He said you have to drop specific settings to get the FPS up, such as, from his post: AO, AA, NS 10%-20% drop in Render Resolution.

Can someone post their Cinebench score for the RX580? I think my 580 is NOT performing like it should. A couple of night ago I was playing a 2013 era game (Mech Warrior Onine) and my FPS at Max were not really good, like 60-100. I was expecting more than that on a game wth an Engine s it as it is. At least I don't think they have upgraded it.

 

[jobert]

That video is on Ultra or max settings. He didn't say a 390 would to 80-144FPS on preset settings. He said you have to drop specific settings to get the FPS up, such as, from his post: AO, AA, NS 10%-20% drop in Render Resolution.

Can someone post their Cinebench score for the RX580? I think my 580 is NOT performing like it should. A couple of night ago I was playing a 2013 era game (Mech Warrior Onine) and my FPS at Max were not really good, like 60-100. I was expecting more than that on a game wth an Engine s it as it is. At least I don't think they have upgraded it.

I know at least Red Dead redemption 2 was not on max settings as is it clearly said balanced settings. Again he's claiming a mix of high to ultra settings in "everything" and I'm asking if he's actually talking about modern demanding games because if he is then he is full of crap claiming 80 to 144 FPS at 1440p. That is simply not even remotely feasible. Go look at reviews and you know that a 580 level card is not going to get that kind of performance in modern demanding games at 1440p even on just high settings never mind having any of those settings above high. This is beyond ridiculous that this is even a debate at this point. I can run just high settings at 1440p on my 2060 super and not even get close to 80 to 144 FPS in many if not most demanding games. And again the 2060 super is 80% faster than his card.

 

[jmilcher]

I know at least Red Dead redemption 2 was not on max settings as is it clearly said balanced settings. Again he's claiming a mix of high to ultra settings in "everything" and I'm asking if he's actually talking about modern demanding games because if he is then he is full of crap claiming 80 to 144 FPS at 1440p. That is simply not even remotely feasible. Go look at reviews and you know that a 580 level card is not going to get that kind of performance in modern demanding games at 1440p even on just high settings never mind having any of those settings above high. This is beyond ridiculous that this is even a debate at this point. I can run just high settings at 1440p on my 2060 super and not even get close to 80 to 144 FPS in many if not most demanding games. And again the 2060 super is 80% faster than his card.

I agree. It was a terrible claim. Benchmarks are there for a reason. And even a scientist can read benchmarks. Simply look at apples to apples comparisons and you see there’s no way his card is doing 1440p from 80-144 on current titles.

furthermore 1440p that has resolution being downsampled is. Not 1440p.
Drutman- let’s see some video evidence of your claim. I’m sure you can present some proof of your claims. Not just specs for cards which have vastly different architectural designs.

 

[Ebernanut]

I was using a rx 480 8gb OC model until it died a month ago which is fairly comparable to the stock 580. It was ok when I was on a 1080p monitor but when I upgraded to a 1440p monitor 1.5 years ago newer games didn't run that well so I started clearing out my backlog of games that are less demanding or at least a couple years old, by this spring I was tired of turning settings down just to get a playable framerate and started replaying some even older games.

I think a 580 might still be acceptable at 1080p but I wouldn't try to play newer titles at 1440p on it myself.

 

[drutman]

I agree. It was a terrible claim. Benchmarks are there for a reason. And even a scientist can read benchmarks. Simply look at apples to apples comparisons and you see there’s no way his card is doing 1440p from 80-144 on current titles.

furthermore 1440p that has resolution being downsampled is. Not 1440p.
Drutman- let’s see some video evidence of your claim. I’m sure you can present some proof of your claims. Not just specs for cards which have vastly different architectural designs.

here is a link to my YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQS-tmO7t0SW3SH-t1OWjuQ

 

[jobert]

here is a link to my YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQS-tmO7t0SW3SH-t1OWjuQ

I really hope that's not supposed to be your proof. You have a couple of somewhat modern games and only one actual modern game and you don't show performance metrics of any type and unless I'm blind I didn't see you show the settings either. But to be fair I just kind of skimmed through real quick as I'm just on my phone now so feel free to correct me. If not then upload showing your settings and performance of that magical 390x getting 80 to 144 FPS on mix of high and ultra settings at 1440p in modern games.

 

[DWD1961]

I know at least Red Dead redemption 2 was not on max settings as is it clearly said balanced settings. Again he's claiming a mix of high to ultra settings in "everything" and I'm asking if he's actually talking about modern demanding games because if he is then he is full of crap claiming 80 to 144 FPS at 1440p. That is simply not even remotely feasible. Go look at reviews and you know that a 580 level card is not going to get that kind of performance in modern demanding games at 1440p even on just high settings never mind having any of those settings above high. This is beyond ridiculous that this is even a debate at this point. I can run just high settings at 1440p on my 2060 super and not even get close to 80 to 144 FPS in many if not most demanding games. And again the 2060 super is 80% faster than his card.

You're missing the point, which may or may not validate his claim of high FPS using a "mix" but he is also manually setting things like "AO, AA, NS 10%-20% drop in Render Resolution." I'm assuming that even on low settings, things like AA, AO and render can be set lower still. If my assumption is correct, then he could be playing medium, and have those setting that really cut into FPS set very low.

For instance, one of the games I play on low settings will produce 60-70FPS, but on low, "shadows" are still enabled. Turning them off give a huge boost to FPS. In that particular game, shadows just killed FPS. Another example is a couple nights ago I was tweaking the driver settings for better FPS while leaving the game settings at default highest. Again, I was getting a 30% increase just knocking some driver side settings down. Also, what he says about AA makes sense, since wth 1440, you don't need as much AA as you would with 1080. AA is a FPS hog.

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that he is right, but at least let's get his augment correct.

 

[jobert]

You're missing the point, which may or may not validate his claim of high FPS using a "mix" but he is also manually setting things like "AO, AA, NS 10%-20% drop in Render Resolution." I'm assuming that even on low settings, things like AA, AO and render can be set lower still. If my assumption is correct, then he could be playing medium, and have those setting that really cut into FPS set very low.

For instance, one of the games I play on ow settings will produce 60-70FPS, but on low, "shadows" are still enabled. Turning them off give a huge boost to FPS. In that particular game, shadows just killed FPS. Another example is a couple nights ago I was tweaking the driver settings for better FPS while leaving the game settings at default highest. Again, I was getting a 30% increase just knocking some driver side settings down. Also, what he says about AA makes sense, since wth 1440, you don't need as much AA as you would with 1080. AA is a FPS hog.

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that he is right, but at least let's get his augment correct.

I can only go by what he says so if he's going to keep making new qualifiers or moving the goal post then so be it. Going by what he originally said was a mix of ultra and high settings would get him 80 to 144 FPS at 1440p in everything. That is a complete load of crap if referring to modern demanding games and there's no ifs ands or buts about that. I'm not even talking about AA at all because that would just be common sense that he would have that off if it's a demanding type such as super sampling or msaa. And I can make it even more simple by saying even if he ran all medium settings in these modern demanding games that there would still be no way he would get 80 to 144 FPS in all of them at 1440p. So again bottom line is he is flat out exaggerating and even he knows it otherwise he would upload a video proving otherwise to his YouTube channel that he linked to.

 

[DWD1961]

I can only go by what he says so if he's going to keep making new qualifiers or moving the goal post then so be it. Going by what he originally said was a mix of ultra and high settings would get him 80 to 144 FPS at 1440p in everything. That is a complete load of crap if referring to modern demanding games and there's no ifs ands or buts about that. I'm not even talking about AA at all because that would just be common sense that he would have that off if it's a demanding type such as super sampling or msaa. And I can make it even more simple by saying even if he ran all medium settings in these modern demanding games that there would still be no way he would get 80 to 144 FPS in all of them at 1440p. So again bottom line is he is flat out exaggerating and even he knows it otherwise he would upload a video proving otherwise to his YouTube channel that he linked to.

Should be easy to validate using a video. If he can't prove it in a video, then sure, it's bullshit.

He posted his settings in Doom Eternal getting 60+. Right?

 

[jmilcher]

Should be easy to validate using a video. If he can't prove it in a video, then sure, it's bullshit.

He posted his settings in Doom Eternal getting 60+. Right?

And there isn’t a video showing his proof. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

it’s almost like this guy is trolling us.

 

[DWD1961]

And there isn’t a video showing his proof. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

it’s almost like this guy is trolling us.

Did you see his Doom Eternal video? 60+ FPS.

 

[jmilcher]

Did you see his Doom Eternal video? 60+ FPS.

Pretty short of that 80-144 claim.

 

[jobert]

Pretty short of that 80-144 claim.

I didn't realize he had Doom Eternal on there because earlier on my phone I didn't scroll down and then when I saw Doom I thought it was the original one. I believe he had it maxed out and getting 60 FPS and more which is pretty impressive but it's also the most optimized modern game there is. And on top of that he didn't show the frame rate during any action at all. Crysis 3 and Control he didn't even show his frame rate and didn't even show his settings at all in Control and had some things on medium and low in Crysis 3 which is quite an old game. In other words we should not hold our breath waiting for him to upload some videos showing this 80 to 144 FPS on mix of ultra and high settings at 1440p.

 

[jmilcher]

I didn't realize he had Doom Eternal on there because earlier on my phone I didn't scroll down and then when I saw Doom I thought it was the original one. I believe he had it maxed out and getting 60 FPS and more which is pretty impressive but it's also the most optimized modern game there is. And on top of that he didn't show the frame rate during any action at all. Crysis 3 and Control he didn't even show his frame rate and didn't even show his settings at all in Control and had some things on medium and low in Crysis 3 which is quite an old game. In other words we should not hold our breath waiting for him to upload some videos showing this 80 to 144 FPS on mix of ultra and high settings at 1440p.

Def the most optimized game for AMD.
In the end if he enjoys it tho, that’s what counts. I think this thread is done.

 

[DWD1961]

Pretty short of that 80-144 claim.

Well, it says in the AMD driver section that avg was 144FPS.

Pretty short of that 80-144 claim.

He seems to have deleted the Doom Eternal video, and has Crysis 3 and Starwars BF 2 up now, but no FPS on his vids. Also, Crysis 3 is a 2013 game (off topic but still looks good--lol).

No idea why he puled the Doom video except it doesn't support his FPS remark. Yeah, until he posts vids showing his claim, I'm calling tentative bullshit too. I'll change my mind when I see a video producing at least 80FPS average in a high end game. The Doom Eternal video was still pretty good for a 390, right?

 

[jmilcher]

Looks like he silently retracted his claims. I’m thinking most of us knew it was bs to begin with.

 

[crazycrave]

And when I see somebody posting a comment about their performance I am expecting them to be posting something that's halfway true. You claiming to get 80 to 144 FPS on on a mix of high to ultra settings at 1440p with a 390x is absolute BS if you are talking about modern demanding games. The video posted right here in this thread right above where you commented shows how full of crap you are because it shows a 580 which is equivalent to a 390x getting nowhere near that performance at 1440p. In fact in something like red Dead redemption even on a balanced mix of settings which are pretty much below high it's not even getting anywhere near that performance at 1080p. The same would go for pretty much any demanding game.

And this was not some direct comparison between the 2060 super and your card. It was a simple example about a 2060 super being 80% faster than your card and still not even capable of the performance you're claiming in most games. It is hilarious that you try to brag about being a scientist and doing measurements and list 2060 super specs then draw some conclusion in your mind that a 2060 super is not much faster. It doesn't take a very smart person to actually figure out the architectures are completely different and to Google actual gaming benchmarks and reviews instead of making assumptions. Again if you go back and look at reviews of the 580 you know it's pretty much dead even with a 390x. Well here you go right here in the 2060 super review as the 2060 super is 82% faster than the 580 at 1440p just like I claimed. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2060-super/27.html

And again there's review after review after review with plenty of comparisons from different sites and all over YouTube that shows the nonsense that you are claiming is not even remotely possible if you are talking about modern demanding games. But I tell you what why don't you post a video showing your settings in some demanding modern games at 1440p and show us that magical 80 to 144 FPS.

I still have my 290x and the only thing I used it for on my x58 Xeon X5660 was iRacing Sims in Eyefinity with three 22" 1080p displays running and it was designed to run it a cross three displays as one .

 

[DWD1961]

I still have my 290x and the only thing I used it for on my x58 Xeon X5660 was iRacing Sims in Eyefinity with three 22" 1080p displays running and it was designed to run it a cross three displays as one .

I still have this monster, the venerable GTX295 (Are these actually god for anything anymore, besides a paper weight?):

 

[GoldenTiger]

I still have this monster, the venerable GTX295 (Are these actually god for anything anymore, besides a paper weight?):

View attachment 315459

The vcr card! Hehe.