Rx 580

[icon_of_sin]

How good would rx 580 be for 1440p and 4k?

Should i give it serious consideration over a 1080/2080

[Nabster]

Not good, it can do 1080p ultra. For 1440 p you want at least 1070, 4k at least 1080ti or 2080

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Nowhere near as good as GTX 1080 or RTX 2080, it's 1080p card.

[icon_of_sin]

Do amd have any 1440 or 4k cards

[Kaihekoa]

Vega 64 is the best they have. Google a review to see if it will meet your needs, and also note that it is pretty power hungry, so you need a good, high capacity PSU.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Vega 64 is about same as GTX 1080.
If you are serious about 4K then I would go for at least RTX 2080.

[Sila Drenja]

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

Vega 64 is about same as GTX 1080.
If you are serious about 4K then I would go for at least RTX 2080.

RTX, really? you are aware rtx is just slightly faster then 1080? It's not great for raytracing because it's faster, but because it's faster in where it has to be(it has raytracing cores, alongside cuda cores, and raytracing cores aren't usefull unless you are using raytracing). I would recommend waiting with the RTX while real time raytracing technology develops a little more. I would deffinetely suggest 1080, and about the original question, I only follow Nvidia specs and news. brb, gonna check some benchmarks and then I'll answer your question.

[upcoast]

I really have a hard time with RTX20xx speculation, these pre pre-release things have got old everybody should just wait for the real game play reviews.


Will the RTX2080 catch up with 4k on "ALL" games it's anyone's guess.

1440p with a gtx1080/80ti is a little more realistic, Rx 580 with 1440p as others said politely it's a joke.

[Sila Drenja]

allright, in ghost recon ultra @1080p rx580 had 40 to 50 fps, while 1070 had 60-65 fps. I don't know gpu prices in your location, so I don't know if it's affordable, but it deffinetely is less powerfull then 1070. so 1080 would have even better fps, so deffinetely concider 1080

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

If you're really after 4k, then best option to go after the next leading bleed tech, which would be t he RTX 2080 Ti <--- Please note the Ti, the 2080 non ti is not smart thing to get, since the 1080 Ti is better than it, and would go the same price as the 2080 non-ti, when new cards pop out, the odds those 10xx cards may drop in price on retailers, which means you may get 1080 Ti more cheaper.

Think about it for awhile, and consider this as a fact, you need to spend a very large sum just to have the best experience for 4k, this would mean in order to max a game setting, or having high FPS such as 60, or higher in most demanding games, means you need to get the most latest, or highest end cards, which cost a pretty penny if you're willing to go that far, and got money to burn like that.

If you're happy with 1080p/1440p then stick to that, and think about getting a good high end card for that such as 1070, or better, for 144hz 1440p look at 1080 Ti, as not only you may reach the target FPS on 1440p at 144hz, but also be cheaper than the new RTX 20xx cards, and have some more horse power behind it, the only issue would be the ray tracing which do you think you need that, or no, as not many games that use them and are not out yet.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Originally posted by Sila Drenja:

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

Vega 64 is about same as GTX 1080.
If you are serious about 4K then I would go for at least RTX 2080.

RTX, really? you are aware rtx is just slightly faster then 1080? It's not great for raytracing because it's faster, but because it's faster in where it has to be(it has raytracing cores, alongside cuda cores, and raytracing cores aren't usefull unless you are using raytracing). I would recommend waiting with the RTX while real time raytracing technology develops a little more. I would deffinetely suggest 1080, and about the original question, I only follow Nvidia specs and news. brb, gonna check some benchmarks and then I'll answer your question.

RTX 2080 is suppoused to be slightly faster then GTX 1080 Ti, that's with not considering the whole additional ray tracing aspect but since ray tracing cores will take some of the load off from CUDA cores when rendering lighting effects the difference might be bigger even for games that wont actually support ray tracing.
Remains to be seen end of this month.

[icon_of_sin]

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

Originally posted by Sila Drenja:

Remains to be seen end of this month.

I agree
There has been a lot of commentry about nvidias ray traceing demos running at low FPS even on 1080p

However this may be caused by Nvidia useing much more ray traceing than games would use normally in order to make it much more noticeable
(this would be a misrepresentation of what raytraceing can do but running a star wars theamed ray traceing demo on a 60k+ machine is very much the same types of misrepresentation)

Annothr explanation is that they deliberatly capped the FPS for cinematic effect.
The star wars demo did ran at 24fps which is a common film standard dispite running on a machione far beyond what any consumer would have, it is unlikely that this machine could not have run the demo at a higher FPS so it must have been capped.