3 Replies Latest reply on Aug 4, 2018 8:02 PM by noodles59

    Does AMD Radeon R9 360 support 4k at 60FPS?


      Hello and I just bought my very first 4k monitor and only to find out that I can't configure it to support 60FPS. Does this mean I need to drop more money on a new graphics card?

        • Re: Does AMD Radeon R9 360 support 4k at 60FPS?

          While all GCN Architecture is capable of up to 2160p (UHD 4K) until the RX 400-Series (Polaris / GCN 4.0 Based Cards) the available connectors would be DVI-D, Display Port 1.2a and HDMI 1.4b.


          Out of those connections ONLY Display Port 1.2a is actually capable of 2160p30/60/75Hz.

          HDMI 1.4b however is capable of 2160p30Hz / 1440p60Hz / 1080p120Hz.


          Virtual Super Resolution is an interesting feature of Crimson / Adrenalin Graphics Drivers,. as it will output a 1080p60 Compatible Signal for 60 Frames Per Second (Visually) while you're running 2160i60 ... now it's important to note that 2160 Interlaced is not "Officially" Supported. As such from an Encoding Perspective you're actually running 2160p30 (as such recording will cap at 30 FPS) and from your Displays perspective you're outputting a 1080p60 Signal.


          Yet from a Visual Standpoint you're getting a 2160p Image at 60 FPS.

          It's also how you can technically have a 2160p (UHD) Image on a 1080p/1440p (FHD/QHD) Display.


          Now if you want to run it Natively you will need on of these: Plugable Active DisplayPort to HDMI 2.0 Adapter … 

          It supports DisplayPort 1.2 and above.


          They're not overly expensive,. but for those who have bought a 4K TV Display that doesn't have any Display Ports this is somewhat of an essential purchase; especially for those who have the HD 7000-Series, Rx 200-Series or Rx 300-Series that don't have HDMI 2.0 Support.

          This was actually quite a point of contention about AMD Cards for quite a while that they didn't support HDMI 2.0 while their Display Port Support was kept fairly up to Date... given not all Displays support Display Port,. and the cables for it are ridiculously expensive (just like Thunderbolt Cables,. but that's to expected of Apple/Intel)


          < • >


          Now with this said,. beyond a Higher Resolution Desktop and UHD/60Hz Video Playback... the Rx 360 simply doesn't have the performance for Gaming at 4K60 in even most E-Sports Games.

          While I don't have an R9 360, I do have the R7 360... that for all intended purposes is identical AFAIK.

          As such I ran some performance test on Overwatch using Medium Settings, for the best possible results I used my Workstation Rig and also added Comparison Data with the RX 480.



          AMD Ryzen R5 1600 [3.92GHz]

          Kingston HyperX FURY DDR4 2666MHz 16GB [2x8GB] Dual Channel

          ASUS B350 Prime Plus [B350 Chipset]

          Drevo 128GB M.2 NVMe SSD [OS Drive]

          Seagate 8TB [4x2TB] Barracuda SATA3 HDD [Storage Drives]


          The tests were performed on the Samsung E570DS/EN (28" 2160p FreeSync HDR10) ... although for these tests I disabled HDR10 (10-Bit Colour) and FreeSync,. I also performed the tests first in Native DisplayPort but also via the DisplayPort to HDMI 2.0.

          Reason for this being that I wanted to check to see if there were any Performance Difference between the two,. such-as increased Latency or such... and as I couldn't test Native HDMI 2.0 because only my RX 480 Supports that.


          For now (unless you're curious) I won't get into the differences between SDR and HDR Output Formats,. or how a Display can have HDR but not 10-bit / 12-bit Component Support. Still as noted I've disabled this for testing purposes; as this does albeit it very minor affect performance.


          AMD / Sapphire R7 360 OC is running at a Core Clock 1250MHz and Memory Clock 1650MHz with 2GB GDDR5

          AMD / Asus RX 480 OC Dual is running at a Core Clock 1300MHz and Memory Clock 2000MHz with 8GB GDDR5


          Now as a note, neither GPU is running on "Out-of-the-Box" Settings instead they've been Optimised to maintain their Maximum Clock Frequencies even under load.

          Power Efficiency, Chill and FRTC have been Disabled,. as well as Enhanced Sync and Free Sync have been Forced Off.

          Overwatch Settings are Medium,. with Render Scaling set to 100% (as opposed to Automatic), Reduced Buffering Disabled, Triple Buffering Disabled, V-Sync Disabled and Framerate set to Custom / 300 FPS.


          Finally the Figures are taken from the Training Arena from Several Key Locations as the Match Replay System has a habit of Flushing the Stored Matches each time the game is closed. Could be a bug or that they've not fully implemented the system yet, but until that exists it does make Benchmarking a little frustrating,. and I'd argue that most games should feature such a system as part of their Benchmarking Suite.


          In any case:

          R7 360:

          - 1080p / Min 48 FPS / Max 72 FPS

          - 1440p / Min 35 FPS / Max 46 FPS

          - 2160p / Min 22 FPS / Max 25 FPS


          RX 480

          - 1080p / Min 135 FPS / Max 225 FPS

          - 1440p / Min 96 FPS / Max 155 FPS

          - 2160p / Min 54 FPS / Max 74 FPS


          (Keep in mind these are Medium / Default Settings)

          Overwatch is far from a Demanding Game,. and strictly speaking ... sure on Medium Settings the RX 480 is typically Averaging 60 FPS at 2160p,. so we're essentially talking about that being the Minimum Bar for 2160p60 (4K60) in Overwatch.


          In case you're curious,. the performance difference between Low / Medium / High / Ultra / Epic is essentially 32% Performance Loss Per Quality Setting.

          As such if we use the RX 480 as an example here: Low (est.) 297 FPS / Med 225 FPS / High (est.) 153 FPS / Ultra (est.) 104 FPS / Epic (est.) 71 FPS


          Which those figures are projected,. but aren't actually that far from the actual Performance figures... we can predict fairly similarly on the Resolution Performance differences the same as this tends to also be approx. ±30% as well. If I was up for putting in the effort I'd also calculate the 0.1% and 1% Lows,. then the Average and Framerate Jitter; as this would denote how much the Minimums actually affect Gameplay or Overall Performance.

          Overwatch is fairly "Balanced" in this respect as the Average actually tends to be reasonably close to just being a Meridian Average.


          As such if you're looking for 4K60 Beyond simply the Desktop... then yes you will NEED a better Graphics Card than an Rx 360.

          Gaming Wise,. the Rx 360 is a HD Gaming Card (i.e. 720p60 / 900p60) ... for FHD (1080p60) Gaming you will need either an RX 560 or R9 370X. UHD (1440p60) Gaming you'll need an R9 390X / RX 480 / R9 FURY,. while 4K60 (2160p60) you'll be looking at the RX VEGA 56/64.


          This isn't to say the Rx 360 isn't capable of 1080p60 Gaming, but it's very much on a Game-by-Game Basis and typically you'll have to be running at Medium Settings,. 4K30 is simply not going to happen in most and 4K60 is essentially a pipedream beyond Video Playback and Desktop.

          2 of 2 people found this helpful
            • Re: Does AMD Radeon R9 360 support 4k at 60FPS?

              I would just like to say that i did not read your whole past cause i mean geez wow man. however that fact that you had something intelligent to say and answer this guys question as well as mine straight off the bat  and didnt just give your own opinion about what he should do like all the other pos on the internet. I mean this reply is the best thing i have ever read on the internet on a forum reply. i actually spent the time to get register so i could just thank you.

              • Re: Does AMD Radeon R9 360 support 4k at 60FPS?

                while 4K60 (2160p60) you'll be looking at the RX VEGA 56/64.

                Okey, me late but just that...


                well, my RX570 (DP) is doing nicely @2160p in games like FarCry3/4 or GRW .. no issues!

                3DMark SkyDiver is ~20,020 hence not bad for my 5yo system.


                The Vega line is theethin' expensive here in Australia..