• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

36 Teraflops is still not enough for 4K 60 FPS minimum

DonJorginho

Member
Jan 22, 2020
4,376
13,924
770
Kanye's Kitchen
I don't know, I just play and enjoy my games man
Sorry Keanu Reeves GIF
 

8BiTw0LF

Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,427
3,590
800
My 3090 is still not enough for 4K 60 in all games...what are the consoles makers thinking trying to advertise 4K native 1080p or 1440p should be standard on those machine with better detail. What do you guys think?
Games are not made specifically for your hardware setup. That's a force consoles have. Optimizing and coding directly for the hardware in consoles extends their life-span. Plus it will never be native 4K/60fps in AAA games on consoles - always some dynamic/checkerboard 1440p-2160p.
 

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
2,036
3,730
525
35
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
It will never be enough. They want you to upgrade in the future again.
It won't be enough next generation as well. (Also Ampere TF are inflated)

There will always be a new desirable resolution, a new desirable feature or a new desirable framerate that people gravitate to.
You will never be satisfied and they will continue to make money. That is how it works.

Especially once you are at the top end you will always be at the top end. You can't go back. People that bought the 3090 already know they are going to buy the 4090 or 5090.
 

Reindeer

Member
Dec 29, 2019
2,729
5,091
565
Ampere tflops do not equal performance gain you think they do and do not scale 1:1 to Turing or RDNA2 so it's useless quoting tflop numbers. Turing and RDNA2 tflops are more comparable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tillbot8

Banned
Aug 4, 2020
1,876
4,355
395
Too many factors and variables. The reality is you are only going to see incremental increases in overall performance with ever new iteration of card. The benchmarks suggest wider then that you actually experience on your screen. It's the nature of the Industry and what the Devs can do with budget and time constraints also. Gotta remember it's all symbiotic. The motherboard, the Ram, the SSD, the CPU, the drivers. The cooling. All have to be optimal at all times to even be at distince with the theoretical performance. Everything is always going to be a compromise. It gets better all the time but not at Moore's Law!
 

martino

Member
Apr 25, 2013
6,901
4,897
810
France
i still think we can get a lot more from those 36tflops and current engine are not designed for that.
but if nothing change in one year or 2 top....then the conclusion will be nvidia failed with that choice.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,831
42,138
1,995
120hz? lol sure it's good but 144-240hz is where it's at.

I'm happy enough with 120hz thank you very much. 144hz sounds nice but when you consider the difference between 60 and 120hz, going from 120 to 144 is well within the realm of diminishing returns.

As for 240hz, good luck running that playing modern games at 1440p. Maybe in 3 years time.
 

//DEVIL//

Member
May 28, 2014
2,402
1,854
690
Man I am happy with how ghost of Tsushima looks on PS5 . And you are not happy with some games not 60 frames native 4k lol.

I honestly one of the perks of owning a console . Fuck all settings and just play.
I spend most of my game time on pc just looking at frames and temps with msi after burner . I only actually play when I am on consoles lol
 

billyxci

13 year old console warrior. Put me on ignore.
Aug 3, 2014
13,847
8,805
1,040
I'm happy enough with 120hz thank you very much. 144hz sounds nice but when you consider the difference between 60 and 120hz, going from 120 to 144 is well within the realm of diminishing returns.

As for 240hz, good luck running that playing modern games at 1440p. Maybe in 3 years time.
lol i actually agree. my monitor can do up to 165hz but anything between 120-165hz is not really noticeable. 120hz is good. my TV is 120hz and playing games on it is a great experience. definitely way better than 60hz.

240hz is more for esports games like CS:GO, LoL, Overwatch, etc. those games aren't that demanding so it's easy to get 240hz on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHG

VFXVeteran

Professional Victim (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
5,461
12,436
825
Poor optimization is a thing
It's not poor optimization. It's just sheer bandwidth limitations. The entire shader pipeline is dependent on pixels requiring shading. All games are "shader" limited. The more pixels you need to shade, the slower the pipeline will be. That's why I told people that even the 3090 isn't good enough for ALL games. It totally depends on how you are designing your game and how the graphics pipeline's role will play.
 

amigastar

Member
May 14, 2018
1,256
1,199
415
38
Man I am happy with how ghost of Tsushima looks on PS5 . And you are not happy with some games not 60 frames native 4k lol.

I honestly one of the perks of owning a console . Fuck all settings and just play.
I spend most of my game time on pc just looking at frames and temps with msi after burner . I only actually play when I am on consoles lol
Funny, thats a huge overstatement cause i play everything on my PC and its fine, even if my PC is now older.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rheon and //DEVIL//

billyxci

13 year old console warrior. Put me on ignore.
Aug 3, 2014
13,847
8,805
1,040
4K is a waste to PC gamers who sit at a desk. to really notice the difference you need a 32" monitor or bigger. according to Steam the resolution most people (67.29% users) play at is 1080p so i expect most people are playing on up to 24" screens. shit, i had a 32" 4K monitor and after a few days i returned it. the small improvement in clarity was definitely not worth the hit in performance my games took. i went from playing at 1440p 60 plus fps to 4K with 30-60fps. the monitor had Gsync but it was still an awful experience.

i got a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor and it feels just right. still quite large screen, resolution is obviously not as sharp but still really good, and 144hz....bloody amazing. for me frame rate > resolution. i honestly don't think i'll be replacing this monitor until we get 5K or even 8K 144hz monitors and of course hardware with that kind of performance. I can't go back to a pathetic measly 60hz and 4K just isn't worth it even if we had powerful enough hardware. i'm skipping 4K and waiting for 5-8K :)

also, right now is a shit time cause we're just starting a new console generation so engines are being updated and of course there is raytracing. the increase in processing power on GPUs might not be enough to keep up with advancements of game tech. maybe in a few years we'll see PC take over and make leaps.
 
Last edited:

VFXVeteran

Professional Victim (Vetted)
Nov 5, 2019
5,461
12,436
825
Man I am happy with how ghost of Tsushima looks on PS5 . And you are not happy with some games not 60 frames native 4k lol.

I honestly one of the perks of owning a console . Fuck all settings and just play.
I spend most of my game time on pc just looking at frames and temps with msi after burner . I only actually play when I am on consoles lol
I hear ya about Tsushima man. I'm going to do a graphics analysis here soon. Amazing game!!
 

rofif

Member
Sep 13, 2019
7,766
10,953
670
1440p was the next logical step but Microsoft and Sony wanted to slap "4K" on those boxes so badly....
1440p is a barely upgrade from 1080p imo. On tv it does not matter though. 1080p with great TAA/DLSS can look just as good. On monitor I will argue that 4k is benefitial
 

rodrigolfp

Member
Jan 27, 2017
2,073
1,277
470
Brazil
Man I am happy with how ghost of Tsushima looks on PS5 . And you are not happy with some games not 60 frames native 4k lol.

I honestly one of the perks of owning a console . Fuck all settings and just play.
I spend most of my game time on pc just looking at frames and temps with msi after burner . I only actually play when I am on consoles lol
Sure, Jam you spend on Witcher 3 like 201 hours looking only to fps and temps and 200 hours playing.
 

Kerotan

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,852
3,695
505
Games are not made specifically for your hardware setup. That's a force consoles have. Optimizing and coding directly for the hardware in consoles extends their life-span. Plus it will never be native 4K/60fps in AAA games on consoles - always some dynamic/checkerboard 1440p-2160p.
And that's why I'll never build an over priced pc. Consoles offer unrivaled value.
 

Rbk_3

Member
Nov 20, 2013
1,909
721
710
1440p is a barely upgrade from 1080p imo. On tv it does not matter though. 1080p with great TAA/DLSS can look just as good. On monitor I will argue that 4k is benefitial

1440p is a big upgrade to 1080p. It has 78% more pixels and it the perfect balance for current hardware limitations.

I own a 3090 with a LG C9 and a 240hz 1440p monitor and hardly ever use the TV.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
26,831
42,138
1,995
lol i actually agree. my monitor can do up to 165hz but anything between 120-165hz is not really noticeable. 120hz is good. my TV is 120hz and playing games on it is a great experience. definitely way better than 60hz.

240hz is more for esports games like CS:GO, LoL, Overwatch, etc. those games aren't that demanding so it's easy to get 240hz on them.

I don't know what kind of hardware it would take but I'd love to experience a modern game at 240-360hz @1440p or above. It would probably melt my face.
 
Jun 1, 2016
2,807
3,698
795
On PC 1440p @ 120hz is where it's at, even on a 4k display. AA techniques and DLSS are good enough to clean things up sufficiently at that resolution.
I recently upgraded to 1440p 170hz and oh my it's so sharp. Went from 24" to 27" and was not expecting this sharpness increase due to also size increase but it's there. Loving the m27q.
 

Whitecrow

Member
May 7, 2018
2,359
3,825
615
It's not poor optimization. It's just sheer bandwidth limitations. The entire shader pipeline is dependent on pixels requiring shading. All games are "shader" limited. The more pixels you need to shade, the slower the pipeline will be. That's why I told people that even the 3090 isn't good enough for ALL games. It totally depends on how you are designing your game and how the graphics pipeline's role will play.
You are confusing bandwidth with workload.
With enough workload, you can even fuck up 1080p60fps.

Since there are 4k games at steady 60 fps or more, the bandwith for the number of pixels is not the problem.
The problem are all the calculations needed to shade that pixel. And that's where code quality comes in.

If the code is horrendous, no matter how powerful the hardware is, it will performe badly.
See the GTA Online loading problem as an example.

Also, let me tell you that lots of indie games, code quality is not the best and lots of oversights can happen that harms the performance.

Anyways, could you post those games that your GPU is struggling with?
 
Last edited:

Winter™

Member
Nov 6, 2016
1,952
1,936
675
My 3090 is still not enough for 4K 60 in all games...what are the consoles makers thinking trying to advertise 4K native 1080p or 1440p should be standard on those machine with better detail. What do you guys think?
What were you thinking on spending so much money and still not getting 4k60fps? Gosh, go do something with your life... I mean just buy a PS5.