Hmm. Yeah, maybe.The massive increase in fps versus the small increase in latency is worth it for graphic heavy games ala Cyberpunk 2077 with RT.
+55% in framerates for 11.6ms penalty... uh yes please? I wish i had that on Ampere. At least it's an option you can opt in or out, but i would totally take it for cyberpunk 2077. I would not use the frame generation for games which are already >144 fps.
So nobody notices the blurriness it's just me, how? It's so apparent. I play shooters mostly where looking around quickly to scan my environment, in these games it's just awful. Maybe in single player slow games where you're not turning fast constantly it's not big deal but man does it suck in shooters.
But that's not really a response.
Gives me time to save up I guess
It's only good at quality but some games still have some weird artifacts when you turn the camera.
I typically go with Quality but Quality at 1440p looked worse than Performance at 4k in Cyberpunk.
With a 2070super i can't be so picky, so sometimes i have to use balanced and performance.
It's disappointing to have to settle for DLSS performance. Not gonna lie. I put off playing cyberpunk on my 2080 because i didnt like the 30-35 fps performance i was getting on dlss quality at 1440p with RT maxed out. But once I got the 3080, 4k was just such a big upgrade over 1440p that I simply decided to downgrade to DLSS Performance and turned down RT lighting from Psycho to Quality. Like I spent close to $1000 only to downgrade settings lol and i still only average 50 fps which is fine since my tv supports gsync but still.
They will have seizures. Too much tech for them.
This is why i'm not gonna go with anything behind a 6900 or 3090 for the next gpu, hopefully amd is gonna offer a valid alternative to the 4080 16gb for less than 1000 euros.
You said so much but all you did is downplay the improvements and flexibility by playing on PC and give a subjective opinion that it's not worth it to you which honestly in the end is fine. Also you are painting with a really broad brush with your "analysis". All your points could be true depending on what exact game we are discussing but also entirely wrong if we do so with another game, but in most cases the differences are stark. The typical side by side image comparison may not seem like some major upgrade and it's a terrible way to try and comprehend the benefits of gaming on a high end PC, I myself built my first gaming PC 3 years ago after playing Destiny 2 on a friends PC, a game I had nearly 2k hours and within an hour of playing it on PC I was already making a list of parts. Also when you say that consoles get close to 4k/60fps in most games you are forgetting to notate that developers achieve this by making quite a few concessions to the overall game. On PC this is again typically not an issue, especially with the new hardware releasing both now and the always evolving options whereas consoles for a minimum of 3-4 years are always restrained to their current specs and by default already outdated at the time of launch.It's really not, though. It's an improvement, sure, but the difference is really pretty minimal, especially in comparison to past gens.
It was one thing during the PS3/360 era, when games were 720p (or lower, ugh) and barely 30fps. Then, a moderate PC (still more than the cost of a console, but not too much more) would net you a significant jump.
Today though, PS5 and Xbox SX already get you 4k (or close) and 60fps in pretty much every game. The higher the baseline gets, the less noticeable any further jump is.
- 720p => 1080p, especially due to the lower quality of AA at the time, makes a huge difference in image quality.
- Obviously, going from 30fps => 60fps is also transformative.
- Beyond resolution and framerate, games often had noticeably improved higher end graphics options for PC: physx, shadows/AO, higher res textures, etc.
So to have any real improvement, you need a system that can do 4k or higher at 120fps at max settings, which is going to be multiple thousands of dollars - five or more times as much as a console - for less and less meaningful improvements.
- Even if the game is only 1440p on console, the difference between 1440p and 4k is much smaller than 720p => 1080p. Depending on the quality of the AA, it's honestly almost imperceptible on my 65" TV from my couch.
- 60fps => 120fps is half the improvement in frametime as 30 => 60. It's better, sure, but it's just not that different in most games.
- It seems like 90% of games don't even have any extra graphical options at all for PC any more.
And that's completely ignoring all the issues and headaches you'll run into on PC: shader compilation stutter, vsync/fullscreen/HDR issues, settings not staying set, no rest mode/quick resume... those are the real reason I'm sick of PCs.
So yes, if you don't care about the things the consoles can do that PCs can't (quickly jumping in and out of rest mode), and you don't mind or miraculously avoid the numerous bugs and issues, you can definitely get some improvements. The "it's a different game" rhetoric is just a bit silly - it's a nice, fairly minor improvement.
Now, as the gen goes on, if games start running at 30fps again and/or closer to 1080p - then I completely agree.
These 4nm chips are helping them hit almost 3.0 Ghz in a freaking GPU. Not to mention putting 76 BILLION transistors in one chip while keeping power consumption lower than last gen models. For reference, PS5 GPU is around 10 billion transistors.
Ive seen 3090 Tis go for $999. They will crash the day 4090 cards come out. Unless there is another shortage, you should be able to buy these cards for $999 by holiday season next year.
I've found it looks okay when there's little movement onscreen, and I think that's what analysts like Digital Foundry do when they're taking pictures and saying "Look! 1080p DLSS'd to 4K is as good as 4K Native!"
I makes me cringe as the 80s / 90s parody of the future became reality.I made this little collage of all the 4090 video thumbnails, for your viewing pleasure
The peasantry is strong with this one. Consoles with all their limitations and lack of freedom can't compete with pc gaming!So to have any real improvement, you need a system that can do 4k or higher at 120fps at max settings, which is going to be multiple thousands of dollars - five or more times as much as a console - for less and less meaningful improvements.
And that's completely ignoring all the issues and headaches you'll run into on PC: shader compilation stutter, vsync/fullscreen/HDR issues, settings not staying set, no rest mode/quick resume... those are the real reason I'm sick of PCs.
So yes, if you don't care about the things the consoles can do that PCs can't (quickly jumping in and out of rest mode), and you don't mind or miraculously avoid the numerous bugs and issues, you can definitely get some improvements. The "it's a different game" rhetoric is just a bit silly - it's a nice, fairly minor improvement.
Now, as the gen goes on, if games start running at 30fps again and/or closer to 1080p - then I completely agree.
I salute youIt's really not, though. It's an improvement, sure, but the difference is really pretty minimal, especially in comparison to past gens.
It was one thing during the PS3/360 era, when games were 720p (or lower, ugh) and barely 30fps. Then, a moderate PC (still more than the cost of a console, but not too much more) would net you a significant jump.
Today though, PS5 and Xbox SX already get you 4k (or close) and 60fps in pretty much every game. The higher the baseline gets, the less noticeable any further jump is.
- 720p => 1080p, especially due to the lower quality of AA at the time, makes a huge difference in image quality.
- Obviously, going from 30fps => 60fps is also transformative.
- Beyond resolution and framerate, games often had noticeably improved higher end graphics options for PC: physx, shadows/AO, higher res textures, etc.
So to have any real improvement, you need a system that can do 4k or higher at 120fps at max settings, which is going to be multiple thousands of dollars - five or more times as much as a console - for less and less meaningful improvements.
- Even if the game is only 1440p on console, the difference between 1440p and 4k is much smaller than 720p => 1080p. Depending on the quality of the AA, it's honestly almost imperceptible on my 65" TV from my couch.
- 60fps => 120fps is half the improvement in frametime as 30 => 60. It's better, sure, but it's just not that different in most games.
- It seems like 90% of games don't even have any extra graphical options at all for PC any more.
And that's completely ignoring all the issues and headaches you'll run into on PC: shader compilation stutter, vsync/fullscreen/HDR issues, settings not staying set, no rest mode/quick resume... those are the real reason I'm sick of PCs.
So yes, if you don't care about the things the consoles can do that PCs can't (quickly jumping in and out of rest mode), and you don't mind or miraculously avoid the numerous bugs and issues, you can definitely get some improvements. The "it's a different game" rhetoric is just a bit silly - it's a nice, fairly minor improvement.
Now, as the gen goes on, if games start running at 30fps again and/or closer to 1080p - then I completely agree.
darthkarki
! Well said!! People's perspective are so out of whack these days. They want to talk about "massive" differences when a game is 1620p vs 1800p? Right...Not everyone either A) has the money/resources, or B) care about pushing graphics further than 4K/60fps. Ada is well ahead of it's time and it is a card designed to handle heavy RT loads and future path traced games. That's coming...but in the here and now it's just overkill for 99% of games (4K/120+ is literally <1% of gamers today). I love how Richard from Digital Foundry put it in their review: Ada is for the next generation of the next generation that we haven't even reached yet 
. Let's catch up to what the next gen consoles and UE5 is designed to offer first and then we'll worry about hitting full RT/PT games in the next decade.
This can't be right ?Posted this in the other thread.
Reducing power target to 60% = 300watts will get 90% normal performance
Sorry but playing games at 4k 160 fps with ultra settings is a huge difference than what my PS5 is doingIt's really not, though. It's an improvement, sure, but the difference is really pretty minimal, especially in comparison to past gens.
It was one thing during the PS3/360 era, when games were 720p (or lower, ugh) and barely 30fps. Then, a moderate PC (still more than the cost of a console, but not too much more) would net you a significant jump.
Today though, PS5 and Xbox SX already get you 4k (or close) and 60fps in pretty much every game. The higher the baseline gets, the less noticeable any further jump is.
- 720p => 1080p, especially due to the lower quality of AA at the time, makes a huge difference in image quality.
- Obviously, going from 30fps => 60fps is also transformative.
- Beyond resolution and framerate, games often had noticeably improved higher end graphics options for PC: physx, shadows/AO, higher res textures, etc.
So to have any real improvement, you need a system that can do 4k or higher at 120fps at max settings, which is going to be multiple thousands of dollars - five or more times as much as a console - for less and less meaningful improvements.
- Even if the game is only 1440p on console, the difference between 1440p and 4k is much smaller than 720p => 1080p. Depending on the quality of the AA, it's honestly almost imperceptible on my 65" TV from my couch.
- 60fps => 120fps is half the improvement in frametime as 30 => 60. It's better, sure, but it's just not that different in most games.
- It seems like 90% of games don't even have any extra graphical options at all for PC any more.
And that's completely ignoring all the issues and headaches you'll run into on PC: shader compilation stutter, vsync/fullscreen/HDR issues, settings not staying set, no rest mode/quick resume... those are the real reason I'm sick of PCs.
So yes, if you don't care about the things the consoles can do that PCs can't (quickly jumping in and out of rest mode), and you don't mind or miraculously avoid the numerous bugs and issues, you can definitely get some improvements. The "it's a different game" rhetoric is just a bit silly - it's a nice, fairly minor improvement.
Now, as the gen goes on, if games start running at 30fps again and/or closer to 1080p - then I completely agree.
Spending $10,000 every few years on a new rig and not thinking that's outrageous is a pretty privileged position to be in. By all means, do what you want, you earned the money and have every right to spend it but lets not act like you aren't part of the 1% of pc users playing videogames. I think its cool, tbh. Having tip-top hardware is legit af.
You do not need 4K screen to enjoy benefits of 4K res. I have been playing on my 2013 panny plasma in 4K via downsampling since 2016. I would totally use 4090 even on my screen in games like Cyberpunk with RT.
Its crazy expensive and I'm questioning if it will be worth the investment. Next gen PC games and how they run on RTX 3000 series cards will determine if I'm going to be parting with a kidney for one of these RTX 4000 series cards.
Right now Cyberpunk is already pushing my RTX 3080 on ultra at 1440p. Then again I have a ton of mods installed on top of the base game so surely that must be eating some valuable frames too
