If next year's consoles do 4k/60..

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

They didn't even have 4k monitors available in 2012.

I believe the first consumer 4k monitor was released mid 2013? And used tiling

Unless it was a 4K projector??

 

[VincentHanna]

Also

The 780 wasn't released until 2013, the 980 wasn't released until 2014, and the 980Ti wasn't out until late 2015.

So how were you running 4k in 2012 with triple 780?

 

[Hedge]

I googled 4k gaming 2012..

November 2013
The pc in the main article cost 8k for an sli titan build.

Monitors were eye-wateringly expensive too.

 

[tyler_jrb]

Also

The 780 wasn't released until 2013, the 980 wasn't released until 2014, and the 980Ti wasn't out until late 2015.

So how were you running 4k in 2012 with triple 780?

It would have been 2013 looking back at some of my old photos not going to lie .

I was thinking the 780’s were released earlier, long time ago now though. Did have cards prior but no where near as powerful. Certainly not 4k worthy anyway. Asus released the 321 back in 2013.

4k was very expensive back in the day yes.

 

[NZXT30]

PC gaming imo was way better back when the first xbox came out. Back then the PC had so many exclusives that were real AAA pc only games. These days PC just doesn't get that kind of attention from big developers. There is probably more people playing on PC now but the standard of games and what is being played has changed.

Exclusives have become quite rare across the board since they don't make sense financially. Still PC gaming has the most exclusive games than any other platform.

 

[VincentHanna]

I googled 4k gaming 2012..

November 2013
The pc in the main article cost 8k for an sli titan build.

Monitors were eye-wateringly expensive too.

I had a 58" Panaonic 4K LED TV in 2014 - Weirdly it had a Display Port.

I was running an AMD 295x2 + 290x in Triple Crossfire. Even then it wasn't particularly great. It took Titan X Maxwell SLI to run things properly.

Look at that ugly mess:

Spoiler

 

[Hedge]

It would have been 2013 looking back at some of my old photos not going to lie .

I was thinking the 780’s were released earlier, long time ago now though. Did have cards prior but no where near as powerful. Certainly not 4k worthy anyway. Asus released the 321 back in 2013.

4k was very expensive back in the day yes.

4k is still expensive. How much does it cost to do 4k 60fps on the current top quality games?

 

[tyler_jrb]

4k is still expensive. How much does it cost to do 4k 60fps on the current top quality games?

You could do it with a 2070/5700XT id suspect with reasonable quality settings. The new Xbox/ps5 will likely be proof of that using some kind of 5700XT. Only really starts to chug power on the upper settings generally.

2080Ti is ideal if you want to push the settings. Just obviously being stupid expensive.

 

[Poneros]

4k is still expensive. How much does it cost to do 4k 60fps on the current top quality games?

If we talk about max settings including the brute force options that sometimes exist (eg Witcher 2's DOF/Ubersampling, Metro's DOF, MSAA 8x in general etc) then probably not even achievable. The real question is, how much does it cost for games while adjusting for diminishing returns type of settings and do you include RTX? And also, if a game can keep 60 fps >95% of the time but you get the odd scenario where it drops below that (certain scenes etc) does it still count? And what if those scenarios aren't "fixable" through more powerful hardware (until decades in the future)? So, there's a lot of subjectivity involved. Plus, how many of the games should qualify? All of them? What if one's just badly optimized (eg Quantum Break)?

I'd say the minimum is something like the following: 2600 + 16GB ram + 5700, which comes to around £643.24
If your settings are a bit higher then might want to swap to 2070S, which is +£150 but idk if 10-15% performance extra would be worth that much.
Overall I don't know that I'd call 4K super expensive to enjoy, obviously it's still a lot of pixels to push, no matter what, but I think it's not too expensive to have a system for such resolutions so long as your demands aren't simply 'gotta have everything'.

 

[Grim5]

The key thing here is base hardware.

PC gamers can say "Oh we've had SSD's for over a decade - Which is correct, but the only real benefit we've had is faster load times or helping with stuttering in games that have bad streaming (Arkham Knight for example)

You are 100% correct. PC gamers like to jump on the SSD bandwagon, but are quick to forget that games get little to no benefit from SSD's because the game worlds are still designed for 5400RPM mechanical drives.

So yes your games load a bit faster but thats it.

Now that almost everyone will have a nvme SSD, games will be built from the ground up for SSD's. I played some Star Citizen last night and got to see this in action, even on a nvme drive you can see the effects of the huge amount of data streaming going on.

The notion of getting a "2080ti" in a £500 console makes it sound like a wonder machine whereas it would have set you back £1000+ for just the GPU. I can understand that but its probably not quite true in reality.

Its not a good idea to compare the price to Nvidia. Here is why, the 2080 and 2080ti are MASSIVE chips on 12nm, they cost a lot of money to build. On top of this Nvidia likes to add 50% to 60% margin on it's products. AMD adds less margin (typically 30% to 40%) and has a much lower build cost with smaller dies built on 7nm and 7nm+.

 

[hyperseven]

You are 100% correct. PC gamers like to jump on the SSD bandwagon, but are quick to forget that games get little to no benefit from SSD's because the game worlds are still designed for 5400RPM mechanical drives.

So yes your games load a bit faster but thats it.

Now that almost everyone will have a nvme SSD, games will be built from the ground up for SSD's. I played some Star Citizen last night and got to see this in action, even on a nvme drive you can see the effects of the huge amount of data streaming going on.



Its not a good idea to compare the price to Nvidia. Here is why, the 2080 and 2080ti are MASSIVE chips on 12nm, they cost a lot of money to build. On top of this Nvidia likes to add 50% to 60% margin on it's products. AMD adds less margin (typically 30% to 40%) and has a much lower build cost with smaller dies built on 7nm and 7nm+.

Its not only just loading games. Installing digitally is way faster when on an SSD as most downloads are encrypted or compressed (especially preloads) and the time taken to uncompress/decrypt etc is infinitely faster than a mech.

 

[stooeh]

Like POE updates on steam

 

[BigBANGtheory]

Its not a good idea to compare the price to Nvidia. Here is why, the 2080 and 2080ti are MASSIVE chips on 12nm, they cost a lot of money to build. On top of this Nvidia likes to add 50% to 60% margin on it's products. AMD adds less margin (typically 30% to 40%) and has a much lower build cost with smaller dies built on 7nm and 7nm+.

I think Nvidia are adding more than 60% margin on a 2080ti, at least it feels like it by the time it reaches retail

 

[hyperseven]

I think Nvidia are adding more than 60% margin on a 2080ti, at least it feels like it by the time it reaches retail

60% margin, source for that figure please.

 

[Grim5]

60% margin, source for that figure please.

Nvidia gross margins by year and quarter




https://ycharts.com/companies/NVDA/gross_profit_margin

 

[Grim5]

AMD gross margins

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Nvidia net and gross margins are higher than Intel and Apple AFAIK.

 

[hyperseven]

Nvidia gross margins by year and quarter




https://ycharts.com/companies/NVDA/gross_profit_margin

That has nothing to do with 60% profit on each 2080Ti AFAIK these companies don't publicly release the breakdown and production cost of each product.

 

[Hedge]

That has nothing to do with 60% profit on each 2080Ti AFAIK these companies don't publicly release the breakdown and production cost of each product.

So you find it unlikely?

I personally find 60 percent profit well within the realms of possibility for them.

 

[hyperseven]

So you find it unlikely?

I personally find 60 percent profit well within the realms of possibility for them.

Well, yes. You can't just pluck arbitrary figures out of the air. Why 'for them'

Is this like wccftech now where we can just make stuff up