I don't get why you don't get why people are still gaming at 1440p in 2020 because it means that, objectively speaking, you clearly know sod-all about PC hardware performance and costs.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards
- Thread starter LoadsaMoney
- Start date
Not at max settings on modern games, no. But you don't need max settings.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,135
- Location
- Paisley
I went 4k in December when i bought my new pc, i ended up sending the 4k monitor back and went to 1440p ultrawide instead which is what i was using before, sure you can game a lot of things at 4k 120fps, but not everything and i found while 80-100fps was pretty smooth, on some games 4k 60fps felt stuttery, (borderlands 3 for example, which Gears of War 5 was buttery smooth at 60)
Last edited:
I'll take 1440p/144Hz over 4K/60Hz any day, thanks. Dropping back to 60Hz after getting used to high refresh rate gaming feels absolutely disgusting. And of course if you play on a console it's actually 30fps 99% of the time, and will be again in the new generation as developers race to use all their newfound power to make the graphics shinier at the expense of everything else, as they always have. Moving to 4K/HFR isn't realistic even with a 2080 Ti if you want to play "AAA" titles above low settings, and current high refresh monitors range from complete trash to still not that great but require you to remortgage your house. Call me when there's a 4K/144Hz/HDR/1000nits+/FALD monitor available for under a grand.
3080 will run 4k > 60fps. 3080ti even more so. Obviously will be expensive, so will the consoles.
2080ti does > 60 FPS in many games. Loweribg some settings from ultra to high will further help this, and I I'll still look better than mid range 1440p.
4k with less than max settings looks way better than 1440p at max, I completely agree.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,154
- Location
- South Wales
Same here, with 4K it's difficult to maintain 60FPS even with a 2080Ti if going for mostly max settings etc.. can already see that looking at FPS charts with some games, demanding titles have noticeably lower minimum FPS and upcoming games will get more demanding. I won't be jumping to 4K for at least a couple of years. I'll be happy with a 3070/3080 @ 1440p 165hz for a while yet, as long as i can stay around 90 or so FPS in most games I'm happy with it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,154
- Location
- South Wales
I'd just ignore his posts tbh, surprised he hasn't started using the word "peasants" again yet.
Exactly, people who think the new consoles are going to hold a solid 60FPS with top notch graphics AND a native 4K are really kidding themselves.
No chance they will run near the same frame rate at 1440p either, PC will have noticeably higher frames no question.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
Placebo effect no doubt.
I will take higher settings and FPS/HZ at 1440p over 4k for now (if those setting are real, some games it make next to no difference esp today as dumbed down from consoles).
You both have added your option but please accept others.
Well the original rumour was that nVidia were using Samsung for their next gen but with the delays to Samsung's 7nm EUV it was then announced nVidia would be using TSMC for most of their production.
That doesn't sound like it was booked long ago. It sounds, to me anyway, like nVidia might have an issue getting sufficient capacity. Time will tell as allegedly there will be some details around Aug 2020 iirc.
Considering AMD can barely meet demand and nVidia traditionally out-sell them by a factor of 4-6 then I can see issues ahead for nVidia's next gen.
This video has some detail on TSMC 7nm capacity issues and who it is allocated to. I apologise for the source, I know his voice does some people's heads in
Also, the rumour of 50% more performance AND 50% lower power seems like a stretch. Convenient that was leaked just before CES when everyone thought AMD might tease big Navi. Wonder who leaked that BS rumour. Clue: He might wear a leather jacket
This comes up every single time without fail when nVidia have a new GPU in the pipeline "TSMC capacity issues = nVidia in a bad place" - every time they somehow manage fine.
Pretty sure nVidia have some ongoing 7nm production at TSMC (mostly non-GPU) so not sure how they are omitted from the numbers in that video either. nVidia have options so they can ramp onto where the capacity is as needed as well so even if the bulk of GPU production over a product lifespan is at TSMC that doesn't mean it will be first out the gate in that fashion.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2019
- Posts
- 2,570
Obv they have to be written on a PC, but they are not optimised for PC and all the different hardware configs make it harder for the PC to optimise as a console is more To The Metal and has lower specs that remain static till the next new gen unlike PC's which are upgradable and new GPU's come out often.
Its all about options
we have so many different configurations of resolution+refresh now.
Thing is the previous jumps 720p type resolution era, 1080p, 1440p there was a nice jump in both the detail when rendering the same scene in game and the increase in practical usable screen estate at above 1440p that isn't as true where you are better off using scaling to increase the detail things are rendered at while maintaining the same practical estate which makes things like fonts, etc. look nicer but also has some practical limitations on the desktop as a lot of people still work at a scale where per-pixel is relevant. For that reason on the desktop the jump from 1440p upwards isn't going to be as universally adopted as previous jumps and never will. Personally I have both a 4K display and a 1440p so I have the best of both worlds - some games which are mostly dependant on controller for input so you aren't making other compromises the jump in visual detail is very nice to have and for some applications having the 4K screen estate side by side with my main monitor is nice as you can for instance move a library of images to the 4K display so as to have lots more on screen at once for reference purposes in a useful manner.
There speaks someone who hasn't tried it.
Yeah same, I have a 55" 4k fald qled samsung and I only ever use 1440p 120hz.
Im not interested in using it for 4k 60hz with low settings unstable framerate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2013
- Posts
- 9,916
- Location
- M28
I'm using a 55" 4K screen but just use GSync so don't really notice any unstable framerate as can quite comfortably hit the 40-60 cushion.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Which model out of interest? Good scaling? Freesync on it? Thanks.