• 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.

Right lets talk everyone - are we all just been psychologically tricked into "needing" new graphics cards?

Combat squirrel

Combat squirrel

Combat squirrel

Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
11,133
So I've just been playing the new Indy game - apparently one of the hardest titles to run these days & this thoughts crossed my mind.

Spec: 5700X3D, 6800XT, 32GB Ram.

Everything absolutely maxed out, supreme settings, 3840x1600 on a 38" widescreen gaming monitor, VRR on, literally everything maxed, including ray tracing, the only 'trickery' enabled is 'dynamic resolution scaling'

64 fps, 99th 55fps low - and absolutely flawless looking image - I suppose it 'must be' doing something with resolution scaling but I'll be damned if I can tell - the lines look perfect, smooth, no blur.

It looks fantastic, and runs buttery smooth, my screens variable refresh is locking the refresh to the screen sync so feels great to play.

So why this hysterical "NEED" to play this game on a 5090? Many times I've seen comments on here 'oh im waiting to play it 'properly' on a 5090 :cry::rolleyes:.

Are we all just kidding ourselves? I literally fail to see how having a 5090 would make it any better, sure it would run at a few more fps, but the latency would actually go up once you start throwing on DLSS etc

My point is, the games already absolutely maxed out, it runs buttery smooth - no doubt we'll get someone replying 'they can tell' - but really, can you, its butter smooth mate, is it just in your head? - the lines look flawless, the textures amazing, the ray traced lighting is wonderful - the HDR looks amaze balls.

If everything in the game is maxed to the max, no matter what it runs on its going to look essentially the same but at say 90fps on a 5090 or 220 fps with magic AI smudging the image.

So sell it me - I can pay £2500 as far as I'm aware and have for all intents and purposes, the same experience, woopdee doo.

Is dynamic res scaling so insanely amazing on AMD I'm missing something? it looks fantastic.

If your answer is, if you pause it, get out a magnifying glass, strain your eyes and its fractionally better on a 5090, but then its smudged anyway by DLSS4, get in the bin, who cares if you're ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME.

So yeah, total mystery to me why id need to upgrade - the graphics settings are already topped out and it runs great.

Or do I have a magic 6800XT that's somehow running this far too fast? lol
 
Last edited:
You say everything maxed, but does the 6800XT do path tracing for instance?

The easiest part of the game is The Vatican, I was easily getting 80fps+ there

Later, in Sukhothai I saw dips into high 30 fps at DLSS Quality, Full path tracing at 4k and that was on a 4090
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
You say everything maxed, but does the 6800XT do path tracing for instance?

The easiest part of the game is The Vatican, I was easily getting 80fps+ there

Later, in Sukhothai I saw dips into high 30 fps at DLSS Quality, Full path tracing at 4k and that was on a 4090
Click to expand...

Yeah it must do path tracing because it supports the required DX12.2 ?
 
VincentHanna said:
I'm of the understanding that Path Tracing is only available on 4000 series Nvidia GPU's

Click to expand...

Ok but again........its not THAT difference to whatever ray tracing its using maxed out now......ok TECHNICALLY it maybe, but my point remains that 'does it matter'

Furthermore - your response is EXACTLY my point, its almost as if you're trying to justify the "need" for it, to spend insane amounts of money - for what gain ? Won't make the game any different, playing along enjoying the story won't change in the slightest to ray tracing vs path tracing...........do you get what I'm saying, the response here is 'technical' - which on the face of it, its hard to tell if its on or off at face value - which is hardly a dramatic change is it.

HDR looks more obvious to me if im honest lol

Anyway you get me? its oceans of money for something that if you glanced at it you're not sure if its on or off.

Hardware unboxed did a video on this I believe, ray tracing not being dramatic in all but 1 or 2 examples, even then.........slight.
 
Why not just play it on a £250 Xbox Series S? Won't make the game any different.

Nobody needs to spend £2500 on a GPU. Nobody needs an Xbox. It's a hobby. If you're happy with how games look on your 6800XT then what's the problem?
 
Ascendancy said:
Why not just play it on a £250 Xbox Series S? Won't make the game any different.

Nobody needs to spend £2500 on a GPU. Nobody needs an Xbox. It's a hobby. If you're happy with how games look on your 6800XT then what's the problem?
Click to expand...

No problem, Yeah im happy, ill keep my £2500 - but beyond exampling the lowest possible denominator - im playing it maxed out smoothly, so my points more 'its maxed, its smooth, where is there to go from there' + all the content of my OP.

I.e. spending tons of money isn't net going to gain me much, the jump from what im seeing maxed now to 'maxed' on a 5090 is absolutely tiny.
 
This post makes me feel better over the last time I was ****** as a fart on here.

Please tell me, which games do you play exactly that came out in the past 3 years?

You claim 20-20 vision but I have worse than that and VRR/FSR look bloody awful to me, you sure you haven't just trained yourself to deal with poor frames and settings? Makes me think of a certain "audiophile" in his late 40's that likes to pretend he has the hearing of a 20 year old. I'm very hardware agnostic, most of my cards in the past 10 years have been AMD/ATI. I found anything other than DLSS so utterly poo I spent the extra to go Nvidia, the fact AMD are going the same development route with their new cards as Nv is kinda telling.
 
Last edited:
I mean nobody's saying you have to. I'm not going to try to convince you, you do what you want.
But if you're play on a 144hz 4K screen (and don't want the dynamic resolution trickery) maybe the 6800XT won't cut it in all the games somebody wants to play.

Also maybe what's butter smooth at 60fps to one person feels awful to someone that's used to 120+fps. And for me the "feel" is as much a thing as the look.
 
Because they got money to burn and wana spend it basically for insert reason here.

When playing your usually got aims to do like im after this guy, or racing to win, Most should be not really noticing little differences while playing and doing something in the game. Its only if you dont and stop to look at stuff ppl generally would notice the differences but if your in a battle trying to survive youd probs not notice any difference as your going be too occupied to worry oh that bit is super realistic on the reflection on the puddle or something.

Id probs wager ppl would buy the big cards more for ai work or content creation than gaming. As isnt that what nviida advertise them 90 cards towards in the marketing? Most people are happy enough that if it plays fludily enough with no stutter or jumps and looks pretty nice, there happy enough. Some fall into the ooh look new cards category and think they might be missing out on features or somit but as said most ppl should be happy when they reach a balance of looks nice and plays smooth. Well imo anyhow i think thats how it goes.

I mean im happy enough with my 6700xt games are smooth and looks nice, Id admit if a gpu had video upscaling on streaming or local where i can just flick a switch on a setting it would upscale in real time and make old tv shows that i have or see on a stream that goes from 480 to 1080p or 4k even (dont have 4k screen but if it looked better even resized which it does hence super res in games), then i might consider a upgrade for that. As in it would upscale star trek ds9 or voy to 4k, and looked amazing, id love that kinda feature. And yes some gpus do have something a bit like that but its not exactly amazing at the mo, it makes it slightly less blury maybe. And only under certain conditions. Actually edge has upscaling and i do use it a now and then, for some things, but its not like say gona make the likely lads tv show look like 4k remastered with ai trickery in real time difference, maybe in the future lol.
 
SkeeterUK said:
but its not like say gona make the likely lads tv show look like 4k remastered with ai trickery in real time difference, maybe in the future lol.
Click to expand...

Given the fact you're even aware of that show I'd argue you're old as dirt and probably not capable of viewing much difference, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Upscaling is apparently fantastic for geriatrics if you're on AMD.

You would be all well served running a cheap console like a Series S over a mid range PC even if you need gaming and productivity. You could have both for half the amount you've spent, I'm being honest here, if you can't tell the difference why spend more?
 
Last edited:
Gray2233 said:
Given the fact you're even aware of that show I'd argue you're old as dirt and probably not capable of viewing much difference, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Upscaling is apparently fantastic for geriatrics if you're on AMD.
Click to expand...
Yeah I do wonder how people can fail to notice difference between DLSS (especially now with preset E being default with 3.8.10) and FSR2+, don't get me wrong I don't think FSR3.1+ is that bad as a whole but it still falls short of DLSS, and that gulf is gonna get even wider come Feb.
 
early 40s tho dunno why age has anything to do with it as most here would that age or older. I just like old tv shows as well as new or inbetween i just picked a old one at random. Oh and i more meant the whatever happened to the likely lads, the color one. Or say awp s1 and 2 which probs will never get a 4k remaster.
 
Last edited:
SkeeterUK said:
early 40s tho dunno why age has anything to do with it as most here would that age or older. I just like old tv shows as well as new or inbetween i just picked a old one at random. Oh and i more meant the whatever happened to the likely lads, the color one. Or say awp s1 and 2 which probs will never get a 4k remaster.
Click to expand...

I'm a 40 year old geordie and love the Likely Lads myself, but as we age things like eyesight and our ability to appreciate audio ranges naturally decrease.

I wasn't trying to be negative, but it's worth considering going forward. I can still notice the difference, but if you can't why keep spending the cash on PC hardware? I'll sure as hell be jumping ship once I can't for games, I play fewer and fewer FPS type titles so why spend the money on even mid range PC tech?
 
Last edited:
Gray2233 said:
This post makes me feel better over the last time I was ****** as a fart on here.

Please tell me, which games do you play exactly that came out in the past 3 years?

You claim 20-20 vision but I have worse than that and VRR/FSR look bloody awful to me, you sure you haven't just trained yourself to deal with poor frames and settings? Makes me think of a certain "audiophile" in his late 40's that likes to pretend he has the hearing of a 20 year old. I'm very hardware agnostic, most of my cards in the past 10 years have been AMD/ATI. I found anything other than DLSS so utterly poo I spent the extra to go Nvidia, the fact AMD are going the same development route with their new cards as Nv is kinda telling.
Click to expand...

Emotional :cry:

I don't drink.

I'm 42, not 'geriatric' :cry:

Most games that came out in the past 3 years are awful, but Indy is good.

Again the settings are maxed out, so many responses on here saying im not playing it maxed out, when its all maxed.

Well, as you don't have perfect vision, allow me to inform you it looks crispy sharp and lovely, why does variable refresh look "awful" to you ? bizarre, its just stopping screen tearing.....

Maxed out, runs fine....what does £2500 get me - not much, or a fractional technical gain, but you have to say 'technical' as its barely any difference.

Its like saying driving a Mercedes F1 car vs a McLaren, ones technically faster but you're talking thousands of a second over 3-5 miles, and both have essentially as near as makes no difference feature sets....

I mean, I know some will respond severely trying to justify spending their money, I get that, I do, I've done it myself, but come on now........in reality, splitting hairs in IQ and that kind of money - where does one draw the line, excuse the pun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom