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

[Combat squirrel]

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 .

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

 

[Combat squirrel]

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

Yeah it must do path tracing because it supports the required DX12.2 ?

 

[Combat squirrel]

It's rarely running at 3840x1600 then

It must not be - but it looks crispy sharp, crispier than a sharp thing on sharp day with a sharp pen........but thats my point, if you can't tell, then why does it matter, I have 20/20 vision btw.

 

[Combat squirrel]

I'm of the understanding that Path Tracing is only available on 4000 series Nvidia GPU's

https://www.reddit.com/r/radeon/comments/1ha6vfw/full_ray_tracing_in_the_new_indiana_jones_game_is/

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.

 

[Combat squirrel]

Playing a game a 720p lowest graphics doesn't make a game play any different either, or change the story...

Yep, but as per the history of gaming, changing graphics settings In the game makes the biggest difference to graphics settings........so as its already maxed out, what is there to gain.

 

[Combat squirrel]

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?

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.

 

[Combat squirrel]

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.

Emotional

I don't drink.

I'm 42, not 'geriatric'

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.

 

[Combat squirrel]

I'm 40, absolutely in geriatric territory as a very active guy.

Joking aside, I think you need a new optician, or you simply have different standards. I think your comparisons are extremely poor too tbh, car A being faster than B or having better handling are blatant even if you're blind as a bat. You're talking about a visual medium, there is nothing "crisp" or "pristine" about an image rendered via VRR/FSR at 3440 x 1440, but if you disagree why don't you post some screenshots?

Its great image quality, 3840x1600 btw - you must be failing fast if you think you're geriatric at 40!! Go to a docs

I think you're just being too picky & making out the IQ is enormously different just isn't true................... I work as a photographer too so I'm used to studying image quality!

Yeah sure as I've said there is a technical difference here, but it simply doesn't matter..........where do we draw the sensible line, there is no way image quality thats 'hard to tell unless you really try hard to look' is worth £2500 is there - hobby or not!

I can get some screen shots sure - but getting photos as it appears on my monitor is hard, as I'm running it HDR and obviously photographing a monitor = potato quality images. At best it would show the image looks 'clean enough' with nice clean lines etc but the colour & HDR wont work in a screen grab.

 

[Combat squirrel]

I recently benched in the 140KG range, largely because I don't want to go over the top. Not bad for 40 I'd hope, but I absolutely am slowing down.

Please post, we'd all love to see them, imagine degradation is something most invested in these levels of hardware (on this forum at least, in terms of regulars) are well aware of.

You changed your diet? That's had the biggest effect on improving me, look at us old men trying to stay young haha.

I think there is only 1 thing for it - whoever has a top end rig, 5090, 9800x3D, all the bells and whistles, I'll need to meet up, use the same monitor, and see how dramatic the difference is, in person, vs my now 'old' rig thats playing maxed settings at smooth frame rates........film the experience of gaming and post it! lol

Sure the newer system will be technically better, but to see first hand if its a total makeover, omg night and day difference or not, will be interesting.