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

[VincentHanna]

best bet is a x3d cpu for best gains

Depends what you have in the first place.

Generally I would argue that a GPU is a much better way to spend your money if you are playing at a decent resolution.

If you want to play at 1080p, low settings then maybe get a CPU instead.

 

[Nitefly]

In truth, there is very little ‘need’ to upgrade.

But I can factually say that I was annoyed with how Silent Hill 2 looked last night on my 3090. It just looks… rubbish? PS3 game character models tbh. With poop performance and FPS (this is with a 9800x3d cpu).

And I was legit sat there thinking “my pc isn’t good enough for this game.”

 

[Spils]

I was until they thought it was ok to start charging the sme price as a cheap run around. I wouldnt mind but most games these days are trash or console ports that really dont need a £2000 gpu to enjoy.

But hey people like to impress other people they have never meet on the internet and leather jacket man knows this.

 

[Matthew Hunt]

Everyone has different joys they spend money on and what makes them happy.

There are millions of people who every year purchase a new iPhone despite they have been effectively the same phone since the iPhone 12 with a small performance increase.
People spend thousands on doing up their car for about 10% performance increase and so they look like a RGB Gaming PC.

I spend my spare cash on my PC as in my spare time I play games and want to do it with the best possible tech.

Yes these cards are expensive and not worth the money but that isn't going to stop me from upgrading and I will have a massive grin on my face when it arrives, like I am sure many Apple fans are when their new phone arrives every year.

 

[VincentHanna]

In truth, there is very little ‘need’ to upgrade.

But I can factually say that I was annoyed with how Silent Hill 2 looked last night on my 3090. It just looks… rubbish? PS3 game character models tbh. With poop performance and FPS (this is with a 9800x3d cpu).

And I was legit sat there thinking “my pc isn’t good enough for this game.”

You sure you bought the remake version

 

[Nitefly]

You sure you bought the remake version

Haha yes, I’m sure. Textures… lighting and everything… just not very impressed, to the point where I find it distracting. I don’t understand how it can look so average yet be so demanding to run.

The game barely looks any different between settings as well… look at this vid:

Perfectly captures the ‘jank’ and somewhat awkward animation. The stuttering has been patched slightly but yeah, what an underwhelming experience!

 

[hobib_ali]

In truth, there is very little ‘need’ to upgrade.

But I can factually say that I was annoyed with how Silent Hill 2 looked last night on my 3090. It just looks… rubbish? PS3 game character models tbh. With poop performance and FPS (this is with a 9800x3d cpu).

And I was legit sat there thinking “my pc isn’t good enough for this game.”

so I was getting 100+FPS on Stalker 2 on 4k with a 4090, everything maxed, so I installed a 3090 yesterday and it was struggling at 40-45FPS

 

[john_smith]

Have we ascertained if the OP is playing the game maxed out yet?

 

[Toasty]

It very much depends on the games you play. It also doesn't help that some games are so un-optimized (UE5) that you have to brute force them and use all the DLSS etc.

Mainly I play WOW so it doesn't matter, but when not playing WOW I play other more demanding stuff; typically immersive horror type games, any struggling frame rate at all is a big no-no for me.

In recent memory I upgraded from 2080Ti SLI to a 3090 as Dying Light 2 and Metro Exodus ran much better with the ray tracing effects.

Then 3090 to a 4090 as frame generation was also a game changer - the Stalker 2 example is a good one.

However both 3090 and 4090 were a big jump over the previous gen, around 55-60% raw power.

This time around 5090 is like half which is a bit rubbish but then you have the multi frame gen which will likely make a huge difference.

 

[greatash]

Haha yes, I’m sure. Textures… lighting and everything… just not very impressed, to the point where I find it distracting. I don’t understand how it can look so average yet be so demanding to run.

The game barely looks any different between settings as well… look at this vid:

Perfectly captures the ‘jank’ and somewhat awkward animation. The stuttering has been patched slightly but yeah, what an underwhelming experience!

I was more impressed by the RE remake games and they run at 3x the framerate

 

[Nitefly]

I was more impressed by the RE remake games and they run at 3x the framerate

Yeah the obvious example to compare to is the RE4 remake which looks soooo much better and at the same time gives soooo much more FPS. I was pretty much A/B-ing them by playing them back to back in response to SH2 looking so terribad (“oh god, SH2 looks RUBBISH”).

 

[Combat squirrel]

In truth, there is very little ‘need’ to upgrade.

But I can factually say that I was annoyed with how Silent Hill 2 looked last night on my 3090. It just looks… rubbish? PS3 game character models tbh. With poop performance and FPS (this is with a 9800x3d cpu).

And I was legit sat there thinking “my pc isn’t good enough for this game.”

Its far more likely the game isn't good enough for the pc - I would imagine AAA developers are incentivised to only get the game to run "perfectly" with all the bells and whistles on (again they decide what is the maximum quality) on the currently most expensive graphics cards - it makes sense for Nvidia to give them lots of money to do this, otherwise people wouldn't have a need to upgrade.

Indy developers games usually run amazing on a potato, even something graphically demanding like Manor Lords, which isn't even finished yet and runs great.

 

[jaybee]

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.

I read that as "The new Independent" game and was about to mock your lack of specifics...now I think you mean Indiana Jones?
Is it good?
I have a 3060ti so... should I just go home?

 

[Ayahuasca]

I have a 3060ti so... should I just go home?

No just whack everything to max* and let everyone know it's just the same as playing on a £2000 GPU.

*actual max settings sold separately

 

[opethdisciple]

You don't need new stuff if what your using your pc for is already running perfectly fine.

Even more so if your games are basically on max settings already.

We are just being swept up in the tide of hysteria on the forum because of a new release of GPUs.

 

[FredFlint]

To me, it seem like a high refresh rate + high res is the only reason to spend big. Most cards can do mid-high settings at 60Hz 1440p. The difference between mid-high and Ultra is not what is once was, games can still look good even on low-mid. It could be that I care more about if the game is fun though.

 

[Capitano]

If you have a 4k 240hz monitor, I guess you will want to keep upgrading GPU's until you can natively hit that limit.

 

[banbom44]

You don't people just have fear of missing out and when people get their new 5090's and start showing off on Youtube or wherever you might get a bit jealous for a bit but if you give it a month or two you will realize i don't need it anyway and save yourself over 2000 pounds.

 

[Alt0153]

You don't people just have fear of missing out and when people get their new 5090's and start showing off on Youtube or wherever you might get a bit jealous for a bit but if you give it a month or two you will realize i don't need it anyway and save yourself over 2000 pounds.

but what else were you going to do with that money? might as well give it to nvidia for some ai frames and 20% better raster than 4090

 

[Pete Tong]

I miss my foolish youth I really do. I spent more time overclocking and benchmarking than playing actual games.