• 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?

Glad to see some people at least think its all abit OTT and the "NEED" for new graphics is gone now. Back in maaaaa day when we didnt have 3D we did just fine ta :p

But yeah, the old days performance jumps were at least double and it did things like doubling the res, literally going from medium to high or ultra settings, in the past 5-7 years thats just ground to a halt now.

Age probably has something to do with it, but these kiddos today don't have that much to look forward to - they play a game on high, they play the same game on high at more fps.........in 2 years we'll have people on here saying you need 500hrz minimum which is also nonsense, just as its nonsense you 'need' 240hrz now.

The remaining space to push the envelope is getting narrower and narrower, that extra 1% then another 1/2% then a further half %, its tiny now, yet they want you to pay the price of a car.
 
Combat squirrel said:
Glad to see some people at least think its all abit OTT and the "NEED" for new graphics is gone now. Back in maaaaa day when we didnt have 3D we did just fine ta :p

But yeah, the old days performance jumps were at least double and it did things like doubling the res, literally going from medium to high or ultra settings, in the past 5-7 years thats just ground to a halt now.

Age probably has something to do with it, but these kiddos today don't have that much to look forward to - they play a game on high, they play the same game on high at more fps.........in 2 years we'll have people on here saying you need 500hrz minimum which is also nonsense, just as its nonsense you 'need' 240hrz now.

The remaining space to push the envelope is getting narrower and narrower, that extra 1% then another 1/2% then a further half %, its tiny now, yet they want you to pay the price of a car.
Click to expand...

I think you need to consider all of this with a bit of context and perspective. Those buying 5090s are a TINY fraction of the overall market and those who will move from a 4090 to a 5090 even smaller still.

Trying to apply sensible economical and other considerations to the high end nVidia GPU segment is no more proper than doing the same with the super/hypercar segment. It doesnt make sense for 99.99% of the population and never will.
 
You need anything to play games, because you don't need to play games at all. It's all optional.

If the argument is that a 6700xt is as good as a 4090/5090, then that's daft. Diminishing returns applies, but most people sign up to that.

Everyone's use case is different, no single one is more valid than the other.
 
Capitano said:
If you have a 4k 240hz monitor, I guess you will want to keep upgrading GPU's until you can natively hit that limit.
Click to expand...

This is kind of pointless though. The only games that benefit such high frames are competitive shooters of which there are plenty, but the number of people playing them aren't exactly too bothered by lowering some settings to have the competitive edge and gain fps, plus most people aren't in the 1-2% of gamers with a high end GPU anyway according to Steam :p

As an example none of the recently released games see any actual benefit from running at over 120fps, hell even 85fps is more than responsive and smooth. I just got a recent release on Steam called Amenti, a short horror fps game in the style of Soma etc. It runs at 4K over 140fps but if I use the 60fps frame cap then it's still as immediately responsive as at uncapped to the point i have a hard time telling one over the other and I'm using a mouse at 2000Hz and a 240Hz oled. This is an example of a small indy game doing proper implementation of mouse input and it's using UE of all engines too and gives you the option to turn off UE's "mouse smoothing" function which other devs force on you so you get raw input essentially.

Anyway the main message is that you can leverage efficient high quality gaming by not constantly running around aiming for hundreds of fps, even if your display has 240Hz, because you still benefit from the higher Hz even if you're capping to a lower fps.

So far there isn't a single game I have played where I felt I needed to strive for 235fps else I'd be losing out, I think people need to stop thinking that way personally for the greater good. Aim for efficient high end gaming, not outright numbers on a screen.
 
mrk said:
This is kind of pointless though. The only games that benefit such high frames are competitive shooters of which there are plenty, but the number of people playing them aren't exactly too bothered by lowering some settings to have the competitive edge and gain fps, plus most people aren't in the 1-2% of gamers with a high end GPU anyway according to Steam :p

As an example none of the recently released games see any actual benefit from running at over 120fps, hell even 85fps is more than responsive and smooth. I just got a recent release on Steam called Amenti, a short horror fps game in the style of Soma etc. It runs at 4K over 140fps but if I use the 60fps frame cap then it's still as immediately responsive as at uncapped to the point i have a hard time telling one over the other and I'm using a mouse at 2000Hz and a 240Hz oled. This is an example of a small indy game doing proper implementation of mouse input and it's using UE of all engines too and gives you the option to turn off UE's "mouse smoothing" function which other devs force on you so you get raw input essentially.

Anyway the main message is that you can leverage efficient high quality gaming by not constantly running around aiming for hundreds of fps, even if your display has 240Hz, because you still benefit from the higher Hz even if you're capping to a lower fps.

So far there isn't a single game I have played where I felt I needed to strive for 235fps else I'd be losing out, I think people need to stop thinking that way personally for the greater good. Aim for efficient high end gaming, not outright numbers on a screen.
Click to expand...
I play shooters so it would benefit me, and a lot of others play shooters too as its probably the most popular game genre there is

all this time you would have had to choose between the game looking great or having high fps. If you can have both without any drawbacks then everyone would do that
 
There are drawbacks currently though just like there will be with a 5090, that's power draw, rendering 400fps doesn't come free, even with frame generation. one day that will change, but if you want to sustain constant triple framerate numbers then you have to put up with high wattage which means heat which means noise unless you are on a waterblock lol. Thhe lower down the stack you go the more noise there will be as the GPUs will be more laboured. That's just the way it is even if most of the frames are AI frames typically.
 
"are we all just been psychologically tricked into "needing" new graphics cards?"

yes because its a new shiny.

Whether you actually need one is down to your perception of your system being good enough.

I dont need a new graphics card.
 
varkanoid said:
"are we all just been psychologically tricked into "needing" new graphics cards?"

yes because its a new shiny.

Whether you actually need one is down to your perception of your system being good enough.

I dont need a new graphics card.
Click to expand...

...and you can apply that to almost any luxury/hobby purchase.
 
Last edited:
Ravenger said:
This is the only reason I have a 4090. I would only get a 5090 if it were massively (and I mean massively) better for VR.
Click to expand...


It won't be massively better at all. Enough solid info is now out to know that as VR won't/ can't make any use of DLSS4 frame gen, it will be ~30% faster than a 4090 at best in VR. If I had a 4090 I wouldn't bother upgrading, but as a 3090 owner I'm pretty torn at the moment.

Also, even a 5090 won't be able to run the new gen of headsets coming out v soon like the Pimax Super, MeganX etc. Huuuge resolution per eye that even a 6090 will probably not do justice.
 
Last edited:
Shinies as above.

I think you need to put it in perspective, this is a forum attached to one of the UK's largest pc component selling companies, of cause it's going to look a bit skewed. All if not most of the tech addicts are interested in what's coming out.

It's not as exciting as ray traced mine craft or life-like hair but I'm interested to see what's coming.
 
Combat squirrel said:
Glad to see some people at least think its all abit OTT and the "NEED" for new graphics is gone now. Back in maaaaa day when we didnt have 3D we did just fine ta :p

But yeah, the old days performance jumps were at least double and it did things like doubling the res, literally going from medium to high or ultra settings, in the past 5-7 years thats just ground to a halt now.

Age probably has something to do with it, but these kiddos today don't have that much to look forward to - they play a game on high, they play the same game on high at more fps.........in 2 years we'll have people on here saying you need 500hrz minimum which is also nonsense, just as its nonsense you 'need' 240hrz now.

The remaining space to push the envelope is getting narrower and narrower, that extra 1% then another 1/2% then a further half %, its tiny now, yet they want you to pay the price of a car.
Click to expand...
As a fellow old person, I don't think I've ever needed an upgrade in 30+ years of PC gaming. But I don't think I've ever wanted an upgrade every generation either. The vendors are always going to try to build hype for the latest shiny, but it's not a "trick", just marketing.

Personally I think that the last 5-7 years have been some of the most exciting times in gaming - I've massively enjoyed all sorts of games, from The Witcher 3 through Horizon Zero Dawn and Cyberpunk to Baldur's Gate 3 and Dragon Age: Veilguard. I'm very much looking forward to playing Alan Wake 2 and Indiana Jones, and things like The Blood of Dawnwalker look fun. Despite having a grown up job, a child, and a bunch of other hobbies, I reckon I've spent more than 800 hours gaming over the time that I've had my 3080, which means it costs me less than £1 an hour. Could I have done so for cheaper? Almost certainly, but at the time I could afford it, and so why not?

Life isn't solely about what we need. Sometimes it's good to have something that you want, simply because it makes you smile. Making that choice is fine, isn't it? Even if measurably it doesn't match everybody's view of "value".
 
Ephraim said:
As a fellow old person, I don't think I've ever needed an upgrade in 30+ years of PC gaming. But I don't think I've ever wanted an upgrade every generation either. The vendors are always going to try to build hype for the latest shiny, but it's not a "trick", just marketing.

Personally I think that the last 5-7 years have been some of the most exciting times in gaming - I've massively enjoyed all sorts of games, from The Witcher 3 through Horizon Zero Dawn and Cyberpunk to Baldur's Gate 3 and Dragon Age: Veilguard. I'm very much looking forward to playing Alan Wake 2 and Indiana Jones, and things like The Blood of Dawnwalker look fun. Despite having a grown up job, a child, and a bunch of other hobbies, I reckon I've spent more than 800 hours gaming over the time that I've had my 3080, which means it costs me less than £1 an hour. Could I have done so for cheaper? Almost certainly, but at the time I could afford it, and so why not?

Life isn't solely about what we need. Sometimes it's good to have something that you want, simply because it makes you smile. Making that choice is fine, isn't it? Even if measurably it doesn't match everybody's view of "value".
Click to expand...

Well, yes having what you want is good - but the whole debate really is about the "leap" to 5090 now for what you gain back isn't noticeable really, not like the jump from software to 3dfx glide, or the decent implementations of T&L.

Sure ray tracing is the next big thing but, its just not THAT noticeable - you have to desperately try to notice, so the leap isn't so good.

I wonder what and IF the next MASSIVE leap will be - where it's night and day different, it sure has hell isn't ray tracing right now.
 
wunkley said:
Anyone said VR yet? VR.
Click to expand...

Yeah got a valve index, its nice enough, not used it tons aside from HL Alex, but we are back to the same point as my OP - no use in having shiny if there isn't a good enough reason to run it (i.e. games).

And there just isn't that much compelling software to run on these things - and we are clearly at the point where the old amazing games run insanely fast on a 4 year old card or a new one.

We've hit the game quality, IQ, barrier.
 
Capitano said:
I play shooters so it would benefit me, and a lot of others play shooters too as its probably the most popular game genre there is

all this time you would have had to choose between the game looking great or having high fps. If you can have both without any drawbacks then everyone would do that
Click to expand...
Id also add: High frame rate is primarily about image quality. I see it as playing at two resolutions. Static resolution and motion resolution. For example I play a first person game at 60fps, my static resolution is 4k and my motion resolution is less than 1080p at anything over a few inches per second motion. The motion resolution will keep improving all the way up to 1000fps on a sample and hold screen where it will basically reach 4k in motion. It's not great that we need 1000fps to maintain static resolution because of the power needed from a gpu due to the major drawback of sample and hold tech and hence cost. This is why I am most interested in advances of BFI, sync pulsar, crt render emulation. If we could have a breakthrough, maybe we can have perfect motion resolution at much much lower fps.
 
Last edited:
Combat squirrel said:
Well, yes having what you want is good - but the whole debate really is about the "leap" to 5090 now for what you gain back isn't noticeable really, not like the jump from software to 3dfx glide, or the decent implementations of T&L.

Sure ray tracing is the next big thing but, its just not THAT noticeable - you have to desperately try to notice, so the leap isn't so good.

I wonder what and IF the next MASSIVE leap will be - where it's night and day different, it sure has hell isn't ray tracing right now.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that RT is not that noticeable. I certainly felt the difference the first time I saw it.

I take the point that gains are more incremental right now, but that's always been the way as technologies refine, and then a new step forward arrives. The step from my black and white ZX81 to my colour C64 was big, and then the step from that to my first PC was big, and when I added the first voodoo card, etc. The step from 30 series to 40 series was incremental, and that may be the same to 50 series. Or, it might turn out that this is the first card in the new step forward to AI graphics processing, and all the software clevers that come with 50 series are the next big leap.

I expect to be happy with a performance and quality jump from my 3080 to a 5080, but I'm quite looking forward to all the fancy AI nonsense. If I were sitting on a 4080 of some sort, I'd probably be staying put. But I also kinda think that before we've seen any actual reviews, it's a little early to write off what might be about to arrive.
 
how many generations till games dont even attempt to make a frame and gpus just imagine the game for us with their ai powers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom