I game on a 1440p ultrawide monitor at my desk, and a 4k TV (though I don’t actually game at 4k). I upgraded from a 6700XT to a RX 9070 after Expedition 33 ran like shit and couldn’t run constant 60 fps on high settings even when dropped to 1080p with FSR. A 6600XT is hardly overkill.
Also, it’s hardly wasteful when my 9070 performs better, yet runs cooler and actually has a lower tdp / wattage than the 6700 XT did.
I blame the competitive gamers that barely understand what theyre doing. I seen guys complaining about their frame rates dropping below 120 on a 2k display.
Maybe, something higher than 120 provides an advantage to players with extreme reactive skills in the most intense close quarter first-person combat, but there otherwise wouldnt be a reason to sustain anything above 120. I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.
Imagine bottlenecking 200+ frames a second, at 2k resolution, through a 60 hertz monitor. What a waste of gpu.
I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.
I’m sorry what are you talking about? I have a 240Hz monitor and you can easily buy one with over 500Hz. And 240 feels so much smoother than 120, even in story heavy games.
I see. I hope you’ve optimized your gpu, otherwise you could be burning out that thing for no good reason.
The science behind how much visual information the brain can process is ongoing. I guess the consensus is that humans can process as much as 200 frames a second with some suggesting that a person could reach 1000 frames a second.
That last one sounds ridiculous to me.
It’s funny you blame competitive gamers who don’t understand what they’re doing, yet don’t seem to know how any of this works.
Higher refresh rates reduce frame timing, reducing both visual and input latency. It’s why a game at 30 fps often “feels” laggy compared to one at 60 or 120 fps. Even if you can’t see the increased frame rate you can certainly feel input latency. It’s also why “fake frames” from things like optiscaler or FSR/DLSS don’t help when already at low frame rates, they actually increase latency, which is already bad when your frame times are higher.
I’m not into competitive gaming at all, btw, just sensitive to (and annoyed by) input lag.
What annoys me is not that you are wrong, but that LTT made same big claim, while acknowledging that Valve said “with FSR” in same sentence about 4k at 60. No one ever said “native 4k 60”. And yes, maybe you need to drop target resolution to as low as 1080p or 900p to achive that target, but it still achivable, hence not a lie.
On top of that, AMD released INT8 (I assume) FSR4.1 at same day, that supports this hardware, so quality wise it will be manageable. PS5 often used upscaling not based on ml and still looks okay.
And another thing — if new downgraded by AMD FSR4 won’t suffice, you can use full version of FSR4. On Linux it’s a thing, you can just drop FS4 dll to the game, add launch params to steam and use Proton-GE or Proton-Cachyos, those have patch for FSR3 override. I tested it on 7900xtx and ryzen z1extreme (apu), in both cases it performs better than FSR3 quality wise, while still providing perf uplift compared to native resolution.
Okay, Triple-A.
What is one advantage or genuine improvement that Triple A has done on gaming in general that isn’t just “yet another change to make things more realistic”?
Asset streaming, huge worlds, hell the Nintendo 64 can do it.
We have so much computing power available on your mom’s Dell Pavilion she uses at work that is just not even used to its full potential, just for the sake of “number go big” because Nvidia or AMD or Intel needs to sell more chips.
My computer has a Xeon E3-1220 V3 with 16 GB of RAM
I do Gamedev, work development (with Rust AND C++ cross-compiling to both Windows and Linux), embedded development (ESP32), 3D modelling on Blender and more.
Its Firefox with multiple tabs + YouTube running for music, VS Code, and whatever toolchains/compilers I need, on a dual monitor setup (fair its only dual 1366x768 but still two framebuffers)
And I really need to push the computer through hell to make it stutter.
Why the fuck does gaming needs that much compute? What the hell are the devs doing that a fucking 6600 XT, which is a absolute behemoth with 2048 Cores and 8 fucking Gigs of memory struggles with?
Hell, I’ve made a fucking Dreamcast, which is a console from 2001 have 1:1 Parity with a fucking Linux game I made using Raylib with a full blown 3D 6DOF(6 Directions of Freedom) Flight racing game, loading and generating 3D geometry and calculating physics on the fly in runtime
And that fucking thing predates the whole concept of graphics pipelines and shaders, it only has a PVR.
AAA titles work just fine at 1080p, possibly even on 1440p at optimised settings (and games come with optimised settings on Stream). The 4k claim was a lie.
Even a 6600XT is so overkill I have a RX 580 with a DDR3-era processor, and most games run at over 60 FPS, hell Elite Dangerous run fine at 80-85 FPS
I really struggle to understand why that much compute is needed for gaming It just comes as wasteful for me
I game on a 1440p ultrawide monitor at my desk, and a 4k TV (though I don’t actually game at 4k). I upgraded from a 6700XT to a RX 9070 after Expedition 33 ran like shit and couldn’t run constant 60 fps on high settings even when dropped to 1080p with FSR. A 6600XT is hardly overkill.
Also, it’s hardly wasteful when my 9070 performs better, yet runs cooler and actually has a lower tdp / wattage than the 6700 XT did.
I blame the competitive gamers that barely understand what theyre doing. I seen guys complaining about their frame rates dropping below 120 on a 2k display.
Maybe, something higher than 120 provides an advantage to players with extreme reactive skills in the most intense close quarter first-person combat, but there otherwise wouldnt be a reason to sustain anything above 120. I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.
Imagine bottlenecking 200+ frames a second, at 2k resolution, through a 60 hertz monitor. What a waste of gpu.
I’m sorry what are you talking about? I have a 240Hz monitor and you can easily buy one with over 500Hz. And 240 feels so much smoother than 120, even in story heavy games.
Yeah, wtf. I have a cheap (or was cheap at the time) LG 1440p ultrawide, nothing fancy, and it can do up to 165 Hz.
I see. I hope you’ve optimized your gpu, otherwise you could be burning out that thing for no good reason. The science behind how much visual information the brain can process is ongoing. I guess the consensus is that humans can process as much as 200 frames a second with some suggesting that a person could reach 1000 frames a second. That last one sounds ridiculous to me.
It’s funny you blame competitive gamers who don’t understand what they’re doing, yet don’t seem to know how any of this works.
Higher refresh rates reduce frame timing, reducing both visual and input latency. It’s why a game at 30 fps often “feels” laggy compared to one at 60 or 120 fps. Even if you can’t see the increased frame rate you can certainly feel input latency. It’s also why “fake frames” from things like optiscaler or FSR/DLSS don’t help when already at low frame rates, they actually increase latency, which is already bad when your frame times are higher.
I’m not into competitive gaming at all, btw, just sensitive to (and annoyed by) input lag.
Try something AAA made in this decade, on a monitor made in this decade. Valve also isn’t marketing this as a retro console.
They said 60fps at 4k.
They lied.
What annoys me is not that you are wrong, but that LTT made same big claim, while acknowledging that Valve said “with FSR” in same sentence about 4k at 60. No one ever said “native 4k 60”. And yes, maybe you need to drop target resolution to as low as 1080p or 900p to achive that target, but it still achivable, hence not a lie.
On top of that, AMD released INT8 (I assume) FSR4.1 at same day, that supports this hardware, so quality wise it will be manageable. PS5 often used upscaling not based on ml and still looks okay.
And another thing — if new downgraded by AMD FSR4 won’t suffice, you can use full version of FSR4. On Linux it’s a thing, you can just drop FS4 dll to the game, add launch params to steam and use Proton-GE or Proton-Cachyos, those have patch for FSR3 override. I tested it on 7900xtx and ryzen z1extreme (apu), in both cases it performs better than FSR3 quality wise, while still providing perf uplift compared to native resolution.
Okay, Triple-A. What is one advantage or genuine improvement that Triple A has done on gaming in general that isn’t just “yet another change to make things more realistic”? Asset streaming, huge worlds, hell the Nintendo 64 can do it.
We have so much computing power available on your mom’s Dell Pavilion she uses at work that is just not even used to its full potential, just for the sake of “number go big” because Nvidia or AMD or Intel needs to sell more chips.
My computer has a Xeon E3-1220 V3 with 16 GB of RAM I do Gamedev, work development (with Rust AND C++ cross-compiling to both Windows and Linux), embedded development (ESP32), 3D modelling on Blender and more. Its Firefox with multiple tabs + YouTube running for music, VS Code, and whatever toolchains/compilers I need, on a dual monitor setup (fair its only dual 1366x768 but still two framebuffers) And I really need to push the computer through hell to make it stutter.
Why the fuck does gaming needs that much compute? What the hell are the devs doing that a fucking 6600 XT, which is a absolute behemoth with 2048 Cores and 8 fucking Gigs of memory struggles with?
Hell, I’ve made a fucking Dreamcast, which is a console from 2001 have 1:1 Parity with a fucking Linux game I made using Raylib with a full blown 3D 6DOF(6 Directions of Freedom) Flight racing game, loading and generating 3D geometry and calculating physics on the fly in runtime And that fucking thing predates the whole concept of graphics pipelines and shaders, it only has a PVR.
You don’t have to sell me, I agree with you. I use a 3600 and a 6600XT and I play indies mostly.
…but that’s not what the mainstream wants. They still want their giant blockbuster AAA pretty games and they’ll pay for it. They’ll have to lmao.
AAA titles work just fine at 1080p, possibly even on 1440p at optimised settings (and games come with optimised settings on Stream). The 4k claim was a lie.
*FSR enabled