3 ms·
AND those early benchmarks were from Nvidia on very specific DLSS and RTX workloads that may not have been representative to many games people play.
by tmpz22 6y ago
AND those early benchmarks were from Nvidia on very specific DLSS and RTX workloads that may not have been representative to many games people play.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoDoes it really matter for gaming?
- zamalek 6y agoDisclaimer: I'm personally hoping to complete my current build as a "Red Box" (AMD CPU, AMD GPU). However, facts are facts. DLSS 1.9 was impressive, but has its problems and would understandably be avoided by most gamers. DLSS 2 is a whole different story[1], and is highly likely to be something that most gamers enable. 4K/60 or 1440p/240 are the golden standards for PC gamers (depending on whether you prefer high resolution, or high framerates) and DLSS 2 would help you achieve either. RTX is nice, Minecraft RTX has done a lot for marketing it. Probably still a coin-flip on whether a gamer would eat the performance hit for the quality improvement. [1]: https://youtu.be/YWIKzRhYZm4 https://youtu.be/YWIKzRhYZm4
- throwaway2048 6y agoDLSS and RTX are still game specific, with very few games that have developed for them. It has been a generation, if there was going to be a big flood of DLSS and RTX titles, it would have happened already.
- ErneX 6y agoRT is here to stay, both next gen consoles have it.
- kllrnohj 6y ago> DLSS and RTX are still game specific Note that DLSS 2.0's model is not game specific ( https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia-dlss-2-0-a-big-leap-in-ai-rendering/ https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia-dlss-2-0-a-... ) DLSS support is still game specific as it needs additional data beyond just the color buffer to do the up-scaling, such as motion vectors, but it at least doesn't need the expensive part that put it out of reach of eg. indie games. So it's now on the "if unity & unreal support it, you'll see everyone have it in a few years" trajectory. Probably, anyway, similar to things like TXAA & FXAA.
- tmpz22 6y ago> 4K/60 or 1440p/240 are the golden standards Those are $1200+ monitors at any decent resolution. EDIT: by resolution I mean the horizontal dimension of the monitor, where pc enthusiasts typically go for 27+ inches in width which are more expensive as you scale in size, add a curve, etc.
- nitrogen 6y agoAnd you're talking about $600-$1200 GPUs, plus similar or higher for CPU+MB+RAM. People who buy these things are willing to pay for maximum performance.
- the_pwner224 6y agoYou can get a real good quality 4k60 for $400, or one with shitty color for much less. The LG 27gn950 is 4k144 + full DCI-P3 for $800, but unfortunately has been sold out everywhere since it was released a week or two ago.
- xxpor 6y agoI bought this 4k/60 monitor for $500 3 years ago: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SHZSXVI/ref=asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SHZSXVI/ref=asin_title?... No gsync/freesync, but I wasn't intending to game on it anyway.
- gameswithgo 6y agothe resolution is specified, do you mean image quality? gamers tend to sacrifice that for refresh speed and low input latency. There appears to be no FPS performance gain going from 144hz to 240hz though so you don't have to get crazy.
- tmpz22 6y agoI meant the dimensions of the monitor i.e. 27in, 32in, etc. 27 inches seems to be one of the most popular dimensions.