6 ms·

Meh, only if you accept that the 4090 is really a Titan or a Quadro under another name. And to be fair, I think that it probably is. But that doesn’t match with

Meh, only if you accept that the 4090 is really a Titan or a Quadro under another name. And to be fair, I think that it probably is. But that doesn’t match with the consumer designation that we see in these things and so bargain or not, this is a professional card being marketed to consumers. If you’re looking for a pro card and have the cooling and power to support it (not to mention, the workflow needs that could benefit), that’s great. If you’re a gamer or enthusiast, the price is still high enough (not to mention the other changes you might need to make to your rig to support the card) that the actual delta between the potential and what you’ll actually do with the card means you should probably just stick with either a 3090 that is now half the price, or hold out for the other 4000 series cards if you must get a next-gen card.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
This is incorrect. If you want to play e.g. Cyberpunk at 4k maxed out with decent framerates the 4090 is the only card that gets you there. Especially once you start looking at meaningful numbers like 1% lows, even the 3090 is struggling to break the low 30s. It doesn’t apply to every game or every resolution, but there are actual game scenarios where a 4090 makes sense. Price and heat and power and space not withstanding, it’s a meaningful upgrade.
- flerchin 4y ago
  Dangit, I do want to play Cyberpunk maxed in 4k. Sorry kids, I guess you'll have to take a gap year before you can go to college, daddy's gonna upgrade.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    I will add that, IMO, if it's possible for any gpu to play a just-released game at maximum settings at a high resolution at 60+ fps, the developers haven't set the maximum quality settings high enough. Leave some headroom for future GPUs, or allow players who e.g. prefer a ludicrously high draw distance at any cost to make that choice and dial down the resolution to compensate. Most games don't meet this bar, and I think gamers who expect to be able to set every slider to the max and go to town—yes, even on a $2K GPU—are mostly responsible.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      I disagree that developers should spend valuable engineering time on producing games that can’t be run. Spend that time making other games instead, or squashing bugs (looking at you, cyberpunk!) and maybe keep a backlog of future features to patch in when the hardware gets there.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        I agree! When it comes to graphics, just make them look great with current (and not uncommon) hardware. When most gamers have upgraded hardware capable of substantial differences games can keep selling remasters if people care. I'm fine with nearly all gamers getting a better experience even if that means the tiny fraction of gamers who can and are willing to spend insane amounts of money on the best of all possible video cards are not able to take full advantage of their crazy hardware in most games.
      - Retric 4y ago
        It’s actually cheaper to build a game with higher graphics settings and then let people tweak the settings vs trying to optimize a game for hardware you can’t actually test with in development. On top of this you can release some awesome screenshots from settings that aren’t actually playable at release. This is especially beneficial when deadlines slip and suddenly consumers have a lot better hardware than you where expecting.
      - gambiting 4y ago
        As an actual gamedev - no real extra engineering time is spent on this - during development all textures and assets are usually produced in 8K or higher anyway, it's only during the data packaging step that everything gets downscaled to whatever was selected by tech art. There's a reason why my workstation has 256GB of ram - just loading up the main world of the game easily takes 100-150GB because everything is in such extreme quality. Same applies to visual effects - usually in development you will run all effects at full resolution to test how it all works. Releasing an "extreme" preset that no consumer PC can really run yet is just a matter of leaving those higher-quality assets in + enabling those full resolution options for VFX. Allowing users to use ray tracing at full resolution(something which will kill any GPU on the market) requires just adding an extra config option - there's very little engineering time required. QC will need to do a full pass of these options, but in the grand scheme of things tested that's not a huge deal.
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    College isn't that cheap unfortunately.
- filmgirlcw 4y ago
  Look, if you want to pay $1600 to play one game at 4K on max settings, be my guest. I'm fine with it in 1440p or in 4K at not max settings, but you do you.
  - seanp2k2 4y ago
    PC vs console has never been a value debate; if one wishes to merely play games at acceptable-for-most quality, console beats the pants off PC all day every day. PC gaming was historically and still is in some cases about living on the edge of available consumer tech; a Vive Pro 2 is 2448 × 2448 @ 120hz /per eye/, PSVR is 960 x 1,080 90-120hz, but for getting into VR it's like a quarter (or less) of the cost of a top-tier VR headset and the PC that can run it. Is that PC experience 4x more valuable than the PSVR experience? Probably not for the vast majority of people, but they still sell enough Ferraris to make it a viable business when a Toyota Camry will do the same job of transportation.
    - filmgirlcw 4y ago
      I wasn’t alluding to PC vs console here — I was literally talking about me, someone with a 3080, who has been playing Cyberpunk on it for 18 months — happily, I might add. I understand that there is a strain of enthusiasts who want to push everything to the extreme, and I understand the appeal to that audience. I’m frequently part of that audience (my desire for a white graphics card outweighed me caring if I was playing CP2077 at above 1440p or not, depending on what frame rates I want) - though I have an XSX and a PS5 as well - but $1600 for one game, right now, isn’t something that compels me. Especially since I’d need to re-evaluate my PSU situation, which might impact my case, which might impact cooling and so forth. Talking to my other enthusiast friends, I know I’m not alone.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      This calculation is actually more complicated and doesn't trivially resolve to a singular number. Comparing the two devices across the board only works if its a dedicated computer used exclusively for gaming. Many buying a Gaming PC will be buying a device that will do double duty and the price differential is best described by the GPU required for work vs play and if we want to truly compare it to console quality we ought to be comparing it to a budget GPU similar in performance to a PS5. For example a $370 nvidia gtx 3060 vs a $500 console.
Retric 4y ago
The 4090 can’t actually play Cyberpunk in 4k at max setting and RT without stuttering. People are seeing 22-30FPS walking around. There is a lot of confusion because some people assume turning on DLSS increases settings but it actually lowers quality. Sure DLSS is good enough that most don’t notice, but you can say that about lowering most settings slightly to improve performance.
- phonypc 4y ago
  Not really. Like yes, enabling DLSS lowers the real rendering resolution, but it looks better than native in pretty much all cases, minus some motion artifacts. You'd be silly not to use DLSS in a game that supports it. On a 4k screen anyway, it's not quite as great at lower target resolutions.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It looks strictly worse at an equal resolution in side by side comparisons, the only advantage is improved frame rates on the same hardware. Which just means better hardware beats DLSS at the same settings.
    - phonypc 4y ago
      It tends to be indistinguishable or strictly better in side by sides. Is the last time you checked it out back at initial release perhaps?
      - Retric 4y ago
        Recently, unless they changed something in the last week DLSS 2 is IMO not worth it to play in 4k vs 1440. DLSS 3 still only looks fine on cherry picked screens: “It looks like DLSS 3's weakness lies in hidden geometry, where information is missing between two frames due to geometry overlapping another set of geometry while in motion. This can cause DLSS 3 to "shutter" and output ugly artifacts as it tries to fill in the void of missing detail.” https://www.tomshardware.com/news/dlss-3-early-review-rtx-4090 https://www.tomshardware.com/news/dlss-3-early-review-rtx-40...

Godel_unicode 4y ago

This is incorrect. If you want to play e.g. Cyberpunk at 4k maxed out with decent framerates the 4090 is the only card that gets you there. Especially once you start looking at meaningful numbers like 1% lows, even the 3090 is struggling to break the low 30s. It doesn’t apply to every game or every resolution, but there are actual game scenarios where a 4090 makes sense. Price and heat and power and space not withstanding, it’s a meaningful upgrade.

flerchin 4y ago
Dangit, I do want to play Cyberpunk maxed in 4k. Sorry kids, I guess you'll have to take a gap year before you can go to college, daddy's gonna upgrade.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  I will add that, IMO, if it's possible for any gpu to play a just-released game at maximum settings at a high resolution at 60+ fps, the developers haven't set the maximum quality settings high enough. Leave some headroom for future GPUs, or allow players who e.g. prefer a ludicrously high draw distance at any cost to make that choice and dial down the resolution to compensate. Most games don't meet this bar, and I think gamers who expect to be able to set every slider to the max and go to town—yes, even on a $2K GPU—are mostly responsible.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    I disagree that developers should spend valuable engineering time on producing games that can’t be run. Spend that time making other games instead, or squashing bugs (looking at you, cyberpunk!) and maybe keep a backlog of future features to patch in when the hardware gets there.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      I agree! When it comes to graphics, just make them look great with current (and not uncommon) hardware. When most gamers have upgraded hardware capable of substantial differences games can keep selling remasters if people care. I'm fine with nearly all gamers getting a better experience even if that means the tiny fraction of gamers who can and are willing to spend insane amounts of money on the best of all possible video cards are not able to take full advantage of their crazy hardware in most games.
    - Retric 4y ago
      It’s actually cheaper to build a game with higher graphics settings and then let people tweak the settings vs trying to optimize a game for hardware you can’t actually test with in development. On top of this you can release some awesome screenshots from settings that aren’t actually playable at release. This is especially beneficial when deadlines slip and suddenly consumers have a lot better hardware than you where expecting.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      As an actual gamedev - no real extra engineering time is spent on this - during development all textures and assets are usually produced in 8K or higher anyway, it's only during the data packaging step that everything gets downscaled to whatever was selected by tech art. There's a reason why my workstation has 256GB of ram - just loading up the main world of the game easily takes 100-150GB because everything is in such extreme quality. Same applies to visual effects - usually in development you will run all effects at full resolution to test how it all works. Releasing an "extreme" preset that no consumer PC can really run yet is just a matter of leaving those higher-quality assets in + enabling those full resolution options for VFX. Allowing users to use ray tracing at full resolution(something which will kill any GPU on the market) requires just adding an extra config option - there's very little engineering time required. QC will need to do a full pass of these options, but in the grand scheme of things tested that's not a huge deal.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  College isn't that cheap unfortunately.
filmgirlcw 4y ago
Look, if you want to pay $1600 to play one game at 4K on max settings, be my guest. I'm fine with it in 1440p or in 4K at not max settings, but you do you.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  PC vs console has never been a value debate; if one wishes to merely play games at acceptable-for-most quality, console beats the pants off PC all day every day. PC gaming was historically and still is in some cases about living on the edge of available consumer tech; a Vive Pro 2 is 2448 × 2448 @ 120hz /per eye/, PSVR is 960 x 1,080 90-120hz, but for getting into VR it's like a quarter (or less) of the cost of a top-tier VR headset and the PC that can run it. Is that PC experience 4x more valuable than the PSVR experience? Probably not for the vast majority of people, but they still sell enough Ferraris to make it a viable business when a Toyota Camry will do the same job of transportation.
  - filmgirlcw 4y ago
    I wasn’t alluding to PC vs console here — I was literally talking about me, someone with a 3080, who has been playing Cyberpunk on it for 18 months — happily, I might add. I understand that there is a strain of enthusiasts who want to push everything to the extreme, and I understand the appeal to that audience. I’m frequently part of that audience (my desire for a white graphics card outweighed me caring if I was playing CP2077 at above 1440p or not, depending on what frame rates I want) - though I have an XSX and a PS5 as well - but $1600 for one game, right now, isn’t something that compels me. Especially since I’d need to re-evaluate my PSU situation, which might impact my case, which might impact cooling and so forth. Talking to my other enthusiast friends, I know I’m not alone.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    This calculation is actually more complicated and doesn't trivially resolve to a singular number. Comparing the two devices across the board only works if its a dedicated computer used exclusively for gaming. Many buying a Gaming PC will be buying a device that will do double duty and the price differential is best described by the GPU required for work vs play and if we want to truly compare it to console quality we ought to be comparing it to a budget GPU similar in performance to a PS5. For example a $370 nvidia gtx 3060 vs a $500 console.

Retric 4y ago

The 4090 can’t actually play Cyberpunk in 4k at max setting and RT without stuttering. People are seeing 22-30FPS walking around. There is a lot of confusion because some people assume turning on DLSS increases settings but it actually lowers quality. Sure DLSS is good enough that most don’t notice, but you can say that about lowering most settings slightly to improve performance.

phonypc 4y ago
Not really. Like yes, enabling DLSS lowers the real rendering resolution, but it looks better than native in pretty much all cases, minus some motion artifacts. You'd be silly not to use DLSS in a game that supports it. On a 4k screen anyway, it's not quite as great at lower target resolutions.
- Retric 4y ago
  It looks strictly worse at an equal resolution in side by side comparisons, the only advantage is improved frame rates on the same hardware. Which just means better hardware beats DLSS at the same settings.
  - phonypc 4y ago
    It tends to be indistinguishable or strictly better in side by sides. Is the last time you checked it out back at initial release perhaps?
    - Retric 4y ago
      Recently, unless they changed something in the last week DLSS 2 is IMO not worth it to play in 4k vs 1440. DLSS 3 still only looks fine on cherry picked screens: “It looks like DLSS 3's weakness lies in hidden geometry, where information is missing between two frames due to geometry overlapping another set of geometry while in motion. This can cause DLSS 3 to "shutter" and output ugly artifacts as it tries to fill in the void of missing detail.” https://www.tomshardware.com/news/dlss-3-early-review-rtx-4090 https://www.tomshardware.com/news/dlss-3-early-review-rtx-40...