8 ms·

This is misleading. For nearly $2000, you better be getting 4K with ray tracing (max settings), AKA, a top of the line device. 1440p/144 is midrange now. Which

This is misleading. For nearly $2000, you better be getting 4K with ray tracing (max settings), AKA, a top of the line device. 1440p/144 is midrange now. Which that $1865 one does not provide. Even before ray tracing, most games struggle to hit the 144 rate you're aiming for, so with ray tracing that drops down to like ~40 (Cyberpunk 2077 for example in that 6900XT card). You have to enable workarounds like DLSS/FSR to make those games playable. The only way you're getting good framerate at 4k is without ray tracing, but you're paying $2000 to have to worry about still disabling settings? Ridiculous! So yes, they are overpriced. For $2000 you should not be worried about having to enable FSR. The usual excuse when this is brought up is "well just don't play those games, they seem unoptimized" to which again, the question is, why are you spending two thousand dollars to avoid playing certain games? How absurd.

mosquitobiten 4y ago
Well the website is called logical increments, it's really hard to call ray tracing a logical increment. You are sacrificing too much to gain so little, at least for now.
- breckenedge 4y ago
  This is how I see it now too. The manufacturers are capitalizing on people needing to have the best by making even more expensive top tier components. You don’t need 4K or ray tracing to enjoy a triple-A game. Last year, I got a 3070-equipped system, force feedback driving wheel, and a 4k TV as a monitor for under $2k. The games are still quite gorgeous, and I have no idea what I’m missing by not having something more expensive.
  - arvinsim 4y ago
    The best way to save money is not to target 4k
- waboremo 4y ago
  Ray tracing IS the logical increment the industry has decided on though. So again, you're spending $2000 to miss out on what the industry has decided on is the next logical step, only to have to spend another ~$500 for whatever upgrade to actually play those games.
  - hotstickyballs 4y ago
    Afaik the industry is only the supply side of the equation. If the market doesn’t think ray tracing isn’t worth it then it won’t happen.
  - otikik 4y ago
    Not worth it
  - mosquitobiten 4y ago
    >Ray tracing IS the logical increment the industry has decided on though. I disagree. Nvidia decided it didn't had enough exclusivity, if the industry decided it was a logical increment then it would've had to come as a request from video games and video games engine developers towards hardware companies. It would've been a more natural progression, we wouldn't have it now and also it wouldn't feel like it's in a perpetual beta phase.
mistrial9 4y ago
4k displays are like giant televisions right? do coders really buy 4k displays ..
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  There are lots of 30-32" 4k displays out there.
  - Sebguer 4y ago
    A common resolution for modern 27" monitors is 4k, even. For several years now.
- BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
  I've been "coding" on dual 27" 4K@60 displays for years. Can't go back to lo-dpi displays after getting used to having truly legible/beautiful text rendering.
  - 7speter 4y ago
    This is why when presented the chance to buy a 4k60 monitor or a 2k144 monitor this christmas, I decided to get the high refresh 1440p monitor…
- lkramer 4y ago
  I use a 4k 28inch as my primary monitor for code at home (laptop screen has email and slack). I run i3wm and typically code with 4 terminals windows next splitting the monitor into 4 equal sub windows, each having 1080p and running vim. It's very nice and whenever I have to visit the office and is stuck with their 1080p monitors I find my self severely limited because I'm so used to my home setup.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  I use a 24" 4K at 200% scaling for the razor-sharp text. It helps a lot for text heavy stuff like coding.
operatingthetan 4y ago
>This is misleading. For nearly $2000, you better be getting 4K with ray tracing (max settings), AKA, a top of the line device. 1440p/144 is midrange now. You're both just setting an arbitrary baseline of performance at $2k. Arbitrary comparisons cannot be misleading.
- Sebguer 4y ago
  Yes, I don't know where this person is getting the idea that you shouldn't have to worry about settings at $2k? Fifteen years ago you could spend $10k and still have to worry about settings!
  - waboremo 4y ago
    That's not even remotely true. Actually quite absurd.
    - johnwalkr 4y ago
      It was famously true for Crysis but not generally true.
      - Sebguer 4y ago
        Yeah, this was the point. I was intentionally hyperbolic.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
Sounds like you would like to use a console for gaming. When I built my last desktop, in 2015, you would've blown way more than 2k just on the over-the-top monitor that you're mad can't be cheaply populated with high-speed, high-complexity output in 2023. Now you can get a decent quality 4k monitor plus a desktop that will drive it for years of normal tasks, all for less than 1k.
- crote 4y ago
  2015 is eight years ago. In PC terms, that's forever. I got my 4k 60Hz monitor in 2017 for $400 or so. You can get them for $250 these days, so I agree that is pretty mid-range by now - or even the lower part of it. That leaves $750 for the computer. According to the logicalincrements linked above, that gets you a RX 6600 - which they rate for 40 FPS @ 4k in The Witcher 3 - a game which came it out 2015. So no, you cannot get a decent 4k monitor and a PC able to drive it for less than 1k. That's the entire problem: there is no midrange anymore.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >2015 is eight years ago. In PC terms, that's forever. In the '90s, eight years was forever, but less so now.
  - brnaftr361 4y ago
    Steam Survey says you're wrong. Unless something changed recently most people are 1080p and with midranges (GTX*60 & *70). I was running a 970 and 1080p until 2021. I play mainstream stuff, FotM, and competitive. The way the market is structured just doesn't offer a whole lot of reward. Forknife, LoL, CSGO, CoD, etc... Are all built to accommodate toasters. The big titles are are built for consoles and poorly optimized, there isn't a whole lot to be had aside from higher framrates - and many times these are locked. I upgraded for compute power. As for resolution I'm not convinced it's worth the upgrade. Maybe in a few years.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      Is that most people in the US, or most people? But am generally in agreement, I did a big upgrade a while ago and while it's great for a few things, the extra hardware and resolution don't mean much while playing Stellaris.

mosquitobiten 4y ago

Well the website is called logical increments, it's really hard to call ray tracing a logical increment. You are sacrificing too much to gain so little, at least for now.

breckenedge 4y ago
This is how I see it now too. The manufacturers are capitalizing on people needing to have the best by making even more expensive top tier components. You don’t need 4K or ray tracing to enjoy a triple-A game. Last year, I got a 3070-equipped system, force feedback driving wheel, and a 4k TV as a monitor for under $2k. The games are still quite gorgeous, and I have no idea what I’m missing by not having something more expensive.
- arvinsim 4y ago
  The best way to save money is not to target 4k
waboremo 4y ago
Ray tracing IS the logical increment the industry has decided on though. So again, you're spending $2000 to miss out on what the industry has decided on is the next logical step, only to have to spend another ~$500 for whatever upgrade to actually play those games.
- hotstickyballs 4y ago
  Afaik the industry is only the supply side of the equation. If the market doesn’t think ray tracing isn’t worth it then it won’t happen.
- otikik 4y ago
  Not worth it
- mosquitobiten 4y ago
  >Ray tracing IS the logical increment the industry has decided on though. I disagree. Nvidia decided it didn't had enough exclusivity, if the industry decided it was a logical increment then it would've had to come as a request from video games and video games engine developers towards hardware companies. It would've been a more natural progression, we wouldn't have it now and also it wouldn't feel like it's in a perpetual beta phase.

mistrial9 4y ago

4k displays are like giant televisions right? do coders really buy 4k displays ..

operatingthetan 4y ago
There are lots of 30-32" 4k displays out there.
- Sebguer 4y ago
  A common resolution for modern 27" monitors is 4k, even. For several years now.
BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
I've been "coding" on dual 27" 4K@60 displays for years. Can't go back to lo-dpi displays after getting used to having truly legible/beautiful text rendering.
- 7speter 4y ago
  This is why when presented the chance to buy a 4k60 monitor or a 2k144 monitor this christmas, I decided to get the high refresh 1440p monitor…
lkramer 4y ago
I use a 4k 28inch as my primary monitor for code at home (laptop screen has email and slack). I run i3wm and typically code with 4 terminals windows next splitting the monitor into 4 equal sub windows, each having 1080p and running vim. It's very nice and whenever I have to visit the office and is stuck with their 1080p monitors I find my self severely limited because I'm so used to my home setup.
wkat4242 4y ago
I use a 24" 4K at 200% scaling for the razor-sharp text. It helps a lot for text heavy stuff like coding.

operatingthetan 4y ago

>This is misleading. For nearly $2000, you better be getting 4K with ray tracing (max settings), AKA, a top of the line device. 1440p/144 is midrange now. You're both just setting an arbitrary baseline of performance at $2k. Arbitrary comparisons cannot be misleading.

Sebguer 4y ago
Yes, I don't know where this person is getting the idea that you shouldn't have to worry about settings at $2k? Fifteen years ago you could spend $10k and still have to worry about settings!
- waboremo 4y ago
  That's not even remotely true. Actually quite absurd.
  - johnwalkr 4y ago
    It was famously true for Crysis but not generally true.
    - Sebguer 4y ago
      Yeah, this was the point. I was intentionally hyperbolic.

QuarterReptile 4y ago

Sounds like you would like to use a console for gaming. When I built my last desktop, in 2015, you would've blown way more than 2k just on the over-the-top monitor that you're mad can't be cheaply populated with high-speed, high-complexity output in 2023. Now you can get a decent quality 4k monitor plus a desktop that will drive it for years of normal tasks, all for less than 1k.

crote 4y ago
2015 is eight years ago. In PC terms, that's forever. I got my 4k 60Hz monitor in 2017 for $400 or so. You can get them for $250 these days, so I agree that is pretty mid-range by now - or even the lower part of it. That leaves $750 for the computer. According to the logicalincrements linked above, that gets you a RX 6600 - which they rate for 40 FPS @ 4k in The Witcher 3 - a game which came it out 2015. So no, you cannot get a decent 4k monitor and a PC able to drive it for less than 1k. That's the entire problem: there is no midrange anymore.
- thfuran 4y ago
  >2015 is eight years ago. In PC terms, that's forever. In the '90s, eight years was forever, but less so now.
- brnaftr361 4y ago
  Steam Survey says you're wrong. Unless something changed recently most people are 1080p and with midranges (GTX*60 & *70). I was running a 970 and 1080p until 2021. I play mainstream stuff, FotM, and competitive. The way the market is structured just doesn't offer a whole lot of reward. Forknife, LoL, CSGO, CoD, etc... Are all built to accommodate toasters. The big titles are are built for consoles and poorly optimized, there isn't a whole lot to be had aside from higher framrates - and many times these are locked. I upgraded for compute power. As for resolution I'm not convinced it's worth the upgrade. Maybe in a few years.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    Is that most people in the US, or most people? But am generally in agreement, I did a big upgrade a while ago and while it's great for a few things, the extra hardware and resolution don't mean much while playing Stellaris.