WallacEngineering

Ya its not the same for everyone, although it does account for the vast majority of gamers until they get older and can't tell the difference anymore. So for the vast majority of people, 60 FPS is visually smooth and 75 FPS+ feels responsive. There is a reason why the average gaming monitor these days is 144Hz/FPS. It is technically possible to see a response benefit all the way up to 240Hz/FPS but I have yet to see any human being capable of actually proving it makes a difference versus 120Hz/FPS. What doesn't make sense is these days we are now going far above even 240Hz/FPS. 360Hz/FPS Gaming monitors are widely available now and the worlds first 500Hz/FPS Gaming monitor just recently came out. At this point I think its safe to say we have gone into "overkill mode".

Details and Notes in Video description:

Absolutely, a game doesn't even appear visually smooth until about 60 FPS. A game doesn't feel responsive and snappy until above 75 FPS

This is a guide for anyone new to PC building who would like to know what FPS numbers mean, why they are important, and what to look for when considering your first gaming PC. So what is FPS? Why does it matter? Why do people choose PC over consoles for more FPS and more settings? What does it all mean? Well, FPS - Frames Per Second. In reality, what video is - is a stream of still images sent to your screen very quickly. When you watch TV, what you are seeing is actually 26-27 different STILL images per second that depicts motion. Consoles like Xbox and PlayStation are generally limited to 60 FPS maximum, and while this is fine, you can have a more premium gaming experience on PC with higher FPS and more settings options and customization available. Plus, you don't have to pay for PlayStation/Xbox Live membership for online gaming which is a pretty nice bonus. Most games on PC these days have the ability to run what is called a "Benchmark" - a test that evaluates the overall performance of a given game. And even if a benchmark is unavailable, there is ALWAYS a way to display your current FPS while playing, and you can assess your performance and tweak your settings that way. Keep in mind that some games are more demanding than others. A good way to judge what hardware is right for you is to share what games you play most. Plenty of testing is done on PC Hardware when it comes to market and what hardware you need for what games you play with your desired level of performance should be easy to determine - just ask any PC enthusiast and they should be able to tell you. PC games come with settings presets that set all graphical settings to a predetermined level for a given overall experience. "High" Graphics settings presets are considered the standard for PC enthusiasts as it gives you high visual fidelity and detail without needlessly throwing away performance. "Very High"/"Ultra" settings are nice but usually cost a massive amount of performance for only small differences in overall image quality. So what numbers are important, what should you look for, and what are ideal numbers? Well, the two most important metrics in gaming performance are "Average FPS" and "1% Lows". Average FPS is the average framerate of the given test, while 1% lows show when the PC struggles with a particularly demanding area or images. The range of different Average FPS experiences is summarized below: 20 FPS or Less: Unplayable - The game will be so studdery, slow, and unresponsive that you will genuinely not enjoy the experience, and will probably stop playing. 30 FPS: Not Very Fun, but Tolerable for Some. This will feel sluggish and fairly slow, especially when demanding areas drop your FPS under 30, but it can be played if absolutely necessary. 45 FPS: Playable - While not very responsive or smooth, it can be somewhat enjoyable, especially if dips in performance from demanding areas are occasional and don't drop the FPS into the 30's very often. 60 FPS: The Basic Standard - at 60 FPS your game will appear visually smooth but you may notice the responsiveness between your inputs and what happens on screen is not quite as nice as you would like. When demanding areas drop the FPS into the low 50's and high 40's, these moments are certainly not ideal either. 75 FPS - The Bang For Buck - At 75 FPS, a Game not only appears very visually smooth, but the responsiveness is also quite nice and fast enough to satisfy most gamers. Even demanding areas that drop FPS into the low 60's don't really ruin the experience and this is exactly why entry-level budget gaming PC monitors are 75-Hz rated (Hz is basically the max FPS the screen itself can display, also known as "refresh rate"). 90 FPS: The Enthusiast Standard - PC enthusiasts usually game on PC for the advanced performance over a console. 90 FPS and beyond is where this difference truly shines. At 90 FPS, your game will feel incredibly responsive, basically instantaneous, and will remain very responsive even in demanding areas that drop FPS into the 70's. 100 FPS - The Premium/Ideal Target. 100 FPS Average may not seem a lot different than 90 FPS, but the important difference is that even the most demanding areas of a game with the biggest drops will likely keep the FPS above 75. This means that the game will remain responsive and the experience will remain premium and smooth pretty much no matter what happens. I recommend 90-100 FPS Average for most people. 120 FPS: The Enthusiast High-End/Flagship Experience - My personal favorite way to play. Why? Well, while I will admit I don't really see any gains in the gaming experience above about 100 FPS; if you game runs at 120 average, then your lows will probably remain above 90 FPS meaning your entire gaming experience is as premium as it gets - So fast and responsive that you truly feel no desire to go any further even in the most demanding areas of a game. 144 FPS and Beyond: Overkill - Many Gaming Monitors are rated at 144 Hz and they are affordable for most and the perfect choice for most gamers. However, there is no need for your game to actually run this fast. Linus himself has shown in several tests that even professional E-Sports gamers - people who get paid an actual salary to play video games - have no performance improvement when going beyond 144 Hz/FPS. Some people may claim they feel a difference and they are welcome to their opinion, but there is no way for them to prove that claim, and someone new to PC gaming certainly doesn't need to be worrying about such things. So there you go, now you can decide what level of performance you want your Gaming PC to achieve, and you can now use this knowledge to ask someone experienced with PCs (we are all happy to help you here at LTT Forums) to recommend a given pre-built PC or recommend hardware for you to build your own. This is the very first decision towards getting your first gaming PC. Welcome aboard!

Your Scores are a bit low, but still an overall great experience. I also have a 7800X-3D and 7900-XTX and even at factory settings, I get more like 30,000 points in TimeSpy. Your PC might be running hot or be limited somewhere in settings, but regardless as I said its not like ur going to have a poor gaming experience.

I honestly don't care what anyone thinks. Why do you think Im only on this site like once per 3 months? Lol And since when do minimum and recommended specs mean anything significant? They are usually so far off its not even funny. I mean I guess once in a while they get it fairly close but about 90% of the time its just mot accurate. @Administrator feel free to close this thread. Im not here to argue with children. It was meant to be a random thought, nothing more. Im out

I believe I should clarify that when I say the game will probably run poorly, I don't mean so poorly it will be un-playable. I just mean that it will probably run quite similar to the way star field handled Nvidia graphics cards at launch before the update balanced the performance out for Nvidia users. In other words, it will be playable but the FPS numbers will seem quite low especially for higher tier tech. I'm not sure why you guys would even doubt that, take a look at all the modern titles that have been coming out lately and how extremely demanding they are. Also, I imagine all of you have already seen the teaser trailer video so you already know how advanced the graphics are and considering those advanced graphics are also in a massive open world that needs to be rendered continuously It only makes sense to assume the game will run poorly overall. Yeah I'm aware of the game isn't out yet But people have discussions about things that aren't out yet all the time like that's literally about 25% of all the discussions on this website especially when it comes to selecting hardware and whether or not to wait for next generation. I mean did you guys forget that this is a forum? Did you forget what forums are intended to be used for? I'm straight up confused as hell right now by everybody freaking out over a simple conversation about some speculation.

What are you talking about I never asked anybody to "prove me wrong" nor did I even make it sound like that. It sounds to me like you're just jumping the conclusions for whatever reason. I was literally saying "Hey check this out GTA V is still demanding even to this day after nearly a decade so that makes me wonder just how demanding GTA VI is going to be" Seriously man I've seen you post on like a couple dozen different threats and you do this same thing like every single time where you just try to make people out to be argumentative or trying to cause a problem for no reason. It's just weird as hell man stop assuming everybody's out to cause problems. You got some serious issues, if it pains you that much to look at random conversations about random things that leave the forum lol it's the obvious solution. By the way, you might want to read the title again. "GTA VI will PROBABLY Run Quite Poorly". There is no fact statement In that title.

What are you talking about? GTA V is still quite demanding. How else do you explain that other AAA games even on the highest settings shoot out 3-4 times The FBS using the same system? And of course we're comparing to modern games which shows its demand even more because even modern titles Orange is demanding in most cases. If it wasn't demanding then an RTX4070 should be able to run such an old game at like 300 FPS at 1440p ultra. Although I'm not sure where the engine cap is for GTA V But I believe only the RTX 4090 can even hit it.

Not trying to start an argument its a forum, ur meant to discuss things when you have a thought, thats all.

They also showed 1440p and 1080p. Besides the point is that GTA VI will Probably be extremely demanding

Ya but you would expect a near-decade old game to run well over 200 FPS with a brand new GPU - even at higher resolutions, yet the 4070-Super barely manages about 130 at 1080p. Guess it just goes to show how insanely demanding GTA really is. Its alot like Red Redemption 2.

Steve from Gamers Nexus has just reviewed Nvidia's new RTX 4070-Super. In the benchmarks he states that GTA V is still included because it still scales on modern cards. If you ask me, this near-decade old game still being demanding can only mean that GTA VI will probably be one of the most demanding games ever released. With performance on GTA V still this relevant and demanding, I wonder just how low the FPS will go in GTA VI. Im sure even my Radeon RX 7900-XTX will have a hard time pushing triple-digit FPS at my 3440x1440p resolution with a mix of High and Ultra settings. Just something random to think about

Well I think they got enough backlash from 5 releasing so much later on PC so I believe this one will release on PC at least much closer. Thats probably why its taken 10 years to develop the game.

Well talk about the biggest tease in gaming history... Me: Hears GTA VI trailer has been uploaded to the official RockStar Gaming YT Channel Me: Goes "Hell Ya, Welcome to a New Era of Gaming People!" Me: Watches the trailer in awe at the insanely good graphics and realism despite the size of the world. Me: Sees "Coming in 2025" at the end of the trailer Me: "F*** You Rockstar" So apparently we have probably about 18 months to go. Well, at least it looks very promising.

UPDATE NOVEMBER 26TH, 2023: DeepCool Assassin-IV wins the "Best Mechanical Design" Award of 2023:

Main Reddit Thread, Discuss the issue and provide your testing results here: Secondary Reddit Thread - What I determined to be the root cause of the issue in the case of my GPU: Star Citizen Spectrum Thread - The official Star Citizen Forum, issue discussion thread: High-End AMD GPU Crashing Possibly Resolved! We NEED TESTERS! - Hardware - Star Citizen - Spectrum v6.15.0 (robertsspaceindustries.com) The Official Star Citizen Issue Council thread - the official area for reporting issues with Star Citizen. Please contribute to the report if you have encountered the issue before implementing a fix: AMD RX 7000 Series GPU Driver Crash/ Crash To Desktop - Star Citizen - Issue Council (robertsspaceindustries.com) ONTO THE ISSUE: A fairly wide-spread issue began happening in Star Citizen when Alpha 3.20 released in Mid September 2023. As of now, there are nearly 100 confirmed reports to the Star Citizen Issue Council that people are having this issue, but it doesn't seem to happen to everyone... This issue causes High-End AMD GPUs to crash to desktop with a driver timeout that crashes the driver and resets the driver factory default settings. Thanks to the alias of @Samier-RN on Reddit and the Issue Council who came up with a random thought - if it tends to affect high-end GPUs the most, perhaps its related to Clock Speeds. He tested a limited clock speed and it worked for him, so several of us began testing similar settings and I have personally done testing to determine the root cause. The issue mostly occurs on the AMD RX 7900-XTX, but also occurs to many with a 7900-XT, 6950-XT, or 6900-XT. GPUs of a lower tier than these are generally not affected. However, we have seen one or two reports from lower-tier GPUs such as the 6700-XT and even one or two reports from Nvidia users. The Root Cause: It seems to be a power virus that occurs mostly when MobiGlass is open inside the game, but crashes at other times have been reported, although crashing during MobiGlass is by far the majority complaint. I started by testing a known stable Maximum Overclock Settings profile on TimeSpy, TimeSpy Extreme, and 3 games to get an average of maximum GPU core clock (shader clock) between applications. For me and my Red Devil 7900-XTX, the maximum seems to be about 2700MHz on high resolution/high settings/lower FPS applications and 2800MHz on lower resolutions/lower settings/extremely high FPS in the multiple hundreds. Then, I fired up Star Citizen, went into the MobiGlass, began pressing buttons and the game inevitably crashed as it usually did about 15 seconds later. Well, HWiNFO64 reported a maximum core (shader) clock of nearly 3100 MHz and a Front-End clock just over 3200MHz. Obviously, the 7900-XTX is not stable at these speeds, and the game immediately crashes. And so, after setting a manual maximum clock of 2650MHz inside AMD Adrenaline Driver Software, the issue is resolved, and I have not had an issue since limiting my GPU clock speed. I am posting here so fellow tech enthusiasts who enjoy Star Citizen can have access to the solution and for anyone who is curious. Links at the top of this post pont to the different areas where we have posts on the matter.

UPDATE OCT 21, 2023: DeepCool Assassin-IV Now available in White! https://wccftech.com/review/deepcools-best-air-cooler-now-available-in-white-the-assassin-iv-wh-review/amp/

@Agall I know the GTX 1080-Ti is a fantastic card and lasted so very long but just take a look at the chart above ^. Unfortunately if you ask me its time for GTX 1000 series and older to be retired. I guess if you just wanna play 1080p with High (NOT Ultra) settings then a GTX 1080 or 1080-Ti could probably hold out until RTX 5000 rolls around but thats pretty much it if you want good frame rates.

@ZeusXI The naming schemes from both Intel and AMD are confusing this year because they aren't actually what their names suggest they are. The addition of the "XTX" naming scheme for the flagship card pushed everything down a level so in reality the 7900-XT is actually the 7800-XT and the 7800-XT is actually the 7800 Non-XT, and so on... Then with Nvidia you have the "Unlaunched" RTX 4080 12GB that turned into the RTX 4070-Ti at launch and the RTX 4060 variants that use 50-class GPU Dies and BUS widths. Its all one big mess and everything is stupid - basically. The RX 7800-XT isn't really a 4K card. It could handle the most basic 4K gaming but not very well - its more designed for 1440p Ultra/High Frame Rates or 3440x1440p. As others have said, $900 for an XTX is a damn good value but keep in mind your target is only 60 FPS so the XTX is actually a fair bit overkill. It sounds to me like the RX 7900-XT is the ideal card for your goals and you can even up your FPS goal a fair bit. Even at Ultra Settings the 7900-XT will push over 80 FPS at 4K in a lot of scenarios. Thats pretty perfect as I would aim for more than 60 FPS anyways. 60 FPS is smooth but doesn't feel super responsive, once you get to 75 FPS or so the responsiveness improves quite a lot. However, if the XTX is being sold 3rd party and therefore you pay no sales tax, then you might as well go for the overkill, because a 7900-XT at $799.99 plus sales tax will put you $860-$880 out of pocket and it just wouldn't make any sense to leave behind the almost free upgrade.

I have a 7900-XTX myself and the only game I have issues with right now is actually Star Citizen and that just started with the 3.20 patch. 3.19 and previous I never had an issue. All other games work perfectly. Everything from indie like 7 Days to Die to AAA modern titles like Atomic Heart. Ive heard that Star Citizen 3.20 is an issue for a lot of AMD users and the solution for now is to roll back to 23.8.X drivers.

@Gereyra I would say 100% save up just a tad bit more and go for the RX 7800-XT. Its the official recommended card for Starfield at 1440p with high settings and good frame rates because Starfield is so AMD-biased. Here is a chart that compares overall 1440p Ultra performance between the generations. This is taken from an average of 10 modern, demanding games. As you can see, the GTX 1000 series is indeed finally becoming obsolete, with the GTX 1080-Ti hanging on but just barely while everything below it is basically done for. With the GTX 1080-Ti managing an average of about 50 FPS and the RX 7800-XT managing an everage of about 90 FPS, you are looking at roughly an 80% jump in performance while also increasing VRAM from 11GB to 16GB. This is a pretty big jump overall and 100% worth the $500 if you ask me.

@john b Its a good deal as long as its the 8GB model and it works. There are only 2 things to keep in mind: 1.) Make sure you inspect it very thoroughly, if you can either have the seller take a video using it to play a game or test it for yourself before buying. 2.) Be aware of the age of these cards. Anything pre RX 5000 series from AMD is pretty much completely obsolete at this point and thats why you can find them under $100 now. You will certainly be restricted to solely 1080p gaming mostly at Medium Settings, maybe a few important settings set to High and thats basically it. I know its a bargain and thats fair, 1080p is still plenty good, just don't expect good performance out of a card that old.

This is how I set up my Power Color Red Devil 7900-XTX. Ya, definitely out of the box it is silence optimized and not performance optimized. No idea why, its the OC BIOS lol, but whatever, I guess they figured since 100C hotspot is within spec that its fine. I set my fan speed plateau at literally the percentage point before 2000 RPM because I find that anything below 2000 RPM is quiet enough to not be noticable during gaming even if volume is pretty low. Stock out of the box it runs fairly warm but not too bad in my case. Perhaps its a cooler room? My ambient temp is 70 Deg-F. I do also have the Lian Li LanCool 216 case which is considered one of the absolute best Air Cooling cases of all time. As you can see in the picture below, the bottom intake fan feeds fresh air directly to my GPU so its pretty much best case scenario when it comes to my GPU having access to fresh air. So first test is stock out of the box, all tests were run for 5 mins in TimeSpy Loop Second Test Introduces my custom fan curve but no OC yet My Daily Safe 100% perfectly stable in all games OC setup Worst case scenario: Default Fan behavior with maxed out +15% power budget as well as maximum core voltage to generate as much heat as possible. This was the only test that resulted in thermal throttling. The test began around 2600 MHz and slowly the card dialed back to 2500 MHz as the temps rose.

@BLOS88 I am curious as well because I completely forgot there is a much more affordable alternative to both the RTX 4070-Ti and RX 7900-XT that was just released: AMDs new RX 7800-XT has finally launched. Sure, its only a bit faster than the RTX 4070, but it would give you a decent uplift of about 40% overall in performance over your RTX 3070, and it comes with 16GB of VRAM, all for $500 here in the states. That makes it a far better value than the RTX 4070 which would only give you a 30% uplift with 12GB of VRAM for $600. I recommend upgrading when the difference is 50%+ in performance but I have to admit the 7800-XT is not a terrible option. It is also specifically designed to tackle 1440p, offering pretty high frame rates at Maxed-Out Ultra-Everything Settings or extremely responsive high refresh rate gaming at High Settings.