Gear 5 at 8K

[jabawack81]

when over the top meet's over the top

 

https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/gears-5-at-8k-resolution-demolishes-dollar2499-nvidia-titan-rtx-graphics-card

 

I would love a video on what kind of power is needed to run it smoothly.

[Sir_Zeke]

I don't get testing games at resolutions as that and run it on medium settings. I have 2080 TI and 4k monitor and if the game is running at 4k I expect max settings as from any top end computer. With medium setting are the textures in 8k or is this a 1k textures at 8k resolution.

[Droski]

So nobody's gonna talk about how much influence coding has on performance??? Wouldn't surprise me if gears was coded like sh*t. Crysis 3 on 8k (modded) hits 60fps easily. And another thing is that gears uses dx12, which should make it easier for the GPU to render, so it has to be the coding!!

[Frankenburger]

1 hour ago, Sir_Zeke said:

I don't get testing games at resolutions as that and run it on medium settings. I have 2080 TI and 4k monitor and if the game is running at 4k I expect max settings as from any top end computer.

"Max settings" is a status symbol and nothing else. Games are more often optimized around medium settings, and high settings often looks quite similar to ultra/max without a huge performance penalty. There's zero point in turning up the sample counts of shadows, lights, post processing, etc just to edge out over medium/high at 70% a reduction in performance.

[Sir_Zeke]

7 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

"Max settings" is a status symbol and nothing else. Games are more often optimized around medium settings, and high settings often looks quite similar to ultra/max without a huge performance penalty. There's zero point in turning up the sample counts of shadows, lights, post processing, etc just to edge out over medium/high at 70% a reduction in performance.

"high settings often looks quite similar to ultra/max" exactly there is a difference it may be small but there is one. 

 

"There's zero point in turning up the sample counts of shadows, lights, post processing, etc just to edge out over medium/high at 70% a reduction in performance." with that logic I should sell me PC and get a console.

 

I'm a PC gamer for a reason so I can crank my games up to 11 and have the best experience possible.  

[Frankenburger]

8 minutes ago, Sir_Zeke said:

with that logic I should sell me PC and get a console.

All the while ignoring the fact you can run at a higher resolution, higher framerate, and have access to graphical mods?

 

I'll take 4k medium/high with ReShade at 144 FPS over 1440p Ultra/Max at 120 FPS any day of the week.

[Sir_Zeke]

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

All the while ignoring the fact you can run at a higher resolution, higher framerate, and have access to graphical mods?

 

I'll take 4k medium/high with ReShade at 144 FPS over 1440p Ultra/Max at 120 FPS any day of the week.

That's the beauty of PC gaming. You can do what you want. For me max settings, high resolution and supersampling. 

 

Back to topic, for test and benchmarks and system specifications recommendations game need to be test at all setting. Whats the point of testing game at medium and very high resolution when normal user will change setting to higher and game is unplayable or not working at all. 

[Frankenburger]

8 minutes ago, Sir_Zeke said:

Back to topic, for test and benchmarks and system specifications recommendations game need to be test at all setting. Whats the point of testing game at medium and very high resolution when normal user will change setting to higher and game is unplayable or not working at all. 

I can easily flip the question back at you

 

"Why test at ultra settings when most users have rigs that can't run at those settings, and will turn those settings down?"

 

There's a reason why optimization guides exist - because most people would rather play at a stable 60/120/144 FPS regardless of settings. Most people can identify that ultra settings are useless without a side by side comparison.

 

Sites that simply test games at ultra or on the highest preset are very disingenuous to their viewers. Even though 8k gaming is still years away from reasonable expectation in high fidelity titles, I'm perfectly ok with seeing 8k medium benchmarks, because I'm also perfectly ok with seeing 1080p medium benchmarks too. The more testing done, the better.

[Sir_Zeke]

1 minute ago, Frankenburger said:

I can easily flip the question back at you

 

"Why test at ultra settings when most users will turn those settings down?"

 

There's a reason why optimization guides exist - because most people would rather play at a stable 60/120/144 FPS regardless of settings. Most people can identify that ultra settings are useless without a side by side comparison.

 

Sites that simply test games at ultra or on the highest preset are very disingenuous to their viewers. Even though 8k gaming is still years away from reasonable expectation in high fidelity titles, I'm perfectly ok with seeing 8k medium benchmarks, because I'm also perfectly ok with seeing 1080p medium benchmarks too.

"Back to topic, for test and benchmarks and system specifications recommendations game need to be test at all setting."

"Why test at ultra settings when most users will turn those settings down?"

 

I get what you are saying about running game at stable fps but this is benchmark is there is inform you about all the setting and all the outcomes. As for people running game at lower setting is a total BS if that was a case game companies would not bother adding high resolutions pack for PC releases or extra eye candy it all cost them money if is not gone be use by customers whats the point is just wast of money for them.

 

[Frankenburger]

10 minutes ago, Sir_Zeke said:

As for people running game at lower setting is a total BS

Did you know that the 3 most common GPUs found in gaming rigs are the 1060, 1050Ti, and 1050, making up a total of 30% of the gaming community? Hell, there's more people rocking the 750Ti than there is the 1080Ti.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

 

Yes, people run at lower settings than ultra, and probably even lower than high in a number of cases. Why? Because they don't have the hardware required to run at a stable FPS using ultra settings on a 1060 or lower. Even I turn certain settings off or down to low to save performance. Godrays in FO4, Volume Rendering in MHW, SSR in MHW, Volumetric Lighting in RE2R, etc, are all settings I personally turn down or off. A lot of people disable motion blur, and a lot of people don't like depth of field.

 

As I said before, ultra settings is a status symbol. Developers include ultra as a novelty for users to take advantage of if they so choose.