WHY?!

[Smc253]

10 hours ago, TylerD321 said:

This is kind of a useless argument that can be applied to any enthusiast market. Why get a fast car if there’s a speed limit? Why get designer clothes if you can cover up just fine with goodwill clothes? Even with food, why buy name brand cereal when there’s generic.

 

It chalks up to personal preference. There’s a market for it for a reason. If you don’t like it you aren’t the target audience. Simple.

Yeah it’s a useless argument that you’re getting ripped off for performance to price ratio. 

[Smc253]

10 hours ago, Dukesilver27- said:

OP needs to get his eyes/glasses checked if he says 4K has the same relative fidelity as 1440p.

This just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Put two good ultra wides next to each other and tell me your getting your moneys worth for what you pay for to game at the magical 4K everyone wants. Sorry you’re not. Not even close. I mentioned PCI 4.0/5 because most are buying these boards when it ain’t needed unless you have a ton of devices taking up all your ports. People like to waste money thinking they are getting the best thing since sliced bread.

[Mark Kaine]

calling it "enthusiast" is also a bit weird / eye opening to me. like "audiophiles" kinda thing buying "cd shavers" for 1000 bucks and shit, ehh.

Interesting. 

[ewitte]

16 hours ago, Smc253 said:

Tell me WHAT is the point to 4k gaming when you can game at 1440p for like 50 percent of the cost, pretty much same visuals, and less thermals with longer lifespan of hardware. WHAT IS THE POINT besides wasting money on upgraded PCI 4.0/5.0 compatible hardware. 

Size.  For 27inch it is great for text clarity, gaming doesn't look too much different.  There is a pretty good PQ difference over 32 inches even for gaming.  If you run off a 48in like I do 4k is pretty much required.  I wish it was really 8k even (I'd probably still game at 4k mostly).  I wouldn't want to run 1440p on a 4k monitor, not running native resolution makes everything look terrible (2:1 is ok).

[Mark Kaine]

4 hours ago, Smc253 said:

Just seems insane to me people spend over 2000 dollars for a custom pc so you can get 100 fps in 4K. Oh! The 2080 was gonna be great for 4K fps! Nope. The 3090 is gonna be great for FPS! Eh not that great really. Damn that power bill though and crap gotta buy a new case with a support bracket. Well, maybe the 4090 will do it! Yup not to bad! But now I got burning power connectors and 1000 watt power supply? Have people gone nuts? 

yeah, and? its really not new, people who buy overpriced stuff just because they can always existed... its a complete niche market with very high margins... i don't think complaining about it will do anything,  they'll just buy 2 cd shavers 4090s instead ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

 

16 hours ago, Middcore said:

That doesn't mean it's "stupid" or pointless. 

it kinda is though... because the content isn't there.

games with actual 4k textures ? i don't think there are many...

movies etc? yeah, well, not if you're streaming (quality is awful on streaming services)

youtube? maybe, but thats about it besides blurays and you don't need a $2000 gpu for that...

 

it does kinda get old actually,  they're trying to push "4k"  since 2006 or so?

 

its apparently just not happening anytime soon since making content is cost prohibitive... although you can buy really cheap "4k" tvs in the supermarket nowadays , of course people will buy that, but for actual "enthusiasts" its not interesting because all that upscaled, compressed low bitrate stuff just looks worse than an actual good 1080p screen with native content...

 

 

you know, reminds me, the hipsters back then who were like "1080p is all you'll ever need!" were maybe right after all! 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, ewitte said:

Size

the size thing is about the only thing that makes somewhat sense to me, but you're still playing content that isnt really meant for that resolution mostly... but i guess if you're sitting far enough away that's not really noticeable... and you still get the "big screen" experience... its not for me, but it does make some sense.

[IkeaGnome]

  

14 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

for an edge case like this such a card maybe makes sense, but not many people would do this, and not many people buy such a card to begin with,  shows very well however,  that as i said many games nowadays don't take fully advantage of such a card.

 

i think that nvidia (maybe amd too) are "efficient" in themselves, shouldn't really be a question,  because they are. 

 

if a "350w" gpu should be even a thing is another question entirely though. 

pretty sure if this gets more widespread eu would ban those or put massive restrictions,  they already cry about drinking straws!

 

(not to mention "4k tvs" i guess...)

Oh it is for sure an edge case. I understand that I'm probably one of a handful of people that use their computer and graphics card they way I do and want the performance I do.

That being said, I was referencing the workload and the temps to the heat and efficiency that OP is saying is worse. 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-founders-edition/39.html

If we look at similar loads(locked to 60fps) the compute power is high enough that the card sips power when locked to 60fps, and on average uses less power than a 3080 ti or 3090 in gaming. 

11 hours ago, Smc253 said:

Damn that power bill though and crap gotta buy a new case with a support bracket. Well, maybe the 4090 will do it! Yup not to bad! But now I got burning power connectors and 1000 watt power supply? Have people gone nuts? 

My power bill hasn't hardly changed going from the XT to this card. There is also no sag coming from the card with no bracket. I didn't have to get a new case. I just had to move my pump to a different slot. Once my waterblock comes in, it can all go back to normal.

As far as the power connector most of that was user error. I've watched the temps on my connector very closely and it's never warmer than the backplate. The connector that came with my Zotac made a very obvious click when it was plugged all the way in and I can't pull it out without using the release mechanism. My only complaint about it is that it moved my sleeved cables out of view. 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-founders-edition/31.html

Compare the power consumption in gaming of the 2080 to the 4090 and we'll talk about efficiency. 2080 uses ~215W average in games where the 4090 is ~346. Rounding to 350 for easier numbers and it puts the 2080 in a bit more of an advantage.

The 2080 uses 61% of the power of a 4090. Find me a game where at 1440p or 4k the 2080 gets more than 61% of the performance of a 4090. 1080p is going to be more CPU focused than GPU anyways, and someone who is buying a 4090 likely isn't playing at 1080p. 

 

[HelloPeople]

18 hours ago, Smc253 said:

Just seems insane to me people spend over 2000 dollars for a custom pc so you can get 100 fps in 4K. Oh! The 2080 was gonna be great for 4K fps! Nope. The 3090 is gonna be great for FPS! Eh not that great really. Damn that power bill though and crap gotta buy a new case with a support bracket. Well, maybe the 4090 will do it! Yup not to bad! But now I got burning power connectors and 1000 watt power supply? Have people gone nuts? 

are they using your money?

[LostInSpaceThings]

I will never go 4k. I've got a 3080 that kicks ass at 1440p. There are more important things than max res

[Smc253]

On 12/12/2022 at 6:18 PM, IkeaGnome said:

  

Oh it is for sure an edge case. I understand that I'm probably one of a handful of people that use their computer and graphics card they way I do and want the performance I do.

That being said, I was referencing the workload and the temps to the heat and efficiency that OP is saying is worse. 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-founders-edition/39.html

If we look at similar loads(locked to 60fps) the compute power is high enough that the card sips power when locked to 60fps, and on average uses less power than a 3080 ti or 3090 in gaming. 

My power bill hasn't hardly changed going from the XT to this card. There is also no sag coming from the card with no bracket. I didn't have to get a new case. I just had to move my pump to a different slot. Once my waterblock comes in, it can all go back to normal.

As far as the power connector most of that was user error. I've watched the temps on my connector very closely and it's never warmer than the backplate. The connector that came with my Zotac made a very obvious click when it was plugged all the way in and I can't pull it out without using the release mechanism. My only complaint about it is that it moved my sleeved cables out of view. 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-founders-edition/31.html

Compare the power consumption in gaming of the 2080 to the 4090 and we'll talk about efficiency. 2080 uses ~215W average in games where the 4090 is ~346. Rounding to 350 for easier numbers and it puts the 2080 in a bit more of an advantage.

The 2080 uses 61% of the power of a 4090. Find me a game where at 1440p or 4k the 2080 gets more than 61% of the performance of a 4090. 1080p is going to be more CPU focused than GPU anyways, and someone who is buying a 4090 likely isn't playing at 1080p. 

 

I7 9700k at 5.1ghz

3900mhz ddr4 19-19-19-41

rtx 2080 8gb not ti overclocked +100mhz

970 evo m.2 for c drive 

850 evo storage

2 intel early nvme drives for storage 

lg ultra wide at 3x1440

 

100 fps average for newest titles 

 

to the moon on 2018 and older.

I’m pushing this older hardware to absolute maximums with good cooling and im still keeping up with almost 5 year old hardware. 

[Shzzit]

On 12/11/2022 at 5:25 PM, Smc253 said:

The visuals are really not that different just seems stupid 

Spoken like someone who’s NEVER had a good 4K screen.  Nothing you said is correct.

[Ebony Falcon]

I’m of the same opinion 4k is pointless in terms of monitors 

 

resolution is basicaly the outline of world and the things in it like a silhouette  

 

nothing inside the lines Is native 4k, games don’t have 4k textures or shadows or lighting everything is scaled down, so actualy 1440p with 4k dsr gets 4k quality but with lower quality outlines if that makes sense as the other things that aren’t running 1:1 with res get a visual increase 

 

so for me playing at 4k on a 1440p high refresh monitor is awesome and no need for 4k monitor 

[ewitte]

On 12/19/2022 at 8:31 AM, Shzzit said:

Spoken like someone who’s NEVER had a good 4K screen.  Nothing you said is correct.

Same people that are satisfied with TN panels... Buy poor PQ screens yes you aren't going to notice as many differences.

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/12/2022 at 8:04 AM, HelloPeople said:

this argument is exactly the same as the arguments about 60hz monitors and 144hz. 

well 60hz is superior,  obviously!  if my POS MSI "1440p 165hz gaming monitor" is anything to go by.

 

Seriously I have 4 lcd screens,  my favorite ones are my 1080p/60hz Asus  "trueRGB" and a really old Funai, that's not even 720p (just some "fake 720p") and i even prefer the old Panasonic TV over the MSI "gaming trash" tbh

[HelloPeople]

21 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

well 60hz is superior,  obviously!  if my POS MSI "1440p 165hz gaming monitor" is anything to go by.

 

Seriously I have 4 lcd screens,  my favorite ones are my 1080p/60hz Asus  "trueRGB" and a really old Funai, that's not even 720p (just some "fake 720p") and i even prefer the old Panasonic TV over the MSI "gaming trash" tbh

well, if you prefer that then its "YOUR PREFERENCE" not mine.

 

I still prefer a 1080p 144hz monitor anytime. 1440p 144hz would be a nice upgrade.

 

just saying, it's "MY PREFERENCE" so I don't really care what you like or prefer. we don't have to agree on the same thing.

you have your onw preference, that's a good thing.

[Mark Kaine]

14 hours ago, HelloPeople said:

well, if you prefer that then its "YOUR PREFERENCE" not mine.

 

I still prefer a 1080p 144hz monitor anytime. 1440p 144hz would be a nice upgrade.

 

just saying, it's "MY PREFERENCE" so I don't really care what you like or prefer. we don't have to agree on the same thing.

you have your onw preference, that's a good thing.

honestly one of the reasons i dont like the MSI is i think it's outright broken...sometimes it works ok, most of the time its really stuttery (and "Gsync" doesn't actually do anything most of the time, it just makes it even worse seemingly) 

 

i tried several cables, bought another dp cable... nothing helps.

 

And honestly i can play with DSR or similar at 1440p or 4k if i want,  it looks actually really good on my Asus "1080p" monitor so the res upgrade alone isn't really "worth it" to me either. Sure it looks sharper on the desktop and other apps but in games, i dunno... also it still feels really stuttery with this "gaming monitor" hence i think its broken lol

[SolarNova]

On 12/12/2022 at 1:17 AM, Smc253 said:

and less thermals with longer lifespan of hardware.

Well for starters this part isnt an issue in any properly configured system.

The only systems failing from degradation caused by overheating are those that are either terribly maintained, or otherwise not maintained at all, or which started out life terribly configured.

 

As for your 1st point, visual fidelity does increase with increased rendering resolution, 'normies' wont notice it however due to default graphic profiles usually including some form of post process anti aliasing which cause significantly softening of the image. This looses fine detail and masks any improvement from higher base rendering resolution.

Disable AA and compare the 2 resolutions and ull see a significant improvement, this can even be witnessed on non native resolution displays.

 

As for cost, yes costs have become rather ridiculous and is one of , if not the biggest, issue currently being faced in this hobby. Many reviewers are 'finally' being forced to admit that these top end 'gaming' cards are simply to expensive, and the more 'affordable' cards that are taking the previous top tier pricing (~$700) are not a good enough generational improvement to warrant the price tag especially with the existence of notably superior performing cards above them. Prices have gone up significantly beyond inflation in the last few years, seeing top end GPUs going from ~$700 to well over $1000.

 

The unfortunate truth of the matter is however, so long as certain types of people are willing to buy these overpriced goods ...along with an ointment from their favorite proctologist.....the manufacturers will continue to push these insane prices.