Comment on [deleted]
Trashboat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
One thing to note, the idea of running everything at max at 4k is an extremely costly endeavor with severely diminishing returns. The difference between max and high settings in most games is very minimal (especially if you spend a minute tweaking settings) but the performance hit of maxed settings is often massive. A 5090 will certainly perform the best, but even that won’t play literally everything maxed at 4k/high frame rate, and a 5080 or 9070xt for like half the price or less will get you very close visually, while also using quite a bit less power. You’d be able to save on your PSU, as well as the energy costs too. It’ll also dump less heat into the case, which makes cooling easier. So If money is no object at all, the 5090 is hard not to recommend, but otherwise something cheaper would get you 95% of the way there
Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Imo 4k is overkill anyway, and chasing even 60 fps (not to mention 120 which seems to be the norm these days) at this resolution for current/“next” gen games is basically a scam from hardware manufacturers to get us to buy their overly expensive “gamer” grade shit.
Now I know it’s a bit of an extreme view in the gaming space, but imo this shit is not sustainable and doesn’t even bring that much to the table in terms of fidelity/enjoyment. 1440p works just fine and is much easier to work with, especially as your hardware gets older because fill rate really is a bitch with modern photorealistic games.
BenLeMan@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I run 1440p capped at 75fps and cannot see a noticeable improvement with higher resolutions or framerates (my hardware is capable and I’ve tried).
Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Having tried it, I do think 120 fps feels a little smoother but I don’t think it’s worth the investment. 75 is already fine.
IronKrill@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
120 is definitely smoother, but I’ve found you can’t really feel it until your minimums are at your target. So if your minimum frametime is 30-60fps on a 120fps monitor, it’ll feel pretty crap compared to a solid 60 (or 75).
Trashboat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
I do like 4k personally, I like the extra clarity and distant details you can see, and the crisp text and icons are nice to have as well. Especially with a big monitor, it feels quite immersive in games and gives you a lot of desktop space to use too. It’s definitely a luxury though compared to 1440p, which is a much better price/quality ratio. It’s taxing on performance too, but my 7900xt can run most anything I play at medium/high at ~90+ FPS, and I tend to be pretty picky about framerate as I’m sensitive to input latency. Certainly not a low end card, but far from a 5090 or even 5080, and games still look great since medium/high usually still has a plenty of eye candy enabled. With upscaling like FSR and DLSS, you can drop the res slightly too and still have a pretty much native experience since you’re still working with a very high quality input, but that can help give a nice performance boost.
I’d still recommend 1440p to most, but it’s not too difficult to have a great experience with 4k, you certainly don’t need OPs level of hardware for it. I played for months with a 5700xt even, and while it sometimes struggled, it was playable enough at low/medium settings to have a nice time. I upgraded to the 7900xt mainly because I fried my 5700xt and it wouldn’t stop crashing ahaha, otherwise I would’ve waited longer most likely
Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
For sure, it’s nice with big monitors. But it’s not that important for smaller ones imo, like the 27" one I’ve been using for years. I’d say 30" and over it starts to really matter. I stand pretty close to mine so I don’t really feel the need for a huge monitor