You see the article in this post right? Did you read it?
if they had google where you live you could actually see demos of details you can see. Also describing something as a “majority of your frames” makes no sense. You either have enough performance to spare and it makes sense to turn on or you don’t in which it is interesting tech like ray tracing for the overwhelming majority of gamers.
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I feel like the details add to the game and if I had more than enough hardware to run a given game I would enable the feature and could see my self using it much more so if a later evolution required less of a performance hit.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 4 days ago
“50-60%” is literally “a majority,” I don’t know what to tell you. Math.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Your math is brainless. Your monitor can’t display infinite frames. The majority of monitors can display exactly 60 others can display 144 165. If you have a 60 hz 1080p machine and a good GPU on some games you could still achieve 60 frames eg as much as you can have.
At present with current tech the majority probably can’t turn it on and have acceptable frame rate but there is no reason to believe that the performance cost will be constant.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Your rage is brainless, and proof that you know you don’t have a real argument. It’s hilarious to me the nonsense hills that people will die on.
The story says “50-60%”. You don’t like that math? Take it up with Nvidia. The length of this conversation is already way out of proportion to my interest in it.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sorry saying it was brainless was rude. I just meant you can’t rephrase the performance hit metric as a proportion of frames because of the reasons I specified and because it’s an evolving technology