RTX 2080 & High-end Video Cards

[edyzmedieval]

I've had the opportunity to play some recent games and some older ones - PUBG / CS GO / Insurgency Sandstorm - on super powerful computers that included RTX 2080 video cards. While undeniably it was superb, especially on new titles like Insurgency Sandstorm, I do feel quite an overkill to have such powerful technology even on current gen games since the computing power is too much for the rendering in fact. 300 FPS is too much.

In fact, I enjoyed myself much more on computers which were high-end but not top of the line, simply because it felt more "natural" in terms of FPS. I do have an issue with too many FPS (anything over 150 feels weird to me) so perhaps it's a subjective opinion.

Any thoughts on this? Anyone else experience this?

[Husar]

I bought a Vega 64 last year and it's not fast enough. I'm not going to get the faster Radeon 7 though, because it's too much money for the mediocre performance gain and the cooler design is too loud.
The important part is that I bought a 4K 27" monitor in 2016 and this monitor can barely get enough GPU power. Fortunately the monitor has pretty good scaling, so I can use lower resolutions without it looking bad, but using the native 4K resolution is obviously the preferred option.

Of course a lot also depends on the games you play. In 2016 I had a GTX 660, which obviously couldn't play anything demanding in 4K, but Stellaris for example worked fine. Not with 60fps, but well-playable. With the next one, the RX 480, I could play a lot of AAA games in 1440p on High settings and games like Stellaris or Life is Strange in 4K with 60 fps. Well, for Stellaris, Cities Skylines and Transport Fever this is obviously only true before late game, when they all lag everywhere because they can barely utilize more than 1 CPU core, but no GPU can fix that...

The Vega 64 is about twice as powerful as the RX 480 and so it allows me to play a lot more in 4K. WarThunder, which I play a lot lately, is absolutely fine, runs with 60fps (I capped it for FreeSync, above 60 it stutters like crazy). Assassin's Creed: Origins is a bit peculiar. It averages above 40fps on high settings, but it has regular stutters, that get on my nerves. When I play it in 3200*1800, which looks barely worse than 2160p, then it's very smooth, often 60fps. I assume Odyssey, which came with the card, will also require that resolution, but I haven't touched it since it was released in early October.

That actually covers most of the games I play, but I think I could run BF5 in 4k on relatively high settings, if I were interested enough to buy it.

The really important part here is obviously the resolution. I still use a 1920*1200 24" screen as my secondary monitor, but the 27" 2160p thing is so much crisper... I use 150% scaling in Windows and by now most programs work quite well with the scaling, if they're not using some outdated UI designs from Windows XP or 7 (I barely use any programs like that). The letters are so much more readable with higher pixel density, it's already worth it in Windows and Office. Now my old screen doesn't have a bad picture by itself, but when you directly compare it to the newer one, you definitely see a big difference in detail in games, etc.

I recently also found out what higher resolution in sound quality means, but that's a different topic.

Anyway, these cards are for higher resolutions like 4K or 1440p. Though if I didn't have a 4K display already (and weren't a DPI-fanatic ), I might go with a 1440p one nowadays, probably with 144Hz. For that you also need a strong GPU, but can get a decent one for more reasonable prices.

In 1080p you're absolutely correct that they're complete overkill, unless you want RayTracing...

I would personally not buy a first gen product just for RayTracing though, doesn't seem worth the investment. Not because RayTracing is bad, but because the second and third gen products often dwarf the performance of the first one and then the games adapt and your 800$+ GPU was only good for a year and a half, in which time there exist maybe 5 games that actually offer the new tech...

[edyzmedieval]

My problem is either a problem of adjustment (rarely played on super high-end computers) or personal preference, because I don't enjoy games when they're buttery smooth at 200 FPS. I'm way more confortable at 40-50 FPS, 60 even, but anything over 120 the eyes anyways can't judge accurately and it's just too much. 4K looks amazing, and I love it, but if we could just have 4K with max 60 FPS in some cases it would be fantastic - at the end of the day, the frame rate capping sounds like a swell idea to be fair.

I will look into a monitor with a better refresh rat thought, apparently that's the thing.

[Husar]

My problem is either a problem of adjustment (rarely played on super high-end computers) or personal preference, because I don't enjoy games when they're buttery smooth at 200 FPS. I'm way more confortable at 40-50 FPS, 60 even, but anything over 120 the eyes anyways can't judge accurately and it's just too much. 4K looks amazing, and I love it, but if we could just have 4K with max 60 FPS in some cases it would be fantastic - at the end of the day, the frame rate capping sounds like a swell idea to be fair.

I will look into a monitor with a better refresh rat thought, apparently that's the thing.

That's interesting. I haven't seen a lot of high refresh rate monitors myself and to some extent I'm happy about it. Because if I did get spoiled, I couldn't stand mine anymore and would start browsing store sites and monitor models...
There are only a few 4K 120 Hz models though and they still cost way more than I'm willing to spend.

Do you mean 200 fps on a 60Hz monitor though? Because then you only get 60 frames per second for your eyes and the other 140 are discarded. Some still use it though because they say it feels more responsive to their input.

I limit my fps to 60 because my monitor has FreeSync between 40 and 60 fps (I modded it to go down to 33 minimum, it's not hard if the monitor doesn't begin to show artifacts). This syncing technology was just something that came with it and I feel that it's really good, it makes everything look a lot smoother, there is no tearing, etc. I usually notice quite fast whether it's on or not. At ~72fps in WarThunder it felt just terribly stuttery and jittery because the pictures weren't synchronized anymore.

Additionally the limit to 60 makes my GPU fans slow down since the GPU doesn't run at full capacity (it's not super loud when it does, but quieter is quieter), so that's a potential added benefit. Provided the game doesn't run below 60 fps anyway because it's so demanding, but then I try to keep the averages within the 40-60 range, the 33 are just to catch some unusual slowdowns.

The better refresh rate does seem to be a thing and I can imagine why and how, I just don't want to experience it too much before I actually buy one. It even makes everything smoother without sync because with the higher refresh, it is more likely that the GPU outputs a picture the moment the monitor refreshes again and so on, though I guess having FreeSync or G-Sync on it is still a benefit.

I'm still thinking about your adversity to speed, I think I have it as well. When I see other players move their mouse around very fast to check their surroundings, I don't get how they can see anything. I usually have to pause shortly and actually check the screen with my eyes before I know whether anything is going on or not. Same for StarCraft, can't follow what players do there. That's one of the reasons I don't play a lot of fast MP shooters, I just get confused where the enemy is going and where to aim in close combat because I just can't react as fast as they bunnyhop and switch directions. No, it's not my age, I always was this way.

[Husar]

NVidia are desperately trying to find a reason to sell you their cards it seems.
I was immediately reminded of this topic when I read about this:

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce...battle-royale/

Unlock Your Full Potential - How Higher Frame Rates Can Give You An Edge In Battle Royale Games

After their sales went down significantly recently, probably due to the end of the crypto hype, I guess they have become desperate.
Even if the connection is true, it's just as much possible that people who have faster reflexes anyway prefer higher fps because it gives them an advantage. Doesn't mean that my reflexes become faster if I overload my brain.

[edyzmedieval]

The crypto mining boom has definitely fizzled out, and it's not a surprise that they're looking to compensate for that loss. However, that won't happen, since high end video cards are super pricey.