GPUs & CPUs & Enthusiast hardware: Questions, Discussion and fanboy slap-fights - Nvidia & AMD & Intel - Separe but Equal. Intel rides in the back of the bus.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Rololowlo said:
High refresh monitors are the only major PC peripheral that keeps getting cheaper, you can right now get a 32" 1440p 165+Hz for about $200. No excuse.
Click to expand...
just a lil bit more and 32" 240Hz for 200$, hopefully, 240Hz is fucking bae, i tried a 480Hz once and it was weird how fluid shit was, not in a bad sense but everything felt so responsive due to the fluidity, then going back to my 21" 45hz huemonkey monitor made fucking sigh because i still can't find a 32" monitor for a non-retarded price.
 
Aborted Drink Combo said:
I've been sitting here for legit like an hour, kind of getting MATI, typing a 200 word essay about why low FPS/hz is dogshit, deleting it, and retyping it over and over. I've also had a guy playing GoldenEye 007 on my 2nd monitor the entire time, a game that quite often dipped below 15 FPS.

Playable is subjective. I can't stand anything below around 90hz, it feels like I'm moving my mouse pointer through glue. Playing stuff on a console with imprecise thumbsticks, on a LCD TV with massive input lag and shit response times will feel different than using mouse and keyboard on a decent monitor.
Click to expand...

"Feels different" and "unplayable" mean different things. "Unplayable" means you literally cannot play it. Either it's inducing nausea, or giving you headaches, or at minimum, the experience is so incredibly unpleasant that you'd rather do anything else, literally anything else, than play that game.

Now, you might personally be so sensitive that if a game momentarily dips below 90 fps, you vomit all over your keyboard, but I'm not. On my 6700 XT I kept Diablo IV locked at 83 fps, half my screen refresh rate, below the point at which you find yourself unable to even play a game. I didn't even experience any discomfort. No Man's Sky was largely unable to get over 75 fps at my settings and mostly hovered between 50 and 60, occasionally dipping in to the 40s here and there. Again, no headaches or nausea. I put a few hundred hours into it.

Maybe it's like peanuts. I can eat a PB&J sandwich almost every day. Some people will literally die if they eat one. Maybe you have the visual cortex equivalent of a peanut allergy.
 
Last edited:
The Ugly One said:
"Feels different" and "unplayable" mean different things. "Unplayable" means you literally cannot play it. Either it's inducing nausea, or giving you headaches, or at minimum, the experience is so incredibly unpleasant that you'd rather do anything else, literally anything else, than play that game.

Now, you migh personally be so sensitive that if a game momentarily dips below 90 fps, you vomit all over your keyboard, but I'm not. On my 6700 XT I kept Diablo IV locked at 83 fps, half my screen refresh rate, below the point at which you find yourself unable to even play a game. I didn't even experience any discomfort. No Man's Sky was largely unable to get over 75 fps at my settings and mostly hovered between 50 and 60, occasionally dipping in to the 40s here and there. Again, no headaches or nausea. I put a few hundred hours into it.

Maybe it's like peanuts. I can eat a PB&J sandwich almost every day. Some people will literally die if they eat one. Maybe you have the visual cortex equivalent of a peanut allergy.
Click to expand...
Several 5th generation games run at a fixed 20 fps. It’s not the rate that matters, it’s how consistent it is, which VRR is supposed to fix.
 
The Ugly One said:
My monitor is 165 Hz, and has been for a couple years now. I have no problem playing games that run at 60 fps. Even played some 30 fps games on the PS2 recently, also the OG version of Doom II, which is 25 fps.
Click to expand...
All PC gamers within a 50 mile radius of me die immediately when I bust out the n64.
 
Last edited:
4 years ago $1000 got me a high end build. Now $1000 gets you a mid range build. And that was with reusing my power supply, cooler and drives

At least a ryzen 7 5800xt is only $200 I guess. Best I could do on AM4 unless I wanted to fork over $500 for one of those used 3D variant processors they no longer make but are in huge demand or move to AM5 and fork over 6 gorjillion dollars for DDR5
 
SandyCat said:
4 years ago $1000 got me a high end build. Now $1000 gets you a mid range build. And that was with reusing my power supply, cooler and drives

At least a ryzen 7 5800xt is only $200 I guess. Best I could do on AM4 unless I wanted to fork over $500 for one of those used 3D variant processors they no longer make but are in huge demand or move to AM5 and fork over 6 gorjillion dollars for DDR5
Click to expand...
We need Intel to make Nova Lake-S bLLC ("big Last Level Cache") so that X3D has some competition.

The current memory apocalypse should be temporary, although memory pricing has been cycling up and down for the past 15 years. SSD pricing is also cyclical but 3D NAND is better at driving the cost per bit down.

You can heavily compromise on the CPU. The Ryzen 5 5500 is sub-$100 and it's probably enough to get you to 60-120 FPS. For those that managed to get or carry over their DDR5, the 9600X is a great budget chip, and I think the upcoming bottom-tier 8/10-core Zen 6 CPU with 48 MiB L3 cache (not X3D) has a chance to match the 7800X3D.

GPU pricing and options will not stop sucking. That's where everything goes wrong. High prices, not enough VRAM, wrong bus width, no budget options, lack of good low power/profile options, lack of feature parity, and Intel has signed a deal with the devil.
 
SandyCat said:
4 years ago $1000 got me a high end build. Now $1000 gets you a mid range build. And that was with reusing my power supply, cooler and drives

At least a ryzen 7 5800xt is only $200 I guess. Best I could do on AM4 unless I wanted to fork over $500 for one of those used 3D variant processors they no longer make but are in huge demand or move to AM5 and fork over 6 gorjillion dollars for DDR5
Click to expand...
What was your build four years ago?

Four years ago would have been ampere, and the RTX 3070 was $500 on launch (assuming you could even get one).
 
Fcret said:
What was your build four years ago?

Four years ago would have been ampere, and the RTX 3070 was $500 on launch (assuming you could even get one).
Click to expand...
I had a ryzen 9 3900x and a 2070 super . Might of been in 2020. I remember both being around $400 at the time

I think I also recall the 3070 wasn't out yet when I made that build. I guess I had this build longer than I thought
 
The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:
GPU pricing and options will not stop sucking. That's where everything goes wrong. High prices, not enough VRAM, wrong bus width, no budget options, lack of good low power/profile options, lack of feature parity, and Intel has signed a deal with the devil.
Click to expand...
You can get the 8 GB 5050 for under $250 right now. With some generous help from DLSS, you can run Cyberpunk with raytracing on at 180fps, just don't think too much about where those pixels are coming from.


Or you could get the aforementioned B580 with its 12 GB. If that's too rich for your blood, Intel's current-gen iGPU can run just about any game out at playable settings. Maybe not Alan Wake 2. Intel's XeSS frame generation supports Meteor Lake & newer iGPUs, too, and of course, FSR frame gen works if the game supports it.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom