why so insecure? my only box is PC.
by your logic devs already targeting limits of nvidia's 3090, your limit you talking about is only minimum spec requirement for a game.
what photorealistic graphics you're gonna push when nvidia 4xxx cards comes out? let me answer none, you're gonna play same games which can run on previous n'vidia and AMD cards.
Most popular graphics card on steam was the GTX1060.
Nvidia is ging to dictate what next gen will look like??
They just came out? 3000 series is almost two years old.
It's already on sale?
| Ada Lovelace GPU | SMs | CUDA Cores | Top SKU | Memory Bus | Ampere GPU | SMs | CUDA Cores | Top SKU | Memory Bus | SM Increase (% Over Ampere) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD102 | 144 | 18432 | RTX 4090? | 384-bit | GA102 | 84 | 10752 | RTX 3090 Ti | 384-bit | +71% |
Didn't you hear? More vram and more cores (regardless of actual performance) is what matters.
Consoles often aren't doing real 4k.
I don't care what consoles do or don't do.
There is no hardware that can guarantee 4k60. That's a ludicrous assumption. If you think the 3xxx series aren't that great because they can't guarantee 4k60, then you must think consoles are terrible.
Oh, I get it. The 4xxx needs to somehow "make" the PS5/Xbox titles run at 4k60 before they can be considered good tech GPUs.. Wow. Just when I thought we had at least rationale gamers, I am fooled yet again!
So? A 2-yr lifecycle of GPUs is extremely fast in today's production world.
Of course you know that the previous poster's comment made little sense because it's a console warrior's distorted glasses that he looks out of.
Lucky to get 1440p and 60 fps on these consoles. But you know, pcs are shit unless they deliver native 4k 60 fps with ultra settings and raytracing....
How can a graphics card guarantee that when the software can use all kinds of high resources to achieve their desired look. So what if a company decides to make full path-traced game that can only run at 1080p/30FPS. Is it the GPUs fault?
The irrational thinking of these warriors is dumbfounding. All in the name of the console!! Here hear!!
So you want something that doesn't exist? You do know PPI exists, along with view distance right? 4k is a huge waste of resources.
You shouldn't be using any of those cards for 4k though. Developers have been pretty bad with optimization. Halo infinite only gets 64 fps at 4k ultra on a 3090, so safe to say really nothing this gen is 4k as long as games come out the way they do. 1440p a 3070 will last longer than a 3060 at higher performance. Either will probably be better than the base consoles.
Indeed. Don't know why PC gamers want to beg for less and be apologists for companies like Nvidia when they don't put enough VRAM in these very expensive gpus, but hey. Nobody wants to admit they're getting screwed.
I am starting to look at it like the 60 and 70 series of nvidia cards are more like yesterday's high end 80 series and the new 80 and 90 series are a new tier(s) entirely... It's definitely true in terms of msrp and power consumption.
In no way shape or form is the 3060 a 1080p60 card... It really is like a 1080ti plus dlss and rt.
)
In Germany you can buy the 3090Ti FE for MSRP no problem. There are even some under MSRP I believe cause nobody's buying themI actually had a chance to buy a 3090 Ti. Meh. Waiting on 5090 Ti, with my 1200w PSU.
DLSS helps avoid the use of native 4K but unfortunately it is not implemented in every title. Either way, 4K resolution makes a significant difference to picture quality, especially when most games have terrible image quality. Halo infinite looks horrendous at low resolutions.
4080 day one if possible. Assuming it's 40% more powerful than 3090ti then yeah why the hell not.
The 3060 is slower than a 1080 Ti and is roughly in between a 2070 and a 5700 XT. So we would expect it to be around a PS5 in rasterization performance and slower than an XSX. (Though comparisons with PC aren't always straightforward).
Halo infinite looks ok at 1440p. Doesn't look good enough for the performance it has.
Why not get a 4090? How did you get the 3080 below MSRP?
4000 likely won't be enough either. We need 2x performance of 30 series minimum to consider next gen with RT. By the time those games start rolling out we'll have the 50 series.
It really depends on the price of the cards . I don't think the 4080 will be cheap. If anything at least same price as 3080ti msrp
3060 is either faster or slower than 1080ti depending on the game and how well the game is optimized for pascal. Which, is on its last legs in terms of driver optimization.
Maybe, but then what will the price be of the 4080ti?
halo has a problem where its high quality lods, assets and textures are only loaded when the game is ran at 4k. it does not matter if the internal resolution is 1080p or 1440p, game will only use those high quality lods at 4k;
i don't care about doom eternal, its texture settings are mostly troll where anything above high is just a toggle for higher texture load distance where most people won't notice. i myself did extensive tests and couldn't notice differences without pixel peeping. i knew you would come up with something like this, but i don't care. you can argue you ran super ultra nightmare textures on 3060 where 3070 cannot run it. yet ultra and ultra nightmare textures look identical if you don't pixel peep. its not an actual texture quality toggle, its rather a toggle to load textures that not even in your vision
I am not advocating buying a 1080 Ti! Just pointing out the performance tier where the 3060 sits.
