Next Gen PC Technology Checklist?

Blackstone

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
3,264
I’m trying to create a checklist of all of the technologies that will distinguish this new generation of PC gaming from the past for the ultimate 2021 build.

So far I have:

Microsoft Direct Storage
Ray Tracing
4K Resolution

Thoughts?
 

WarriorX

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
2,114
I think we will start seeing motherboards with 2.5gbit Ethernet cards in them more. Only time will tell if this will be beneficial or just something they include to have it in their marketing.
 

Colonel Sanders

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Messages
4,600
DLSS I think is a major gamechanger in keeping performance up while adding features like raytracing. I think it's going to advance and become a standard thing
 

SOAREVERSOR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Messages
376
I think its way too early to call. We don't know how widely any of these things are going to be used, we do know there are versions of them in the currently consoles but we aren't really sure how they are going to be used. Wait and see.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,168
It's kinda tough to tell what's really going to impact things moving forward. PCIE4 will...but right now it's no big deal. NVME probably will, but in games you're not going to see a difference vs. a normal 'ol SSD. Ray Tracing still takes so much horsepower that it's usually a choice between RT or FPS.
DLSS is the real deal when something uses it, but adoption isn't there yet and it's proprietary.

4K seems like a pretty safe assumption, though. HDR isn't going anywhere, either.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,069
I’m trying to create a checklist of all of the technologies that will distinguish this new generation of PC gaming from the past for the ultimate 2021 build.
Is the past 2020, in that context ?

Resizable bar ? (AMD smart access memory and the others naming we will see pop up around it)
 

piratepress

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
1,533
I would go so far as to say 8K. I've been gaming at 4K since I got my 1080 Ti in 2017.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,982
People always confuse what a card can output vs. what a card can do on ideal graphic settings. The 1080 Ti could barely push 4k without decent IQ downgrades, 2080 TI can push 4k at 60Hz with some IQ downgrades or DLSS trickery and certainly not on the most demanding titles, the 3090 is most of the way there. Note this is on modern Triple A titles, older titles clearly don't have the horsepower requirements and we are talking next gen, not next gen hardware last gen games.

8k is a complete joke at this time, modern titles can barely sustain 4k at 60fps on top of the line hardware. I would say in 2-3 years we will have great native 4k performance on midrange cards, highend will run 8k but only with DLSS type of trickery, we are a long way off from seeing 8K rendered natively at 60Hz on a modern title.

1 year out - Small increase in ray tracing deployment, small increase in DLSS titles, SAM deployment, more HDR adoption, great 4k performance for high end systems, higher refresh rates becoming more normalized/accessible.

2 Years out - New RAM possibly, further Ray tracing deployment, AMD DLSS solution, no other real changes. nVidia may execute a node shrink here.

3 Years out- pretty much the same as two, new round of GPU's likely that will enhance the Ray Tracing tech (maybe in year two, but definitely by year 3), NVME will become standard. Mid range cards will be capable of most IQ settings at 4k native.
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,960
4k resolution next-gen? I've been gaming at 4k for like, 10 years. When I got 670 SLI.
You're too early with Ray Tracing. 2021? Try 2023 or later.
Microsoft Direct Storage - what is that? Does it increase visual quality? If it doesn't, I'm not interested.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,069
8k....will be the big push now from makers..
Blind test between 2K and 4K that wanted for the result to show a difference tended to always include text, I am not sure for gaming people will go with 8K:

https://www.techhive.com/article/3529913/8k-vs-4k-tvs-most-consumers-cannot-tell-the-difference.html

Using uncompressed 8K scan of 70mm movies versus those 8K scans downscaled to 4K and upscaled back again to 8K (to use the exact same TV a lot of 2K vs 4K blind test were not even done with exact same television, making them quite suspicious) on a rather large 88 inch screen.

Will see maybe they will try and maybe people will go on with it.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
6,060
Honestly who cares about 8k. I barely can tell a difference between 1440 and 4k. We need better display tech then higher res. As great as OLEDs are they are still not perfect.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,168
It'll be interesting to see when 8K catches on. I have no doubt that it will, but I have no idea when. 4K TV's started selling well before there was any content out there to justify them. Most streaming content is still 720p or 1080p not counting the shows made for Netflix/Hulu/D+ etc. All cable and over-the-air content is still normal 'ol HD with no sign of that changing. GPU's still struggle to max out 4K and there's a chance game makers will push for 4K with higher refresh rates vs. jumping to 8K. The consoles have 8K on their boxes, but actual support is basically non-existent.
CES will probably offer an interesting look at whether the electronics industry is ready for 8K or if they pivot.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,982
It'll be interesting to see when 8K catches on. I have no doubt that it will, but I have no idea when. 4K TV's started selling well before there was any content out there to justify them. Most streaming content is still 720p or 1080p not counting the shows made for Netflix/Hulu/D+ etc. All cable and over-the-air content is still normal 'ol HD with no sign of that changing. GPU's still struggle to max out 4K and there's a chance game makers will push for 4K with higher refresh rates vs. jumping to 8K. The consoles have 8K on their boxes, but actual support is basically non-existent.
CES will probably offer an interesting look at whether the electronics industry is ready for 8K or if they pivot.
Probably 3-5 years before the TV cost really comes down to most people's range. Actual hardware to drive it with reasonable settings is probably two generations away.

RTX is probably the biggest next gen 'moment' at this time followed by SAM and maybe nvme's.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,069
All cable and over-the-air content is still normal 'ol HD with no sign of that changing.
I imagine that a market to market affair, in Canada there is some exception (TSN and some nature channel at least)

http://www.illicotech.com/NumMtl.html

They seem to need to use a whole QAM for most of them, making it quite expensive:
915SNE4KStingray Naturescape 4K3840x216018.440 MbpsDolby192 / 204 Kbps 95351503042
916SFE4KStingray Festival 4K3840x216018.390 MbpsDolby192 / 204 Kbps 91652402841
910TSN4KTSN 4K3840x216019.080 MbpsDolbyVariable 91051802852
913NAT4KLove Nature 4K3840x216017.970 MbpsDolby384 / 395 Kbps 91352362834
911SN4KSportsnet 4K3840x216019.080 MbpsDolby384 / 399 Kbps 18652893003
912SN14KSportsnet One 4K3840x216019.100 MbpsDolby384 / 400 Kbps 18552903004

18-19 Mbps is not even the double of the good 1080 signal (of around 12 Mbps) so I am not sure how good it is, not that far than the still quite low bandwidth of a Netflix or D+ (around 25) but I am not sure if the compression is has good, special for live event like sport.

DirecTV do seem to have some rare 4K content has well.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
6,060
I imagine that a market to market affair, in Canada there is some exception (TSN and some nature channel at least)

http://www.illicotech.com/NumMtl.html

They seem to need to use a whole QAM for most of them, making it quite expensive:
915SNE4KStingray Naturescape 4K3840x216018.440 MbpsDolby192 / 204 Kbps95351503042
916SFE4KStingray Festival 4K3840x216018.390 MbpsDolby192 / 204 Kbps91652402841

910TSN4KTSN 4K3840x216019.080 MbpsDolbyVariable91051802852


913NAT4KLove Nature 4K3840x216017.970 MbpsDolby384 / 395 Kbps91352362834

911SN4KSportsnet 4K3840x216019.080 MbpsDolby384 / 399 Kbps18652893003

912SN14KSportsnet One 4K3840x216019.100 MbpsDolby384 / 400 Kbps18552903004


18-19 Mbps is not even the double of the good 1080 signal (of around 12 Mbps) so I am not sure how good it is, not that far than the still quite low bandwidth of a Netflix or D+ (around 25) but I am not sure if the compression is has good, special for live event like sport.

DirecTV do seem to have some rare 4K content has well.
I don't expect any broadcast or streaming to to really support 4k any time soon. It will always be compressed to shit so they can save on bandwidth costs.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,598
Even if displays end up being 8K as the norm, I wont game in 8K because theres no bloody point.
I cant see all the detail in 4K unless I get a lot closer to the screen.
I'd have to sit less than 1/3 of the distance I do currently to even start noticing what 8K can offer.
It will be a waste of a gaming GPU.

For desktop use no argument if you get a very large screen and can sit close enough, and dont mind moving around, more real estate is wonderful.
For games and movies though you need to comfortably see the whole screen at once with barely any movement.
Sitting much further away is essential, making 8K res a waste of resources.
 

bman212121

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
1,815
I imagine that a market to market affair, in Canada there is some exception (TSN and some nature channel at least)

http://www.illicotech.com/NumMtl.html

They seem to need to use a whole QAM for most of them, making it quite expensive:
915SNE4KStingray Naturescape 4K3840x216018.440 MbpsDolby192 / 204 Kbps95351503042
916SFE4KStingray Festival 4K3840x216018.390 MbpsDolby192 / 204 Kbps91652402841

910TSN4KTSN 4K3840x216019.080 MbpsDolbyVariable91051802852


913NAT4KLove Nature 4K3840x216017.970 MbpsDolby384 / 395 Kbps91352362834

911SN4KSportsnet 4K3840x216019.080 MbpsDolby384 / 399 Kbps18652893003

912SN14KSportsnet One 4K3840x216019.100 MbpsDolby384 / 400 Kbps18552903004


18-19 Mbps is not even the double of the good 1080 signal (of around 12 Mbps) so I am not sure how good it is, not that far than the still quite low bandwidth of a Netflix or D+ (around 25) but I am not sure if the compression is has good, special for live event like sport.

DirecTV do seem to have some rare 4K content has well.

Bitrate numbers are useless if we don't know the codec that was used to encode it with. That chart just raises about 10 more questions than it answers sadly. The 915 / 916 must be using QAM256, but that doesn't tell me if it's encoded with MPEG2, MPEG4/AVC, or HEVC. The channel 910 is in it's own QAM. It could be using QAM256 and half the channel is free, or it could be using something like 8 or 16 QAM if it's just dedicated to that one stream.

I have to laugh about 8K mainly because half of the channels even on the lineup that was posted are Wide SD or regular SD. 720 x 480 is DVD quality, but if it's MPEG2 it has like 1/4 of the bitrate. Given there are some channels at the end which have MPEG4 in their name, I'd imagine all other channels are probably still MPEG2 for compatibility reasons. A 720p stream in HEVC @ 3.5mbps is probably in the ballpark to a 720p MPEG2 stream @ 18mbps. Getting HEVC will do way more for quality than getting more pixels will. Give me 4K HDR on QAM256 using HEVC. It would be much closer to watching UHD blu ray than DVDs.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,069
Bitrate numbers are useless if we don't know the codec that was used to encode it with. That chart just raises about 10 more questions than it answers sadly. The 915 / 916 must be using QAM256, but that doesn't tell me if it's encoded with MPEG2, MPEG4/AVC, or HEVC. The channel 910 is in it's own QAM. It could be using QAM256 and half the channel is free, or it could be using something like 8 or 16 QAM if it's just dedicated to that one stream.

I have to laugh about 8K mainly because half of the channels even on the lineup that was posted are Wide SD or regular SD. 720 x 480 is DVD quality, but if it's MPEG2 it has like 1/4 of the bitrate. Given there are some channels at the end which have MPEG4 in their name, I'd imagine all other channels are probably still MPEG2 for compatibility reasons. A 720p stream in HEVC @ 3.5mbps is probably in the ballpark to a 720p MPEG2 stream @ 18mbps. Getting HEVC will do way more for quality than getting more pixels will. Give me 4K HDR on QAM256 using HEVC. It would be much closer to watching UHD blu ray than DVDs.
I think a lot of things that are recent enough to be 4K will have HEVC:

https://ultrahdforum.org/uhd-service-tracker/b2b-channels/

I am not sure if it all the way through, but the lowbirate signal send to people house seem to be (at least if you are not on the traditional cable service that still support old box).

If you look here for satellite signal:
https://www.lyngsat.com/SES-1-and-DirecTV-8.html

MPEG-4 for SD and HEVC for 4K
 

Blackstone

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
3,264
8K is not unimportant because it allows for larger screens and in particular larger screens closer to you. I know some people with 4K TVs have complained that they can’t get to “retina” resolution on their desk—they have to move it back further. 8k would address that.

I also don’t doubt there is a difference in games—games always seem to benefit from higher resolutions.

The cost of the displays and sheer number of pixels to move makes it unrealistic, however. The GPU tech is just not there yet. I don’t see the point in moving to a higher resolution if you have to dial down your other settings.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,598
8K is not unimportant because it allows for larger screens and in particular larger screens closer to you. I know some people with 4K TVs have complained that they can’t get to “retina” resolution on their desk—they have to move it back further. 8k would address that.
8K has no effect on this, distance from the screen does.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,069
8K has no effect on this, distance from the screen does.
That seem to be exactly what blackstone was saying, 8K change the distance you can be for a giving screen size.

I also don’t doubt there is a difference in games—games always seem to benefit from higher resolutions.
That do seem to be much truer than for real footage it seem.

Aliasing for example does not seem to be a similar issue in movies even at a DVD resolution on a 65 inch TV.

Games are so much crisp not having been blurred by all the real life / lens/etc... capturing of the image and much more perfect line than reality I would imagine, maybe the same experiment would differ for games.

But an human eyes has 6 million cone cells, that around 2 millions "pixels" considering 3 cone by color, while a 4K image is 8.3 megapixel already. I imagine that a very imperfect ways to looking at it (for one almost all or our eyes resolution will be concentrated in a small angle of our vision one that would be much smaller than the complete screen for a very large screen or if seated very close to a regular one), but I would imagine that rendering 8K image and using AA/other image tool on a 4K display could do the trick. Image processing should make it possible for game to look as good as movies at lower resolution.
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
3,264
I’d like to know if I invest in that new Sabrent Rocket Plus SSD or similar PCIe 4.0 drive if my system will get the same load times as the consoles in future console ports.

It seems to me if the consoles have drives that read at 7,000 mb per second, we will need them too. Frankly I am out of space and need a drive, but I don’t want to end up shelling out $400 for a 2tb drive that isn’t going to do whatever magic the consoles are doing with load times.

This might be the first time I look at whether a drive would be suitable for a Playstation before installing in my PC. Food for thought.
 

SOAREVERSOR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Messages
376
I’d like to know if I invest in that new Sabrent Rocket Plus SSD or similar PCIe 4.0 drive if my system will get the same load times as the consoles in future console ports.

It seems to me if the consoles have drives that read at 7,000 mb per second, we will need them too. Frankly I am out of space and need a drive, but I don’t want to end up shelling out $400 for a 2tb drive that isn’t going to do whatever magic the consoles are doing with load times.

This might be the first time I look at whether a drive would be suitable for a Playstation before installing in my PC. Food for thought.

We don't know what they are going to be doing with them yet really. It's still wait and see.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,069
It seems to me if the consoles have drives that read at 7,000 mb per second,
Xbox X: 2.4GB/s (Raw), 4.8GB/s (Compressed)
PS5: 5.5GB/s (Raw), 10GB/s (Compressed)

The raw speed of the ssd of the console is average for the XBOX and fast but not PCI-express 4 Sabrant special for the PS5. What is special is the hardware/software around them, I am not sure that faster raw speed on the ssd will necessarily do and if PC get comparable feature I am not sure they will need faster than those 3-5 gb/s drive to be console fast.
 

Blackstone

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
3,264
Xbox X: 2.4GB/s (Raw), 4.8GB/s (Compressed)
PS5: 5.5GB/s (Raw), 10GB/s (Compressed)

The raw speed of the ssd of the console is average for the XBOX and fast but not PCI-express 4 Sabrant special for the PS5. What is special is the hardware/software around them, I am not sure that faster raw speed on the ssd will necessarily do and if PC get comparable feature I am not sure they will need faster than those 3-5 gb/s drive to be console fast.
Right. I think Microsoft Direct Storage is the software that will make this happen on PC, but I am not sure.
 

Parja

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
12,476
4k resolution next-gen? I've been gaming at 4k for like, 10 years. When I got 670 SLI.
Yay, 7fps at 4K!

4k with a high refresh (at least 120Hz, preferably 144Hz+) and VRR should be the target sweet spot. I went from 4k 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz and will never go back to low refresh rate.
 

DFenz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,137
DXR/RTX
Direct Storage
DLSS (and the tech MSFT is working on with AMD)
Improved HDR (games will be designed with it in mind now)
4K will be mainstream now.
 

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
307
Hate to admit it as a PC-only gamer, but your goal is to meet next gen console specs (and technologies):

Screen:
4K
60~120hz
VRR
HDR

PC:
8 core/16 thread (i7-10700 or Ryzen 7 5800X)
16GB Ram
1TB Nvme hard drive (fast loading technology)
20 terraflops worth of (ray-traced technology) GPUs (RTX 2080S, RTX 3070, 6800XT)
650W+ power supply (minimums per GPU specs)

sad thing is, gonna take you at least $1,500+ to do that, which is why PC gaming is falling behind/dying overtime. The average PC gamer is rockin’ specs equivalent to consoles 2 generations old (just see Steam hardware survey).

Your gonna need to spend at least $2,000+ for any noticeable improvements in PC gaming over next gen consoles, with an HDMI 2.1 TV or GeForce “ultimate” monitor (at least $1,500 for either) to go with that. AKA:

10 core / 20 thread CPU (+) (i9-10900 or Ryzen 9 5900X)
32GB ram
2TB nvme
RTX 2080Ti, RTX 3080/3090, 6900XT
750W+ power supply
AIO cooling for noise control (CPU and/or GPU)
LG OLED CX (2020 model)
 
Last edited:

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
6,060
Hate to admit it as a PC-only gamer, but your goal is to meet next gen console specs (and technologies):

Screen:
4K
60~120hz
VRR
HDR

PC:
8 core/16 thread (i7-10700 or Ryzen 7 5800X)
16GB Ram
1TB Nvme hard drive (fast loading technology)
20 terraflops worth of (ray-traced technology) GPUs (RTX 2080S, RTX 3070, 6800XT)
650W+ power supply (minimums per GPU specs)

sad thing is, gonna take you at least $1,500+ to do that, which is why PC gaming is falling behind/dying overtime. The average PC gamer is rockin’ specs equivalent to consoles 2 generations old (just see Steam hardware survey).

Your gonna need to spend at least $2,000+ for any noticeable improvements in PC gaming over next gen consoles, with an HDMI 2.1 TV or GeForce “ultimate” monitor (at least $1,500 for either) to go with that. AKA:

10 core / 20 thread CPU (+) (i9-10900 or Ryzen 9 5900X)
32GB ram
2TB nvme
RTX 2080Ti, RTX 3080/3090, 6900XT
750W+ power supply
AIO cooling for noise control (CPU and/or GPU)
LG OLED CX (2020 model)
You don't really need all that to game. Like you said the average PC gaming computer is out dated. Most people don't care about all the bells and whistles and don't upgrade til their current PC starts failing. $1000+ for a decent gaming PC is a tough pill to swallow when most people barely can live with in their means as is. It is why console are so popular. You get a solid machine that will last you 5+ years. Especially the new consoles.
 

RS_Surge

n00b
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
48
Yay, 7fps at 4K!

4k with a high refresh (at least 120Hz, preferably 144Hz+) and VRR should be the target sweet spot. I went from 4k 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz and will never go back to low refresh rate.
I did the exact same thing. 4k is alright on non fps games. But once you get into FPS genre, that 144hz with VSync really is a treat.
 

SOAREVERSOR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Messages
376
Hate to admit it as a PC-only gamer, but your goal is to meet next gen console specs (and technologies):

Screen:
4K
60~120hz
VRR
HDR

PC:
8 core/16 thread (i7-10700 or Ryzen 7 5800X)
16GB Ram
1TB Nvme hard drive (fast loading technology)
20 terraflops worth of (ray-traced technology) GPUs (RTX 2080S, RTX 3070, 6800XT)
650W+ power supply (minimums per GPU specs)

sad thing is, gonna take you at least $1,500+ to do that, which is why PC gaming is falling behind/dying overtime. The average PC gamer is rockin’ specs equivalent to consoles 2 generations old (just see Steam hardware survey).

Your gonna need to spend at least $2,000+ for any noticeable improvements in PC gaming over next gen consoles, with an HDMI 2.1 TV or GeForce “ultimate” monitor (at least $1,500 for either) to go with that. AKA:

10 core / 20 thread CPU (+) (i9-10900 or Ryzen 9 5900X)
32GB ram
2TB nvme
RTX 2080Ti, RTX 3080/3090, 6900XT
750W+ power supply
AIO cooling for noise control (CPU and/or GPU)
LG OLED CX (2020 model)

It's a "no shit sherlock" here though. Everyone knows that on PC you pay more for less results. It's the nature of it, you pay several times the hardware cost and you get shittier results. Or you can pay a stupid amount and get better results. And regardless of more for less or stupid more for more, you will have to do it several times over the console generation. It's stupid, it's dumb, it's a waste of money. Has been the case for years now, really since the PS3 and XBOX 360. Unless you like building PCs or like some of the games that just don't exist on a console PC gaming just doesn't make sense.

But, and here's the razor in the apple, your assumption here is sort of flawed because you are focusing on 4K VRR high refresh HDR. Most consoles are not hooked up to a 4k gsync compatible HDR LG OLED. The vast majority of TVs in the wild are still 1080p LCD smart TVs. 4K still isn't the majority of the market. And the majority of the 4K sets are not LG OLEDs that can do 120hz. They are budget LED types that do 60hz and have some fake HDR bullshit.

So you're looking at PC vs Console a bit wrong. For most people the PC vs Console is not about 4k 120hz, HDR, VRR, with dolby surround. The people who even have a display that can do that in either camp are the minority. Most people regardless of platform are going to be gaming at 1080p 60hz no VRR no HDR on an LED. And at that point, you don't have to overbuild a PC to equal or beat the console and the price equation changes quite a bit.

That's why the steam hardware surveys skew the way they do. The world plus dog is on 1080p 60hz, and the stats reflect that. The current consoles are massive overkill for the majority of console users, just as an RTX 2080/3080 is massive overkill for the majority of PC users.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,913
I think the last redefining leaps were the 3DFX Voodoo1, and pixel shaders. Even Ray Tracing is not that amazing. And I've 4K gamed in 2014, so that's pretty old news.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,913
4k resolution next-gen? I've been gaming at 4k for like, 10 years. When I got 670 SLI.
You're too early with Ray Tracing. 2021? Try 2023 or later.
Microsoft Direct Storage - what is that? Does it increase visual quality? If it doesn't, I'm not interested.
You're funny!
You were gaming in 4K in 2010, on cards that only debuted in 2012, but Ray tracing is 2023 or later?
 

Nebell

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,960
Yay, 7fps at 4K!

4k with a high refresh (at least 120Hz, preferably 144Hz+) and VRR should be the target sweet spot. I went from 4k 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz and will never go back to low refresh rate.

What 7fps?
Old games played fine on 4k. It's not like 10-year-old games have the same requirement as today's games.
It all scales.
 
Top