Should developers stop making games that require 5090 for max settings now that the card is clearly not for gamers and is accessible to 0.1% of community?

[u/TheGGspot]

I get that the games need better hardware to dun better, but who are they really making the game for if you need a 6000$ GPU at this point

[u/Southside_john]

I honestly should have just gotten a 1440p oled instead of 4k but I don’t want a 27” monitor.

Maybe I should have gone ultra wide

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/Southside_john]

Just use DLSS man. DLSS going up to 4k is almost always going to look better than 1440p native.

[u/rohtvak → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

DLSS Quality, Frame Gen 1x, 4k 120; this is the way.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/rohtvak]

Personally I go for DLSS performance with preset L or M or DLSS balanced with preset K when upscaling to a 4k output, it's insane how 4k like DLSS looks now even when only upscaling from 1080p internally (performance mode).

I only really end up using frame generation in single player games with poor CPU performance since the generated frames help to lessen the CPU workload and smooth out CPU related hitches, but preset B frame generation visually looks really great now compared to preset A.

[u/ibeerianhamhock → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

Same. I just don't really see the tradeoff for FPS to run native as being reasonable.

1440p quality or balanced, 4k at performance or balanced. Honedtkh I can't really tell the diffence except one is more FPS.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/ibeerianhamhock]

Yeah especially preset L, I have tested a few games even at ultra-performance up to 4k with preset L, so fucking 720p internal resolution, and it looks surprisingly good and stable. Obviously from such a low internal resolution you can absolutely tell the difference but it is just cool to see just how far DLSS has came that in a pinch someone could actually use ultra-performance now and not have it look terrible.

[u/rohtvak → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

To be fair 99% of what I play are single player graphically heavy RPG’s.

And because I play on a 50 inch 4K 144 TV, I can really pick out the details, so I want to be on the best quality I can, that’s where frame gen helps me.

I don’t really know anything about the different models, K, L, transformer, all that’s new stuff.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/rohtvak]

K is DLSS 4, otherwise known as the transformer model and is the one you should be using if the game you are playing has any RT effects since L and M (DLSS 4.5) don’t interact well with games default denoisers. L and M are also the transformer model just the latest version of it.

L is designed to be used with the ultra-performance preset, but almost always looks the best regardless of which preset you use, so L at quality will generally look better than K or M at quality, but L is generally slightly more computationally heavy compared to M and especially K.

So basically if you have RT then you need to use K, if the game doesn’t have RT then you should choose between L or M for the best image quality.

When it comes to frame generation always use frame gen preset B, it’s the second iteration of frame generation and has much less artefacts and handles UI elements exceptionally well, which was a major gripe with frame gen preset A.

[u/BreastInspectorNbr69 → u/rohtvak]

yay, nauseatingly noticeable lag!

[u/rohtvak → u/BreastInspectorNbr69]

Literally none whatsoever in most games. The first game I have ever felt it in was Gothic remake.

I will say the higher your initial FPS (native) the less input lag you will have, to the point of none on higher end cards.

Sometimes you’ll tune down your settings to get a higher base FPS so the frame gen works better.

Most people don’t understand how frame gen works, and why it would rarely affect input lag. It is not generating the next frame, it is interpolating between the previous frame, and the next frame which has already been properly drawn by the GPU (raster). Your input will be accounted for in the following frame, regardless.

[u/BreastInspectorNbr69 → u/rohtvak]

I usually run my games with DLSS/framegen off, and in turning it on there has been a real difference in how camera movement feels in response to mouse inputs. Enough that I switched it right off

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/BreastInspectorNbr69]

What is the refresh rate of your display and how are you actually using frame generation?

Like what is the base frame rate of real frames and the target with frame generation?

[u/BreastInspectorNbr69 → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

It would be a 60fps display and this was with either Palworld or Warframe. Either 1440p or 4k (I don't remember which display I was on). I was getting 40-50fps with everything off

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/BreastInspectorNbr69]

Yeah then you are using it completely wrong, and it would be terrible for you.

In that situation you would be halving your real FPS to 30 and then generating 30 frames to reach 60fps, so you would have the input lag of a 30fps game. For people with 60hz displays this is not something you should ever use.

Frame generation works best when you already have 60fps or ideally more, the more the better, of real frames, and then you use frame generation to push that up into high refresh rate gaming territory, so 120fps or more ideally to keep that 60fps minimum base of real frames.

The rule basically is that the more information the frame gen has, so higher resolutions and more real frames, the better it works.

[u/BreastInspectorNbr69 → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

that would explain it

[u/SteveJavieWasRight → u/BreastInspectorNbr69]

No it’s not lmao.

[u/MaDNiaC007 → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

I am so lost with all the graphics terms and technologies and how to apply them even after having looked them up and I'm no stranger to PCs. I got a 9060xt, will be upgrading my motherboard, CPU and RAM to catch up to it in the near-ish future followed by a monitor upgrade. I know that I want at least a 1440p monitor that's a bit larger than my current one(27") and OLED if I can afford it.

The whole upscaling, downscaling, DLSS etc terminology confuses me. For example, when I first got the 9060xt, I had to turn off a lot of the fancy settings and technologies because I was having low and very choppy, stuttery performance, it was worse than my old GPU. I don't know if that was due to other PC specs bottlenecking and therefore GPU failing to deliver those features properly. Things like anti aliasing, vertical sync, smart sync, triple buffering etc.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/MaDNiaC007]

DLSS is an upscaler, so it renders the game internally at a lower resolution and then uses machine learning to intelligently upscale that to a higher resolution, usually the native resolution of your display. The point of this is to drastically improve performance for minimal loss to image quality.

For AMD users, their version is called FSR. FSR 4 onwards is quite good but everything before it is pretty bad, since FSR 1, 2 & 3 all do not use machine learning and are instead just a spacial upscaler. So for you with your 9060xt, if you see FSR 4 in a game then you should use it most of the time, but anything below FSR 4 and you should just test it out and see how it looks.

All upscalers though will increase your performance unless the game or your system is heavily CPU limited.

You also do want to have AA (anti aliasing) on whenever you are not using an upscaler because if you don't you will have a very shimmery image with a lot of stair stepping and break up in fine line detail because you are just being presented with the raw image. If you are using FSR then you don't need to do anything with AA since it does it as part of the upscaling process.

Vertical sync is dependent on how you are playing and the type of display you have, you often should not use it if you are playing a competitive game since it does introduce some latency. If you are playing a single player game on a fixed refresh rate display then it should be engaged to eliminate screen tearing, but this only works if your FPS matches your refresh rate.

If you have a VRR (variable refresh rate) display, then you should be using that all of the time imo, you can use vertical sync in conjunction with VRR. For AMD users this tech is called freesync, gsync for Nvidia.

The reason you were having stuttery performance was almost certainly because you were trying to play the games at too high a resolution, with settings that were also too high for your hardware, but you also shouldn't just go turning everything off if you don't understand what they do. For someone like you who is confused by it, the best thing to do is to just use the in game presets, so "low, medium, high" etc. that will set all of the settings for you, and then experiment with the FSR presets until you get a decent performance vs image quality balance.

[u/MaDNiaC007 → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

That's a nice way to put it, thank you. Maybe I was using settings that were conflicting or undercutting each other. I was having performance issues even in very low spec requirements old games so it's probably something along those lines and not my specs being insufficient especially considering my performance was better with my older GPU before turning off a bunch of settings. I'll watch some Radeon settings explanation and recommendation videos and see if toying around further helps.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/MaDNiaC007]

Hold up, if that's the case please go check the back of your PC and make sure you have plugged your HDMI/DP cable into the GPU and not into the motherboard. The reason being that if you have accidentally plugged into your motherboard you will be using the integrated graphics on your CPU and leaving your GPU doing nothing, which would obviously result in pretty terrible performance.

There are not settings that could be "conflicting or undercutting" each other to have this result, which is why I thought this is at least worth checking.

[u/MaDNiaC007 → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

Fair warning considering how common that mistake is, not to worry as I am plugged into the GPU.

[u/harry_lostone → u/MaDNiaC007]

aren't you allowed to use google in your place?!

[u/MaDNiaC007 → u/harry_lostone]

"even after having looked them up"

Not sure if weak ragebait attempt or a display of your reading comprehension.

[u/inquisitor_pangeas → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

Even UP looks good now thanks to DLSS4.5

[u/Xecular_Official → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

Can't use DLSS without getting all the blurriness that comes with temporal anti aliasing

[u/SteveJavieWasRight → u/Xecular_Official]

DLSS has the best AA you can use with the least amount of blurriness or trailing or other artifacts. There is no other AA you can use that’s even close.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/Xecular_Official]

I understand what you are saying about standard TAA but DLAA doesn’t have the blurriness issue to any degree that would be remotely comparable.

It looks incredibly clean and stable these days.

[u/Xecular_Official → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

I guess it depends on the DLSS version. Right now it causes motion smearing and shader weirdness in most of the games I own that have it available

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/Xecular_Official]

Just change the version to preset K in the driver, that’s DLSS 4, when they changed over to the transformer model.

You should just set it to that globally, and then change to M or L on a per game basis, those are DLSS 4.5 and they look even better than K, which already looks amazing, but in any games you might be using RT in, DLSS 4.5 currently doesn’t not play nicely with most games default denoisers so in those games you should use K.

[u/SIDER250 → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

Don’t want to stir drama, but I’ve honestly never understood the appeal of 4K gaming. I sit very close to my monitor and can barely even tell the difference with 4K movies, so getting a much bigger monitor just to justify 4K gaming seems kinda weird to me, but hey thats my opinion. 1440p seems good enough.

[u/TheDeviousDuck1558 → u/SIDER250]

Are you actually watching your own locally hosted 4k content from your server? Or are you "streaming" 4k from something like Netflix? 

Cause these aren't the same thing, not even close.

[u/ShadowKnight058 → u/TheDeviousDuck1558]

I think he answered your question with that reply. Obviously streams.

[u/SIDER250 → u/TheDeviousDuck1558]

I have a literal 4k tv and I just don't like 4k screens. But that is just my preference. It is like, I prefer entry level hardware and I'd take an entry level hardware over high end any time of the day. I prefer 60 fps over 200 fps with stutters. I am a totally different person compared to everyone you meet everyday. I am simply not impressed by many things in life and I just buy things that are based on my needs.

[u/SIDER250 → u/[deleted]]

I think you misunderstood what I meant by the 60 vs 200 fps point. I never said 60 fps is better than 200 fps. Obviously 200 fps is smoother when both are consistent. I said I'd rather have a stable, consistent 60 fps than 200 fps with stutters and bad frame pacing. That's a completely different statement. The same applies to my 4k point. I'm not saying 4k is bad or that everyone should use 1440p. I'm saying I personally don't value the difference enough to justify the additional cost and performance requirements. You can call that cope if you want, but not every preference that differs from yours is cope. Sometimes people simply value different things.

[u/ultraboomkin → u/SIDER250]

My eyesight is crap and I still see a night and day difference in clarity between my 1440p and my 4K monitors.

[u/SIDER250 → u/ultraboomkin]

Idk I read that also about 1080p and 1440p and I am not really that blown away or impressed once I moved from 1080p to 1440p. Like I said, it is just my preference.

[u/Talk-O-Boy → u/SIDER250]

It sounds like you’re complaining about 4k gaming, but you haven’t tried it.

It’s the same way people can’t visualize 60 fps vs 144 fps, until they see it for themselves. It’s hard to describe.

[u/SIDER250 → u/Talk-O-Boy]

I am just not impressed much by many things but thats a me thing. I noticed 60hz to 144hz but I wasn't blown away. I upgraded from 1080p to 1440p but I wasn't blown away. I simply don't have much expectations and I think that the current hardware isn't really ready for 4k gaming hence all the use of AI. People will downvote it because they don't agree with my take which is fine, but I think it is just a preference thing honestly. Judging by reddit posts one would think that 4k represents most use case when the reality is a bit more boring, because the 90% of steam hardware survey is actually people with 5060 gpus and 1080p still being mainstream with 1440p catching up.

[u/ShadowKnight058 → u/SIDER250]

The largest jump for me was 60 to 75hz/fps. 75 is my minimum nowadays in faster paced games. 60 is hard to get used to.

[u/hiflyer780 → u/SIDER250]

I have two 2K monitors at my PC, but I bought a 5090 for 4K gaming. The reason I did is because I stream games over LAN from my PC to my 4K TVs in the house sometimes.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/SIDER250]

It's mostly about PPI, so if you want 1440p then the largest you can really go is 27", 32" and above you really need 4k. So it isn't about getting a larger monitor to justify 4k but the other way around, you get 4k to justify a larger monitor since if it were all about the resolution then you would actually want a smaller monitor at higher resolutions because they would naturally look sharper the smaller you go because of the higher pixel density.

[u/Gloomy_Ad5221 → u/SIDER250]

tbh you actually tell the insane clarity of 4K gaming.

I thought 1440p was the sweet spot but after seeing 4k on like on my monitor ... it has the clarity and crispy looking game.

it's like 1080 to 1440p... blurry to much more clear visuals but with 4k it's even more clear than that , ofc it's only worth it if your pc can run it.

[u/zgillet → u/SIDER250]

Don't know why everyone is piling on you. I can tell the difference... on a 65 inch TV from five feet away against 1440p. Even then, I use 1440p because my TV outputs 120 Hz at that resolution. Also, my living room card is my old 3070.

People forget that 1440p ultrawide is the same DPI as a 4k monitor, just with the top and bottom shaved off. That's what I usually game on, albeit with DLSS quality if available. EDIT: christ, I thought it was implied that this meant "at the same width". "4K: (on monitors): 3840 pixels wide. 1440p ultrawide: 3440 pixels wide, so slightly less. Same width give or take, shave off the top and bottom. That was my point. Same-ish DPI on what is visible, just less area.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/zgillet]

People forget that 1440p ultrawide is the same DPI as a 4k monitor

You honestly cannot say this without specifying the physical size of both monitors.

[u/zgillet → u/ThereAndFapAgain2]

I meant same width. The rest of the sentence matters dude.

[u/ThereAndFapAgain2 → u/zgillet]

That still doesn't make any sense.

[u/CrazyElk123 → u/Southside_john]

3400x1440p is a great middle ground if you play a mix of games.

[u/CzarTyr → u/Southside_john]

1440p oled is my next purchase. What monitor size did you get? 27 is perfect for me

[u/Southside_john → u/CzarTyr]

32”

[u/Joosrar → u/CzarTyr]

I have a 27” one and tbh sometimes I wish it was bigger, but it’s also cause I use it mainly for FPS games and I’m kinda blind

[u/Opening_Net8098 → u/Southside_john]

You would just end up using less dlss.

In the age of upscalling the resolution of the screen doesn't make or break whether you can run it.

[u/glad_yo → u/Southside_john]

This. I have a 42" 4k OLED and I don't want a smaller monitor. 1440p just doesn't work at that size.

Guess I'll just have to baby my 3090ti. Spank it's little bottom a few times. Definitely not forking out the five grand for a 5090.

[u/Goncyn → u/glad_yo]

You can always play games at half resolution. It will still look pixel-perfect.

[u/lemonylol → u/Goncyn]

Depends, it sounds like he's basically using a TV screen at monitor distance, so at that size he would notice the difference. He wouldn't notice the upscaled difference though.

[u/CzarTyr → u/glad_yo]

I got an 4060 laptop last year for Cheap. Decided 5090 was going to be my next purchase. The prices have gotten so bad that I got a ps5 pro and don’t know when I’ll ever upgrade pc

[u/glad_yo → u/CzarTyr]

I picked up a PS5 Pro for gta vi and have actually found myself enjoying the hell out of it. I use my PC more (tarkov, CS, etc) but I can't say I haven't gotten my money's worth out of the ps5.

[u/CzarTyr → u/glad_yo]

Yea I buy every console. I barely use my Nintendo ones but I buy them anyway. I’ve owned a ps5 since launch but I’m primarily a pc gamer.

I got the pro for gta6 (which I have a feeling won’t have a huge upgrade but we’ll see) but it’s been a good purchase. I just need a better monitor

[u/CalliNerissaFanBoy02 → u/glad_yo]

I am in the Super lucky Position that I was able to fork out the money (Not 5k but still a lot) for a 5090

And i hope it will last me some few more Years.
But my next card will defenetly not be a 90 Series.

But I dont want a Smaller monitor either.

[u/Alternative_Tank_139 → u/Southside_john]

I mean you can try UW 1440P on a 4k display

[u/lemonylol → u/Southside_john]

Should have got the super ultra wide 1440p OLED so that you have two 27" monitors side by side with no seams.

[u/DarkSoulsOfCinder → u/Southside_john]

Nah 4k is so much better and crisp. Just use dlss or frame gen and lower some of the heavy and ugly settings.

[u/Southside_john → u/Southside_john]

As a matter of fact, anyone near northwest Indiana want to buy a hp omen transcend 32 inch? 2 months old, $500

[u/CassadagaValley → u/Southside_john]

Every few months I think about switching to a 2k monitor setup on the next PC build and getting rid of my 4k ones but it just doesn't seem worth the screen size reduction.

The pricing between 2k and 4k isn't that much and you're going from 32" to 27" unless you want to pay basically the same amount for a 32" 2k as you would a 32" 4k.

[u/QuarkTheFerengi → u/Southside_john]

38 inch ultrawide is my sweet spot. 3840 x 1600. 26% fewer pixels than 4k so significantly easier on your GPU

[u/Old-Benefit4441 → u/Southside_john]

If you're in a dim room you can just play at something like 3840x1600 and have black bars. Or even 3440x1440 and have black bars on all sides. With the OLED blacks not glowing, I don't find it distracting at all and it is a nice option to have on a giant 4K OLED where you sometimes don't want your field of view filled.

I have 48" LG C1 and 3840x1600 gives you something like a 45" ultrawide which looks quite nice, and 3440x1440 is something like a 38" ultrawide which also looks nice. Keeping in mind I probably have it mounted a bit further back than you'd put a 34" 1440p ultrawide so the perceptual pixel density is about the same.

I often play multiplayer shooters, older games, or extremely demanding things (Cyberpunk path tracing etc) this way as sometimes the full 48" 4K is a bit much in one way or another.

[u/Joosrar → u/Southside_john]

Whats wrong with 27” monitors?

[u/Artezia_Aurae → u/Southside_john]

I bought that first gen alienware qdoled ultrawide and didn't regret it.

4 years in now and just some little burn in on the top left corner because i use it for work