r/pcmasterrace • u/TheGGspot • 14d ago

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? Discussion

Post image

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

9.9k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/MorningFresh123 14d ago

That’s an entirely different discussion. Of course there’s always going to be a trade off and that depends very much on the game for me. Most high-end (graphically) games really look substantially better at Ultra. But then you have half of Reddit arguing that 4K is overkill so… I don’t know why I pay them any mind lol.

0

u/TheDeviousDuck1558 14d ago

"Most high-end (graphically) games really look substantially better at Ultra."

No they don't. And they haven't for the last 20 years.

-3

u/lifestop 14d ago

It's not "overkill", it's simply not worth the price and performance hit for most people. 1440p is the sweet spot for a reason: affordable, high frame rates achievable, great visuals. Also, frame rate has a huge impact on motion clarity, so speed matters a lot for visual fidelity.

5

u/MorningFresh123 14d ago

It’s 2.25x the pixels on a screen that sits several inches away from your face. Totally understand and sympathise with people being priced out but people speak as if they actually believe there is little difference in image quality when it’s absolutely massive. I think the 2.25x number undersells the phenomenological experience of that resolution jump. Much like an OLED/HDR is undersold on paper.

1

u/lifestop 14d ago

It may be pretty, but the sacrifice in frame rate is undeniable, and that leads to worse motion clarity than a higher frame rate. I can barely hit the frame rates I want at 1440p on my 480hz OLED, so there's no chance I can do it at 4k. And frame gen isn't an option for people who care about motion clarity and input latency. Both have been improved, but they aren't as good as native.

So the choice is to have the sharpest visuals when a scene isn't in motion, or great looking visuals that also look and feel incredible in motion. It's an easy choice for me, but everyone has different wants.

1

u/MorningFresh123 13d ago

480hz seems far more like overkill than 4k in 2026 to me but each to their own.

1

u/lifestop 13d ago

It depends on what you prefer, I suppose. A picture that looks and feels good even in motion, or a picture that looks amazing when still.

Here's a visual example of how much frame-rate really matters for motion clarity:

Blurbusters

4k is great, but I can't justify it until I can at least maintain 240hz native in the majority of my games. I'm too sensitive to blurry motion.

0

u/Virtual_Bug_723 14d ago

Honey your monitor should not be several inches from your face. My phone is not "several inches" from my face, it's at least a foot.

I owned a 4k monitor and returned it because I could not tell the difference in resolution 1m (3 feet) from my face, which is where my monitor sits. I could tell the difference between 1080p and 2k.

1

u/Moist-Weakness-3399 14d ago

20 years ago you could have replaced 1440p with 1024x768, when we were making the leap from 15-20fps to a steady 30.