> There are plenty of AAA games released last years that you can do 4K at 60fps with a RTX 3090 for example.

Not when you turn on ray tracing.

Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway

This.

You can't get high frame rates with path tracing and 4K. It just doesn't happen. You need to enable DLSS and frame gen to get 100fps with more complete ray and path tracing implementations.

People might be getting upset because the 4090 is WAY more power than games need, but there are games that try and make use of that power and are actually limited by the 4090.

Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native resolution.

Now many might say that's just a ridiculous ask, but that's what GP was talking about here. There's no way you'd get more than 10-15fps (if that) with path tracing at 8K.

> Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native resolution.

Cyberpunk native 4k + path tracing gets sub-20fps on a 4090 for anyone unfamiliar with how demanding this is. Nvidia's own 5090 announcement video showcased this as getting a whopping... 28 fps: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff...

> Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway

I’m sure some will disagree with this but most PC gamers I talk to want to be at 90FPS minimum. I’d assume if you’re spending $1600+ on a GPU you’re pretty particular about your experience.

I’m so glad I grew up in the n64/xbox era. You save so much money if you are happy at 30fps. And the games look really nice.

You can also save tons of money by combining used GPUs from two generations ago with a patientgamer lifestyle without needing to resort to suffering 30fps

I wish more games had an option for N64/Xbox-level graphics to maximize frame rate. No eye candy tastes as good as 120Hz feels.

I’m sure you could do N64 style graphics at 120Hz on an iGPU with modern hardware, hahaha. I wonder if that would be a good option for competitive shooters.

I don’t really mind low frame rates, but latency is often noticeable and annoying. I often wonder if high frame rates are papering over some latency problems in modern engines. Buffering frames or something like that.

Doom 2016 at 1080p with a 50% resolution scale (so, really, 540p) can hit 120 FPS on an AMD 8840U. That's what I've been doing on my GPD Win Mini, except that I usually cut the TDP down to 11-13W, where it's hitting more like 90-100 FPS. It looks and feels great!

> Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway

Uhhhhhmmmmmm....what are you smoking?

Almost no one is playing competitive shooters and such at 4k. For those games you play at 1080p and turn off lots of eye candy so you can get super high frame rates because that does actually give you an edge.

People playing at 4k are doing immersive story driven games and consistent 60fps is perfectly fine for that, you don't really get a huge benefit going higher.

People that want to split the difference are going 1440p.

Anyone playing games would benefit from higher frame rate no matter their case. Of course it's most critical for competitive gamers, but someone playing a story driven FPS at 4k would still benefit a lot from framerates higher than 60.

For me, I'd rather play a story based shooter at 1440p @ 144Hz than 4k @ 60Hz.

Games other than esports shooters and slow paced story games exist, you know. In fact, most games are in this category you completely ignored for some reason.

Also nobody is buying a 4090/5090 for a "fine" experience. Yes 60fps is fine. But better than that is expected/desired at this price point.

You seem to be assuming that the only two buckets are "story-driven single player" and "PvP multiplayer", but online co-op is also pretty big these days. FWIW I play online co-op shooters at 4K 60fps myself, but I can see why people might prefer higher frame rates.

Personally I've yet to see a ray tracing implementation that I would sacrifice 10% of my framerate for, let alone 30%+. Most of the time, to my tastes, it doesn't even look better, it just looks different.

This - latest Call of Duty game on my (albeit water cooled) 3080TI founders edition saw frame rates in the 90-100fps running natively at 4k (no DLSS).

Can't CoD do 60+ fps @1080p on a potato nowadays?... not exactly a good reference point.

4k90 is about 6 times that, and he probably has the options turned up.

I’d say the comparison is what’s faulty, not the example.

new cod is really unoptimized. on a few years old 3080 still getting 100 fps on 4k that's pretty great. if he uses some frame gen such as lossless he can get 120-150. Say what you will about nvidia prices but you do get years of great gaming out of them.

Honestly my water cooled 3080TI FE has been great. Wish it had more VRAM for VR (DCS, MSFS) but otherwise it’s been great.

Which block did you go with? I went with the EK Vector special edition which has been great, but need to look for something else if I upgrade to 5080 with their recent woes.

I just have the Alphacool AIO with a second 360 radiator.

I’ve done tons of custom stuff but was at a point where I didn’t have the time for a custom loop. Just wanted plug and play.

Seen some people talking down the block, but honestly I run 50c under saturated load at 400 watts, +225 core, +600 memory with a hot spot of 60c and VRAM of 62c. Not amazing but it’s not holding the card back. That’s with the Phanteks T30’s at about 1200RPM.

Stock cooler I could never get the card stable despite new pads and paste. I was running 280 watts, barely able to run -50 on the core and no offset on memory. That would STILL hit 85c core, 95c hotspot and memory.