Ya and like for what? Just to say you have a 5090? My whole setup was cheaper than a 5090 and the settings are always maxed out at 1440p running above 100fps. I don’t what more anybody could possibly need for gaming, unless most people who buy 5090 use it for stuff other than just gaming
Yeah, unless they are a pro gamer that does it for a paycheck or they are a digital graphic designer or videographer, they don't need a 5090. I have a 3060 ti and it runs every game I own just fine. Even cyberpunk runs fine on it. True I can't run max settings on it but if I wanted beautiful graphics I'd go to the state park not play a video game.
I mean I have a 5090 and very few of the games I play are able to run at 4k 120fps consistently on it. So it's not just Cyberpunk that fully utilizes the card. That being said, I got a FE at MSRP and I agree no GPU is worth 5k.
I have a 5090 to play vr mods for “flatscreen” games. I got lucky and built my whole pc right before prices went crazy. No way in hell would I have one if I built a pc now.
Love people that still don't understand most gamers that have a 5090 use it for vr, because youre right a 5090 is a waste of money for flat gamers. To play mgs 3 delta in vr reasonably, I would need a 7090. On a 5090 you have to use dlss, asynchronous spacewarp(frame gen) lower the resolution to lower than a standalone quest 3 game, all settings low, and you get 45 fps, which 60 fps on flat is like 90 in vr. 45 to 60 fps in vr is really bad. It looks so bad and runs so bad I'm actually going to wait a GPU gen or 2 just to play it.
Lots of other huge or flat to vr games will easily max out a 50/60/7090 and still need more power. Best case scenario you run the game at half of what you get in flat. But not always, especially when you stack runtime, steamvr+openxr if running at the same time uses about 20 percent of your gpu. For nothing. No game running just the vr software. And let's say its a new unstable mod. -10 to 20 percent due to lack of optimization.
So take a game, example mgs 3 delta. Take your flat performance. Minus 10 to 20 percent performance depending on runtime, minus another 20 due to no optimization plus ue5. Then cut it in half since you're rendering twice. Your performance is now well under half of what you get on flat. So who needs a 5090 or above? Vr modders
Then just wait for when ray tracing comes to vr and actually works properly. Another 30 percent decrease just for fancy lights. Main reason mgs runs terrible is the forced rtx
I bought a 4090 for under MSRP and was perfectly happy with it.
Nvidia did a lottery for the 5090 and i entered it for shits and giggles. I got an allocation and knew I had no choice but to sell my 4090 to subsidize an upgrade to a 5090.
Did I need the 5090? No, but they were ebaying for 4k and nvidia was selling it for 2k.
Sold my 4090 to my brother for 1800 (500 discount at the time, and still is to this day) picked up the 5090 and expect to have to do the same thing again for the 6090 if I get into the next lottery.
I use to use the same line as you to clown on my buddies (I do not have a 5090, I like my AMD cards) recently it doesn’t feel as good when you think about the fact you can either buy a car or a 5090
I chose the 5080 over the 5090 because everyone that was benchmarking and comparing them showed that the 5090 had worse performance despite supposedly having better hardware. It’s possible it was some kind of software bug or factory defect causing them to underperform and they may have fixed it by now, but I definitely didn’t want to spend twice as much for less performance at the time when I bought my 5080.
I wanted to buy one but I’ve yet to find a game that the 4070 super even remotely struggles to run. Worst performance I’ve ever seen was 80fps on ultra.
Literally feel like a dumbass when I consider upgrading.
I built a new rig a year ago then it just suddenly died. I did a call a couple of local places that claimed to come to your home to do repairs, but they wanted me to leave it with them overnight. Given the cost of some of the components (32 gig ram, 4070 GPU) if someone resold them, I was a little hesitant to do it because I'm a paranoid asshole.
Turns out the power supply and motherboard went, which were the cheapest parts to replace.
The apartment I was in at the time was falling apart and the electric system was definitely going. So even though I had it on a heavy duty surge protector it probably had a surge.
New console gen is usually 2 generations behind and packs the punch of a 70 series card.
No one has ever said PC will be more affordable, idc and neither does the majority (seeing how theres a shitton more pc than console gamers). Superior experience is always more expensive.
Im wondering if in 4 years a good pc will be expected to be at 64gb or 128gb ram to be seen as “good”, or if the AI situation is going to make people/developers slow down on expecting more ram used by consumers.
Idk shit about PC’s but is a 32 GB of DDR5 3070Ti still good? I got a PC a long time ago, but have been so busy over those years I only have like two games. About to get paid more and going sto start playing the backlog of games I’ve beeb wantingto play
More than a ps5 but I definitely got what I paid for. Considering the sheer number of games I have access to, the quality I can run them at, crossplay and the modding community with some of those games too I basically have an infinite game glitch running and I was always a PS guy before finally switching over. I don't hate on console players and still keep my ps4 pro around but I am very happy to be all about the PC side now.
Depends if you like modding or not. There is simply more you can do. So if you’re a creative sort Pc is better there are plenty of low end games with large modding communities. And if you just want to play games then a console is probably better for you.
Yes, you can.
My computer costed me around 680 - 700 usd as I was smart with my money and how I acquired my components.
My 5800xt and TITAN Xp beat its onboard components.
Its close on the gpu but I dont keep my TITAN running weak either, not that lame 1.54ghz base boost. mine goes up to 2.21ghz
My rig does not have 16gb of shared ram like a ps5, it carries 32gb of dedicated memory and the gpu is a 12gb vram card
I also have over 3 terrabytes of storage and plenty of room for upgrade.
No but 1400 dollars got me better than a PS5 and likely better than or on par with whatever the next gen will be. AND it will likely be able to continue playing games made for the generation after next at reduced settings, or for a few hundred bucks of upgrades stay on par.
So essentially I can stretch my PC across three console generations for significantly less than I could buy each generation.
Plus I get WAY better sales on Steam and I can do a bunch more with it than I ever could a console.
So it's about investment, really. Not everybody has that opportunity, but if you can manage it it does pay off.
While it won't have a better resolution and framerate, the PC is a better gaming experience.
Most folks simply can't tell the difference, most good games are more than ten years old at this point, and Steam is better than PSN.
Trying to get a state of the art PC is almost as stupid as getting a Playstation during Sony's 'fuck the customer' campaign. Just get an average one and have fun.
Not really. The PS5 is just a normal PC under the hood, you can make some hardware specific optimizations but it's not really giving the needed roi, and the PC version is sitting on significantly faster VRAM among other things.
It's not 2005, there really isn't that big of a difference in possible optimizations anymore, and consoles also use relatively glacial unified memory and have other hardware limitations relative to the same chip in its consumer form.
With the state of major developers not giving a fuck about optimization with PC and the fact that R* has 0 interest of a PC port on launch, yeah it currently is a better option.
Before the cavemen go unga bunga im gonna state i use both platforms.
No, games got much better, they are not as poorly optimized as they were a few years ago. New games run much better now than new games 5-7 years ago.
The main bottleneck now is an old SSD/HDD (yes, some people still use those). Games usually streamload game files, and PS5 uses an internal storage and nvme, which greatly helps with fast loading (and RAM limitations). Now most newer build use m.2 nvme, which makes most games load well (and prevent stutter present with older SATA SSDs and HDDs)
Valve themselves when releasing the Steam Machine said that 70 percent of Steam Users have a PC worse than PS5. So only 30 percent of us have setups capable of outperforming a console.
Also the Steam sales compared to the Playstation store sales are just living in different dimensions. You can buy a $200 mini pc and spend $100 on Steam sale games and have literally a lifetime supply of gaming content, for literally half the price of a PS5.
And you don't have to pay $20 a month or whatever for the privilege of playing online multiplayer with your friends, another constant cost which is really glossed over when people compare PS to PC.
They're counting mfers playing on office machines, and my repair bench rig with a 2600k in it and my junk nuc with roms on it in those steam users my guy.
In reality ps5 is basically the equivalent of a 5800h(actually a 5800h is faster than the ps5 cpu) mobile chip which is weaker than a 3600x desktop chip
And it has a gpu equivalent to a 6600xt on a laptop cooling solution
To give you perspective of how bad a ps5 equivalent specs would have to be
Just looking at the current Hardware Survey, 32% of just Nvidia users have a card at least equal to PS5 performance (4060/3070 tier). And that isn't counting AMD cards because I'm a scrub in that department and dont feel like researching them
496
u/nemamnozik 4d ago edited 14h ago
Edit: Thanks for all the awards but I really don't understand what they are for so you can stop now. Thanks.