4K Gamers, How much VRAM do you have?

[AleXXX666]

No. Some games are designed for 4K or even greater resolution monitors with no regard to low resolution ones (1440p and below). That's why rendering them at 4K on a 1080p display is vastly superior to playing the same game on the same monitor but at the native resolution (given the framerate is awesome in either case). Lots of fine details you just can't see if the game is running at 1080p. Want better immersion, increase the resolution. Of course immersion doesn't only consist of graphics but still.

It's not silly, it's fine. 300 USD video cards handle this resolution just fine if you don't go full Ultra + RTX approach. Many games are beyond playable on Medium or even High presets at this resolution. Talking from my experience with 6700 XT. With RTX 5000 series coming soon, $ per FPS will go even more down, 4K gaming included. But what makes 4K and greater resolution displays so nice is the aforementioned UI. Eye-candy of UI elements and text, the one you read on the TPU included, is worth every dime. It's no going back to 1080p or even 1440p for me. I'd rather not use the PC at all than torture my eyes like that.

given the framerate is awesome in either case

OF COURSE THAT IS THE CASE....

if you have, say, RTX 3080, you could play at 4K or at 1080p, though, my personal opinion is - why latter... lol

60hz.... no thanks, not for gaming which is the topic of the poll...

YEAH i've noticed the differences in 60 vs 75 vs 144, but, if my fps is not 144 at 4k, then, I don't f..kin care lol

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

why latter

Some people mind spending, yet don't mind imperfect image quality. 3080 is borderline at 4K but will last ages at 1080p. 10-year upgrade cycle? EZ. Also 4K makes close to no sense in competitive titles like Counter-Strike. You need as low latency as possible and advanced butt textures don't actually contribute to that.

In case of 4K30 VS 1080p144 I obviously would prefer the latter.
4K60 VS 1080p144, however, is the former being more appropriate.

 

[AleXXX666]

Some people mind spending, yet don't mind imperfect image quality. 3080 is borderline at 4K but will last ages at 1080p. 10-year upgrade cycle? EZ. Also 4K makes close to no sense in competitive titles like Counter-Strike. You need as low latency as possible and advanced butt textures don't actually contribute to that.

In case of 4K30 VS 1080p144 I obviously would prefer the latter.
4K60 VS 1080p144, however, is the former being more appropriate.

3080 will LAST AGES at 2K too, tho...
lol, no any damn idiot tells that 4K 30 is "good". This is same BS slideshow, whether it's 1080p 30 FPS or 8K 30 FPS, it's same god damn 30 FPS. But 60 is pretty "OKayish".

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

3080 will LAST AGES at 2K too, tho...

I don't agree on that this much. 1440p144 is already "please go below High" in many games. Yes, it's gonna be a reasonable 1440p GPU for another couple years, sure. But it's not ages.

 

[Warigator]

My all-time favourite screen resolutions are WUXGA (1920 x 1200) and WQXGA (2560 x 1600), the latter being 33.33% larger in both directions.

Both of them are in 8 to 5 aspect ratio. The continuation of that ratio would be WQUXGA (3840 x 2400), which is at this moment a very rare resolution format.

My closest friend used a 32 inches 1920 x 1200 monitor since 2007 and it was awesome. Best coupled with something like the really powerful GTX 280 or GTX 285.

Unfortunately, current prices are too high for 4K gaming in the newest titles. Unless you want 30 fps, but I want at least 60 fps. Games below 60 fps don't feel comfortable to me.

3080 will LAST AGES at 2K too, tho...

30 fps sucks, I agree 100% in that.
But 3080 "lasting ages" is not something I'm going to agree with. That 10 GB and not really even that great performance (if you want high or ultra setting) will bite people in the future, I am sure of that.

There were some quite capable cards at the time. GTX 285 was like RTX 4080 and GTX 295 was like RTX 4090 today back in Q1-Q2 2009. The HD 4870 was much cheaper, but it didn't perform as well and SLI created problems in some games. 1920x1200 was almost like 4K today and 2560x1600 was almost like 5K today. My friend used his WUXGA display with GTX 285 (after it became available in early 2009, previously he used GeForce 8800 GTS 320, which was 3x slower) and in 2012 replaced it with Radeon 7950 (later called 270X), which was 2x faster. I really love that resolution. I use a laptop with 8:5 aspect ratio today. Fortunately there are more laptops like that these days.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

No. Some games are designed for 4K or even greater resolution monitors with no regard to low resolution ones (1440p and below). That's why rendering them at 4K on a 1080p display is vastly superior to playing the same game on the same monitor but at the native resolution (given the framerate is awesome in either case). Lots of fine details you just can't see if the game is running at 1080p. Want better immersion, increase the resolution. Of course immersion doesn't only consist of graphics but still.

It's not silly, it's fine. 300 USD video cards handle this resolution just fine if you don't go full Ultra + RTX approach. Many games are beyond playable on Medium or even High presets at this resolution. Talking from my experience with 6700 XT. With RTX 5000 series coming soon, $ per FPS will go even more down, 4K gaming included. But what makes 4K and greater resolution displays so nice is the aforementioned UI. Eye-candy of UI elements and text, the one you read on the TPU included, is worth every dime. It's no going back to 1080p or even 1440p for me. I'd rather not use the PC at all than torture my eyes like that.

Right now I cannot buy a 4060 for 300 USD. In fact, I can get a 3060 12 GB for that price.

4K...at 30 Hz...is stupid. It's "movie" levels of performance...and they even note that "settings tweakery" is how they managed it. That's like buying a Geo Metro and being surprised it's top speed is under the 75 mph limit on the highway. Eurogamer source


Maybe you are "fine" with saying that's passable...but I'd prefer 1080p with moderate settings at 144 Hz. That's what a $300 card is sold as in this day and age. If I want moderate settings, driving 4x the pixels, at the frequency I already like, then we're looking a 3080+ levels of cost....which is too much money. You're welcome to run a potato pc and claim it's good enough...but for most people who have the money to buy a good monitor at 4k it's stupid to spend less than the monitor cost on a GPU so you can turn everything off...and have an experience that harkens toward the "good old days" of the Virtualboy.



Yes, I believe you are saying that headache machine is acceptable. No, it's not a strawman given how many people (myself included) get motion sick from shooters using a narrowed fov to make them run on bad hardware at acceptable frame rates.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Right now I cannot buy a 4060 for 300 USD. In fact, I can get a 3060 12 GB for that price.

I was talking MSRP, not the street prices. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

That said, RX 6700 XT, RTX 3060 Ti and aftermarket RX 6800 or 3070 Ti are generally more than fine at 4K on Medium to High settings. Some lighter games (Fallout 4, GTA V, Mirror's Edge, etc) run at 4K Ultra with such GPUs at 45+ FPS, sometimes at 60+ FPS.

3060 is a mess for 4K, I agree with you on this one. As a 6700 XT owner, I play Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K High with FSR on Balanced at 60+ FPS. Would be better at 1440p native because FSR works like garbage in this game and CDPR never tried to fix that but I only own a 4K display. Generally speaking, DLSS on Balanced and FSR/XeSS on Quality being playable enough prove your GPU being more than fine for 4K.

 

[AleXXX666]

My all-time favourite screen resolutions are WUXGA (1920 x 1200) and WQXGA (2560 x 1600), the latter being 33.33% larger in both directions.

Both of them are in 8 to 5 aspect ratio. The continuation of that ratio would be WQUXGA (3840 x 2400), which is at this moment a very rare resolution format.

My closest friend used a 32 inches 1920 x 1200 monitor since 2007 and it was awesome. Best coupled with something like the really powerful GTX 280 or GTX 285.

Unfortunately, current prices are too high for 4K gaming in the newest titles. Unless you want 30 fps, but I want at least 60 fps. Games below 60 fps don't feel comfortable to me.


30 fps sucks, I agree 100% in that.
But 3080 "lasting ages" is not something I'm going to agree with. That 10 GB and not really even that great performance (if you want high or ultra setting) will bite people in the future, I am sure of that.

There were some quite capable cards at the time. GTX 285 was like RTX 4080 and GTX 295 was like RTX 4090 today back in Q1-Q2 2009. The HD 4870 was much cheaper, but it didn't perform as well and SLI created problems in some games. 1920x1200 was almost like 4K today and 2560x1600 was almost like 5K today. My friend used his WUXGA display with GTX 285 (after it became available in early 2009, previously he used GeForce 8800 GTS 320, which was 3x slower) and in 2012 replaced it with Radeon 7950 (later called 270X), which was 2x faster. I really love that resolution. I use a laptop with 8:5 aspect ratio today. Fortunately there are more laptops like that these days.

agree in "performance will be weaker", esp in high or ultra, but please, not in "MORE VRAM WE NEED MORE". What crappy unoptimized sh*t eats all the 10 GB in 2K?

I don't agree on that this much. 1440p144 is already "please go below High" in many games. Yes, it's gonna be a reasonable 1440p GPU for another couple years, sure. But it's not ages.

well, I'm OK with ~100+ FPS on 144 Hz...
it's personal, to play 200+ FPS on lower res OR 100+ FPS on higher res...

 

[Upgrayedd]

3200x1800 should be a thing. Why was it never a thing?

 

[AleXXX666]

3200x1800 should be a thing. Why was it never a thing?

another "custom" "UW", huh...

 

[Enterprise24]

Mine is 5120x1440, so technically not 4K but very close (just 10% fewer pixels than 4K). My 3080 Ti @ 0.762V 1785Mhz is doing fine with my games. Got around 80fps in FH 5, 120fps in FH 4, around 70fps in Dirt 5, 80-100fps in GTA V. 60-70 fps in Totalwar Troy battle and 110+ in campaign, around 100 fps in Civilization VI, and 170fps in The Sims 3 (half of that with Reshade).

 

[Warigator]

3200x1800 should be a thing. Why was it never a thing?

I would prefer 3200x2000 or 2880x1800.

 

[Upgrayedd]

another "custom" "UW", huh...

It's 16:9. It's like 4K for 1600x900.
It looks better than 1440p and MUCH easier to run than 4K.
Is not really custom either, about as custom as 1440p. It's just a middle step that was skipped over for straight to 4K. Skipping 1800p would be like if we skipped 1080p straight to 1440p after we had 720p. 1440p to 4K is a giant leap really, we're skipping a step.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I was talking MSRP, not the street prices. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

That said, RX 6700 XT, RTX 3060 Ti and aftermarket RX 6800 or 3070 Ti are generally more than fine at 4K on Medium to High settings. Some lighter games (Fallout 4, GTA V, Mirror's Edge, etc) run at 4K Ultra with such GPUs at 45+ FPS, sometimes at 60+ FPS.

3060 is a mess for 4K, I agree with you on this one. As a 6700 XT owner, I play Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K High with FSR on Balanced at 60+ FPS. Would be better at 1440p native because FSR works like garbage in this game and CDPR never tried to fix that but I only own a 4K display. Generally speaking, DLSS on Balanced and FSR/XeSS on Quality being playable enough prove your GPU being more than fine for 4K.

So...you're happy at "FSR with a card that I cannot buy at the MSRP price" will play with 4k....assuming that I turn the settings down?

A compromise, of a compromise, of a compromise, so that you can say that you run 4K is...well, in my book it's silly. I think that's fundamentally where we are going to have to differ...because 1080p upscaled to 4k is in my experience an invitation to be fundamentally disappointed.



Allow me a soap box moment. I ran two 1920x1080 monitors for year, at 60 Hz. It was fine. I couldn't be happier...and with a 60 Hz monitor the ghosting was just a thing that you dealt with. I tried a bigger 4k monitor...and balked at the price tag. Holy crap...I could buy a VR rig for that money. I then purchased a pair of 2k monitors at 165 Hz...overclocked...that I immediately clocked to 144 Hz. It was a fantastic experience...and now I cannot fathom why I was so attached to 1920x1080.

My point here is that when the 2k leap was made it included an upgraded GPU...and the results were staggering. If I was to suddenly decide to run 4x the pixels....but compromise some basic stuff, so that I could run it with a potato GPU I'd hate 4k for being a compromise. Not really a step forward...so much as epeen to say you're running 4k. I...am old enough to have learned epeen is stupid... You're free to disagree, but I'll wait until driving 4k on two monitors is possible with a "mid range" but affordable card...and it isn't possible right now without BS tomfoolery. I know that may be "old man shaking fist at clouds in sky" obstinate, but if I'm happy with 2x 2k right now why do I have to spend more money to get a worse experience? It's just silly to me, but you do you.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

I know that may be "old man shaking fist at clouds in sky" obstinate

It definitely is, sir.

Let's take the RX 7600 XT as the worst case scenario if you spent 300ish USD + taxes on your GPU:

These are not just AAA games, these are recent and semi-recent AAA titles pushed to the maximum settings. Softening a setting or two and enabling FSR makes 35 average FPS something close to 75. Not to mention dated titles like GTA V that run at 100+ FPS at 4K with such equipment. Not to mention you physically cannot work at 2K as comfortably as you can at 4K. I chose 4K over 2K mostly for the reason I want my eyes to suffer the least when I'm reading and writing stuff which is my main activity. Gaming at "pure" 4K is both too expensive and too stupid at the moment. DLSS oftentimes not only makes FPS counter look much better, it also fixes TAA artifacts and makes some objects more detailed.

Is this experience ideal? Not by any stretch. But when the only games lagging are the two dozens most demanding ones, it doesn't feel I'm missing out that much.

Of course it could've been much better if AMD declared a war on prices and all that stuff leading to existing competition and better FPS per dollar ratios but at the current state of games, be you a non-RT 60 FPS enjoyer, ~300 USD GPUs buy you acceptable performance and ~500 USD GPUs get you great experience, VAT excluded of course. Want RT, buy a 4090. Want 100+ FPS, buy a 4080 or 7900 XTX at the very least. Want perfect eye-candy, get cryolated for a century and a half since we're not nearly there yet.

 

[Upgrayedd]

So...you're happy at "FSR with a card that I cannot buy at the MSRP price" will play with 4k....assuming that I turn the settings down?

A compromise, of a compromise, of a compromise, so that you can say that you run 4K is...well, in my book it's silly. I think that's fundamentally where we are going to have to differ...because 1080p upscaled to 4k is in my experience an invitation to be fundamentally disappointed.



Allow me a soap box moment. I ran two 1920x1080 monitors for year, at 60 Hz. It was fine. I couldn't be happier...and with a 60 Hz monitor the ghosting was just a thing that you dealt with. I tried a bigger 4k monitor...and balked at the price tag. Holy crap...I could buy a VR rig for that money. I then purchased a pair of 2k monitors at 165 Hz...overclocked...that I immediately clocked to 144 Hz. It was a fantastic experience...and now I cannot fathom why I was so attached to 1920x1080.

My point here is that when the 2k leap was made it included an upgraded GPU...and the results were staggering. If I was to suddenly decide to run 4x the pixels....but compromise some basic stuff, so that I could run it with a potato GPU I'd hate 4k for being a compromise. Not really a step forward...so much as epeen to say you're running 4k. I...am old enough to have learned epeen is stupid... You're free to disagree, but I'll wait until driving 4k on two monitors is possible with a "mid range" but affordable card...and it isn't possible right now without BS tomfoolery. I know that may be "old man shaking fist at clouds in sky" obstinate, but if I'm happy with 2x 2k right now why do I have to spend more money to get a worse experience? It's just silly to me, but you do you.

Just a little clear up.
2k is 1080p.
2.5k is 1440p.
4k is 2160p

 

[Gameslove]

8K gamers? Playing over 4K resolution. VRAM can achieve 23 GB.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

It definitely is, sir.

Let's take the RX 7600 XT as the worst case scenario if you spent 300ish USD + taxes on your GPU:
View attachment 342609
These are not just AAA games, these are recent and semi-recent AAA titles pushed to the maximum settings. Softening a setting or two and enabling FSR makes 35 average FPS something close to 75. Not to mention dated titles like GTA V that run at 100+ FPS at 4K with such equipment. Not to mention you physically cannot work at 2K as comfortably as you can at 4K. I chose 4K over 2K mostly for the reason I want my eyes to suffer the least when I'm reading and writing stuff which is my main activity. Gaming at "pure" 4K is both too expensive and too stupid at the moment. DLSS oftentimes not only makes FPS counter look much better, it also fixes TAA artifacts and makes some objects more detailed.

Is this experience ideal? Not by any stretch. But when the only games lagging are the two dozens most demanding ones, it doesn't feel I'm missing out that much.

Of course it could've been much better if AMD declared a war on prices and all that stuff leading to existing competition and better FPS per dollar ratios but at the current state of games, be you a non-RT 60 FPS enjoyer, ~300 USD GPUs buy you acceptable performance and ~500 USD GPUs get you great experience, VAT excluded of course. Want RT, buy a 4090. Want 100+ FPS, buy a 4080 or 7900 XTX at the very least. Want perfect eye-candy, get cryolated for a century and a half since we're not nearly there yet.

I cannot tell if you genuinely don't understand numbers....or just really want to argue.

30 FPS is not playable. Doom Eternal is just barely in the playable range for me...and I'd be turning off how much of the eye candy? You compromise everything for pixel count...why? It's stupid, and fundamentally confirms that your definition of gameplay is not compatible with improvement....unless literally your only metric is pixel count.

Let me frame this:
1) Frame Rate
2) Frame Consistency
3) Pixel Count
4) Bells and Whistles
I have that priority list because frame rate means smooth, consistency prevents tearing, pixel count is real estate, and the bells and whistles are nice.

What you are suggesting is "acceptable" is:
1) Pixel Count
2) Pixel Count
3) Bells that allow Pixel Count
4) Everything else


That's great...you can compromise everything to say you've got 4k. Good for you. Me....I'm in 2k land and happy.... I get my smooth frame rate, my bells and whistles, and only have to give-up pixel count. Be happy with 15 frames per second...so you can run 4k...but don't tell me that's an acceptable experience. It's being cheap on GPU to support saying you can run 4k....if you cannot recognize that this is unacceptable...then please go and spend your money as such. There's a whole industry out there catering to people like you...with things like spinner rims on cars. It's not my cup of tea...and I don't fundamentally think it's viable, but if you are hell bent on stating "I play at 4k" then power to you.

I stopped caring about big numbers a long time ago. I stopped caring because I don't need a 14900k when a 5600x would do. A 2600k from Sandy Bridge stomped all over the 3930k...because despite having more cores it was a mess of connectivity and price premiums. 4k will someday be affordable and attainable without compromising everything else...and on that day I'll gladly admit to buying in. Until then, it's a massive expense for an experience that isn't better...even without ray tracing and everything else. That said, you're free to buy into the Nvidia and AMD hype about upscaling...I will stick with buying the right card for the right resolution, and matching my purchase price to what I find reasonable. You do you.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

30 FPS is not playable.

You are completely unable to read if this is what you read from my post.

Spoiler: My 300 dollar GPU, Cyberpunk 2077, 4K Ultra. Unplayable.

Spoiler: But once I turn settings ONE step down, it's 50 FPS.

Spoiler: Let's preserve our core settings but increase the aggressiveness of the FSR from 67% to 55%. Now we're gaming!

Is this real 4K? No.
Is this extremely playable? No.
Is this at least fine? Yes. Image quality suffered very little. With some more adjustments, you can play with XeSS at 58ish % ratio and have even more crisp and fine picture. Many games are less demanding than that. And my GPU isn't even the best sub-400 USD GPU.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

You are completely unable to read if this is what you read from my post.

Spoiler: My 300 dollar GPU, Cyberpunk 2077, 4K Ultra. Unplayable.

View attachment 342698

Spoiler: But once I turn settings ONE step down, it's 50 FPS.

View attachment 342700

Spoiler: Let's preserve our core settings but increase the aggressiveness of the FSR from 67% to 55%. Now we're gaming!

View attachment 342701

Is this real 4K? No.
Is this extremely playable? No.
Is this at least fine? Yes. Image quality suffered very little. With some more adjustments, you can play with XeSS at 58ish % ratio and have even more crisp and fine picture. Many games are less demanding than that. And my GPU isn't even the best sub-400 USD GPU.

I can't tell if you are incapable of reading....the things that you put on the screen...or if you just want to argue a bullcrap point.

Your graph shows a 35 FPS average amongst a litany of games...so is your data garbage? Is your source questionable? Maybe you want to argue that "just one setting" fixes everything at all times. All of the above makes your argument invalid...because it's based on a strawman of "just one setting fixes everything, but I don't have to show proof while I do show you proof that it's not valid."



Come on man. Get your crap together. Either prove your point...or don't. "Proving that you cannot disprove a stupid statement" isn't a useful stance. It's an idealog wanting me to believe their crap. You want to prove it...then do so. I can only see you as accepting garbage frame rates below anything acceptable...all in service to the crap claim that "any $300 card can play 4k games" as a fallacious point.

So...you want to prove something, or expect me to buy your BS? I don't....for whatever that matters. I don't because technically a 1060 can play 4k if you set the textures down to nothing, disable all lighting features, disable all special settings, and are willing to settle....but that's a pretty crap experience. If you're fine with that....because all of the numbers you've presented prove that, then power to you. I believe you've decided to defend a stupid point to the death...for no good reason.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Come on man. Get your crap together. Either prove your point...or don't.

With your complete inability to respect other opinions and actually read what others write, I won't talk to you anymore.

Just a purely negative commentary with out-of-context excerpts, skewing my every single word to the opposite of what I meant. I'm really done.

 

[Warigator]

8K gamers? Playing over 4K resolution. VRAM can achieve 23 GB.

Why would anyone need 8K outside VR or MR? I can understand 5K, but 8K? It's just a waste of resources. Just like 300 Hz or more.

 

[AleXXX666]

It's 16:9. It's like 4K for 1600x900.
It looks better than 1440p and MUCH easier to run than 4K.
Is not really custom either, about as custom as 1440p. It's just a middle step that was skipped over for straight to 4K. Skipping 1800p would be like if we skipped 1080p straight to 1440p after we had 720p. 1440p to 4K is a giant leap really, we're skipping a step.

that's the question for monitor manufacturers. Why the hell I got 4K 27", but Windows "suggest" me the scaling factor larger than 100%, cropping res? Better monitor manufacturers program the reolution between "low" and "high", than we will use scaling. Not everyone likes "retina fapping" (getting bigger res and then wooh scaling it to give "crisper" image but losing screen estate lmfao).

 

[Warigator]

In my opinion, 30 inches monitors with 3200 by 2000 pixels resolution (1.6 : 1 or 8 : 5), 120 Hz refresh rate, 0.5 ms latency and really good color representation would be optimal for the majority of people.

16:10 is certainly better for RTS and MMORPG games than 16:9, by the way.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

With your complete inability to respect other opinions and actually read what others write, I won't talk to you anymore.

Just a purely negative commentary with out-of-context excerpts, skewing my every single word to the opposite of what I meant. I'm really done.

You....are a special breed.

If you can find me one graph....beyond the one you supplied, that supported your perspective I'd eat my words. You want the cake of "playable" to be 30 FPS...but then not...then you want me to trust your data (which I did), but disregard its clear conclusion "because it can be much higher if you just compromise one things" without defining that one thing.


To be clear, you started the discussion with "any $300 card can play 4k..." And then immediately had to backpedal that $300 isn't really $300...it's the MSRP... I'm pretty happy with you not responding back...but let me offer parting words. If you show a graph of frame rates averaging 35 FPS...I will take it at face value. If you then BS that "you can just tweak it a little and get more" then I'm going to ask for proof...which you refused to provide. Likewise, if you say "you can get playable results" without ever actually defining the how while dying on the hill of 4k not being expensive....then you're welcome to die there.

So we are clear current games recommend significantly higher than $300 cards if you want to run 4k. TPU's GPU database basically has the color coding system to suggest that cards around (but above) the $300 price point aren't meant to run 4k: 4060 in TPU database
So either you're going to have to bring real results to the party or be treated like your own data is demonstrating your fallacy. I...appreciate you willing to die for a stupid point, entirely based on unproven statements which at best are qualitative and move the bar whenever you're called out. The answer here is to simply agree a $300 card cannot play 4k without huge compromises....and you're willing to make them. That said, you wanted to pretend I couldn't read while showing a graph that proved modern games at 4k on a card outside of your budget range basically could not maintain a frame rate that is usable... I don't have to read your argument that your data sucks to know you didn't think this through. I just need you to know there are reviews out there that make your argument...like the following: 4060 - youtube 4k. Despite this you chose to make an argument based on hand waving garbage. It's great when your opponent is incapable of making a good argument...but it is a little sad.


Good luck though. It's always fun arguing against someone moving the bar, and watching them have a fit when called on moving said bar.