- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,163 (0.20/day)
- Location
- I live in Norway
Processor | R9 5800x3d | R7 3900X | 4800H | 2x Xeon gold 6142 |
---|---|
Motherboard | Asrock X570M | AB350M Pro 4 | Asus Tuf A15 |
Cooling | Air | Air | duh laptop |
Memory | 64gb G.skill SniperX @3600 CL16 | 128gb | 32GB | 192gb |
Video Card(s) | RTX 4080 |Quadro P5000 | RTX2060M |
Storage | Many drives |
Display(s) | AW3423dwf. |
Case | Jonsbo D41 |
Power Supply | Corsair RM850x |
Mouse | g502 Lightspeed |
Keyboard | G913 tkl |
Software | win11, proxmox |
What are you talking about? Is this some sort of reverse psychology or?
What we've seen was a (tech) demo, and it did NOT run on the native hardware.
What we've been shown, therefore, was a lie. This fits in the now growing stream of news pieces regarding the actual performance versus what the marketing says, and also with common sense. Yes, the new consoles won't be last year's mid range this time, but no, you won't get the value of a 1500 dollar gaming PC at a third of the cost. We already know for example that native resolutions are also a big clusterfuck of dynamic (internal) render resolution so you never know what you're really looking at.
This trickery is not new.
Gears of war on xbox performing better than 2080Super, so to have something comparable there is only ONE choice.
2080TI.