- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
- Messages
- 13,749 (6.24/day)
- Location
- Midlands, UK
Processor | Various Intel and AMD CPUs |
---|---|
Motherboard | Micro-ATX and mini-ITX |
Cooling | Yes |
Memory | Overclocking is overrated |
Video Card(s) | Various Nvidia and AMD GPUs |
Storage | A lot |
Display(s) | Monitors and TVs |
Case | The smaller the better |
Audio Device(s) | Speakers and headphones |
Power Supply | 300 to 750 W, bronze to gold |
Mouse | Wireless |
Keyboard | Mechanic |
VR HMD | Not yet |
Software | Linux gaming master race |
It's 50 EUR now, but it wouldn't be if AMD quit the dGPU market. I cannot support closed standards with a good conscience, regardless of the price difference, but each to their own.that is actually more true than people here realize. I always thought "competitive" is not enough to achieve parity between nvidia and amd. I, for one, do not need a dozen reasons to pay a 50eur premium on a 500-600 upper mid range card. DLSS/DLAA and +20-30% RT difference was always enough. I would absolutely regret not spending that 10% more than I would cherish saving it on a card that doesn't have features I like. It'd be different if that was 100-150eur, but it's not. Especially when most games these days have RT/PT from day one, and I'm never going to notice that added +5% rasterization performance on radeon cards when the fps numbers with rt off are already well above 100 on both.
View attachment 381116
I understand, but my opinion stands.it'll never be when you have nvidia making AI their main selling point, even if Microsoft tried. they move too quickly for the market to adapt to new features every generation.
Ok, let's be factual:why do you never actually try to be factual when it comes to using rt these days, it's easily achieveable on upper-mid range.
View attachment 381117
Not even 60 FPS on a midrange card. I call that useless. You need at least a 4080 for RT.