In 2015, I had a 1440p monitor, and I couldn't get max settings...
Or, using new technology, (both in software and hardware) that can have room to grow.
I don't think that's the case.
Well, in the era of unremarkable GPU gains, you have to rely on something.
Your setup was your setup, other people (like me eg. ) ran a higher setup at the time
I ran this on Amiga:who remembers ?
This is not the job of the 5090, you just said 1080p60 was max settings for you in 2015, if graphics have stayed the same then you could argue that a 5090 should do 2160p240 in 2025, but graphics didn't stay the same, raster graphics has advanced to the point where a 4090 can't do 2160p60 in games such as Immortals of Aveum, RoboCop, Ark Survival Ascended, Fort Soils and Horizon Lego Adventures ...etc.
Yea, I don't know about that one chief.... Firstly, 1440p represented 1.28% of all monitors in 2015 based on the latest data I can find. That's less than the 4k resolution metrics(4.08%) I see today and I would not even dare to call 4k "popular" among enthusiasts. Except of course, your definition of enthusiasts means those who spend a lot of money which funnily enough is not the actual definition of an enthusiast.
Not really but sure?
Why would I look at it like that? It's a comparison to see how the best gpus of the time ran games at that time period. Yes graphics change but so does technology in general? The benchmark for a 5090 is not the games of yesteryear but the games of today.
Frame generation is not performance, DLSS performance is not 4k, it's 1080p. Please do not attempt to equate unlike things and make flawed comparisons. As for the better than native comparison, yea it's pretty well known where I stand on that which I disagree with any better than native claims.
That's fair however based on your link, we only had to wait 6 months to get a gpu which could run the highest texture settings? We're 2 gpu gens(~4+ years out) divorced from the release of the Cyberpunk 2077 and there is no gpu that can run it at max settings at 4k native.... With the rate things are progressing, we may need to wait 2-4 more gpu gens for that to exist. This would represent the slowest gpu hardware progression in history. Meanwhile, we could already at max settings 1080p on the HD 5970 a mere 3 years after release. Tbf, I can't recall if very high was the highest settings.
He was talking about DLSS TNN, not FG and your opnion is just that
So is 6 months later at relase or it is 6 months later, you know after release?
)Frankly, I don't know what argument you're trying to put forward.....Uh, like the 1% buying flagship GPUs', you are just digging your hole even bigger now
Are you good? All caps and bold?He was talking about DLSS TNN, not FG and your opnion is just that
People I trust to OBJECTIVELY examine things have a different perspective:
Except your claim was dead in the water until Dictator came to save you with the max texture setting. A setting that really isn't bottlenecked by the gpu's ability to render and only by it's vram.So is 6 months later at relase or it is 6 months later, you know after release?
(you are shifting the goalposts a lot and running away from your own argumetns, when confronted with facts
I am not...?
Did you see me posting in all caps and bold? I think you may just be projecting here but that's just me.
/yawn
When Doom3 released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
When Crysis released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
When the Witcher 3 released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
Plenty of games have done this, the only difference is that back then, people adjusted their settings down, but today people whine and want to stop progress because their expectations to their GPU is broken.
Boring
No I don't think I will. You chose a resolution for the witcher 3 that 99.3% of pc gamers didn't use and in no way would constitute even the average enthusiast's definition of max settings according to the steam hardware survey. You employed the same tactic again for Doom 3. There was nothing incorrect about my initial statements.
I'm disappointed we haven't yet seen any "Achshyually I prefer the non-PT look" comments.
OK, assuming that is correct, what do you propose the industry should do to course correct.
Ray Reconstruction of any capacity is absolutely better than native when doing Path Tracing. Native runs with slow and laggy denoisers, they are blurry, smeary and have lots of loss of details and missing effects. Ray Reconstruction avoids 90% of these problems.
And 4K240 monitors are less than half of that percentage in 2025.
You are the one who thinks he is entitled to playing games at max refresh rate, max native resolution, max settings on a high end GPU. This has never happened in the past.
Just like you when you chose 4K240 as your baseline performance.
The argument would be, if those resources were allocated on rasterization, the game would look a lot closer...I'm disappointed we haven't yet seen any "Achshyually I prefer the non-PT look" comments.
I don't understand what the point you are making is. You're not actually suggesting that games should be designed to run at native 4K240Hz (16x the pixels per second of 1080P60hz) right?
Not sure why you're referring to ray reconstruction when i was talking about dlss upscaling.
I really didn't choose 4k240hz as a baseline. Its just the monitor i own. In fact, if you can quote me where I said that "4k240hz is the baseline", I'd appreciate it. As for playing games at max settings and refresh rate, your statement can be true or false depending on the gpu,cpu,monitor combination one has.... For example, if you only have a 1080p, 60fps monitor but for some reason have a 5090/9800x3d combo, then you can play every game at max settings, max fps.
