What's the definition of a 4K capable GPU? *spawn *embarrassment

[Malo]

I certainly wouldn't be spending $350 on a GPU if I was running a 4k monitor for gaming. I'm never a proponent for restrictions from companies for reviews but no one should be looking at 4k graphs for the 2060 and saying it's a crappy GPU because of it.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I certainly wouldn't be spending $350 on a GPU if I was running a 4k monitor for gaming. I'm never a proponent for restrictions from companies for reviews but no one should be looking at 4k graphs for the 2060 and saying it's a crappy GPU because of it.

People are paying $300-400 for premium consoles with 4.3-6.0 TFLOPs to play on 4K TVs, but the $350 6.4 TFLOPs RTX 2060 shouldn't run at 4K because...?
The games are the same, the engines are the same, and even the APIs are alike nowadays.


Perhaps 4K isn't the holy grail it used to be, just like 1920*1080 before it, or the 1280*720 that preceded it.

 

[Malo]

The games are the same, the engines are the same, and even the APIs are alike nowadays.

Maybe we're getting closer but we're still away from the efficiency capable in a console. The alternative reason.... all devs are terrible at coding on PC? Yeah that's it.

Also Sony aren't after margins that Nvidia are on their hardware. Add in AIBs etc. and you have a large difference in profit between the two.

 

[iroboto]

I certainly wouldn't be spending $350 on a GPU if I was running a 4k monitor for gaming. I'm never a proponent for restrictions from companies for reviews but no one should be looking at 4k graphs for the 2060 and saying it's a crappy GPU because of it.

Buy a Lamborghini but fill it with regular?

Lol. Agreed.

 

[iroboto]

People are paying $300-400 for premium consoles with 4.3-6.0 TFLOPs to play on 4K TVs, but the $350 6.4 TFLOPs RTX 2060 shouldn't run at 4K because...?
The games are the same, the engines are the same, and even the APIs are alike nowadays.


Perhaps 4K isn't the holy grail it used to be, just like 1920*1080 before it, or the 1280*720 that preceded it.

Sure but consoles are regularly 30fps or 60fps. PC has never been the same and it’s very difficult to find the exact settings to make it hard lock at those frame rates.

 

[Scott_Arm]

People are paying $300-400 for premium consoles with 4.3-6.0 TFLOPs to play on 4K TVs, but the $350 6.4 TFLOPs RTX 2060 shouldn't run at 4K because...?
The games are the same, the engines are the same, and even the APIs are alike nowadays.


Perhaps 4K isn't the holy grail it used to be, just like 1920*1080 before it, or the 1280*720 that preceded it.

4k dynamic framerate or reconstruction with reduced graphics settings on consoles.

 

[Picao84]

People are paying $300-400 for premium consoles with 4.3-6.0 TFLOPs to play on 4K TVs, but the $350 6.4 TFLOPs RTX 2060 shouldn't run at 4K because...?
The games are the same, the engines are the same, and even the APIs are alike nowadays.


Perhaps 4K isn't the holy grail it used to be, just like 1920*1080 before it, or the 1280*720 that preceded it.

Most of the games on the PS4 Pro / Xbox One X do not run natively at 4K and use checkerboard rendering. But hey, nice try.

 

[yuri]

Most of the games on the PS4 Pro / Xbox One X do not run natively at 4K and use checkerboard rendering. But hey, nice try.

On top of that many of them struggle to hit stable 30fps.

Sure, RTX 2060 can't run 4k but those TV boxes can.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Most of the games on the PS4 Pro / Xbox One X do not run natively at 4K and use checkerboard rendering. But hey, nice try.

Why the snarky remark? Especially when you seem to have ToTTenTranz's argument backwards.

Malo: $350 for weak-sauce 4K ain't worth it.
ToTz: Consoles cost the same, have less power, and yet people are happy to play 4K with them. Why shouldn't people (on a budget), be happy with a $350 GPU on their 4K display?
You: Consoles don't render 4K.

Your last point (untrue of XB1 often) is tangential to what ToTTenTranz was saying, which wasn't a commentary on 2060's 4K performance but the value offered by the 2060 is comparable to the mid-gen consoles so is a legitimate choice for higher-than-1080p gaming. If it's okay to buy a $400 console to game at 4K30, it should be okay to buy $350 GPU to game at 4K.

If you want to argue the effectiveness of 2060 at 4K versus similarly priced consoles, you should refer to actual data. I've no interest in such a discussion but for a starter, I just pulled RE7 from DF, and it states 4K60 on XB1X. Hard data will show whether 2060 offers a good 4K experience for the money or not versus console. No-one should be whacking down generalisations about upscaling and framerates without the data to back them up.

 

[troyan]

Console games are not using the same quality settings than PC games. Compare Hitman 2 on a Xbox One X and on PC. The console version uses lower settings for reflections and lod.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Which is why the comparison shouldn't be made, unless one's using comparable data. Can the 2060 produce similar/better results to XB1X given the same settings? Someone needs to benchmark it, but few sites do compaarable PC GPU vs console comparisons. DF is one of them occasionally. The point being made here is that $350 investment to game at 4K isn't unrealistic and 2060 performance at 4K is a valid consideration, but GPU test sites performing such tests need to consider the settings to prioritise res over framerate.

 

[vipa899]

2060 is about on par with the old 1080, obviously 4k with max settings is asking too much in modern games in special at 60fps. If a 2060 is suffice for 4k is up to the user if he/she wants 4k with lower settings/fps.

Price comparisons arent really fair as just a 2060 is the price of a 4k console. Its much faster but much more expensive.

 

[troyan]

Which is why the comparison shouldn't be made, unless one's using comparable data. Can the 2060 produce similar/better results to XB1X given the same settings? Someone needs to benchmark it, but few sites do compaarable PC GPU vs console comparisons. DF is one of them occasionally. The point being made here is that $350 investment to game at 4K isn't unrealistic and 2060 performance at 4K is a valid consideration, but GPU test sites performing such tests need to consider the settings to prioritise res over framerate.

You can play at whatever settings you want with a PC. But a $350 console doesnt deliver 4K with max settings. Here is an example from Hitman 2: https://pclab.pl/art79629-9.html
30 FPS on a 2060 with better quality than a Xbox One X. But i dont think that PC gamers want to play with 30FPS. Thats the reason why 4K gaming is not really as big as it is on consoles where options dont exists.

 

[vipa899]

30 FPS on a 2060 with better quality than a Xbox One X.

That doesnt suprise anyone, the one x has a gpu with performance close to a rx580/1060, a 2060 is close to a 1080 in normal rasterization. Thats with early drivers on a 2018/2019 product and without VRS etc.

One x also is a complete package, a 2060 needs a pc to fit in

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Maybe we're getting closer but we're still away from the efficiency capable in a console. The alternative reason.... all devs are terrible at coding on PC? Yeah that's it.

AFAIK that large difference doesn't exist anymore, in great part because drivers are super optimized and PCs carry several times faster CPUs that process said driver code in time for the GPU to never stall.

Also Sony aren't after margins that Nvidia are on their hardware. Add in AIBs etc. and you have a large difference in profit between the two.

This is a matter of perception of value. It's no secret that nvidia's margins on each performance bracket have been skyrocketing each year they get >75% marketshare and AMD can't seem to find a way to compete on notebooks and high-end GPUs.


It's crystal clear that nvidia wants to convince graphics card customers to spend more money in a product with a much higher ASP if they say they want to play at 4K resolutions.
However, back in 2015 nvidia launched the GTX 980 Ti with the following specs that compare to the RTX 2060:

6.1 TFLOPs (vs. 6.5 TFLOPs on 2060)
6 GB VRAM (vs. 6 GB VRAM on 2060)
336.5 GB/s (vs. 336 GB/s on 2060)
189.2 GTexel/s (vs. 201.6 GTexel/s on 2060)

Back in 2015, every reviewer tested the 980 Ti at 4K (reviewers were probably instructed to do so) because that was the de facto graphics card for using with 4K monitors and TVs.
But somehow the RTX 2060 shouldn't be evaluated at 4K?
For example, Toms Hardware tested GTA V at 1440p and 4K with the 980 Ti, but with the RTX 2060 they tested the same game at 1080p and 1440p.

4k dynamic framerate or reconstruction with reduced graphics settings on consoles.

A person can be able to plug the PC to a 4K TV just play at 4K ultra on older games or medium on newer games. Isn't that the kind of data reviewers should be providing to consumers?
Besides, there are games with dynamic framerate on the PC too (Quantum Break from the top of my head), and nvidia themselves are championing DLSS to upscale 1080p->1440p and 1440p->4K.

But i dont think that PC gamers want to play with 30FPS.

Based on some hard data or just gut feeling and personal preferences?
The vast majority of PC gamers (I think 70% or more) use graphics cards priced at $250 and lower according to data AMD showed when they launched Polaris. That means most PC gamers who play a demanding game like Final Fantasy VX without a FreeSync monitor are bound to play it at 30 FPS.

 

[OCASM]

Based on some hard data or just gut feeling and personal preferences?
The vast majority of PC gamers (I think 70% or more) use graphics cards priced at $250 and lower according to data AMD showed when they launched Polaris. That means most PC gamers who play a demanding game like Final Fantasy VX without a FreeSync monitor are bound to play it at 30 FPS.

Or they play at low settings.

 

[troyan]

That doesnt suprise anyone, the one x has a gpu with performance close to a rx580/1060, a 2060 is close to a 1080 in normal rasterization. Thats with early drivers on a 2018/2019 product and without VRS etc.

One x also is a complete package, a 2060 needs a pc to fit in

That wasnt my point. Consoles run at 4K but that doesnt say anything about the image quality of the games.
No PC reviewer is testing cards based on a 30/60FPS target. You can play any PC game at 4K with a 2060 like a Xbox One X. But hat doesnt mean it is the target resolution for the card.

 

[vipa899]

I play at high/ultra 1440p cause i want 90+ fps in BF4 multiplayer, someone else wants all ultra at 60 fps or lower at 4k. With that 2060 or any gpu you choose yourself how you want the experience.
In singleplayer games 60 should be enough imo.

Consoles run at 4K but that doesnt say anything about the image quality of the games.

Offcourse with lower settings if its 4k, 4k checkerboard or not isnt too light of a thing.
For multiplats a 2060 will always give you better performance and gfx quality. Its in the exclusives a platform shines though, even pc.

 

[Picao84]

Why the snarky remark? Especially when you seem to have ToTTenTranz's argument backwards.

Malo: $350 for weak-sauce 4K ain't worth it.
ToTz: Consoles cost the same, have less power, and yet people are happy to play 4K with them. Why shouldn't people (on a budget), be happy with a $350 GPU on their 4K display?
You: Consoles don't render 4K.

Your last point (untrue of XB1 often) is tangential to what ToTTenTranz was saying, which wasn't a commentary on 2060's 4K performance but the value offered by the 2060 is comparable to the mid-gen consoles so is a legitimate choice for higher-than-1080p gaming. If it's okay to buy a $400 console to game at 4K30, it should be okay to buy $350 GPU to game at 4K.

If you want to argue the effectiveness of 2060 at 4K versus similarly priced consoles, you should refer to actual data. I've no interest in such a discussion but for a starter, I just pulled RE7 from DF, and it states 4K60 on XB1X. Hard data will show whether 2060 offers a good 4K experience for the money or not versus console. No-one should be whacking down generalisations about upscaling and framerates without the data to back them up.

That's not how I understood or still understand Totz remarks. Someone (won't see who now, I'm on mobile) argued that GTX2060 does not have to have good 4K performance because someone with a 4K PC monitor will likely have money to spend more for a decent GPU for 4K. Totz came along and said:

"People are paying $300-400 for premiumconsoles with 4.3-6.0 TFLOPs to play on 4K TVs, but the $350 6.4 TFLOPs RTX 2060 shouldn't run at 4K because...?"

He is obviously arguing that the GTX2060 should run 4K at that price point. It can't be any clear than that. Why do you focus only on the price point when he clearly mentions the GTX2060?

I still can't see how I got his argument backwards. What he meant is clear as water. In fact he continued along these lines, accusing bad bad Nvidia of trying to obscure the fact that GTX can play same games at 4K.

 

[Picao84]

It's crystal clear that nvidia wants to convince graphics card customers to spend more money in a product with a much higher ASP if they say they want to play at 4K resolutions.
However, back in 2015 nvidia launched the GTX 980 Ti with the following specs that compare to the RTX 2060:

6.1 TFLOPs (vs. 6.5 TFLOPs on 2060)
6 GB VRAM (vs. 6 GB VRAM on 2060)
336.5 GB/s (vs. 336 GB/s on 2060)
189.2 GTexel/s (vs. 201.6 GTexel/s on 2060)

Back in 2015, every reviewer tested the 980 Ti at 4K (reviewers were probably instructed to do so) because that was the de facto graphics card for using with 4K monitors and TVs.
But somehow the RTX 2060 shouldn't be evaluated at 4K?
For example, Toms Hardware tested GTA V at 1440p and 4K with the 980 Ti, but with the RTX 2060 they tested the same game at 1080p and 1440p.

Because:

1. New games are most probably heavier to run, so the fact that the GTX2060 has more power than a two generations old flagship says absolutely zero about how it should perform in current games.

2. Reviewers obviously do the tests that make sense for the product price point. This is valid not only for the GPU market but for pretty much any market where testing is time consuming.

You are just grasping at straws, even going to the point of defending that reviewers should test old games to see if a new card can ran them. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

What's the point in that? If you buy a card, you buy it for the future, not for the past! What's the point in spending your hard money in something that is going to have trouble performing in 4K in six months???

Consoles are not PCs in that respect. PC developers expect that users will upgrade over time so they push the envelope much harder and much faster than on consoles! Consoles have the benefit of being a known quantity where software will be optimised to death in order to perform.

Comparing spending 349-399 on a console that will always perform in "4K", no matter what, to a 349-399 GPU that will likely struggle in 6 months to keep up with new software pushing the boundaries is obtuse and senseless.

This attitude is only justified because we are talking about nvidia. If this was an AMD card you would be singing another tune for sure!

Did you say the same thing when AMD, just like NVIDIA used resolutions as the criteria to divide between tiers? When AMD promoted a card as perfect for 1080p (can't remember which but there was one they did) , did you come here and rage about the card being able to perform at 1440p as well if users reduce graphical quality?

No, you didn't and no one did ever until today. You know why? Because this is a ridiculous argument and discussion that does not make any sense!

@Shifty Geezer you still think Totz does not have an axe to grind here? Was he / is he innocently arguing a legit point about a price point or is he activelly just here to cry wolf about an nvidia product like he always does?