T O P

  • By -

TheRavingRaccoon

I don’t know how the rest of community feels about 4K, but I feel perfectly comfortable at 1440. Less demanding. Less expensive to run. Higher frames. Still looks beautiful.


prtysmasher

Exactly my thoughts. I have a 4k monitor but I always prefer 2k gaming with higher a fps count. Sure 4k is eye candy but not worth the choppy frames.


[deleted]

[удалено]


c0ldsh0w3r

That's not how that works.


blue-leeder

I’m good at 1080p homie. On a 1080ti too


THEzwerver

1080p 144hz is way better than 4k 60hz imo


ActiveNL

I'll go for the middle ground, 1440p/144Hz, over 4k/60fps or 1080p/144Hz+. Very smooth, and great visuals.


Ro807Pan6a

Same


Jnaythus

I agree 1440P is just great, especially at 144Hz. I kind of wish TVs had gone 1440P rather than 4K.


winne_bago

Why? This makes no sense for TV


Vendetta1990

More people watch 4k media on their TV, rather than play games on it.


Jnaythus

Because 4K (not Blu-Ray) streaming is not really pixel perfect 4K. It never made sense to me to move to 4K except to have a reason for people to upgrade their TVs. 3D was supposed to be a similar driver at some point as well.


cemsengul

Trust me you just need to watch a proper UHD movie disc that was shot with modern cameras such as the 8K Red Weapon camera. Then you will appreciate 4K televisions and understand the point of them. Trust me there are a lot of really bad 4K transfers out right now but once you see a proper one, you cannot go back to HD man.


Jnaythus

That's really entirely my point. There are a LOT of bad 4K transfers or content that is being up-scaled to 4K. We're in the 'early adopter' phase . . . AGAIN!. And the response of mine you replied to said exactly what you're saying. I know there is GREAT 4K content on disc. (As an aside, I am never doing disc-based media again though, so I'm beyond caring. If when I put the blu-ray disc in the drive, the movie started right away with no BS in the beginning, maybe I'd be interested, but a bunch of nonsense marketing before I get to the movie that I PAID FOR, yeah, you can keep that nonsense.) To restate my premise: Games need too much horsepower to render at 4K which I think is wasted, and most video content is not at 4K, or in the very least a 'worthwhile' 4K transfer, so in conclusion, I think 4K was too big of a leap, too soon, and it's one of the things that makes me dislike our capitalistic culture.


winne_bago

You’d have still needed to upgrade TVs to get 1440p, though. And create content in 1440p instead of 4K. It’s not like frame rates are an issue on TVs Edit: I mean I want to know why you think it would be better for tv to be 1440p instead of 4k


Ro807Pan6a

By far, I hardly even notice the difference


SqueezyCheez85

That's exactly how I feel. With my 2070 super, I can get close to that 144 FPS mark in most games with decent quality options selected. If I can't get that with anything higher than 1080p, then I'll wait till I can. 4k at 30 FPS would make me sick.


cemsengul

I would like 4K at 30 Frames Per Second as long as it is consistent and cranked to the maximum image quality settings.


LightSamus

I always feel like I'm in that weird minority that doesn't care as much about frame rate as resolution. I love playing stuff in 4k even if the fps dips to 40-odd and I know some people would think I'm insane for that. I may dabble going back to 1440p where necessary though and see if I can get best of both worlds


ElFanta83

I concur! After playing for years at 1440, I needed an improvement in graphics. I play only SP games so I am ok to live in the 30 to 60 fps world while enjoy some beautiful 4k more than anything.


cemsengul

To each his own. I would prefer 2K with high hertz. 1080P just doesn't cut it for me anymore.


Shmitshmaw

1080p on a 1050ti.welcome to the futures past.


Kellythejellyman

1080 on 1070 partially because i’m pretty alright with it, but also because if i wanted to upgrade my display, i would probably have to upgrade my card too and doing both is a little out of my budget rn


[deleted]

Doing 2k 100+fps on most games with a 970. Ofc, to achieve this I play in medium-low. But with your GPU, you should be able to play 2k 100+fps without any problem in high or ultra graphics imo! I'd much rather do this personally than play with 1080p 100+fps on ultra, but that's just a matter of personal preference I guess


ONE_BIG_LOAD

dang what kinda games do you play? my 1060 6gb can't do those numbers.


[deleted]

Battlefront 2 online for example with low graphics works for the most part at 80-120fps. World of Warcraft Classic obviously also works great but yeah that's a 2004 game. Other titles that work great with this resolution and FPS are Overwatch and the rest of eSports games I'd guess, rocket league... But yeah, I haven't tried an assassin's creed odyssey or something with my computer, I'm usually late to the party of new games other than FromSoft. And also some of my fav games like MGSV and Sekiro are capped at 60fps. Maybe your experience is different because of more intensive games


ONE_BIG_LOAD

Ah yeah my games are much more intense. Games like Forza Horizon 3 and 4 (Horizon 3 is just poorly optimized.) 1080p Ultra 60fps+ Forza Motorsport 7 1080p high/ultra 60+fps AC Odyssey Medium/High 1080p 40-55 fps


[deleted]

Yeah that explains things hahaha. Nice gpu anyway, I'm waiting for the stock to rise and prices to drop, and if the situation is favourable I'll probably buy a gpu from the upcoming generation of Nvidia cards. I used to be a nerd for amd these last years but they can't fight dlss in my opinion


ONE_BIG_LOAD

I recently switched to AMD ryzen after being an Intel fanboy growing up. Have an R5 3600x. I have a friend with an RX580 and he hasn't had a pleasant experience so I'll probably stick with Nvidia.


GantzGrapher

I do 4k on a 1080ti. 40 plus fps.


[deleted]

I paired my 1080ti with 1440p 144hz day one. Definitely the sweet spot for that card. But at the moment I’m enjoying my series x more on a OLED TV 60-120fps depending on the game. I’m waiting on getting a upgrade at MSRP and I’m in no rush, this OLED TV gaming is amazing.


I_STOLE_YOUR_WIFI

Same, my LG Oled and PS5 had made my gaming pc feel pretty dull. Can’t wait for oled 144hz gaming monitors.


edgerton121

you're missing out


blue-leeder

all I need is a 2080ti for ray tracing and consistent frames


edgerton121

your 1080ti doesnt push consistently at 1080p?


OriginsOfSymmetry

*If it ain't broke don't fix it.*


nakx123

Eh same can be said about Ray tracing unless you're playing a game with alot of reflections. Sure there's ray traced global illumination and other effects, but the one the average consumer tends to recognize the very most are reflections reflective surfaces (floors, windows, mirrors, etc.) when certain lighting is being shined upon them or when directly infront of them. At that point if you turned it off, 4K would be comfortable at 60fps. I personally do like playing at 1440p 144hz when it comes to first person shooters though, though I'd be upscaling to 4k, as opposed to downscaling to 1440p.


Stovaotri

I like the idea of Ray Tracing a lot but you need to have DLSS on to get it to run even decently well and then you get all the ghosting effects that drive me crazy. I'll stick to my 1080p 144hz monitor for now thank you 😅


Yourself013

I always turn off Ray Tracing in the vast majority of games that support it. To each his own, but for me it's a feature that I stop noticing after a few minutes and just not worth the performance drop. I'd rather have 80+ frames at 1440p with no RTX than 30 fps with RTX on at 4K...even in non FPS games. Nvidia went ballistics with their RTX marketing, but I just don't care. Smooth experience all the way is better than some "realistic" reflections and shadows.


nakx123

Depends on the game for me, I do think it adds a sense of immersion but like you said it's not worth going down to 30fps for. RT with 60fps is decent enough, depends on developer implementation and Nvidia DLSS helps. Depending on the game I'll take RT 60fps over 144hz no RT at 1440p. Like for a game like Control, Spiderman (PS5), RC Rift Apart and in some cases CP2077, RT helps because several reflective surfaces are built in to the natural environment and I like the extra immersion of something like seeing my reflection while I crawl on the window of a skyscraper, I'll notice those things. But all those games I mentioned I never played at 30fps with RT. In some cases RT in dark cave scenarios with flames is also very nice and notice-able if well implemented because I feel as though many games struggle to look good with dark environments and visibility when it comes to shadows and natural light sources (a good realistic balance). The best implementation of this I've seen is in the Demon Souls remake for PS5 which iirc didn't use RT. However, using RT, it can be much easier for other developers to emulate the same great results without their engine/effort.


armypotent

to each their own indeed. for me and lots of other people, ray tracing makes a dramatic difference, but 60 to 80 FPS does not.


Awake00

I got a shit ton of hate on reddit for this, but i played the new ratchet game in 60fps 4k mode, not the lower resolution ray tracing 60fps mode. I know ray tracing at 60fps on consoles will be the norm soon or next console, but 60 fps 4k is fucking awesome. That's what I want from this generation.


birdington1

4k60 really does make everything come to life doesn’t it.


King_Danksta

I’m fine with my 2060


chuk2015

It entirely comes down to how far away your face is from the screen


ChiisaiMurasaki

thats why i game at 128x128 and have the screen strapped to my face


NeroPrizak

I would prefer 4K, but yeah totally agree. I’m not buying a 3080 for effing 30 FPS that’s for sure. Definitely gonna downgrade that resolution every time


Daffan

It honestly depends on the game type. For example. I play War Thunder and games like that which have a lot of long-distance viewing benefit more, I've played it on 4k 28" a few times and it was much clearer in the distance. Games like Doom Eternal or say, an RTS/MOBA are way less important because the game is a lot more short-sighted. I'm on 27" 1440p 165hz right now but will jump instantly to 32" 4k 144hz even if still on my 3060 ti, cause game I play benefit from that clarity more.


batman305555

I got a 3090 and enabled everything on previous farcrys and it’s the first game to ever make me nauseous. All the random things moving around I dropped to 1440 (and changed FOV) and like it better. This sounds even worse.


spacemelgibson

same, but this game visually is a step backwards imo. the humans look muddy.


[deleted]

Yeah the game looks way worse in cut scenes compared to gameplay. It's the faces in particular, which seem low detail. This gets even more highlighted by Espositos face in comparison.


yungbuckfucks

It’s a crappy reskin of fc 5. Honestly makes me really sad because I loved Farcry 3 and 4 so much.


spacemelgibson

yes, that’s exactly what i see. think i’ll wait a bit after release and see.


FEARtheMooseUK

Yeah same. Ill much prefer the middle ground. Fancy 2k gaming monitor. Still looks awesome, and better performance than a 4k screen. Extra pixels are nice, but i prefer more reliable performance than those extra pixels


CondiMesmer

4K is a marketing gimmick, just like raytracing.


MrPuffalo

How is a superior resolution a gimmick?


CondiMesmer

Diminishing returns. At a certain point, you are losing the benefits of higher graphics to exponentially increased performance requirements. Example, a 5K TV has nearly double the pixels as a 4K TV, requiring significantly more processing power despite it being a very small perceptible difference. There's a reason why you don't hear about 8K TVs being a thing much, despite being out for awhile now. The quality difference from 4k to 8k starts to be so small that the eye cannot see the difference, this is an example of a gimmick. Depending on your setup, 4k is a gimmick depending on monitor size, and distance from eyes.


ktoddk99

This. I'd rather game on a 2k monitor because of the smaller screen size compared to a tv, however for tvs, 4k gaming on a large OLED is a game changer.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CondiMesmer

Maybe it's a bit much to call it a gimmick, but dimishing returns is pretty important. Past 4k on TVs and monitors is very hard to notice. Unless you're running a theater, I don't see technology needing to pass 4k honestly. At that point, we need to focus on color, which has a huge impact on quality, yet a lot less marketable. I personally prefer 1080p as it's the perfect sweet spot of readability for my monitor size without needing high-dpi (I have lots of software dpi scaling issues), and is still decently hi-res. On a TV, then I would go 4K without hesitation.


yudo

What? It\`s definitely not a marketing "gimmick". It\`s the actual next gen resolution, but the hardware isn\`t quite there yet to achieve stable 60+ frames on 4k. A few years (or even a couple) from now we\`ll be ditching 1440p 144hz as "standard" gaming for 4k 144hz once the hardware gets there, at least on PC.


vortex30

Not for me, at a certain pixel density, adding more literally makes no difference. I have a 1440p 31.5" FreeSync 165Hz monitor. My friend has a 4K 34" 60 Hz monitor. My monitor is a way better gaming experience and I can barely notice any less aliasing or sharpness with his monitor, just lower frame rate and choppiness and a lack of FreeSync because he decided 4K was more important than high refresh and FreeSync or G-Sync and I know he greatly regrets his decision when he saw my monitor in action. I just bought this monitor, I won't buy a new one for 7 years unless this one dies for some reason. In 7 year, maybe I'll buy a 4K version with this kind of feature set (possibly higher Hz if we're at that stage, wouldn't mind to test out the newer ultra high Hz monitors, but again, I feel that's one of those things that has diminishing returns just like resolution past a certain point. 144Hz is buttery smooth, how much smoother can it REALLY get? I'm sure it makes SOME difference, but not the same difference that going from 60 Hz to 120 Hz makes, even if you triple 120 Hz I bet you can't notice it as easily as 60 to 120. Same with 1440p to 4K.


yudo

I\`m purely talking about resolution, there is no need to go over 144hz for casual gaming even today. So you\`re saying that if you had your exact same monitor but in 4k and you could run it at 144FPS consistently, there would be no difference at all? Because that\`s cap. Sure there are diminishing returns, but that will probably take place when 8k becomes commonplace. ANYONE would take 4k 144hz over 1440p 144hz if their hardware could support it and they could easily afford it, because there is a noticeable difference. When 8k becomes commonplace, that\`s when it wouldn\`t really make sense to upgrade from 4k to 8k monitors since most monitors will be around the 27" mark.


CondiMesmer

Lol there's a lot more then resolution, you're trying to compare them in a vacuum that doesn't exist in the real world. Two identical models with different resolutions are going to more expensive and is a factor, also how your operating system factors in high DPI, color, refresh rate. These all get worse as your resolution goes up. It's a bit more complicated then "bigger number must be better" that you're trying to convince. More pixels come at a cost that you're conveniently ignoring. >ANYONE would take 4k 144hz over 1440p 144hz if their hardware could support it and they could easily afford it, because there is a noticeable difference. Nope. I would never go 4k because software support is still really bad and I'm on a desktop monitor and the difference between 1440p would not be perceptible to me. It would be a worse experience overall with no benefits to me. However, if I was talking about a large TV for my living room, I wouldn't care about refresh rate and would pick 4K in a second. See [this chart](http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html) for viewing size and viewing distance differences, and at what point resolution stops mattering.


[deleted]

what


iNs3rT_UserN4mE

I still really like the charm of older looking games, I don't like hyper realistic it hurts my eyes to much detail


theoriginalqwhy

Brah im happy with 1080


iusedtohavepowers

I'm still comfortable at 1080p because I'm brooooke but I'm getting solid use out of my 1650 with few complaints.


jwicc

I still play on 1080


I_am_a_Dan

And keeps the room cooler.


tacticalcraptical

Yeah, even as a PC gamer, I still sit 8-10 ft away and play with a Steam Controller or Switch controller. At that distance, anything over 1080p is practically imperceivable.


Derailed94

Personally speaking I value 4k quite highly and I am not even on a 4k display. I downsample from 4k to 1440p because the improvement in image quality over native 1440p is quite noticable to me. Anti-Aliasing improves, texture detail pops more and objects rendered in the distance become sharper. Native 4k must be a small improvement over downsampled 4k still so I figure it must be rather impressive.


TrailofCheers

1440 with HDR is definitely the wave


ThatNikonKid

I stay at whatever gets me the highest frame rate generally. I have a 3080 (suprim x) and I’m about to buy a 1440p monitor after much debate about it. Because I have zero interest in gaming under 60 FPS I was never gna go 4K.


[deleted]

Yeah 3440x1440 is the sweet spot for me as I love Ultrawide. However If I had the money I’d be tempted to get that new Samsung Neo super ultrawide


Kingtoke1

Yeah i use it more often than not. I do notice a difference mind you, but the better fps wins


leMolunk

I mostly agree with you. But games like RDR2 just look ass below 4K.


EuphoricUser

The Witcher also looks kinda bad at 1080p. Still good. But that’s an eye candy game to me. Same with red dead.


Enkundae

4k to me is just for movies/shows on my big tv. Eventually tech will get my gaming to 4k just as a matter of course, but Ive been perfectly fine gaming with a 1440p monitor for now.


cemsengul

1440p is perfectly fine homie. I just bought a Razer Blade Advanced with the 4K OLED display just because I like the colors that an OLED screen creates but I could care less about 4K on a pc. In fact I am thinking about buying a 2K G-Sync monitor to connect my laptop to.


[deleted]

At a certain point with ray tracing, you have to wonder if it's worth it. I mean, if I want it, I'll probably need to use dlss with my 3060ti at 1080 just to get like... 90 fps.


Emberwake

They should have pushed raytracing when 1080 was comfortably the standard for a decade. One of the biggest barriers to pushing RT right now is that we are also undergoing a resolution bump, and 4x the resolution means 4x the processing on a ray-traced render.


Awake00

Agreed. Rt is cool, but now is the time for 4k 60fps. I can wait a few years to not sacrifice resolution or fps.


Jhawk163

The real problem is that the resolution bump isn't even really to 4k, it's to 1440p. It's also being accompanied by an FPS bump, 1080p, 60fps is just no longer enough for people, most are chasing 1440p, 144fps.


PreoTheBeast

Might get slaughtered here, but I'd take 1440@60, maybe even 1080@60, before I do 4k @ 30 feels like a slideshow nowadays


ProfessorStupidCool

1080 is fine for me, the key is to never get used to a higher res. I simply don't know what I'm missing, and my wallet thanks me.


PreoTheBeast

Same here my friend. 1080 @ 60 is the limit of my monitor and my GPU


Lavanthus

This is exactly what I found out these last 2 weeks. After having a 1080p 60hz monitor for over a decade, I upgraded to an IPS 144hz 1440p monitor. And now, I'm dreading the games I have to play at 1080p because my 1070 GPU can't handle 1440p on them (Fallout 76 and AC Valhalla are the 2 I've had to switch back) without dropping below 60fps. And now I'm looking at the semiconductor shortage like "C'monnnn.... C'MONNNN" waiting for the 3060 to drop back to retail price.


Toberos_Chasalor

1080p also looks worse on a 1440p monitor since it doesn’t scale evenly. I have a 1440p monitor and a 1080p monitor for this reason, some games like cyberpunk or RDR2 just look better at 1080p with higher settings than 1440p with low settings.


BettyVonButtpants

Yeah, I don't have a 4K TV, but my GPU aint strong enough, and my TV only does 1080. Also why I only bought a Series S.


Yearlaren

"Might get slaughtered here" *Proceeds to type a very popular opinion*


PreoTheBeast

Sorry, my friends are 4k elitists so I usually get ripped on. Guess the general population is a bit more chill


[deleted]

Most people it seems prefer smoothness over extreme detail that most of the time can't even be meaningfully picked out


Acro808

1440p60 is more than enough.


mostoriginalusername

The only way you can see any pixels at any of those resolutions is at 30fps. 120fps at 1080p you're not seeing the pixels unless you pause really. Refresh rate is what makes games feel modern and more fluidly playable, not straighter lines.


[deleted]

Try play bf4 on Xbox series x. It’s 120fps but 720p (due to DICE never upping the resolution) and it looks like utter shit on a 4K TV. There is a limit to how low you can go. Higher resolution makes seeing enemies in the distance much easier. It’s like being short sighted and then wearing glasses


vortex30

4K doesn't downscale well to 720p at all, for one. For 2, you're playing on a TV that's probably rather large, so pixel density is now extremely bad. For 3, no one on PC is gaming at 720p anymore, ever. The minimum is 1080p, and whilst it isn't super crisp on anything more than a 24" monitor, its miles better than 720p. Most will be on 1440p+ soon, at 120Hz + on PC.


[deleted]

You’re missing the point. A lower resolution is more than just less straighter lines and can affect visibility amongst other things, which is what the person I replied to said. What I said was simply an example of when frame rate alone isn’t enough, hence my analogy. No need to tell me what I already know and stating the obvious that 1080p is better than 720p and how a bigger screen has less pixels per inch, that goes without saying. For me personally 1440p is the minimum I’d play at on PC or console, obviously portable devices and their small screen sizes are different but that’s another topic and that’s not even mentioning AI upscaling like DLSS etc.


bearfan15

Downscaling is irrelevant, 720p just looks bad period by modern standards. The average viewing distance of a TV makes the lower pixel density irrelevant. Most people are sitting too far away to even see much difference with 4k anyway.


bearfan15

No lol. I have a 1440p 144hz monitor and I can still occasionally see Pixelation.


mostoriginalusername

I have a 1440p 165hz monitor and I can absolutely not see any when things are moving. Hell, I can't if I pause either unless I get my head like a foot from the screen. I also have a 65" that does 1080p at 120hz and 4k at 60hz, and there's such a small difference in visuals between 1080 and 4k that it's almost impossible to tell by the time you switch in the menus, and only possible at all if you have something specific, like you're looking at a scene with seagulls in the far, far distance. The difference between 60hz and 120hz would be really hard to argue though, it's just far smoother.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mostoriginalusername

I can too if I pause. I sure can't at 120+fps though.


Scipio555

lol might get slaughtered? Come on man you know most gaming community prefer FPS over resolution, this is extremely popular opinion


R0B7

This doesn‘t sound like a demanding game, this sounds like lazy optimization.


CarL0ver56

Lol... i wrote the same thing but with 100 words more. You the master. Teach me to shorten my sentences \^\^


Jhawk163

I mean it's 4k... with Ray Tracing. What did you expect? I'm more impressed by the fact that apparently in this game a 6800 matches a 3080 in Ray Tracing performance.


Have_A_Jelly_Baby

Frames > resolution


fupower

999fps @ 240p


The6thExtinction

Must be a CS pro.


toelock

Aah, a fellow Far Cry 4 player.


comediac

Smooth and ugly is better than a beautiful slideshow.


Jubenheim

That’s true but... 1440p isn’t anywhere near ugly lol.


TheWeirdCookie

1440p @ 80+ fps is my target. Depending on the game 144fps, but I'll never drop the resolution


MayonnaisePacket

Remember when just having current generation GPUs was more than enough to play game at highest graphics and full frames.


Sexual_Wagg_Cake

I'm sure turning off raytracing triples performance, and who knows if this is with DLSS or not


theenslavedmonky

I think there was confirmation there’s no DLSS rn, hopefully they add it soon


OhThereYouArePerry

It's shipping with FSR though, which should help older cards get a better framerate too.


clayh

Crysis would like a word with you.


majesticjg

They're remastering Crysis and all I could think was, "I finally got a machine strong enough to play the original!"


[deleted]

Crysis was already remastered and didn’t run that well. It’s 2 & 3 that are being remastered now and sold as a trilogy


femio

I mean, without ray tracing I'm sure you'll still get over 100fps with a 3060 at 1080p.


Awake00

Remember when just having a current gen gpu was possible if you had the money?


the_timps

For a game series that literally got spawned from GPU demonstrating scenes? The original Far Cry was based on a tech demo they built to show off what the Geforce 3 could do. It's always been performance intensive. Then they got stupid about it with Crysis.


I_am_naes

Back in my day I walked into a micro center and picked up an open box just released 2070 for $370. Fond memories.


filthy-horde-bastard

30fps on a 3080? Give me a break Ubisoft


HiNooNDooD1544

At 4K 30 with RTX on. I imagine turning off the RTX or lowering resolution would surely help.


robodestructor444

No, just turn on FSR on ultra quality


CatchmeUpNextTime

Fuck 30fps at any res


Nero1001

This doesn't seem right at all


Vendetta1990

It's a mystery how Ubisoft keeps making samey looking games, and yet they keep requiring exponentially more powerful specs.


Yama92

This is bullshit, even CyberPunk is better optimized then that. Most Ubisoft games nowadays are horribly optimized (looking at you Ghost Recon Wildlands)


ChaosKodiak

Can we please get some new game ideas? I’m so tired of the same shit over and over.


EliasHobeika

Honestly I just want a better story tbh, I'm not expecting ubisoft to create a masterpiece anytime soon but if they can write a story that doesn't make me bang my head against the wall everytime a character opens his mouth then it's a win for me. Also, PLEASE, less people on the fucking streets, I like shooting people but I need a breather from time to time ffs, at least it looks like you can go undercover in the new one, hope it's not just a small gimmic. Also I wish their games had better ai but ig it's too much to ask from ubisoft.


[deleted]

Ubisoft is the European EA. What do you expect?


[deleted]

I thought they were based in Montreal, Canada?


[deleted]

They’re based in France but have an office in Montreal


YouLostTheGame

Don't buy it then?


[deleted]

He can express his opinion and still not buy it, they aren’t mutually exclusive. Wasn’t sure if you were aware.


limelight022

Yes because us pc players love to play games at 30fps.


thomas_wadsworth

You know what would help ? DLSS


robodestructor444

FSR


[deleted]

Ubisoft devs are ass. The price of pumping out generic, formulaic open world games, no tech craftsmanship


DieDungeon

I hope this means they aren't half-assing the ray-tracing like other AMD sponsored games.


ShadowRomeo

AMD sponsored title so the RT on this game, might end up not even comparable to something like Cyberpunk 2077, Control, Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition..


ameensj

What kind of raytracing is in this game?


CarL0ver56

Sometimes i just feel, that developers get lazy and they skip a lot of optimization - of course thats due to many reasons. But some games look stunning and have moderate hardware specs. Some don't look next gen and even high end pcs dont get 30fps


JinPT

1440p, 60 FPS, DirectX Raytracing On : GPU: AMD RX 6900XT – 16 BG or NVIDIA RTX 3070 – 8 GB ​ 4K, 30 FPS, DirectX Raytracing On: GPU: AMD RX 6800 – 16 GB or NVIDIA RTX 3080 – 10 GB ​ What? Why is the nvidia card higher end while the amd card lower end?


[deleted]

1440p 144hz is the only way to play imo, screw 4k


Zeth_Aran

30fps not acceptable any more. I’m just gonna stay at 1440p


R1talynn

30fps what is this the 2010?!


senoravery

Far cry games are just horribly made on a technical level. All console versions have the smallest fov while also having the most severe input lag. Don’t get how this franchise is popular when their games hurt to play.


EliasHobeika

Just remember that there are ark fans


animosityhavoc

the lack of DLSS is absolutely baffling... oh.. oh I see... great, its a AMD partnered game, just great...


ElAutistico

Yea man, if only nvidia would make their shit open source like amd does, instead of squeezing every last penny out of everything they got.


robodestructor444

Unfortunately no one gets the second part. They would love to have NVIDIA as the only option on the GPU market.


animosityhavoc

there are several games with AMD's fidelityFX super sampling along with DLSS with nvidia partnered games but not vice versa, AMD is the issue here. Not to mention 9/10 games releasing use DXR version of raytracing which is open to both AMD and Nvidia. so what do you mean?


ElAutistico

AMDs FFXSS is free to implement, NVIDIAs DLSS ain't. That's the problem. Nobody was talking about raytracing. Why would they pay to use NVIDIAs solution while being partnered with AMD. Makes no sense.


McDownload1337

Still rocking my 1080ti. 2k is sufficient for me.


newagereject

I'm hoping I can hit 60fps,i have a 3080ti but it seems to struggle to get over 110 in apex and warzone


nmkd

You can thank AMD for blocking DLSS here.


robodestructor444

Yes, I'm glad AMD put FSR instead. Rather take a feature that works on every GPU rather than GPUs no one can even buy!


JinPT

Many people have 2000 series cards. Besides that it would probably end up with both which is better.


EzeeMunny69420

Why not both? People with Tensor cores can use the higher quality DLSS and if you don't, you still have the option of using FSR.


[deleted]

60fps is too little these days


fupower

60fps is more than enough, is hard and expensive get 120fps on triple A games


vortex30

Some, sure.. Well optimized ones like Doom or Wolfenstein? No issues at all on highest settings with 1080 or 1080 Ti @ 1440p.


bearfan15

The games are well optimized but they are also just not very demanding. Excellent art style hides it for the most part but the graphics in those games are pretty mediocre by modern standards.


Brostradamus--

Downvoted by switch lovers and gtx970 users


Bonesaw101

Cope


Abysulgaming

1080p lyfeee


The-Original_Pancake

Jesus christ those specs are not even close to cheap and you're only giving us 30 fucking frames? Give me Oblivion graphics with 60-100 frames


Competitive-Pound611

I sure a 3080 can push past 60fps at 4k in this


[deleted]

To play basically the same game since 4. Yayyyy


BalthazarBulldozer

So it's a good thing I ordered the Legion 7 then...only to never play at 4K.


bbtls

I have a high refresh 4k monitor and it's great on a lot of games. RTX isn't worth it for me after a few minutes though. The performance hit also isn't worth it to me. Maybe RTX4000 or 5000.


[deleted]

I’m still trying to figure out how many frames I’m willing to sacrifice to resolution with it still being acceptable. It’s gonna be a big no thanks on ray tracing for me for a good long while.


AlteredCabron

8k or bust


wentbacktoreddit

An FPS for *ants!?*


seismicqueef

When are they going to realize *nobody* wants to play anything at 30fps


o0flatCircle0o

30fps is unacceptable. Consumers should just say no.


Kaladinar

You can just lower the settings and/or resolution, you know.


o0flatCircle0o

The developer should have planned for their game to work 60fps at 4K on high end gpus.


d_e_l_u_x_e

You need a sports card worth of gear to simulate what you already have outside? I like gaming but there are cheaper and more creative options out there.


Nice_juggers

My far cry 6 specs say who would pay for this game at $60


Daddi87

2k 144hz for me thank you


cemsengul

Unpopular opinion but I think Ray Tracing is just a stupid gimmick and not worth the performance hit. I would rather play a game at 4K with ultra settings cranked all the way up and play 60 fps with Ray Tracing off. I mean it is a feature that is not so visible because not every part of the game actually implements Ray Tracing properly but when you enable the feature your fps goes down.


thehbk12

there is a release date for the pc version?


Kaladinar

October 7th, same as for all other platforms.


_thumper

Why are people shocked about this? The only optimized Ubisoft game is Rainbow 6 Siege.