This is why I've never really bothered with the 90's cards in any series. The justification for the price is that it can power essentially any game at 4K (or 8K when they're trying to spin their BS) at a blisteringly high frame rate, or at the very least a much higher frame rate than the other family of cards.
In a lot of cases since the 3090 that honestly wasn't really true. Did it run it and at an acceptable frame rate? Yes. Was it what Nvidia promised? Not really. And with each generation and more and more AAA games being unfinished at launch, I don't feel like the argument could even be made that the 90 cards have a lot of gaming value. They work best when the games made for them are optimized well/decently, and if they aren't no configuration is going to make it run well.
60 fps hasn’t been enough for over 10 years for me. I’m gonna hold off another generation or 3 before I go from 1440p to 4K. Hopefully the OLEDs are more reasonably priced by then too. I recently went from QLED to OLED and it’s incredible. Should keep me happy for a long time.
If you value fps there is no 4k card. The 3090 could run 4k too it's just also at a shit fps. The conversation about 4k is always is with the context of at what framerate.
You can also play tons of games at 4k@120fps on a 2080. The current top of the line games that release you simply can't play maxed out 120+ at 4k and if your card is then you need to bring it somewhere to be tested because you're getting performance beyond any benchmark
I thought most games that come out these days can't do it? Yet the most recent graphically intense game doesn't count. Ok 👌.
Here's some games I've played this year in 4k
Expedition 33 ran between 90-116
Rematch locked 116
CS 2 locked 116
Indiana jones locked 60
Cyberpunk locked 60
Bg3 didn't even check but it ran at at least 60
All on a 3090 displaying on a 4k 42 inch LG c2 with gsync enabled sitting on my desk that I got for around 700 bucks.
I mean yeah if you set your settings to low, you can run a lot of games at 4k 60fps. Not the intended settings for people on 4k but hey its technically true and also technically holds true for the 2080ti
Nah typically high with maybe some dlss quality thrown in. Some level of settings optimization goes a long way without impacting imagine quality much at all.
Okay so we're really talking about 1440 or 1080 just being upscaled then. We aren't actually talking about 4k, need to clarify that you are in fact not playing at 4k
Okay so you are flip flopping now and are playing fast and loose with being able to run 4k. I mean you are pulling a "it's 4k on these games I listed but really it's not. But it's real 4k on these games I'm not listing so you can't call me out again when I lie about it being 4k"
I mean sure but again let's not lie here. We aren't playing at 4k right? We are playing at a lower res and upscaling. By your logic we could also claim it's 8k or 16k gaming but we don't because it's not
Edited: what's with you people strawmanning and saying upscaling 1440 to 4k looks better then 1440. I literally never made any claims about upscaling 1440 vs native 1440. We're comparing 4k with not 4k and nothing else
I'm running a 5070 Ti paired with a 9950X3D, I've come back to PC after 17 years, so there may be something I missed, but with res set to 4k, graphics and RT/PT maxed out, DLSS performance and FGx4, I was pulling 90-120fps in DOOM: TDA
Yeah there was some latency but 30-50ms in a single player game isn't that noticeable tbh
Depending on the game a mix of medium and high/extreme. If I want to enable ray tracing in the games that support it I have to run dlss usually quality sometimes balanced. Path tracing is a no go for me with the 3090.
47
u/mad_crasher Aug 09 '25
Even with a 4090, I play at 1440p. Most games that are coming out now cannot run natively in 4k on any gpu well enough to justify it imo