Texture quality is like a on off switch. It's not affecting performance until you reach the RAM limit of your card, but then it hits like a truck.

texture quality often has huge impact in visual quality, really recommend to crank the texture quality as long as you have enough vram

Then draw distance then geometry detail then anti-aliasing and only then lighting effects.

Depends upon game ENGINE

@@vncube1 in many games lightning is the most demanding option i often go with a option like medium/high. But never low. Low lighting is like games from 1999

yeahh its completly dependent on devs juast find settings which gets performance boost without much difference

That is given, but they're testing presets in particular games here.

Indeed , take Horizon Zero dawn for example . Model detail setting adjusts environment draw distance as well as detail so to get better fps ( as model detail kills it in many map areas) setting model quality to medium makes things pop in quite badly as well as making the quality of local tress and grass inferior to the high setting as it reduced polygon detail as well as draw distance of vegetation, rocks as well as tress. I wish more devs would separate certain settings for better fine tuning

Yes, there is a huge difference between medium and ultra on RDR2 for exemple

You are correct. Some games turn down well, some of them just lower the quality of the image so much that it hurts.

This^ I also turn-off unnoticeable effects while gaming, like water reflections. For me, they're only worth for story-driven/slow-paced games.

Tesselation, anisotropic filtering and textures barely have any impact on performance. That's why always max them out. And when trying to boost performance, lowering volumetric fogs, shadows and draw distance give that most highest boosts.

"rarely use my 144Hz monitor" why? that seems very strange to me, going from 144hz to lower feels so terrible

@@clankfish Honestly, I agree, and I come from a 165hz monitor as well.

Well said. This is probably why I had no issues with Arkham Knight while others were freaking out. I never expected to be able to play it maxed out and I was getting 60 fps @ 1080P on a 750 Ti. Just lower the settings a bit...

You can tune those to your liking luckily

The one that always gets me is when they turn down AF in lower presets. AF hasn't had a performance penalty for as long as I've been PC gaming. 4x AF vs 16x AF wouldn't even be outside margin of error on most games in terms of a performance hit yet it has a huge visual cost. It's the dumbest thing to turn down yet it usually is on medium/low presets.

@@devilmikey00 Yep, it's why I do custom presets.

I always use FXAA whenever I can. It's the best for performance and its much better than not having any AA. I should note however that I'm stuck on an old R7 260X so I try to squeeze out as much performance out of a game as I can. Resolution is very important to me so if anything, I try to keep that at 1080p. If a game is particularly laggy, I'll do 900p (Cyberpunk) but as long as I can achieve 30fps for the majority of gameplay, I'm generally "happy". Happy is a bit hard to say because the experience still sucks but it's better than nothing I suppose.

@@AlienFreak69 I feel yeah this was me a few years ago now I'm rocking the 6900xt and still lower stuff down just a habit 😁

Unless the game has anything with the word "volumetric" in it then drop those settings immediately. They usually maim performance while making something irrelevant like clouds or fog look SLIGHTLY nicer.

Anti Aliasing as well no?

@@user-cc8kb Yep, Anti Aliasing can have a big impact on the higher AA settings.

Correct, if you're looking to save on performance, shadows are the first thing you want to be turning down. To be honest, medium shadows look decent in the vast majority of games and in fact look softer and more realistic for the most part, so well worth the drop for the performance gain. If you start to see shimmering, mesh or fragmentation of the shadows at this setting though, you're fresh out of luck. Some games have terrible shadow presets and leave you with not many options.

Used to be. Now it's Volumetric Lighting. Most titles like Borderlands 3 there is zero visual changes from Ultra to Medium and the fps gains are brutal.

@Transistor Jump Completely depends on their implementation

@@Voyajer. If it's ray traced reflections then that performance is going down(unless you use DLSS or FSR to make up for it).

Same

Exactly, that's the beauty of PC gaming, being able to tinker with the specific settings so you can favour FPS or visual quality ;D

@@Angelocity100 Or both!=O But yeah, high at 60fps+ with 1440p or higher is the way to go!

@@mitu123Copper You can have both, but you always have to favour one over the other, especially on demanding titles like Cyberpunk or Flight Sim.

@@Angelocity100 Yep, I agree with you. Yeah for demanding games it's crazy...which is why a high end gpu is recommended for the time being.

That's been my argument for years. If the game is fun then you'll play it at 640x480 @ 30 fps. Shit, I used to play Doom @ 320 x240 and hope it would hit 30 fps and I played the hell out of that game. If the game is fun then the visuals aren't as important. I will certainly admit that on occasion it's a big deal, draw distance and resolution is huge when playing a racing game, not seeing the curve coming up or seeing that the arrow points to the left or right makes all the difference in the world...

Hell yes. That's the reason I still enjoy Commodore 64 games and older DOS games. Same with movies. I'd rather watch any great movie from the 80's, 90's than modern flashy full of CGI "blockbusters" with a "story" written by an 8 year old...

@@glenwaldrop8166 Good luck getting people to play games at sub 540p. Emulators exist for a reason

I'm probably not representative but I did play diablo 2 on and off before resurrected as well. So yeah...

@@chrisjr6214 I've been through it since the beginning. You play what is available. The old days it was 320 x240, hell, the older consoles were like 240 x144. If the game is fun the visuals are not the primary focus.

100%, there are usual only a handful of settings that have serious performance/visual impacts and they do not always corellate with each other (And these settings vary quite a lot from title to title) I have an RTX 2060, at 1080p 165hz and often turning one setting down to medium, while still having high-ultra on the rest can mean the difference between barely holding 60fps and pushing 80-120 fps and the percieved smoothness is almost always worth the cost. Usually it will mean having shadows and SSR on medium and a couple of other tweaks. TAA quality seems to improve substantially with higher frames in most games and better image stability in general means your not really sacrificing "Visual Quality" outside of screen shots and relatively static scenes. It's also just really satisfying watching a game go from just barely playable to incredibly smooth with minimal downgrade because you figured out which setting was killing your fps. But I would really like to see HB elaborate on this series with some quick tweaks to get almost medium frames at almost high/ultra settings, but less exhaustive than their full HWunboxed recommended settings there is a lot of potential for this especially now FSR, DLSS and dynamic resolution scaling are becoming commonplace and i do wonder how many less enthusiast PC Gamers are playing with horribly unoptimised settings thinking their rig is a dud.

Games could do a better job at presenting the settings. Like they should have a little preview made by technical artists, which shows what sort of difference to expect, plus annotation whether it affects CPU or GPU performance a lot or a little, maybe little 3-step bar charts. There should also be a hotkey to show CPU and GPU utilisation in the game, GPU utilisation is easy, people have RivaTuner overlays (which btw, i wish it was so much less necessary, because inserting third party software into game's rendering loop using Detours-like technique is fundamentally fragile), but CPU is less trivial, like, the game could be measuring its hot thread and compute a max between total utilisation of the worker threads and critical thread, or just the utilisation of the critical thread, because how the game reacts to CPU congestion differs by game so much, and they could have their own metric which more accurately reflects the requirements of the game. Like just because the game is doing CPU work in the background, doesn't mean it really needs that CPU horsepower; and couldn't aggregate the computations across a longer period with barely a difference in result, a lot of the work it's doing could be redundant, it could be updating geometry that is out of sight time after time with more details that don't matter. And in turn just because RivaTuner shows that you have in total 40% of CPU left idle, doesn't mean the game isn't choking on its critical, most serialised thread.

@@SianaGearz I couldn't agree more. Well said. There have been games that do a decent job at describing a setting, explaining it's resource impact, and showing an example. Basic descriptions, examples, and resource impact should be the norm.

Same but doom is a fast paced skill based shooter. For those types of games having more fps is always better but for adventure games, rpgs, tactical games, having that extra fps doesn't really do much if at all. For those visual enhancements are a bigger deal (given the game is running 60 fps constant).

@@bruhder5854 Yes it really depends on the game, but i didn't want to overanalyze it. Nobody would care if he/she got 120 fps in Syberia or any other adventure game :)

If your CPU isn’t up for the task then the experience is gonna be stuttery

@@bruhder5854 non fps games don't really have extra fps. In fact they are the ones that tend to have the lower fps to begin with

@@mudgie0205 CPU only matters in 1080p. In 4k, it's the gpu that's the bottleneck

Hardocp

It does look as a good way to review a GPU, however, these days someone can use the same card for either 4K 60 Hz, 1440p 144 Hz or 1080p 240 Hz and in this case it is harder to review the card based on settings

I also remember those reviews

@@ronjatter thanks... Mothballed in 2019, the guy who ran it jumped ship to intel to head up "Enthusiast Engagement"... Wonder how that worked out.

I think there should be such approach to VR benchmarking

I can tell, averaging 60fps is easily noticeable, 90fps+ is less so

@@mrcaboosevg6089 No you can't....

@@jasonking1284 Different people can tell the difference. I can tell a 60fps apart from a 100fps, but from 120fps up to 144fps, its alot harder

Imraan Omar No you can't.

@@jasonking1284 according to you, but to me who owns a 144Hz panel and a rtx3070, I can easily tell the difference

Sometimes the store brand will actually taste better. I've noticed that with a couple different products in the snack food aisle.

I agree - most PC gamers are at least 2 years behind the latest and greatest and it's getting worse - I've consistently heard that GPUs won't become available to most people until at least next Summer. I'm on a 1070Ti at 1440p. I normally like to get High in textures and draw distance. I usually reduce shadows to Medium or Low. And always turn off DoF, bloom and any blur effects (personal preference, not related to resource usage). Happy to use 2x or 4x AA. So I aim for Medium to High and hope to get 60fps at 1440p.

@@donkeysunited 2 years ? My 1080ti is 4 years old now. And the average gpu according to steam is a 1060 lol which is 130% slower. Average cpu is a 4 core .. 4 cores is something i had about 5 years ago... Ive had a 1070ti.. it was near 100% slower than my 1080ti. I returned it and just spent thr money on the 1080ti back then. You will not be getting that much fps at high details in 1440p.. i have a 2560x1440 monitor and that card cannot handle that resolution on games 4 years ago.. let alone today. My 1080ti is starting to go below 80-100 fps now in alot of games.. sometimes 40-60 in very modern ones.

@@jeepsblackpowderandlights4305 Yes, I bought the 1070Ti as a stop gap a few years ago intending to get a 2080 the following year. As the 2xxx series was disappointing I then waited for a 3070/3080 or AMD equivalent .. and then they all disappeared. So I've been waiting 2 years to buy a new card but, you're right, the one I have is a lot older. I've been avoiding a lot of the newer games because what's the point with this card. Instead I've been replaying a lot of the older games that support mods like Skyrim, Fallout 4, XCOM 2. And just waiting for the market to recover so I can upgrade my PC and get back to buying modern games. I presume the entire PC gaming market is suffering - without a new GPU I have no reason to upgrade my PC and won't buy the newer games. First world problems eh :)

The point was to show relative performance difference. That isn't really going to change because he used 4k. The gap between different presets would still be more or less identical and at lower resolutions the CPU might start bottlenecking the GPU.

I had my rx 580 since release but I also use a sub-par 1360x768 monitor which is hilariously outdated. I was going to upgrade to a 3000 series card and a 1440p high refresh rate monitor but idk that seems like a pipedream with how things are. For right now my low res monitor actually helps out with keeping my gpu running games on high presets at 60 with a lot of overhead. Hell if I have to I can just cap my framerate at 30 for newer cross plat games if I can't get a locked 60.

The news of FSR in FarCry6 is not positive. It looks blurry

@@SF-li9kh Yeah I've not had a good experience with FSR myself and have a RTX card I'd prefer dlss but having all options helps those without a RTX card.

@@Supernova094 Even DLSS 2.0 can be crap, if implementation is bad. It's mostly good tho.

I would prefer an actual GPU upgrade from Nvidia that increases rasterization performance. Ray tracing is cool but it is a very small amount of the overall scene being rendered. This release seemed to just bolt on more RT Cores and not really improve the rest much. This was all to try to save face after the terrible 2000 series impressions of RTX.

Mhm but Medium is a catch-all for sub-par machines, that are not quite high-spec in all regards, but good enough to represent the game largely as artistically intended; and what each such machine needs is very different, some will have a weak CPU, others will have a weak GPU, yet others will have a garbage slow disk or not enough RAM. So ultimately games should explain their settings better, with previews and annotations which part of the system they'll hit heavier. Like if you have a CPU that is too weak to reach high framerate in a particular game, you might as well go High on most of the graphics settings, but trim down those settings which are more CPU intensive. Texture resolution seems like a "safe bet" to increase to many, as long as it doesn't overextend VRAM, but people with a slow hard disk, or in DX11 games not enough main RAM, will also be affected. Unfortunately, DX11 games are still a thing, look at Ubisoft.

it used to be like 10 years ago, but games these days are not anymore, you can't tweak your way out anymore.

Console hardware is locked and know by the devs. They can't optimise something without knowing on which hardware their software will run. It's just like asking racing mechanics to optimize the setup without telling them the track or conditions the car will run. So the best thing they can do is preset settings and add more option or fine tune for each option. Just like WOW 10 settings instead of just low mid high as an exemple. Not to mention console usually use dynamic resolutions, specifics textures, shared but variable Vram etc... I bet you any devs will tell you to just start on mid setting or whatever the game start with and adjust depending on your system.

I agree. At least create an extra preset which mirrors the console settings exactly. It will usually be very good balance between performance and visuals. Medium with a few high and maybe one or 2 low settings is usually what console use, so the medium preset is a pretty good estimate, but it would still be better for an exact preset. The PlayStation did this well with the original setting preset.

My 1080p120 5700 XT is slowly becoming a 1080p100 GPU or 1080p80 etc. The natural cycle of life.

Cyberpunk 2077 and RTX 3090 agree with you. I thought high-end 30-series cards would last a while but Cyberpunk even with DLSS is barely hitting 30 FPS maxed out.

I usually get a mid-high card so I can upgrade more frequently. There's always new tech coming out that requires a new card like ray-tracing, freesync or physx.

I disagree. I think it's best cost effective to go for the best mid range card and upgrade every 3-4 years.

@@Koozwad I wish I had DLSS... my GTX 960 only gets 45fps in Cyberpunk with 'acceptable' graphics settings

@Phoenix 𝙾𝚙𝚎𝚗 𝙼𝚢 PROFILE I have a high end system, so my suggestion was to help those who don’t have a 6900XT and 3080Ti to play with. I find that in the slow parts of games, like when trying to find my way and slowly pick the path through a canyon in Mass Effect, that visual quality does matter even in an engaging game. in Forza It’s less important when the scenery is flying past me, but the quality of the cockpit and gauges can really suffer in lower settings and break the illusion.

Thats normal talk from a guy who has missed 3000 series.

@@mortaljorma69 Have been on gaming pcs since the Geforce 3 series mate, my philosophies aren't anything new lmao

The problem with most developers is that they will never ever optimise for pc hardware properly at least not that much the only Devs that actually care are the ones that make doom and Forza horizon 5

@@lighttechzeon7026 uhhhhhh dude id software and playground are two of hundreds of pc game dev groups, idk what you're talking about?

@@Thardus616 I know bro what I ment is that these two companies make optimized games I never said they are from same company

Have fun with your Switch.

Do you mean Misty?

@@m0rianne yes, thank you

I always wondered why lower fps is bearable with a controller. Maybe it's because it's not as fast as m+kb? I have experienced this too

@@d3m3nt3d_t3acup_ I have no issues playing at 60fps with a controller. I do notice the slightly increased smoothness at 120 but it's marginal. I can imagine with the snappiness of a mouse high refresh rate is much more important.

@@d3m3nt3d_t3acup_ I play with a controller because controls are unified between games, plus in a way, playing games with a controller feel more immersive to me, and it's more comfortable etc. The reason why lower framerates feel better with a controller is because you don't make as sudden and quick movements with a controller as with a mouse. 60FPS (without V-Sync) is awesome with a controller. But with a mouse, it's almost unbearable to me, it feels laggy, the framerate sn't fast enough to follow my mouse movements.

@@d3m3nt3d_t3acup_ Lower framerate and higher latency is definitely more tolerable with a controller! I don't have a super strong preference and use both; generally preferring the controller for games where it's a decent match because it makes for a more relaxed posture and less joint pain, which is something i suffer from. So i have a garbage PC, and i was getting maybe bordering on 30fps when Cyberpunk came out in this game, and gargantuan input latency. Since it's a first person game, i was going to play it with mouse and keyboard, but noped out pretty hard, my hand just didn't feel connected to the action at all, felt like 1/3rd of a second of lag. With a controller, no problem. Well, a hugely suboptimal experience, but like, tolerable, you can do what you have to without too much discomfort! The latency also depends on the game, different games (and different sets of settings in a given game) make different number of frames of effective input latency, and even at 60fps, it's a substantial difficulty to get it just right to where it doesn't feel disconnected from the mouse hand, usually i limit prerendered frames in the GPU control panel, use fast sync, use framerate limiting. Switching to a high refresh rate monitor (even though i can't reach high refresh rates in-game) and a high sample rate mouse was helpful as well. Controllers have a 125Hz sample rate and some input filtering, and nobody seems to mind. I actually love vibration/force feedback, when well implemented. A lot of driving/racing games have a field day with that, with the road surface or when one of your wheels bumps against something, or gear changes. One more plus point for controller play. And i actually love driving and racing games. Got to get myself a PC racing wheel someday, and naturally it'll have to have true force feedback. But i digress.

That would heavily depend on the screen size. If you want a truly immersive experience with non-completive games, 4k and a 42" or bigger screen is definitely the way to go if you have the graphical horsepower. It won't look sharper than 1440p. It will look the same but on a bigger screen since the more pixels are spread thinner so they PPI would be the same. My 48" C1 has the same PPI or apparent resolution as a 1080p 24" screen. On smaller screens like 27" or 24" its not worth it. So if you are a competitive gamer then I would say stay away from 4k or even 1440p.

Ha, that's what I noticed as well.

I second this.

@@coupdetat81 the comment or the first response to the comment? :P

@@michaelbitzer7295 We don't pay attention to the bots. Let's just report and pretend they don't exist.

Checkout this video: m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d56GpamGzp2dqaM.html

Same here man. And if the game looks bad at 60fps, I'm willing to increase the settings and drop down to 45fps, as long as Gsync/Freesync is enabled.

its not a joke, really. I got PS5 digital and given a choice where i want to play the newer games.. my GTX 1080 is simply not up to snuff anymore. All games look better on the PS5, and run better.

@@Gungrave123 Funny you say that. My old gaming PC had an GTX1070 (i7 6700k, 16GB 2400 ram) and wasn't up to the task anymore. I got a PS5 with disk drive but found that the performance in many titles just weren't there. If I wanted to play 60fps most games dropped to a almost equivalent of low settings on PC. And I don't want to play 30 fps games no matter how much ray tracing it has. So I got a RTX 3060 Ti (roughly the same cost as a PS5 with disc drive) and just swapped out my GTX 1070 from my old PC and I have no problem maxing most games on 1440p. I can play most titles with about 60fps with RT on 1080p or on 1440p with resolution scaling/DLSS. That's way better money spent/performance than a console. Consoles still have a place for me with exclusive titles and they're easy to carry around to friends houses. But I play games on PC as a first priority.

@@HazewinDog I'm usually willing to do some resolution scaling before dropping settings. I find it to be a pretty nice way to increase fps without losing too much visual fidelity.

@@zhaf You went from 1070 to 3060 Ti? Nice, I really want to upgrade from my 1070 to a 3060 Ti or even better gpu than that. But yeah consoles really are mainly for exclusives these days.

my intel iGPU can run Half Life 2 only at Medium

@@katech6020 Which iGPU do you have? I have an UHD630 and can do 1080p, 60fps at max settings.

@@groundzero_-lm4md HD 520 with i5-6200U

Over a decade ago that was the purpose. But right now ultra is nothing more than a preset to satisfy PCMR.

It's doubley weird because most people buying a high end GPU are probably going to ignore the presets anyway and fine tune.

@@devilmikey00 Mhm but quickly going through the presets to assess performance and visuals is the first step. I don't see the point of deep diving into the settings before getting the overall lay of the land.

I have a 42' display I sit about 70cm away from. I can tell the difference between 4k and 1440p but it is subtle. The coolest thing about 4k to me is that they can cram that many pixels into a 28' display. oh and bragging rights :P. Fun fact apparently Farcry 6s HD texture pack specs are aimed at 4k with the memory at 11gb moving to 1440p on a 3080 with 10gb means no missing textures :).

32inch needs to be 4k, the PPI is too low on a standard 32inch screen at 1440p.i have the odyssey g7 32" and it's very noticeable

When I play single player games I play on my 4k 43inch TV and I can see the benefits of 4k until I'm 2,5m away. So I normally sit at a distance of 2m

@@joshuawest3906 Yeah that's the problem with 4k, needs at least 32 inches for it(due to scaling) but 40+ inches works the best overall. It's why I might go for an ultra wide monitor next that's 3440x1440.

This also depends on what kind of monitor you have too. If, like me, you've only got a 1080p, 75Hz screen. Anything more is just excess. Unless, you also wish to upgrade in resolution or Hz.

@@JustIn-sr1xe Yup, that's also something else to take into account. Preference as well. I aim for 120 in multiplayer and 60+ in single player with 1080p144 monitor. Sitting on a RX 480 still.

@@CompressedEarthBlocks That's exactly my mentality for framerate in single and multiplayer games. And I alternate between 1080p and 1440p.

Sadly i have to cuz my replacement gpu died i bought it for $90 then boom so now im gonna buy a gpu for $300+ just to get at 1080p high or medium and sad part is my dreams to buy a GTX 1070 a fucking 2016/17 gpu i pray that nvidia and amd create a RX6400 8gig N RTX 3040 6g Gpu with GTX 1070 Or more performance for $200-$400 cause i mean we all cant be left so stuck in the past like damn.

This right here! One of the best ways to increase visual fidelity, especially at lower resolutions, in games like RDR2 or MSFS that rely on heavy handed TAA, I'll turn on VSR in the AMD driver, run the game at 4K, and set the render scaling back to about 50-75%. Add in some sharpening, and you're basically doing the same thing FSR does. MSFS has a huge problem with TAA haloing, and supersampling is the best way to fix it. RDR2, whenever you move, the whole game world gets super blurry/fuzzy, and the only way to fix it, is supersampling. TAA looks great when you're not moving, but sometimes can be pretty bad looking, depending on the implementation.

@@Mark13376 I don't see why it would work? TAA is applied at the source rendering resolution. So if you have render scale of 50%, that's the resolution TAA is running at. And if you're aiming for same effective internal resolution, to achieve a given level of performance...

Yeah, losing 20-30% is really insane and why I mainly focus on High settings. Ultra are mostly worth it with future gpus.

Most of them also wouldnt be able to tell you the difference without looking it up too.

Eh I always go with High settings as long as it doesn't kill my FPS too much. But ultra settings are dumb even with a 3090.

"simple person" means not so bright..... 😐

@Emulation I guess you don't get the joke 😅

Even with 1440p display, i sometimes want 1440p rendering, but most times, i'll drop game's internal resolution to just south of 1080p effective via resolution scale (CAS and such). I think depending on game's per-pixel image quality, more than 1080p might not be quite as worth striving for, it's kind of the golden resolution at which things stop looking like junk, which is how it persevered for such a long time.

You know what I miss? When bots like you stopped S T A L K I N G me! 🤷🤦

Haha these new bots that copy some random top level comment are obnoxious. Anyway i upgraded to a 165Hz 1440p monitor recently, and i actually love it. My system is hot garbage, literal garbage, i picked up a thrown out office PC a couple years ago, an i5-3570, and added a used GTX970 to it. So the system was NOT faring well at 1080p60. Thing is, once you miss a frame at 60Hz locked, it's pain city, you might as well drop down to 30fps locked, but that still sometimes backfires. I have been playing some Forza Horizon 3, and i can't hold stable 1080p60 to save my life. But i can run it at 1440p with a high refresh rate, like 120, 144 or 165, and it'll be around 70fps still sometimes dropping into 40s, and it feels much smoother. I can probably limit it to 60 if i care, for extra smoothness at 120Hz, but i don't even care. A lot of games i can set internal render resolution to somewhere close to 1080p, while i'd target lower resolutions previously to just try and keep the performance in check, but i can play at 40-50fps and not care, it's fine, looks good, feels good. I imagine if you had a 75Hz screen with VRR (variable refresh rate), you could have a similar experience, but a 60Hz TV lacks the feature. Can definitely recommend going the HRR/VRR route. I picked high refresh rate because i knew my GPU wouldn't support VRR with these modern inexpensive monitors without a dedicated G-Sync scaler board, but i got this display for years to come, i expect to be using it for like 7 years at least, i can take advantage of VRR when i get a new GPU some years later, the display supports both.

Custom is the only way, presets are useless

Yeah, for me I normally do High for single player and Medium for multiplayer.

4K was a meme when it came out, and a meme it still is. It's great for old games sometimes, but supersampling does the job just fine, even softer. High refreshrate and high framerate is where it's truely at.

The adoption curve for 4k is going to be different for everyone. To keep performance high on reasonable priced hardware some sort of DLSS or other advanced reconstruction will need to be used. The other problem is monitors. But overall, 4k is by no means dead. $4-500 Consoles are already making 4k60 gaming go fairly mainstream, albeit with upscaling in most cases.

@@deviouslaw Consoles are a whole different game friend. It would take a new $1500 pc to play at xbox series x or ps5 quality/fps. I think this has been said enough in the past, that both Microsoft and Sont do not make money by selling you their console, that however they make their millions in market share, memberships. Can you imagine having 5 million people paying $10 a month on xbox live on average. That's where the money is. So unfortunately console gaming can't be brought into this video fo comparison purposes

@Transistor Jump The equivalent to an xbox series x roughly is an rx 6800, unless that information has been updated lately,not sure it has. It could very well be a 6700xt if you want.. Iam not talking about buying a bunch of dusty 10 year old parts on Ebay to build your own,I mean walking into a store like Best Buy and buying a gaming PC. It is definitely going to cost you at least $1500. Hitman 3 for example runs great on the Series X, native 4k at 60 fps locked. A 3070 would get you around 75 fps, yes higher but you get the point. Lets say a 3060, you can probably play some major AAA games with a 3060 or 3060 ti and get close to 60 fps. But where can you buy a pc with a 3060 or 3060 ti for less than $1400? This is what I mean. Again though,this is not about consoles vs PC war, let's not get away from the main subject.

@@dbgmediainc7506 I disagree; consoles are extremely relevant to the discussion. Consider that your original post stated that 4k is dead, not that PC at 4k is dead. Two different things. Remember, to match an Xbox 360 at the time of it's release also required a much stronger PC than 2-399 could buy you. PS4 also, although maybe to a lesser extent. This is nothing new. Maybe a bit worse than before due to the current situation, but that's somewhat unavoidable. I think if anything is keeping 4k from being a thing sooner it's not really the lack of horsepower from the current GPUs but rather the recent interest in high framerate among the PC community. So we aren't needing to achieve 4k60 but now 4k120+ in order to be attracted to that resolution. But even with that, smart people will realize once monitors come down a bit more than having the resolution headroom does not mean you need to max out your monitor in every game. The smart player will have a 4k144 panel and let VRR clean up the situations where they cannot achieve that framerate in demanding titles while gaining the benefits in older or less demanding titles without having to wait for "universal" 4k144 on every title in their library