Why have you got such a semi for frame generation, when you even said above your card at native res and refresh rate runs the game only 68% utilised?
1. for fun sake
Good finding but I m no sheep . I ll upvote your post1.4mil concurrent players on steam right now. this game is destroying DEI consultancy
Wat? The opposite is true. Frame generation adds more latency by default since it needs to buffer frames to generate the inbetweens before displaying anything to you, and the slower the real rendered frames, the worse it is. At displayed 60 with FG it should be very noticeable unless you're extremely tolerant to sluggish performance.
1000% on the last paragraph. Nvidia peaked with the 10xx series and it's been downhill ever since and unfortunately with them making such a large amount of income exclusively from their GPUs dominating in the generative AI field, they really don't have to bother caring about their core consumer base that made them who they are for decades.
drive.google.com
GTX 1080 was a full GP104. Ampere and Ada Lovelake equivalents are 3070ti and 4070ti. In that context the launch prices were barely more than inflation adjusted.
How is that reality "harsh" ? Your own benchmark shows 27 to 37 fps, which for a non-competitive single-player game is eminently playable -- I'm not a gamer, but I defy anyone to tell the difference between 27 and 30 fps without a counter running.
IMO in this type of game the need for extremely low latency just doesn't seem to be there. It definitely doesn't require the kind of accuracy that you need in a shooter. I agree that 120 fps just looks better, but it's a balance between that and all the other visuals. I typically hate FG, like in Starfield, it's just awful and I would never turn it on. However, in this game it seems to work really well and so after I got the average framerate above 60, I turned on FG for 90-100 frames which improves the motion without hurting the gameplay. It doesn't feel sluggish and you don't feel any additional latency like you would in a shooter.
1000% on the last paragraph. Nvidia peaked with the 10xx series and it's been downhill ever since and unfortunately with them making such a large amount of income exclusively from their GPUs dominating in the generative AI field, they really don't have to bother caring about their core consumer base that made them who they are for decades.
Even when Crisis and Quake were out, those GPUs weren't being priced as obnoxiously as they are today. The top Nvidia card at the time was the 580 which launched on 11/9/2010 at a MSRP of $500. This WAS THE TOP OF LINE AVAILABLE NVIDIA CARD on the market. The previous gen Nvidia king was the Nvidia 480 which launched 3/26/2010 at an MSRP of..... $500. $500 in 2010 when factoring in inflation would amount to $719.00 in 2024 via the US gov inflation calculator.
The 1080? Launched at a MSRP of $600. The 2080? $700. The 3080? $700. The 4080? $1200.
This chart shows a good data set of the lack of overall performance increases gen over gen in relation to the price hikes per gen. I'd like to pause and state that yes that are many variable in play here, things like manufacturing costs, material costs, etc. however even when taking these into account they make a very poor argument in regards to pricing increases even with inflation.
nvidia.xlsx
TL;DR, Nvidia has data center and AI money now and it doesn't need any of us any more and has priced the long running previous best performance per dollar segment into the grave. Now it's explicitly the more dollars you spend, the more incremental performance increases you gain. Dont like Nvidias pricing structure? They don't care. Cry about it.
