Funnily enough, on a 75Hz monitor I am not aiming for 200 fps - and whilst the "future" of PC gaming may be path tracing - the history of PC gaming goes back to the 1980's. Rasterisation performance is important for the majority of games (the back catalogue is huge - my 2500 games barely makes a dent) and that is my focus given the woeful story telling in current releases. Looks like you want the best of the best - nothing wrong with that but you are a little dismissive of PC gaming not at the cutting edge. Not everyone needs a RTX 5090, immersive path tracing visuals on a 49 inch curved OLED 244 Hz screen. Going by the steam survey a RTX 3060 (not as good as a 7800XT in any measure) at 1080p with a mid tier cpu is what the world is playing games on.
This is a hardware forum, obviously I am using newer hardware, or why would I waste my time following the hardware market.
And I don't buy low or mid-end stuff.
Why do you bother about RT then? 75 Hz monitor? You should be going 120/144 Hz minimum and make that a priority. You can thank me later.
I don't say your GPU is bad, its a fine mid-end GPU even today, close to 9070 GRE, within 10% or so but talking about Cyberpunk 2077 on max settings with RT, pointless really most would not be happy about the performance and the RT can cause fps dips/spikes (bad frametimes) on GPUs that don't handle RT too well
People think I am Nvidia fanboy, I am just a realist, that have experience with pretty much all brands. I don't defend any manufacturer and I use both Intel, AMD and Nvidia on daily basis.
Only a true fanboy can state that AMD is doing well in the gaming GPU market. Everyone can see they are struggling to match Nvidia and they can also see, that AMD don't really care. CPU/APU and Enterprise GPUs is a priority for AMD.
Finally seeing FSR 4 support on RDNA 3 was nice. Now they just need to add it to Windows and RDNA 3.5 APUs too. This should have worked day one in my opinion tho.
I would be very mad if I was a RDNA 1/2 user. Even RDNA3 users had to wait 1 year or more. AMD only did this, to make Radeon 9000 series look better on launch, because in reality, 9000 was overall a downgrade on specs, especially for the higher end SKUs - 9070 series is mid-end stuff (AMD owns words actually - They officially left high-end GPU market with 9000 series).
Top SKU in 7000 series > 7900 XTX w/ 6144 cores, 24GB, 384 bit.
Top SKU in 9000 series > 9070 XT w/ 4096 cores, 16GB, 256 bit.
Clearly AMD downgraded the entire lineup.
Focus with 9000 series was on gaining marketshare, improving RT performance and upscaling, areas where AMD has been severely behind and still is.
With FSR 4 support now available for the Radeon 7000 series, you could argue that the 7900 XTX has once again become AMD’s top gaming GPU.
And this is the reason FSR 4 was exclusive to 9000 series to begin with. 9070 XT would have looked miserable on launch, if FSR 4 worked on 7900 series.
Luckily 9000 series got improved RT perf too, and has native FP8 for a lower FSR 4 performance hit.
