Is this what switch owners do when they play their 900p/1080p games? Use 2 displays changing back and forth?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
4A Games Targeting 1080P@60FPS for NVIDIA RTX in Metro Exodus
- Thread starter SharpX68K
- Start date
Is this what switch owners do when they play their 900p/1080p games? Use 2 displays changing back and forth?
No.
You ever use a PC and run sub native res? It's not the same.
BFV was also running at 1080p/60
https://www.dsogaming.com/news/batt...s-with-nvidias-real-time-ray-tracing-effects/
https://www.dsogaming.com/news/batt...s-with-nvidias-real-time-ray-tracing-effects/
Raytraycing features, not full on raytraced rendering tho. Of course.
Certain card carrying members of the PC gamer club can be a demanding lot and weren't around when HDR first became a thing back in the day. We had 1024x768 at 37fps on a xx800 series nv card and it was still amazing.
I'm gonna get burned for this from my fellow pc gamers.... WTH did 60 FPS become so important? You've never played a game that ran at 30fps on the computer or something that had a lot of performance dips?? Jeez.
1080p on a 4KTV looks infinitely better than 720p on a 1080p set due to the fact that it's a perfect divisor of 4K.
I think people are overly hyping this RT feature. It's very crude at best and is only going to eliminate some things (i.e. reflections disappearing when camera isn't facing object). I would count this first pass of RT to be like a alpha version of what's to come 10yrs down the road. Having said that, it's probably not going to be very visually mind-blowingly different than the conventional methods used. So long story short, don't hype this to be the next holy grail that will push photorealism. We still have much more important features that are taking a long time to put into games (i.e. good use of 3-6 more shadow casting lights, or more accurate GI, large polygon worlds, and a good hair system).
Yes of course I do. And it doesn't look great. But I manage. Hence why I asked who the fuck would have multiple displays just to always run at native resolutions? The switch looks shit on a 4k screen and I can guarantee you most 4k screen owners are not buying 1080p displays just to use it and make it look "less shit".
That's an odd thing to say, because a 55" 4k OLED would still be the best 1080p TV you could possibly get. 4k allows for per-pixel mapping of 1080p.
So will not destroy fps? Thats a reliaf.
/s
And don't even think talk about prices right now. Nvidia have little competition vs AMD High end gpu almost non existence.
Why would you buy a 1080p monitor if you have a 4K one to play a 1080p mode? 4K is essentially four 1080p screens in a 2x2 grid, so it's 1:1 pixel ratio and would basically look the same playing a 1080p source on a 4K display as playing a 1080p source on a 1080p display
Seems fair. I play most games at 4k on a 1070 but games like great at 1440 and 1080p. Of course you're going to get that upscaling shimmer and slight blur but games still look amazing upscaled on a 70" tv.
I may consider these cards but it will not be for their day tracing prowess. Unless it makes sense and the frame rate can maintain a 30fps or higher hold. I love high frames like the next enthusiast but I can rationalize with amazing visuals at 1080p or higher resolution PLUS a stable 30.
I may consider these cards but it will not be for their day tracing prowess. Unless it makes sense and the frame rate can maintain a 30fps or higher hold. I love high frames like the next enthusiast but I can rationalize with amazing visuals at 1080p or higher resolution PLUS a stable 30.
Yep. Like I said, when using 1080p content on my tv (the same one you said, too, oled 55inch) I manage. Would I prefer 4k? Sure, but I'm not (and I'm sure most wont) ever think "ah damn I'll hve to buy a second tv for 1080p ray traced content". Some ridiculous stuff in this thread for sure.
To your main comment though, I find switch 1080p with most games having no AA and most even running sub 1080p internally look mostly ass in terms of IQ and 1080p on a pc with a shitload of AA looks a LOT more acceptable.
I was just about to ask this.
On my 4k TV going from God of War's 4k mode on the Pro to the 1080p mode doesn't look that bad to be honest, you just need to sit a little bit back.
Unfortunately I can't test this on the PC since my monitor only goes up to 1080p but I would assume it's the same on a 1440p or 4k monitor.
Going down as far as 720p would indeed be too much though.
Duh. I'm obviously talking about the implemented features. If you raytrace almost nothing in your game it probably won't be very expensive but then it's also pointless. Any noticable effect is probably going to be expensive on the performance.
oh ok my bad then. Wasn't sure on how 4K down to 1080p would go as I only have 2 1440p monitors so it seems 4k monitor owners are good for this.
Thats about pixel scaling and not fidelity. A native 4k image will always show more details than a native 1080p image. But a 1080p image almost just looks as great on a 4k TV/monitor than on a 1080p one.
It's not, but I use aspect ratio correction when needed. For some reason, the only time scaling looks really bad is if I use windowed or borderless. Exclusive fullscreen looks fine.
Scaling issues aside, 1080p still doesn't look too good.
Still can't believe we have this hybrid ray tracing at 60fps and 1080p it's crazy how fast technology has progressed.
Quality per pixel over resolution for me.
Quality per pixel over resolution for me.
I believe NVIDIA is hoping to partially offset the computational expense of ray tracing with NVIDIA DLSS for those games that enable both, such as MechWarrior 5, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Atomic Heart. It will be interesting to see how those perform in the final release.
Yeah 1080p will look like shit in my 1440p monitor. Great thinking targeting a 2007 resolution.
Would be fine if we were still using CRT but anything non native on LCD looks bad.
And I'm assuming a lot of people buying RTX cards have a >1080p monitor
And I'm assuming a lot of people buying RTX cards have a >1080p monitor
When 4K came out everyone said they would rather have better visuals at 1080p. Now you get better visuals at 1080 and people complain its not 4K.
1080p60 is very impressive with ray traced lighting, I am kind of surprised its running that well.
1080p60 is very impressive with ray traced lighting, I am kind of surprised its running that well.
I think the standard PC gamer with a high end video card is running 1080p 144Hz monitor with GSYNC. 1080p144 is nicer than 4K 60 for most people, especially on a monitor.
Honestly 1080p60 with ray tracing is really impressive.
I had no idea realtime ray tracing tech was this far along.
It pretty much is, though. 1080p is a high enough resolution to not be 'blurry' even on large 50"+ TVs.
I had no idea realtime ray tracing tech was this far along.
It pretty much is, though. 1080p is a high enough resolution to not be 'blurry' even on large 50"+ TVs.
You can have levels of raytracing just as an FYI. You lower the amount of rays used to calculate.
Not really, you can use RTX even on 20 series for stuff which isn't very expensive and won't be pointless.
Some people pay for resolution. Some people pay for performance. Some people pay for bleeding edge graphical features. Some people pay for the best balance of all three. It's wrong to say no one will pay for 1080P 60 FPS with raytracing when raytracing is one of those bleeding edge graphics techniques/algorithms.
Maybe I'm just used to the crowd at overclock.net forum since that's where I hang out most, RT @ 1080P is getting trashed for a 1000+ card & rightfully so.
extremely wrong. Frame rates and resolutions arent the be-all end-all to everyone. I'd sacrifice resolution for visual features, especially one as big as raytracing.
I'm still using my VG248QE w/ G-SYNC. Go take a look at that native res. Also lol at you wanting receipts. That's a pretty sad attempt to win an argument bud.
edit: did not realize picture would be that huge oops
but I haven't seen anything in those raytracing demos that made me say wow. I get it that ray tracing is the future and we have to start somewhere but nothing I've seen thus far would indicate that its 'worth it'
I'm still using my VG248QE w/ G-SYNC. Go take a look at that native res. Also lol at you wanting receipts. That's a pretty sad attempt to win an argument bud.
wait when was a TI announced?
To achieve a similar result when DX RT was first announced, it took multiple Titan V's to achieve a similar result. I think expectations are a little lopsided.
How could you not notice? Announced at the same time as the 2080 and 2070.
It's not so much the expectations with RT, but the price that's been put on it with these particular cards. Clearly next years 7nm cards will be better suited for it, part of the reason they released the TI so fast this year. Milking them sales.
Maybe if AMD or Intel released something that could actually compete in more than just price, they wouldn't be so high.
been distracted with work and home construction. I'm so use to the TI's coming out much later I didnt think to even consider they'd change up their release strategy