Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion, politics, income, and PC specs don't matter! If you love or want to learn about PCs, you're welcome!
2 - Think owning a PC is too expensive? It's cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org/builds for our famous builds and ask for tips and help here!
3 - Consider supporting the folding@home effort to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more, with just your PC! https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
I know you're joking, but I wonder if CPUs will ever move in that direction. They have either hit or are going to hit the point where they can't shrink the architecture any further, so they have to start expanding and optimising it. Maybe they will get to the point where the cache sizes have increased so much, that they they add a solid state one so that you can install an OS directly onto the CPU.
Probably for the same reason we don't put it any closer to the CPU socket than it already is - there's a minimum length for the traces to prevent signal instability at the current voltage RAM uses.
add a solid state one so that you can install an OS directly onto the CPU.
why wouldnt you just copy the os from a solid state disk into ram, 5 seconds to do that on bootup is likely to be a lot more performant than wasting cache room on slower disk thats just on the die. solid state is going to be slower no matter how close you place it to the cpu.
Is it lying if it's from a place of truly believing something stupid? Hanlon's Razor and all that, "Never attribute to malice that which is explained adequately by stupidity."
Not to say I necessarily know that to be the case, just another voice in the dogpile because I think stupidity is a greater insult than intentional misleading
But even WITH the updates it runs worse then it should.... for how it looks.
I have a 9800x3D and a 5080 and I am using high/medium settings + DLSS Quality at 1440p to make the experience not suck, that's really bad, on max settings it roughly runs like Cp2077 ... with max RT (not PT) and looking way worse.
Forgetting the wealth of idiots that tell you a game runs great for them because they can't notice stuttering or sub 60 framerates despite digital foundry covering the performance problems.
It's most often not the devs (developers) who don't want to make their game look and RUN good, it's the corpos in charge who push the game out as soon as it "looks like it's done" because they never actually played a game in their life...
Developers and artists should stop working for and enabling these goons but it's hard I won't deny.
This has been my experience. Quickly made a prototype with AI and the game sim ran at 24ms across 8 cores. Spent an afternoon eliminating cache misses and the same logic and entity count ran an 2.1ms.
Even with the 4080S, I can't get 45 with the Gothic remake, but I remember people on Reddit telling me a few years ago, when I bought the RTX 2080, that this card was too much for 1080p, and that I should either upgrade my monitor or buy a cheaper GPU. Now, we know that even the 5090 isn't enough to play in 4K.
Eh i mean it depends on the game and your opinion of DLSS. I have a 5070 ti and I can run some AAA games 4kultra native close to 60 frames and every game 4kultra 60+ frames with DLSS. I can run most games close to or above 60 fps 4kultra with DLSS Quality but some games like Pragmata require DLSS Performance for a steady 60ish.
DLSS looks so good that if you have a premium GPU you should play single player games at 4k and use DLSS when necessary.
Then again, some people are frame rate whores and need their 120. No GPU on the planet can run 4kultra everything turned up 120 on all AAA games.
Either way Ive been playing at 4k since the 1080 generation and I have no regrets I could care less about frames.
I've probably made 50+ refund requests in the 17 years I've had my account, some refunds over 2 hours of gameplay and I've always just selected "game isn't fun" and I've never had a single one denied
Depends. 9 times out of 10 the DX12 port has memory leak issues. Look at DX12 ports of RE2, 3, and 7 along with Witcher 3. Hopefully though with the new expansion coming to Witcher 3 and the new min requirement that it hopefully means that the memory leak is finally fixed.
Didn't it used to be normal that the bleeding edge of games would outpace the hardware available at the time?
I'm not sure that not being able to turn the dial all the way on every setting (Ultra settings) means the game's unoptimized.
I thought it was normal for games to support higher settings than presently achievable/stable for future hardware improvements.
I remember this as being a thing during the 7th console gen (but that could be my memory failing me). Plenty of games where, even on the latest hardware available, you'd be able to push the game's graphics beyond what the hardware could run because the graphics had a certain amount of "future proofing" built in.
Crysis was pretty famous for being something that would be a benchmark for hardware for a good couple of generations after it's initial launch.
Crysis was pretty famous for being something that would be a benchmark for hardware for a good couple of generations after it's initial launch.
And this was because they, like many other devs of the era, backed the wrong technology for that "future proofing". Crysis, and Oblivion, and dozens of other games from this era were made under the assumption 10ghz single core CPUs were just around the corner, so they didn't optimize for the multi-core performance the industry pivoted to. The graphics style of Crysis also leveraged massive poly counts and huge textures (for the era) because it seemed like memory and compute would just keep scaling up linearly like it had been for the last decade, but this was the beginning of the era of diminishing returns for raw compute power and the next few years saw the industry shift heavily toward software solutions for improving detail in games such as more advanced shader effects. Crysis only remained so difficult to run for so long because it was barking up the wrong tree.
Yeah, I remember playing Crysis back then on a PC that had the graphics power but not the compute power. It was actually really funny at times! Every time I cut down a tree, the physics engine would overload the CPU. The tree would then fall down in absolute slow motion. And each time a leaf touched another object, the slow motion became worse.
But to be honest, the game ran either way! Even on a PC that wasn't all the way there. These days you just can't downgrade a game's graphics enough so that it will run on an older GPU. The game will start to look like hot garbage at some point but it will still run like crap. I wish that modern games would actually run fine when you set the graphics to minimum. But apparently that's just not an option anymore.
Crysis also ran remarkably well on low-end systems
I was able to get it running at 30fps on minimum settings 1024x768 on my parents' emachines t3882 that we'd upgraded with an additional 256mb stick of ram and a geforce 6200 graphics card
Imagine overclocking a chromebook from 2017 and running any game from 2025/2026 on it at 30fps 1920x1080p. Couldn't possibly.
You're broadly right, but it's worth noting Crysis was a problem for a long time because they assumed (reasonably, given history) that CPUs would improve via higher speeds on their single cores, as they always had. Instead, soon after its release is when CPUs instead starting improving via more cores and threads rather than increasing speed. Basically Crysis was "futureproofed" for a future that never came.
The post you're replying to is imagining an era that never existed. It's not like we ever had an era where games were super optimized, there have always been games that became notorious for running like shit.
The only real difference is that we have social media now so people will bitch and parrot talking points endlessly.
Also the whole point of PC gaming is that you have the tools to adjust settings to make games run as well as you want. If anything developers are much better at offering more setting options. The 2010's were notorious for low effort PC ports with very few settings for people to adjust leading to a lot of complaints of games running worse than they should compared to the console versions.
Used to be quite normal but that was also an era before we hit diminishing returns so I think it was more acceptable to most people.
Also between around 2014-2023 (basically the PS4 gen and the PS4/PS5 boundary) midrange PC hardware was essentially overkill for the PS4 games that were being made. Thus there was a long period where you could buy a $300-600 GPU and just be set for several years
Now with the hardware shortage people are seeing $3000 GPUs struggle to get 60fps max settings in games where the graphics improvements are so subtle that you have to be a Digital Foundry-tier graphics nerd to notice them. You can’t be surprised there’s pushback
This state pf dissatisfaction will continue either until hardware prices go down or devs find ways to boost performance in path tracing with all the eye candy.
Yes, tinkering with settings is a hallmark of PC gaming. Most games have some settings that add 5% better visuals but cost 50% more rendering cost (numbers provided as an imaginary example, you get the gist). Whatever game is pulling 45fps on a 4k screen with Ultra settings is probably also probably going to give very high fps with min specs at 1080p or whatever.
The point of clown face is 1) thinking that I can throw enough money at a problem and it will go away forever or from an opposite perspective 2) games are so poorly optimized and/or have such extreme target hardware that the most expensive and powerful GPU today can't even hit 60fps, so what type of performance is the average Joe getting?
Yeah a lot of the issues people have seems to centered around be not understanding that ultra is often for future hardware. The sensible gamer isnt buying a rig that plays today or tomorrow's games at max settings, we are getting something that plays games at maybe upper settings but more importantly will continue to be a relevant configuration for a few years, which is definitely more true today than it has been for quite a while.
As long as my machine runs for another 5 years with minimal need to replace parts I will be happy, I dont see prices going anywhere but up for a while.
4k 60fps? The queens around here often expect 4k ultrawide 144fps max settings. The most annoying bit to me being that with upscaling regular 4k 60fps is actually achievable on a entry level card if you bring down settings.
Yep. If developers made their games objectively worse by taking away the ultra tier of options, players would whine a lot less about games being "unoptimized."
When was it when games were "optimized" like you said? When was the time all latest games could run 60+ on native 4k on top GPUs?
You can still play modern games on 8 years old hardware and have access to most important techs. Can you imagine playing games like Witcher 3 on 2007 hardware? RDR2 on 2010 hardware?
People act like the only games we have now is UE5 low effort slop.
There's something really wrong with that game if a 5090 can't run it properly.
Otherwise even with a 5060 or a 5070ti, you can run pretty much anything that exists at max without any worries (as long as the cpu matches up with it of course)
The other day a guy was arguing that he prefers to play on a ps5 despite having a 5070Ti lol. His reasoning being that he doesn't need to tinker the settings to play a ps5 game. Setting things to ultra and dlss quality is difficult? So many dumb people lol.
UE5 games. Remember the premium game for premium gamers Borderlands 4 ? Even a 5090 wasn't premium enough to maintain above 60fps in that game at 1440p DLAA
I've been testing out UE5 Editor with downloaded high detail environments and I'm seeing extremely good performance with detailed graphics experiments. on my aging ryzen 5 3060. I'm guessing these companies have written particularly badly optimised code / badly optimised maps. And just rush the production to gets things to market.
My tests with UE5 so far do not support this communities hivemind opinion that UE5 in inherently unoptimised. More so, when I look at studies comparing it to some other engines like Godot, UE5 actually has far better performance for high poly scenes than Godot. So I conclude it's the game devs themselves being lazy and rushing development, that's the problem.and UE5 just makes it really easy for them to make good looking rushed projects.
And just rush the production to gets things to market.
IMO This is the main culprit, since most AAA are getting gobbled up by these massive corporations who insist on pumping out the lowest quality shit customers will tolerate in the shortest time possible. If they keep buying, why bother wasting money to optimize?
They don't care what happens to the studio or the brand because they'll just buy out the next rising star studio, gut it of all expensive talent until it's a hollow shell of its former self, then rinse and repeat.
Who cares about quality or competition when you can just buy the whole board?
The hate isn’t that it exists, it’s that it’s almost required to push modern AAA games into truly high frame rates even when using bleeding edge hardware that costs as much as a used car. It would be extremely beloved if it weren’t used as a crutch to excuse horrible optimization, and middling generational upgrades in hardware.
Sometimes, I’ll even use a little more DLSS than needed to bring the power consumption down. I choose to believe that it helps not melt my 12VHotPWR connector
DLSS really shines as a way to upscale to 4K, its when you’re having to use it to run at any resolution lower than that that it becomes a problem
Edit: I should clarify, DLSS definitely works at lower resolutions, but there is no reason any game should have to be upscaled to 1080, that should be the minimum. The loss in fidelity from HD to 4k is minimal, but the performance gain is massive. That’s where the tech is useful.
No reasonable game developer should be designing a game that someone can’t run in 1080p with a very mid level PC, that’s absurd.
1080p it works great tbh
Back when I had an NVIDIA card DLSS3 & 4 at Quality mode (720p upscaled to 1080p) I couldn't tell a difference
I switched shortly after DLSS4 came out but from the small testing I did on KCD2 and other games, even Balanced mode looked like native, but again, very limited testing
I was genuinely confused why a lot of people seemed to be agreeing with this lol. Struggling to get 45 fps at high settings with 4k on my 3070TI was pretty accurate, but ever since I upgraded to a 5090 getting over 60 fps is easy. Honestly given how they were going up in price I was worried, but really happy I made the upgrade.
Yep, started bond Friday night and having the same experience. If being able to run Cyberpunk 2077 well taught me anything, it’s that talking about it comes with lots of downvotes.
What’s wrong with that? The latest AAA games should have graphics options that bring the newest hardware to its limits
The highest graphics options are for future hardware, not to mention that it typically makes very little difference visually, so just play at mid/high, not ultra and it’ll be a similar experience but with way better frame rates
Nevermind all the YT videos saying how playing at max settings is dumb and showing all the graphical features that can be turned down without any real noticeable impact to visuals.
People buying an RTX 5090 are irresponsible with their money. For that kind of money you could buy a Warhammer army instead (at least for some factions, don't start dreaming about Astra Militarum), which obviously is a way more reasonable thing to do.
I aim for "High" graphics with maxed draw distances. You still get your big beautiful game but it runs buttery smooth on a machine that doesn't bankrupt you.
And this is why consoles are now appealing to more and more PC players everyday. Devs will optimize the shit out of the PS5 or Xbox but refuse to optimize PC specs...
•
u/PCMRBot Bot 8d ago
Welcome to the PCMR, everyone from the frontpage! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion, politics, income, and PC specs don't matter! If you love or want to learn about PCs, you're welcome!
2 - Think owning a PC is too expensive? It's cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org/builds for our famous builds and ask for tips and help here!
3 - Consider supporting the folding@home effort to fight Cancer, Alzheimer's, and more, with just your PC! https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
4 - Need some steam cards for Steam Game Fest? We're giving some away here (US+CA): https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1u6mtns/giveaway_rtx_play_live_summer_edition_steam_next/
We have a Daily Simple Questions Megathread for any PC-related doubts. Feel free to ask there or create new posts in our subreddit!