• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How much I've to spend for a PC where I can play PS5/Series X games?

Kikorin

Member
Hi all, in my long "carrer" as a videogamer I've been a PC gamer, but since x360/PS3 era I started playing only on consoles. Months ago I ordered a PS5, with the intention to buy a Series X sometimes in the future too to have the full package (I've a Switch yet). Anyway, until today the PS5 still has not yet arrived and since Sony started to port their games on PC and MS already do, I was wondering if was a good idea to just buy a decent gaming PC.

I've not followed the PC hardware since very long time, so I'd like to know: how much I'd have to spend for a PC where I can play "next gen" games? I'd like something to play at 1440p/medium-high details.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Hi all, in my long "carrer" as a videogamer I've been a PC gamer, but since x360/PS3 era I started playing only on consoles. Months ago I ordered a PS5, with the intention to buy a Series X sometimes in the future too to have the full package (I've a Switch yet). Anyway, until today the PS5 still has not yet arrived and since Sony started to port their games on PC and MS already do, I was wondering if was a good idea to just buy a decent gaming PC.

I've not followed the PC hardware since very long time, so I'd like to know: how much I'd have to spend for a PC where I can play "next gen" games? I'd like something to play at 1440p/medium-high details.
Between £900 and £1200 in the UK at the moment (not including peripherals).
 

Soodanim

Member
If you let us know what country you're in, it will help people give better estimates for you. Banjo64 Banjo64 is right, but it doesn't sound like English is your native language so the numbers might not be as simple as a currency conversion.
 

SenkiDala

Member
For Sony games, they're porting them years after release on PS consoles, so if you're patient then yes go PC, if you're not then a PC won't be the best place to play.
 

Hoddi

Member
You should decide on the display first and foremost. You can get away with a much cheaper system at 1080p60 than 1440p144, for example. 1440p60 would then be somewhere inbetween.
 

supernova8

Member
1440p medium/high details right now you're looking at close to the price of a next-gen console for just a GPU so... honestly I would keep waiting for that PS5 to arrive. Plus, I doubt that Sony will be porting their PS5 exclusives to PC until at least a year (or more) after they come out on PS5 (think how long ago Horizon ZD, Uncharted etc came out and then when they came to PC).
 

winjer

Member
Hi all, in my long "carrer" as a videogamer I've been a PC gamer, but since x360/PS3 era I started playing only on consoles. Months ago I ordered a PS5, with the intention to buy a Series X sometimes in the future too to have the full package (I've a Switch yet). Anyway, until today the PS5 still has not yet arrived and since Sony started to port their games on PC and MS already do, I was wondering if was a good idea to just buy a decent gaming PC.

I've not followed the PC hardware since very long time, so I'd like to know: how much I'd have to spend for a PC where I can play "next gen" games? I'd like something to play at 1440p/medium-high details.

PC gaming went trough a dark age, in the last couple of years, because of covid and mining. Prices were through the roof, especially on GPUs.
The market is normalizing now. But we are also at the end of a generation for CPUs and GPUs.
This month, AMD and Intel are going to present Zen4 and Raptor Lake.
And in the fall, we are probably going to get RDNA3 and Ada Lovelace.
I would advise to wait to years end, for all the new stuff to be out with greater performance.
 

Foilz

Member
I'm playing on a 1080 screen with a vega64 which I've had for years and I usually have no problem with games running on high , maybe setting shadows to medium. You don't need the top of the line you, yes it's nice to have the overhead but it's not always needed. With that said the new 4000 series and amds shit will be out eventually so the last gen cards will come down in price. You won't need the latest and greatest. A 3070ti or 3700 will be fine
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
More like 2023. The chances of getting a mid-range RDNA3 or Lovelace GPU this year are extremely slim.
Exactly.

Nvidia and AMD are likely only releasing their range toppers this year.
Rumors say only the RTX 4090 from Ada makes it this year.

For 1440p you can get away with an Ampere GPU xx70/70Ti or RDNA2 6750XT and float till Ada Lovelace is at or around 500 dollars in a years time.

You will have still gotten a year+ worth of fun out of your Ampere GPU.

CPUs really are something that "waiting" is almost never the answer because of Intels Tick-Tock method.
They release a new CPU every year.
AMD isnt much better now that they have Zen and Zen3D.

Waiting for the next big thing will be a wait till forever cuz something new is always on the horizon.

So get a current Zen3D or even better a 6 core Intel that will easily last you till DDR5 is pocket change, then upgrade to that generations chip.

Nvidia and AMD release new GPUs every two years, stick to whatever will power you through the generation no need to splurge on a Titan class card.

When Ada is fully out youll be able to spend a reasonable amount to get double nextgen performance.


One of the biggest downsides or advantages depending on how you look at it, is that once youve got a rig, upgrading it gives you so much more power that it can justify NOT spending that 500 dollars on a console.
When people compare costs of console vs PC they need to consider most people only upgrade GPUs maybe every 2 years.
CPUs generally last a while in gaming rigs, the 9000 series Intels are still viable chips......they came out in 2018.
 

Kikorin

Member
Thanks for all the answers. For some reasons I'm having problems to multiquote on smartphone, but I try to answer what you asked.

I'm pretty much starting from zero, I've a TV that I'd use as a monitor, but for the rest I've to buy everything from scratch. I've a pretty powerful PC yet, but I've it in studio and I use it just for work.

I'm from Italy and by years I don't buy games at day-one, so would not be a problem to wait for Sony exclusives beeing released. Anyway, at the end of the day, for about 1200€ or more I guess I'll still wait for PS5 to arrive, seems these new consoles still are a very good deal for that price. Thanks all for the help!
 

draliko

Member
Never worth jumping on new cpu and ram as soon as released, right now is the perfect time to buy am4 and cheap great ddr4, before ddr5 get same performance time will pass.... as on the cpu side not worth going over mid tier, no game need cpu as much as gpu especially at human framerates... I play at 1440p/100-120 and with a 5600x and a 3080 12gb I've got plenty to spare before dlss. Other than that remember that playing at ultra is never a good choice, best to use a mix of high settings
 

Zug

Member
Let's be realistic, a future proof gaming PC is at least 1k5€ nowadays. A graphic card equivalent/slightly superior to a next gen console is about 700-800€ to begin with.
Also, not a good time to buy as already said, since new CPU and GPU generations are around the corner.
 
I tend to say, unless you already know why you want a PC, stick to consoles. There are a lot of advantages to PC gaming but also some disadvantages and it's highly individual how important those are to each person. 60 fps becoming more common on consoles I think has changed the equation quite a bit.

And this not a dis as I almost exclusively game on PC. Also if you do decide to buy a PC then wait a few months for the new CPUs/GPUs.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
If you can actually live with less than ULTRA EXTREME PC KILLER settings and make a match with console settings, often times with digital foundry list, you could probably cheap out on GPU.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
stay away from 8-10 GB VRAM GPUs if you want a long term PC that can match consoles. Just a FYI.
A 3080 isnt going to be VRAM limited anytime before the chip itself runs out of gas.
Playing at 1440p(as the OP is) even the 8GB class cards like the 3070 and 3070Ti will have the chip give out before the VRAM does.
I tend to say, unless you already know why you want a PC, stick to consoles. There are a lot of advantages to PC gaming but also some disadvantages and it's highly individual how important those are to each person. 60 fps becoming more common on consoles I think has changed the equation quite a bit.

And this not a dis as I almost exclusively game on PC. Also if you do decide to buy a PC then wait a few months for the new CPUs/GPUs.
A few months could be near 1 year for a mid range Ada/RDNA3 GPU.
These things keep getting delayed and it looks like only the range topping cards are gonna release this year....those are gonna be 1000 dollars easy a piece....clearly outside OPs price range.

On the CPU front Zen4 is DDR5 only so its gonna cost an arm and a leg for a minimal price/perf gain over Zen3D and DDR4.
By the time Zen3D is actually a major bottleneck you can socket upgrade for a kind price cuz there will be thousands of AM5 boards and DDR5 will be pocket change.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Depends what kind of games you kind really? Console centric games, do you want more selection of 1st person shooters, strategy games and indies?

-Rockstar games? 1-2 years after console release.
-FromSoft -Day 1
-Xbox studios -Day 1
-EA-Ubi - Day 1?
-Some Playstation titles, 2-5+ years etc. Games like Bloodborne (Fromsoft game ), Shadow of Colosus, PS4 Ratchet & Clank havent come, doubt they will.
-Most of the best indies and strategy games will be on PC and the selection will be alot more.

-Capcom: Most are day 1 now, but there has been a delay on release to PC for some games like Monster Hunter.
-Square: Most the games are on console first. Especially Switch ones. Takes some time for some of the games to come to PC, like FF7 remake, FF16 etc

So really depends what you like:
I mostly play 1st party Nintendo and Playstation games When it comes to AAA. Plus anything FromSoft, Square, Rockstar releases. and then theres indies I enjoy, so Im happy with a PS5/Switch combo for now. I have a older PC for retro, some strategy games and indies I cant get on consoles.

If you can afford it, go for the full set. Just depends what you are interested in.

For Sony games, they're porting them years after release on PS consoles, so if you're patient then yes go PC, if you're not then a PC won't be the best place to play.

Apart from many games won’t come or will have taken even longer. Like Bloodborne, Shadow of the Colossus etc
 
No hate for the PCMR, but my reaction to 3x the cost of consoles just to match them.
Jerry Seinfeld Reaction GIF


I don't love videogames that much.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
that would be more of an issue if you want 4k for the long term right?
If you want ultra settings well beyond console at native 4K with RT.
Then yes 10GB might become a squeeze soon........but your chip wouldnt be able to render that even if you gave it 100GBs of VRAM.
VRAM fear mongering doesnt make sense when the bottleneck is the chip not the VRAM.

For instance to date there is no game that proves you need 12+GB of VRAM.
We have two of effectively the same chip benchmarked quite thorughly at this point.
The 3090 24GB, the 3080Ti 12GB.......they perform effectively the same, so clearly VRAM isnt an issue because the 3090 chip simply gives up well before it can actually take advantage of having all that VRAM.
The RTX3060 12GB even worse....once you are in the 10GB range, that chip was already on its 5th beer in Valhalla.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
VRAM fear mongering doesnt make sense when the bottleneck is the chip not the VRAM.
I suppose that comes from last gen, since 2gb cards that released roughly at the same time as the ps4/Xone couldn't hold out properly for the rest of the gen.

I don't know how much of an equivalent we can draw here since those cards already weren't very good by default and stopped being supported rather early.
 

Wohc

Banned
No hate for the PCMR, but my reaction to 3x the cost of consoles just to match them.
Jerry Seinfeld Reaction GIF


I don't love videogames that much.
Games are cheaper, at least cheaper than PS games, and no cost for online gaming. Depending on how many games you buy each year it could be worth it. Also you have almost all PS games, all Xbox games and all the pc exclusives on one platform.
 

yamaci17

Member
A 3080 isnt going to be VRAM limited anytime before the chip itself runs out of gas.
Playing at 1440p(as the OP is) even the 8GB class cards like the 3070 and 3070Ti will have the chip give out before the VRAM does.

A few months could be near 1 year for a mid range Ada/RDNA3 GPU.
These things keep getting delayed and it looks like only the range topping cards are gonna release this year....those are gonna be 1000 dollars easy a piece....clearly outside OPs price range.

On the CPU front Zen4 is DDR5 only so its gonna cost an arm and a leg for a minimal price/perf gain over Zen3D and DDR4.
By the time Zen3D is actually a major bottleneck you can socket upgrade for a kind price cuz there will be thousands of AM5 boards and DDR5 will be pocket change.
spiderman remastered with ray tracing tells another story

chip does not give out but vram gives out

want me to prove it to you? with ps5 equivalent settings, as a matter of fact.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
that would be more of an issue if you want 4k for the long term right?
3070 runs out vram with ps5 equivalent settings at 1440p and causes performance slowdowns in spiderman remastered. i can prove it if you want to. it willhappen more frequenty as we advanced with nextgen games.

i get 85+ frames per second and once vram utilization hits that barrier, my frames go back to sub 50s. this is facts. I can prove it to you with PS5 equivalent settings. The chip DOES NOT run out of steam but VRAM does.

this "running out of the gas" argument was used for justifying 3 gb 1060 over 6 gb 1060. and look where we are today, 1060 6 gb still being a capable chip whereas 3 gb variant cannot run ultra textures, one of the most important graphical quality setting you can use FREELY if you have enough vram
 
Last edited:
DF recommended console-settings for most games can run on medium-range cpu and gpu. No need to hit 1000+ $/£/€.

And no one here asks the good questions: we know OP wants 1440p medium-high, but we don't know the framerate, nor the kind of games he intends to play (AAA, e-sports, casual gaming, etc.).

I mean, getting 30fps with console settings is something very, very achievable. Hell, even the Steam Deck can do it most of the time, since it's running at 720p or lower and 30 fps.

With the crypto-crash there are a lot of gpus running around. You could even put together a 500 machine that will play all games (with compromizes, and with the ability to upgrade the gpu once new hardware is available).

OP wants a Series X too, so: why not buying it straight away? It plays everything, has gamepass, and is cheaper than any pc you might put together.

500$ gaming rig

1000$ 4k-gaming rig
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
spiderman remastered with ray tracing tells another story
chip does not give out but vram gives out
want me to prove it to you? with ps5 equivalent settings, as a matter of fact.

Sure prove it me.

Ive seen enough benchmarks of 3080 10Gs doing 4KRT as best the chip can.
 

yamaci17

Member
Sure prove it me.

Ive seen enough benchmarks of 3080 10Gs doing 4KRT as best the chip can.
will you make excuses such as 1) port is bad 2) your system is flawed once I prove it? I want reaffirmation that you won't have excuses once I do so. will you retract what you said about me "fearmongering about vram"?
 

Guilty_AI

Member
3070 runs out vram with ps5 equivalent settings at 1440p and causes performance slowdowns in spiderman remastered. i can prove it if you want to. it willhappen more frequenty as we advanced with nextgen games.
I read those, but wasn't it because the port was artificially limiting vram use to only 80% of whatever card the player is using? Seems more like an issue with the porting philosophy Nixxes was adopting (target mid-range users and not prioritize maximum performance for high-end users. Don't use all PC resources to presumably let players do other stuff while playing)
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
spiderman remastered with ray tracing tells another story

chip does not give out but vram gives out

want me to prove it to you? with ps5 equivalent settings, as a matter of fact.
The thing is while Spiderman, death stranding etc may perform better on PS5, on other titles a 3060 will perform better. Looking at th DF video, using Alex's optimised setting you can play Spiderman on a 2060super + 3600 @ 1440p 60fps giving a very similar experience to the PS5s RT performance mode. A 3060 would probably do better then a 2060 super.
 

yamaci17

Member
I read those, but wasn't it because the port was artificially limiting vram use to only 80% of whatever card the player is using? Seems more like an issue with the porting philosophy Nixxes was adopting (target mid-range users and not prioritize maximum performance for high-end users. Don't use all PC resources to presumably let players do other stuff while playing)
I've then noticed borderlands 3 also limits itself to 6.8 GB and rdr2 ito 6.7 GB for some reason. it seems like more games did this before, just that they didn't stress vram requirements enough to a point you would notice. i've went back and tested some other games , seems like other games do this too. this is big news to me, because I originally planned I would have 7.5 7.7 gb budget (since my idle vram usage is only 300-400 mb). I was shocked to see most games hamstrunging themselves to 6.7-7 gb. this game, to 6.4 GB

it is big news, consoles can allocate nearly a complete 10 gb buffer for gpu operations. 3080 howewver will be capped out to 8.3-8.7 GB most cases. This revelation stopped me from having any beliefs about 8GB - 10 GB lasting well into the generation.
 

hinch7

Member
Anyone saying anything under $1800 for decent pc that won’t be obsolete in a week is a liar.
Not really. A moderately good PC with a mid/low end specs can play PS5/Series X games no problem. Heck even a a Steam Deck can play a lot of games from both consoles.

A PC with a modern CPU, 16GB of ram and a RX6600 could easily last you this (console) generation. Granted you won't be playing at 4K and more suited for 1080P gaming and 1440P on less demanding titles. Something like a RX 6700XT/RTX 3060Ti will easily outperform consoles when factoring in the overall system performance and amount of available memory.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
The thing is while Spiderman, death stranding etc may perform better on PS5, on other titles a 3060 will perform better. Looking at th DF video, using Alex's optimised setting you can play Spiderman on a 2060super + 3600 @ 1440p 60fps giving a very similar experience to the PS5s RT performance mode. A 3060 would probably do better then a 2060 super.
only in short bursts of play time. once you swing around a bit, 8 gb becomes a limint factor and causes huge performance slowdowns. naturally alex won't have guts to expose this. as you can see, even here people are in heavy denial even against solid evidence


watch 44:14. see how the gpu is vram constrained with ps5 equivalent ray tracing settings. once he sets textures to high (worse than ps4 in terms of texturing detail) it locks to a rock solid 60. this is solid evidence that 3060ti has the grunt the run native 1440p 60 fps. it cant do so with very high textures because it runs into VRAM limit. simple as that.

if high textures did not look hideous, I could cut it some slack. but they're hideous. they're beyond how game looks like on a ps4
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
will you make excuses such as 1) port is bad 2) your system is flawed once I prove it? I want reaffirmation that you won't have excuses once I do so. will you retract what you said about me "fearmongering about vram"?
I wont backtrack nothing.
Including that the 10GB VRAM fearmonging is nothing but VRAM fearmongering.

I've then noticed borderlands 3 also limits itself to 6.8 GB and rdr2 ito 6.7 GB for some reason. it seems like more games did this before, just that they didn't stress vram requirements enough to a point you would notice. i've went back and tested some other games , seems like other games do this too. this is big news to me, because I originally planned I would have 7.5 7.7 gb budget (since my idle vram usage is only 300-400 mb). I was shocked to see most games hamstrunging themselves to 6.7-7 gb. this game, to 6.4 GB

it is big news, consoles can allocate nearly a complete 10 gb buffer for gpu operations. 3080 howewver will be capped out to 8.3-8.7 GB most cases. This revelation stopped me from having any beliefs about 8GB - 10 GB lasting well into the generation.
The generation is like nigh literally over and the 3080s VRAM hasnt been an issue, are there outliers? Sure
If one or two game out of the thousands that have come out in Ampere generation are a "problem" and i put problem in quotation marks, could you really call the 10GB of VRAM an issue worth mentioning?
 

yamaci17

Member
I wont backtrack nothing.
Including that the 10GB VRAM fearmonging is nothing but VRAM fearmongering.


The generation is like nigh literally over and the 3080s VRAM hasnt been an issue, are there outliers? Sure
If one or two game out of the thousands that have come out in Ampere generation are a "problem" and i put problem in quotation marks, could you really call the 10GB of VRAM an issue worth mentioning?

4k+dlss quality rt benchmarks

as you can see, 10 gb is too limiting for 3080 to a point it gets nearly the same framerate as 2080ti. does this look like "ran out of steam" situation to you? clearly 3080 is capable of more.


you can see that at 1440p 3080 finds its calling. however, issue also happens at 1440p after playing the game for 10+ mins and swinging around and coming down to street level. 8 gb is simply not enough at native 1440p, even. I will prove it to you later on

 

Guilty_AI

Member
I've then noticed borderlands 3 also limits itself to 6.8 GB and rdr2 ito 6.7 GB for some reason. it seems like more games did this before, just that they didn't stress vram requirements enough to a point you would notice. i've went back and tested some other games , seems like other games do this too. this is big news to me, because I originally planned I would have 7.5 7.7 gb budget (since my idle vram usage is only 300-400 mb). I was shocked to see most games hamstrunging themselves to 6.7-7 gb. this game, to 6.4 GB

it is big news, consoles can allocate nearly a complete 10 gb buffer for gpu operations. 3080 howewver will be capped out to 8.3-8.7 GB most cases. This revelation stopped me from having any beliefs about 8GB - 10 GB lasting well into the generation.
I wonder if they do that in order to make it easier to deal with VRAM spikes, not every game does this after all, cyberpunk 2077 for example will still go for 7.5 vram usage and more on a 8gb card like the rtx 3070.
Still, it seems to be at a level that simply stops you from going ultra so the cards should still last until end-gen, and it'll also really depend on how devs in the future work on the memory allocation. If these cards are still popular a few years from now its likely games will be properly optimized for them.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, in my long "carrer" as a videogamer I've been a PC gamer, but since x360/PS3 era I started playing only on consoles. Months ago I ordered a PS5, with the intention to buy a Series X sometimes in the future too to have the full package (I've a Switch yet). Anyway, until today the PS5 still has not yet arrived and since Sony started to port their games on PC and MS already do, I was wondering if was a good idea to just buy a decent gaming PC.

I've not followed the PC hardware since very long time, so I'd like to know: how much I'd have to spend for a PC where I can play "next gen" games? I'd like something to play at 1440p/medium-high details.
You don't need to go crazy expensive for a build for that.

Really you just need a 3060 (preferably ti or 3070), 16gb ddr4, a 6 core cpu, and at least a 600 watt power supply.

At msrp the gpu will be $400, cpu, main board and ram $400, psu and hdd $100, ssd, kb and mouse add another $100 or more depending on what you want. Oh and a case. You can get a functional one for $50

That's not including monitor, headphones/speakers. A lot of cost goes down when you reuse from your old build. If starting out it cost more.

$1200 for a complete system with a 3060 card is about what I would expect to pay. You can also buy parts and hold them, then build when you have them all.

A gaming pc makes Xbox pointless.

My current Gen systems, ps5, switch, steam deck, ryzen 3600/rtx 3060ti, quest 2
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Member
I wonder if they do that in order to make it easier to deal with VRAM spikes, not every game does this after all, cyberpunk 2077 for example will still go for 7.5 vram usage and more on a 8gb card like the rtx 3070.
Still, it seems to be at a level that simply stops you from going ultra so the cards should still last until end-gen, and it'll also really depend on how devs in the future work on the memory allocation. If these cards are still popular a few years from now its likely games will be properly optimized for them.
i'm not chasing ultra. i just want ultra textures and optimized settings. look at ps4, it runs rdr2 with ultra textures but all other settings are jank. yet you can't fit ultra textures into the buffer of 2 gb gtx 770 or 3 gb 1060 despite both card being more than capable than ps4, no?

ps5 will run maximum possible textures in all nextgen games. if i already expperience this weird problem on a crossgen ray tracing game, I just shudder to think what will happen in future. Its not like I'm talking without owning a card. I myself own a 8 GB card. if this card cannot let me have ultra textures with ps5 equivalent settings, might as well let it burn.

i banked on the idea of ps5/xsx would need 10 gb buffer for 4k and 8 gb buffer would be enough for 1440p max textures. seems like it wont be the case. they dont bother making special textures for lower end gpus either, as you can see, high textures look like SHIT. literal SHIT.

 
Last edited:

Hoddi

Member
I wont backtrack nothing.
Including that the 10GB VRAM fearmonging is nothing but VRAM fearmongering.


The generation is like nigh literally over and the 3080s VRAM hasnt been an issue, are there outliers? Sure
If one or two game out of the thousands that have come out in Ampere generation are a "problem" and i put problem in quotation marks, could you really call the 10GB of VRAM an issue worth mentioning?
8GB is already pushing it at 1080p according to these RenderDoc captures. Tools like Afterburner can be fairly misleading because they usually only report physical VRAM in use and not what has been moved over into system RAM. People have mentioned SM having a fairly high load on the PCIe bus and it could be a cause.

Edit: I should also stress that this is without RT as RenderDoc doesn’t support the feature.

1080p

Stats for Spider-Man_2022.08.13_23.33.29_frame4695.rdc.

File size: 2419.59MB (4263.81MB uncompressed, compression ratio 1.76:1)
Persistent Data (approx): 327.00MB, Frame-initial data (approx): 3923.75MB

*** Summary ***

Draw calls: 6289
Dispatch calls: 106
API calls: 63350
API: Draw/Dispatch call ratio: 9.90618

1678 Textures - 1755.53 MB (1755.38 MB over 32x32), 96 RTs - 413.00 MB.
Avg. tex dimension: 804.176x762.843 (832.254x789.798 over 32x32)
3698 Buffers - 5397.80 MB total 898.22 MB IBs 805.28 MB VBs.
7566.33 MB - Grand total GPU buffer + texture load.

4k

Stats for Spider-Man_2022.08.13_16.28.12_frame14894.rdc.

File size: 2893.82MB (5064.99MB uncompressed, compression ratio 1.75:1)
Persistent Data (approx): 175.07MB, Frame-initial data (approx): 4871.66MB

*** Summary ***

Draw calls: 7158
Dispatch calls: 138
API calls: 69741
API: Draw/Dispatch call ratio: 9.5588

2386 Textures - 1799.89 MB (1799.59 MB over 32x32), 129 RTs - 1203.65 MB.
Avg. tex dimension: 690.992x665.378 (709.994x684.157 over 32x32)
4404 Buffers - 6326.40 MB total 898.22 MB IBs 805.28 MB VBs.
9329.94 MB - Grand total GPU buffer + texture load.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
i'm not chasing ultra. i just want ultra textures and optimized settings. look at ps4, it runs rdr2 with ultra textures but all other settings are jank. yet you can't fit ultra textures into the buffer of 2 gb gtx 770 or 3 gb 1060 despite both card being more than capable than ps4, no?

ps5 will run maximum possible textures in all nextgen games. if i already expperience this weird problem on a crossgen ray tracing game, I just shudder to think what will happen in future. Its not like I'm talking without owning a card. I myself own a 8 GB card. if this card cannot let me have ultra textures with ps5 equivalent settings, might as well let it burn.
But you yourself said performance on spiderman would've been the expected one if the game was properly using the resources availables. I think you're overreacting here.

Its also worth mentioning the developing tools for these new consoles are similar to the previous gen according to devs, so games should be already displaying a good deal of their capabilities. Any improvements from now will be thanks to new tech like Nanite.

On the other hand, if you're correct it'd be extremely weird seeing rtx 3060s outperforming or perfoming equally to rtx 3070s and 3080s in the future.
 
Last edited:

TintoConCasera

Gold Member
Anyone saying anything under $1800 for decent pc that won’t be obsolete in a week is a liar.
I bought a pretty good PC (5800x + 3070) for that price one or two years ago. I'd say tht, for what the OP is asking, 1000 or 1200 should be enough.

For what he's asking I'd say a 2070 is enough. That'd get him through all games no problem (okay maybe not at ultramax, but he doesn't want to) and he always can replace it in a year or two once the 40XX are out. I'm not tech savvy so sorry if this sounds dumb, but if were him that'd be what I'd do.

Also... Obsolete how? Modern games have been looking the same for years, can't see modern decent PCs getting obsolete any time soon.
 

yamaci17

Member
But you yourself said performance on spiderman would've been the expected one if the game was properly using the resources availables. I think you're overreacting here.

Its also worth mentioning the developing tools for these new consoles are similar to the previous gen according to devs, so games should be already displaying a good deal of their capabilities. Any improvements from now will be thanks to new tech like Nanite.
we will see how 10 gb cards perform at native 1440p. i'd stay away from them. yes i m overreacting because i dont want others to do the same mistake I did. nextgen will see 16 gb 4070, 12 gb 4060 as baseline. when i gloss over old forums, i see peopel reassuring others that " 2 gb 770 would be fine, it destroys ps4". fast foward to 2017, it cant even run ac unity properly without using medium textures which is a far cry from ps4
 
Top Bottom