Ehh gonna have too disagree with that. 4k looks way better then 1440p imo, even at like 100 fps only. Sadly its something you just cant show on youtube or something but it has too be seen irl. Depends on alot of factors too ofc like good screen and so on.
Yeah, it will all be subjective in the end. I've seen it, first-hand, many times. My point, though, is that if I'm into a game -- especially an action game that focuses on fast movements and quick response times -- the enjoyment of the game itself is not going to be dictated by how beautiful the graphics are. (That's why there are a lot of games with incredible graphics that that people just don't like very much, and plenty of excellent games have little in the way of graphical realism.)
And when it comes to 4K gaming
as it exists now, we're splitting hairs. Don't get me wrong, I still say that 4K is the future of gaming. I still argue that when it becomes standard, it will revolutionize what can be accomplished graphically.
But we're not there,
yet. And for what is available
now, along with what can be reasonably expected in the foreseeable future...there's exactly zero reason for anyone to spend $1500 on
just the GPU. Almost everything in the next 5 or so years is going to be built around the 1440p to 2K range. In fact, the utterly ridiculous price tag on the 4090 is more or less guaranteeing that, since the only the vast minority of gamers are going to be willing or able to buy one.
AMD's specs, their performance, their voltage, and the simple size of their card is leaps and bounds more sensible and reasonable. I mean, even if their performance falls way short of the 4000 series, the simple lack of accessibility that Nvidia just introduced probably handed AMD a clean win. But, the sales will tell.
Yea i kinda agree atleast, the 7900xtx isent targeting the 4090 tho its a 4080 competitor that has around the same power draw. 320-350w (reference models, the AIB seem too go for 450w on the 7950xtx for more FPS ofc) i think. releases next week so no clue yet about witch is faster, AMD is a bit cheaper im guessing. Most people defenitly dont need a 4090 i fully agree. if you wanna game at 4k with maxed settings and perhaps do some rendering/ai its the better choice. Atleast untill the 4090ti comes out (supposed too have even more memory and a fully unlocked core)
I'd love to play at 4K! But I'm not paying close to two grand USD to do it. I promise those games will be just as engaging at much, much smaller resolutions. And they'll still look incredible.
Sorry in advance for my "unadvised" opinion, but I don't get the comparison between Nvidia 4090 and RX 7900
Because for me, both have clearly a different goal and aim a different market. With the 4090, Nvidia showcase what they're capable off, "no matter" the price, affordable only for those who can. Unlike RX 7900 which are designed to aim a larger public.
Sounds like you're getting it, exactly. It is weird, though, since this is the first time the two have not tried to directly compete with performance output. It does seem that AMD simply ignored Nvidia's "power play" and went: "Riiiiiight... Anyway! Here's a card that will drastically increase performance for what's on the market right now, provide excellent high-end future-proofing, and it's about half the cost. Plus, you can use it with your existing builds. You decide!"
Unusual, since AMD didn't try to "answer" the 4090...they just kinda dismissed it and offered their own, more incremental upgrade.
