Future expectations versus current efficiency.
Future expectations versus current efficiency.
I discovered early on that "Ultra" presets don't match the maximum performance. It wasn't just limited to Witcher's hair effects. This issue became obvious with Dragon Age: Inquisition. I was genuinely impressed when my dual 960s (laugh out loud) reached 99fps at 1080p. After checking the settings, I noticed some weren't pushed to their limits, so I adjusted them. The game felt noticeably improved but also significantly slower. Thinking it might be overreaction, I ran a benchmark. With max settings, I only achieved 53fps. Switching from "Ultra" to full maximum dropped my frame rate in half. I didn't purchase a 120Hz monitor to run at 53fps, nor did I buy dual 960s to force lower settings at 1080p. I had to reconsider my choices. I messaged the community and searched for better GPU options online. Amidst all the buzz about 4K, 1440p and 144Hz displays, I felt 1080p was the lower end for PC gaming, below what "enthusiast" GPUs like the 980, 980 Ti, and Titan X could handle. I was surprised to see that titles such as Witcher 3, DA:I, and Assassins Creed: Unity struggled to hit 60fps even with maximum settings on 1080p. Are these games really that demanding compared to most others, or are they just not optimized for PC and missing out on hardware potential? What do you all think?
Consoles dominate the market. At my school, only the "nerds" (they're cool) play on PC. Regular folks don't and won't pay attention to a GTX 980TI or a R9 Fury X. When it functions, looks decent, and gets buzzed about; sales follow. Game studios often favor PC gamers. DX12 can help with some tweaks, but companies like Ubisoft should stop trying to please everyone and deliver what's right.
Likely poor PC optimization. This appears to be a common issue. Improve the console version and let the PC community handle it.
Occasionally you'll encounter folks who believe a single high-end GPU like the R9 390x, 780, 780 Ti, 970, 980, Fury X, Titan X, 980 Ti are unnecessary for 1080p gaming. That's a misconception. Some games, even if not perfectly optimized, can still struggle with such configurations and drop below the typical 60 FPS mark when you push every setting and enable MSAA (or other alternatives like FXAA). If you aim for 60 FPS consistently across all titles at 1080p with maximum settings and advanced anti-aliasing, you'll likely need a setup like SLI 780/970 or higher. However, it's not worth the investment for most games, which can run smoothly on a single high-end GPU. Keep in mind these are average frame rates, not the absolute minimums.
Many believe they deserve a card that always functions perfectly...but it simply doesn<|pad|>, it never holds up.
The top choice seems to be GTA V, though it needed a year to adapt for PC. Should companies follow this path? I believe the effort is worthwhile. I enjoy RPGs. What sparked this discussion is that my current system crashes at 1080p, except for the games I actually want to play. Can we expect similar results from upcoming RPGs like Mass Effect 4? Is it worth pushing our hardware to achieve smooth frames in these titles, or could DX12 fix some optimization problems?
DX12 will clearly assist, but the extent depends on each developer's skill with the new API. Similar to DX11, it’s likely only a few games will adopt it, specifically those where creators feel justified in releasing versions for PC on DX9 and DX12. Regarding upgrading for games your current setup can’t support, yes—upgrade is possible. The best moment is shortly after a major card release. The 980ti was released at the end of May, so it’s still a good idea to get one. The next-gen cards should arrive sometime next year, probably around Q2. If your games need higher FPS and your GPU is struggling, it’s worth upgrading.