The success of AAA games is supported by their large-scale production and marketing efforts.
The success of AAA games is supported by their large-scale production and marketing efforts.
We're facing a situation where many XX90 fans are insisting on maintaining a 60 fps benchmark. The 4090 was originally promoted as a high-performance 4K gaming GPU, yet certain newer titles achieve around 20 fps without relying on upscaling or frame generation. That's quite surprising. Why are we compromising so much? This isn't reasonable, particularly given the $4000–$5000 price tag for a 4090. Of course, you can convince yourself you're getting a solid deal by playing at settings others can barely handle. But if you keep accepting whatever Nvidia demands, the MSRP for the 6090 could jump to $5000, and the discounted version might end up near $10,000.
After switching off upscaling, enjoy Alan Wake 2 with path tracing turned on. You'll see a solid 24 fps. The same goes for Cyberpunk—push settings to their limit, including path tracing, and witness your impressive 16 fps. That’s not about optimization; these titles don’t improve much enough to warrant the lower frame rates. Cyberpunk even suffers more, as Ray Reconstruction causes blurry, noisy visuals with an exaggerated cartoon feel, particularly on characters. It’s up to modders to make path tracing functional in both performance and quality.
Take Doom 2016, Doom Eternal, or recent Resident Evil titles—they still shine visually but run much smoother. If a game looks good, I don’t mind if it relies on ray tracing. But if you’re aiming for 60 fps on a high-end GPU, you need to invest in better tools. The new monster hunter example shows this clearly: a 3060 at medium settings with DLSS only manages about 40 fps while appearing terrible.
You’re suggesting stop discussing forums and focus on upgrading your hardware. That’s reasonable. If you truly want to hit 60 fps, it’s worth the effort. The alternative is accepting lower performance for a cheaper price tag.
Dev developers should prioritize optimization so players don’t have to spend thousands just to get decent frames. I’m not saying they should sacrifice visual quality in hard-to-see areas—those are optional. These features are nice extras, but they shouldn’t be essential for playability.
The $600 price tag on a used 4090 is a great deal. It shows you’re aware of value. Many buyers are willing to pay less for reliable performance. Your attitude toward money and quality is clear—this isn’t just about personal taste.
Nvidia’s dominance raises concerns, but it’s not the only issue. Competitors like Asus sell high-end GPUs at much lower prices, yet still face stock shortages. It seems some companies prioritize profit over accessibility.
Steam stands out as a consumer-friendly platform, unlike Nvidia’s more restrictive approach. The company’s power is balanced with customer support, not just sales tactics.
From my perspective, this isn’t just about individual choices—it reflects broader market issues. If you’re satisfied with what you have, that’s fine. But if you expect constant upgrades and premium pricing, it’s time to reassess.
Initially, poor optimizations are problematic... right? Have you noticed the enhanced Witcher 3 in 4K with ray tracing and its frame rate? Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 offers a vast world that appears stunning. Tomb Raider could have improved character models, but mainly because its settings are much more compact than the latter. We still need several high-end GPUs before we witness realistic visuals at 4K for these kinds of titles.
My earnings have grown significantly over the past five years. I've managed to keep pace with inflation effectively. Nonetheless, you seem to believe that just because some of us here have thousands of posts we don’t have a life. I could afford a 5090 even with today’s high prices. That doesn’t mean I will. I still think it’s too costly for its value.