You can't get high frame rates with path tracing and 4K. It just doesn't happen.
You need to enable DLSS and frame gen to get 100fps with more complete ray and path tracing implementations.
People might be getting upset because the 4090 is WAY more power than games need, but there are games that try and make use of that power and are actually limited by the 4090.
Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native resolution.
Now many might say that's just a ridiculous ask, but that's what GP was talking about here. There's no way you'd get more than 10-15fps (if that) with path tracing at 8K.
> Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native resolution.
Cyberpunk native 4k + path tracing gets sub-20fps on a 4090 for anyone unfamiliar with how demanding this is. Nvidia's own 5090 announcement video showcased this as getting a whopping... 28 fps: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff...
> Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway
I’m sure some will disagree with this but most PC gamers I talk to want to be at 90FPS minimum. I’d assume if you’re spending $1600+ on a GPU you’re pretty particular about your experience.
You can also save tons of money by combining used GPUs from two generations ago with a patientgamer lifestyle without needing to resort to suffering 30fps
I’m sure you could do N64 style graphics at 120Hz on an iGPU with modern hardware, hahaha. I wonder if that would be a good option for competitive shooters.
I don’t really mind low frame rates, but latency is often noticeable and annoying. I often wonder if high frame rates are papering over some latency problems in modern engines. Buffering frames or something like that.
Doom 2016 at 1080p with a 50% resolution scale (so, really, 540p) can hit 120 FPS on an AMD 8840U. That's what I've been doing on my GPD Win Mini, except that I usually cut the TDP down to 11-13W, where it's hitting more like 90-100 FPS. It looks and feels great!
Personally I've yet to see a ray tracing implementation that I would sacrifice 10% of my framerate for, let alone 30%+. Most of the time, to my tastes, it doesn't even look better, it just looks different.
> Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway
Uhhhhhmmmmmm....what are you smoking?
Almost no one is playing competitive shooters and such at 4k. For those games you play at 1080p and turn off lots of eye candy so you can get super high frame rates because that does actually give you an edge.
People playing at 4k are doing immersive story driven games and consistent 60fps is perfectly fine for that, you don't really get a huge benefit going higher.
People that want to split the difference are going 1440p.
Anyone playing games would benefit from higher frame rate no matter their case. Of course it's most critical for competitive gamers, but someone playing a story driven FPS at 4k would still benefit a lot from framerates higher than 60.
For me, I'd rather play a story based shooter at 1440p @ 144Hz than 4k @ 60Hz.
You seem to be assuming that the only two buckets are "story-driven single player" and "PvP multiplayer", but online co-op is also pretty big these days. FWIW I play online co-op shooters at 4K 60fps myself, but I can see why people might prefer higher frame rates.
Games other than esports shooters and slow paced story games exist, you know. In fact, most games are in this category you completely ignored for some reason.
Also nobody is buying a 4090/5090 for a "fine" experience. Yes 60fps is fine. But better than that is expected/desired at this price point.
Not when you turn on ray tracing.
Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway