crispy4000

Like I've already said, not to the same levels as the X1X resorts to. Most of the games that don't average to 60fps at max settings on the 2080ti are only a few frames off the mark. (ex: MH World @ 59fps, Shadow of the Tomb Raider @ 56fps : source) They'll still look much better than X1X quality if you have to drop a setting or two, marginally, to reach 4k60. The X1X just isn't running those same games at a native 4k on average (at 30fps), even with settings dialed back from PC ultra. MHW, for example, sits at 1728p and reduces shadow detail, ambient occlusion quality, etc. If you're going to call that a 4k30 machine, as you did, this damn well should be considered a 4k60 card. All I'm asking is for you to be consistent. Ghost Recon: Wildlands comes closest to being an exception, afaik. At 4k ultra, it only manages 47fps on average on the 2080ti. You'd have to dial back settings to very high, which reaches 65fps. That's not insubstantial. But neither is playing it at 1800p30 on the X1X with similar, if not more extensive cut backs. It's probably just a case of Ubisoft making PC ultra settings more intensive than most.

Also, big update on the orchestral track thing: I'm so happy the PC port exists.

Free form feels slower, even if it isn't, because it looks less dynamic. I switched to classic after the first few battles and never looked back.

lol, the only person who put piece of kit in quotations is you, in this reply. Do a page search. I also never said you explicitly thought the 2080 Ti was a bad card. Just that you've contradicted yourself. To X1X levels for intensive games, no. Not likely to be the same sacrifices. I was mentioned in the response too, and wanted to clarify there was more to our disagreement than a semantics debate. Besides, this is a message board. People jump in and out of other's conversations and take sides all the time.

So you're resorting to ad homenims now. Great. And no, the sacrifices 2080ti owners may make to get consistent 40k60 in some titles will, typically, not be the same as those X1X owners often see to hit 30fps at 4k-ish.

Hit the nail on the head. I'll reiterate one thing this doesn't touch on. He said "if 4k 30fps is acceptable, might as well save money and get an Xbone X." Technically, it's still hit or miss for reaching 4k on average (particularly in 3rd party titles). No biggie in itself, and typically something I'd brush past by since its still ballpark to 4k most often. But then he insisted that the RTX 2080ti isn't a 4k60 piece of kit unless it can do both 4k and 60fps consistently at PC's ultra settings. That double standard is another big reason why his 'firm' stance makes little sense. He hasn't applied it consistently. Not for new rendering effects. And not to last year's new console either.

I'd say it's a 4k60 card. Just not one that will always run that way under maxed out settings. And honestly, if you think it needs qualification, then what about the X1X being a 4K30 machine? Many AAA games on it don't even hit a 4K resolution on average, or resort to reconstruction.

Don't know for that one yet, but for most games, that's not true. Check Digital Foundry's latest Shadow of the Tomb Raider comparison between X and PC.

At 1080p. Newfagled rendering techniques and higher resolutions come at a cost.

How do you think the Xbox One X runs games (close to) 4k30fps? It's not PC ultra settings, that's for sure. I'll still call that a 4k30 console, the same as I'll call this a 4k60 card.

Welcome to PC gaming. I mean, fuck, what you do think raytracing is.

Yes, it is, if the moments scaling kicks in aren't frequent. Or could be easily avoided by reducing other settings marginally. Which is what looks to be the case.

Of course I'm reading, lol. Every game that's been tested is least ballpark 60fps at high/very high/ultra settings, or could be easily be brought there with some minor tweaks and dynamic resolution scaling for heavy sections. That's good enough to call it a 4k60 card, IMO.

Was Inafune responsible for giving them Dead Rising? Just curious.

AMD? Aren't we talking Nvidia? Oh, I see, I didn't specify RTX. Stupid gfx lingo. The TI card makes sense if you're wanting to spend $1000+ for: - 4k 60fps for new games in the next ~2 years. - 4k 30fps for next-gen games. - Option to play at lower res/fps if you really want raytracing. That's the investment. My biggest issue with it is the price. Unlike the X, you should be able to use it for next-gen games.

Counterpoint: Some of the best kart racers of that era, like CTR and Diddy Kong racing, are absolutely worth revisiting.

Like any gen, some NES games have aged better than others. Kirby's Adventure is one of the highlights, for sure: I also think SMB3 and most of the Megamans hold up very well.

To that edit: Buying a $500 console for 2, maybe 3 years of use isn't saving money in my book. You might as well just get the low end RX card. Or better yet, put that money in the bank until price cuts or something better worth spending it on.

Console generations.

I usually buy 1 card per gen. So I look at it from that angle. This gen is winding down.

Not all that surprising. If current gen games can barely manage that, you can bet next gen games won't. Still might be good for 4k 30fps though for future titles. I'll wait to see what the consoles offer by comparison.

Totally agree. The PS1's library was huge. You could find several dozen games that have aged well enough to deserve inclusion. My worry is actually that they'll pick games of semi-'significance' over sleepers that are worth revisiting. Also, I don't think there's any excuse not to up the resolution from PS1 native. Or at least to give the option. It looked like those games were untouched.

Something to do with Europe apparently

Last I played it was the PC demo back in 2015. It relied pretty heavy on mouse aiming. So actually I'm thinking PC could be the way to go. Portability is nice too though.

Game is supposed to be fantastic. I had no idea it was releasing this week. Consoles too, at some point.