28
I've found DLSS 5 can slash frame rates by up to 73% on an RTX 5080 gaming PC in NBA 2K27, and I'm wondering what kind of mega-rig would justify the performance hit (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/pcmasterrace@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

It might be worth it for titles that can run at 180 fps+ on your rig. Out of curiosity, i'd like to see what it does with e.g. GTA San Andreas or Witcher 2.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    See this is the part I don't understand. I will turn literally every graphic setting down until I hit 120+ fps. Playing at anything less feels choppy and distracting, regardless of visual quality.

    Am I really that far in the minority here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You are kinda in the minority, I'm guessing you play mostly FPS games where framerate is king. Normally I agree, but there's something to be said for cranking games to max settings and enjoying 60-90fps. I play Cyberpunk maxed even though I don't get over 100.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I aim at a stable 60-90 Fps (which goes well with my 180Hz Monitor + Vsync) , while cranking up the visuals as far as i can, normally starting with max and then slowly inching backwards if needed. I don't like it if my textures get muddy, or shadows look like crap - or even worse, Pop-in and LOD shenanigans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Pop-in is pretty distracting for me too. That is generally the last thing I'll change for framerate. Hell, I'll take a resolution downgrade before I sacrifice framerate or pop-in

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Yeah, pop-in is the worst of all experiences.

    I did not pay a shitton of my meager income to play with low details lol - and i started playing pc games on 286, matching the eternal upgrade cycle until a few years ago, so i am no stranger to reducing details to achieve better frame rates. Anything below 60 fps is only acceptable in very specific circumstances, as in "i'm on the go and want to save battery on my steam deck", although since i acquired lossless scaling (lsfg-vk) i tend to use it for framegen from 30 to 60 on the deck. Its not as high fidelity as pure 60fps, but it uses a lot less battery and the quality loss isn't super obvious on the small display anyways.. 60-90 is ok for stuff like turn based strategy on my main rig, because i don't see any reason for raising my power bill in this case. 90+ is for anything action oriented - 90 is 1/2 Vsync on my monitor, so if i can't reach the full 180 fps on max detail, i simply limit it there and call it a day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    I do the same thing but then I also limit my framerate on most games because I've been playing on a potato laptop that overheats and crashes.. and I don’t really play games where amazing framerate matters, tho 1-5 fps is still painful. Looking at you, whiskerwood, where I can get a max of 20fps on a brand new game.

    I now have rebuilt my gaming pc, and it can run cyberpunk at max settings with no issues, but damn if the laptop isn’t more convenient most of the time.. I’ll still probably turn all the settings way way down because IDGAF. Grew up on 8bit, lived through low-poly, have low standards.

    (I rebuilt it so I could get my rimworld colonies comfortably to 100 pawns, but I’m sure I’ll use it for other stuff!)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent