Hello all,

I have a question for you all who love the 5090 and have or will upgrade from the 4090.

If you have a smooth 60FPS with total Ultra settings in MSFS, what is the difference between them if you get 200FPS.

Is there some sort of discernable difference? Is it tangible or imagination. 

I have an AMD system (CPU and GPU) and with all settings in VR maxed out I get an amazing 28-35 FPS in VR, but it is silky smooth and the graphics are amazing. Admittedly I am using Quest 2, but in reality I would really only contemplate upgrading to 4090 or 5090  if I wanted to go to 8k resolution in VR.

I acknowledge that my system may be somewhat inadequate for that. Am I being naive or just being too financially practical.  

Regards to all

Tony

16 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

If you have a smooth 60FPS with total Ultra settings in MSFS, what is the difference between them if you get 200FPS.

Is there some sort of discernable difference? Is it tangible or imagination. 

I explained an answer to this a few posts above, it is on page 3 of this topic. 

Edited January 22, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

17 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I explained an answer to this a few posts above, it is on page 3 of this topic. 

Sorry mate, I missed that.

cheers

Tony

11 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

Sorry mate, I missed that.

cheers

Tony

also check out 

 

16 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

The problem is that it now puts the onus less on devs to optimise games that properly take advantage of raster in favour of putting the Onus on your GPU, specifically DLSS. So now we're getting specification sheets that say 4k60fps** with the asterisk being using multi frame generation.

But this is a developer problem and not a GPU technology problem.

14 hours ago, Allard said:

If a stable 50 FPS is required for frame generation to work properly I wonder if we actually need FG for (flight)sims

No one said that stable 50FPS is needed. The current limit for properly working FG is 30.

3 minutes ago, Farlis said:

No one said that stable 50FPS is needed. The current limit for properly working FG is 30.

Not really, developers of frame generation recommend 40+ as a minimum. 30 will give artefacts. In fact, 60 frames is the ideal requirement, to avoid noticeable artefacts all together. 

5 minutes ago, Farlis said:

But this is a developer problem and not a GPU technology problem.

Does it matter? Ultimately the option is presented by Nvidia which bean counters then opt to use instead of granting devs the time needed to properly optimize a game. This results in pushing unfinished games in a quicker manner which ultimately provides me and every other gamer who doesn't buy the latest and greatest GPU with a game that performs poorly because it can't function without up-scaling.

It is a GPU technology problem. The cards are not more powerful, Nvidia employs deceptive marketing to give the impression these cards are something that they're not. Gone are the days of when people got genuinely excited for a GTX release like a 1080

13 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

the days of when people got genuinely excited for a GTX release like a 1080

or in my case, a 4090

18 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

The cards are not more powerful,

Yes they are. You need to forget the idea that GPU power is purely dependant on what it can actually compute. You need to include what the RTX cores can do.

15 hours ago, fakeflyer737 said:

I cannot wait to unload my old, useless and cheap  4090 to one of you peasants.
 

 

Any takers?  

I cant wait for you to buy a 5090ti only to find it makes no odds to the bugs in  ms2024 

32 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Yes they are. You need to forget the idea that GPU power is purely dependant on what it can actually compute. You need to include what the RTX cores can do.

RTX Cores do nothing for improving the performance, they improve how well it can upscale and generate frames. They do nothing to help with base frames. If you're base frames remain the same then no you're not getting improved performance. You then focus on doubling fps without improving your 1% lows resulting in increased latency and artifacting because you're ultimately stuck dealing with your base frames.

40 minutes ago, turbomax said:

or in my case, a 4090

This was a superb card just prohibitively expensive

54 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

RTX Cores do nothing for improving the performance, they improve how well it can upscale and generate frames. They do nothing to help with base frames. If you're base frames remain the same then no you're not getting improved performance. You then focus on doubling fps without improving your 1% lows resulting in increased latency and artifacting because you're ultimately stuck dealing with your base frames.

You are missing the point: There is no such thing as base performance any longer. DLSS is the future and has to be included in any metric that looks at performance. 

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

 DLSS is the future 

so was cloud based gaming, and look how that turned out 🙂 

Edited January 22, 20251 yr by fluffyflops