whats the weakest gpu that could still run all the games you ACTUALLY play?
>>746085304rx 480. It's what I have now, it works enough
>>746085304Whatever can emulate PS2 well
Probably the 1060 or 1650 super I have stored somewhere. The 1080 for sure can.
I don't want to think about that. Anything under 80 fps and I start to get itchy.
>>746085304GTX 750ti 2GB.
>>746085436Emulation is CPU heavy.
>>746085304none. I was going to say my GTX 1060 but that can't run doom the dark ages.
>>7460853042070 OR 3070 4k AIN'T NO JOKE
>>7460853047900 xtx. It's my current gpu and alrdy struggling. No it's not a RT problem. So basically I'm fucked.
>>746086068Bro your warranty?
using a 1070 ti right now
Probably a 970
gtx 1070good enough for the re4 remake
>>746085436you can do that with integrated graphics
>>746085304Integrated will do.
>>746085304My onboard graphics of my 9700X can run most of the games I play
>>7460853041080ti plays all modern stuff at 1080p 30fps
>>746085304750ti
>>746086121What warranty got to do with it? Rendering unoptimised shit twice is just a thing no card can rly do in 2026. Only step up would be a 5090... I technically could afford a 6k gfx card. But I won't if the jump isn't at least double to what it would be now.
>>746085304The one I have right now (I need an upgrade)
RX580, probably. I changed to RX 7600, but basically I'm playing the same games as before, just with higher settings/framerates.
I still use GTX 980
>>746085304still have a 970, still have a 660 and a 650. The question is are there games that could justify people not buying these for virtually nothing and not having fun?
>>746085304RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell
My gtx 1080 mini is pretty good, it's like 10 years old now, maybe I'll get something next year but I hate this trend of oversized GPUs, mini itx should've been the standard long ago not this bracket GPU pillar shit that self destructs and uses as much power as an entire kitchen
>>7460870961070 is much better and still very cheap plus it runs cooler
>>7460853041650 super>played BG3 with it>played Cyberpunk 2077 with it>played Jagged Alliance 3 with it
>>746086668does playing in 4k really up the gaming enjoyment tho? Ort is it a case of you have played games with it and you can't go without it? In other words if you have a flight sim and you play in 4k but someone plays that exact game at 1440p or 1080p and they enjoy it as much as you is the 4k making you more happy? The same argument for movies, watch something at the cinema, but 2k or 4k - the latter in IMAX. Is the movie actually better in IMAX if it's the same movie? How about watching the same movie at home on a large screen TV gain either in 2k or 4k? I don't actually think making a movie in 4k makes it more enjoyable, you can't improve the story - only details. In some ways it can make it worse and games with more realistic graphic look shit because the movement, physics cannot match - they stay like video games. Flight sims, racing sims may be the exception because they strive for realism in all areas - but enjoyment has limits unless you offer something more.
>>746087151yeh but I bought a 970 second-hand a while ago because the 660 was getting too old (I bought that 2nd hand as well). Then I moved "up" to a2070 and now have a 5060ti 16gb - the first card I bought new because I wanted a faster card with more Vram for AI. AI genning is actual pushing people to buy more expensive cards far more than gaming. People can run games pretty well on cards with lower VRAM, not so with AI.
>>746087398>does playing in 4k really up the gaming enjoyment tho?yes
>>746085304"Run" is subjective. My 4090 doesn't run EVERY game I play at a performance level I consider enough.
>>746087398yes and noplaying at 4k and downscaling to 1080 allow you to not use terrible AA which makes every game look like you have vaseline in your eyes
>>746087543more detail showing up the limitations which less detail can help to hide. This also applies to AI genning, people strive to use 5090's or 6000 Pros to make ultra high resolution video gens. You notice more faults tho, the continuity errors on longer gens. Back to games the movement stays very video gamey, the visuals look good but it can't improve the physics and running at a high FPS won't make any difference whatsoever. There is also the issue of realism in video games, the realism get's closer but starts to detach from the video game origins and it starts to get into the AI slop area rather than being good art which videos games can be.
>>746087660I put that down to video games now putting too much in instead of saying "this is a video game, it isn't supposed to look like real life". The movement cannot match real life, the physics can't so why even go for the realism look at all? I would prefer games with a good art style over games striving for realism and needing $5k graphics cards to run them - you are still playing the same game over someone with a $500 PC set up.
GTX 1080
>>746087928AA has nothing to do with realism nigga
>>746087398Yes, I play on a big 120 oled. I wouldn't on something smaller 1440p is great for monitor size. But 4k isn't even the problem. I can run that allright. The problem is that flat2vr stuff and basically rendering it twice even while using foveated rendering. 8k headsets... cool, I want one but I can't run one.
>>746085304750 ti, well i actually ended up build most of my pc library around it. built a system with a 9070 xt only to bounce off of the newer game i played with it.
>>746087997The games that you have no control over that are published are however. What you look for to iron like how straight the edges are nothing when the actual game has been made to strive for more realism. So, you up everything which will include more detail but you are still left with something in the uncanny valley tier. Video games with art that knows when to stop before that happens is the key issue. Games that go for a more photorealistic visual will get that strange AI slop look to them. This is why so many AAA games now are slop.
>>746085304Probably just a CPU only
>>746085304>have 4080 super>only play minesweeper 15 minutes a day
I only play crosswords
>>7460853041660 super is my old reliable
>>746085304The one on the switch 2, because I only play there recently
>>746086314Also have that card. Can you seriously run that on it? I always thought I couldnt
my old 480 just to make sure but probably a 460
>>746085304maybe 1070 if you avoid UE5 games. UE5 games... you might want at least a 30-series.
GTX 960 2GB. I have it in my 2016 computer I use as a console hooked up to TV. Runs everything from 2010s and earler except it can't emulate PS3 or Xbox360 well. It runs Morrowind modded to hell and back, but it chugs with Vintage Story.
An RX 6600, I suppose.
Holy shit the amount of poorfags ITT is insane lmao
my RX580 ran the Oblivion remaster which surprised meI can't believe how well it has held up
>>746090984it's a thread about shit cards
>>746085304I think a 1060 6gb, i only play helldivers 2 and gears of war 5.
I have my ati 5770 installed in my arcade machine, so i guess that one
I've been thinking of upgrading, but thus far my 3060ti has managed to do everything I've wanted to play at 60 fps. This includes Stellar Blade, Atomic Heart and Pragmata. Of course a lot of less demanding games as well. I don't think I'm interested in any upcoming game that would actually put a serious strain on my card. Of course I can't play them at max graphics, but I'm not going to upgrade just to have raytracing in everything. I could max out both Diana's and Eve's hair, so my 3060ti is still more than enough for me.
>>746085665gigabased
>>746085304I do not think played anything yet that my gtx 980 wasn't able to run in worse quality and with more noise.>5080ti since last year
