How quickly some of you write off 60fps+ off. That's double the fillrate right there.
Trying to hold a steady 60 FPS always seems like it requires a lot more than simply double the GPU power.
Things like CPU speed and memory bandwidth start to play a far bigger role for one thing.
I can easily run many games at a perfect 4K30 on my system (GTX 1070, 2500K@4.5GHz) but then it will struggle to hold a solid 1080p60.
A lot of PC-specific graphical options are very demanding too.
Things like increased ambient occlusion quality can be massive performance hits but something like that is not likely to demo well in a YouTube video.
A lot of very high/ultra settings are things which look subtle in isolation but add up to really making the image look a lot more refined.
It seems like developers just sometimes throw these options in because some day in the future you will be able to turn them all on without worrying about the performance, rather than intending for people to use them now.
I'm still surprised that Richard used the temporal filtering option in WD2 though.
I can run the game at native 4K at a solid 30 FPS on my system with a mixture of settings from high to ultra.
I would think that their system could handle native 4K60 without having to resort to the temporal filtering.
It really hurts image quality as soon as you start to move the camera. Edges get a sawtooth appearance not too dissimilar to an interlaced display.
It's a shame they don't also include a more typical TAA option like most new games are using now. NVIDIA's TXAA is a massive performance hit, and results in weird image artifacting at times.
Only twice as fast? but much more than twice the price I'd imagine? I wonder how many 480's I'd be able to buy for the price of one titan X......
No-one ever said that high-end hardware was good value. That's not the point of it.
Just look at the number of CUDA Cores any given NVIDIA GPU has versus how much it costs.
- Titan XP:  3584 cores, $1200. $0.33/core.
- GTX 1080: 2560 cores, $699.  $0.27/core.
- GTX 1070: 1920 cores, $449.  $0.23/core.
- GTX 1060: 1280 cores, $299.  $0.23/core.
- 1050 Ti:    768 cores, $139.  $0.18/core.
So if you're looking at
value, you would buy a 1050 Ti - or perhaps a discounted last-gen card.
But value doesn't mean anything if the card doesn't offer the performance that you want.
And it doesn't account for the fact that a higher-end card could last you longer if you don't intend on replacing it immediately.
High-end PC gaming isn't for everybody.
PC gaming isn't for everybody.
If you just care about being able to play the games without much consideration for performance or image quality, a console is probably going to win on "value" most of the time.
Value doesn't mean anything to me when gaming at 30 FPS with a low FoV makes me nauseous.
I've always gone for mid-range parts like the GTX 1070 and i5 CPUs instead of i7s because I find that they struck a good balance between performance and value for my budget, but I understand why many people buy high-end hardware.
It's really not that expensive compared to many other adult hobbies/pastimes, especially if you're only upgrading every few years.
Nvidia price gouges on the Titan because AMD can't compete with it. It's primarily intended for compute tasks rather than gaming.
That really hasn't been true since the original Titan/Titan Black.
Current Titans may be suitable as rendering cards due to the amount of VRAM they have, but they're not for compute.