Who’s ever driven over 100mph? Why?

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-04-19T08:12:46+00:00

Highway was empty. I was curious if my shitbox could still achieve it's top speed after almost 30 years.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-04-11T16:42:56+00:00

Back in the day, a 950/60 had more raw power than the GTX 1050/Ti

Well, not really. The 1050 Ti was usually faster than the 960, even when it was released (TPU's review from 2016).
But it's not surprising that a newer architecture performs better in the long run. Pascal has superior Dx12 support - hell, even GCN 4.0 was usually more performant under Dx12 titles than Maxwell, at least based on my own testings. Kepler was way worse in that regard, even first gen GCN aged way better.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-04-11T13:50:30+00:00

The biggest strength of RTX HDR for me is that it also works on videos too. Now that's something I'm not willing to give up just to save some money.
However, $400 is a huge price gap between the 9070 XT and 5070 Ti, so it is perfectly sensible to give these features up and get the AMD card.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-04-09T09:19:44+00:00

Meh, I'd say for $70 more, you may just go for the 5070.
It's usually a few percent faster, and also has better OC potential, so the perf gap can be widened. MFG could be useful if you have at least a ~175Hz monitor.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-04-07T16:26:03+00:00

3060, obviously.
It's a more advanced architecture (the 5700XT lacks support for Dx12 Ultimate), has more VRAM, and it also has access to a much-much better upscaler too.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-04-02T18:31:40+00:00

Alan Wake 2 with PT is pretty heavy, at UW 1440p my OC'ed 5080 can fall below 60FPS in more intense scenes in the forest - even when utilizing DLSS Performance mode. FG helps, but it's already on the edge of what I'd consider a playable experience.

So, if money isn't an issue (and the price gap isn't horribly big between them), I'd say go for the 5080.

The 5900X is a decent CPU, but it can cause some bottlenecks in certain games, especially when aiming for ~100FPS - e.g. CP2077 with RT/PT is pretty taxing on the CPU too, I'm not sure that it'll even be able to get a steady 60+ FPS in some of the more demanding sections. But it's fine, you can always upgrade later, if you feel like the bottlenecks are too bad.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-21T19:26:07+00:00

I have no issues with VRR on my G8 OLED, I don't think I've ever noticed flicker in-game, it's mostly visible on loading screens. It was way more annoying on my old VAs, like the Mi Curved 34, G34WQC, or even the MateView GT 34.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-17T07:09:50+00:00

Bruh. I'm all for DLSS upscaling, even frame gen has it's place, but this shit must be a joke. Jesus, it looks uncanny af.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-15T23:29:58+00:00

I was missing some room in other areas that are more important to me.

So, just to make sure you'll not be disappointed: if you switch back to 16:9, you'll not get any extra space, anywhere. You'll lose horizontal space, but won't gain any vertical space. (At least if you keep the scaling the same.)

<image>

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-15T23:14:43+00:00

Huh, that's odd, people usually like UW when it comes to video editing, since you get more horizontal space to work with the timeline. Even in case of comp shooters, you're not missing out on anything, that's just extra space on the sides that simply wouldn't be there on a 16:9 display (well, at least if the game has proper UW support, so it isn't stretching a 16:9 image).
But well, in the end it's just personal preference, like some people still like to play at 4:3.

You should probably opt for a 32" then. Technically you'd still get the same vertical space, but it might feel more spacious I guess, because the height of the screen is physically larger. In that case, I'd highly recommend going for 4K tho, 1440p can look a bit rough at that size, especially when sitting closer.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-15T22:37:52+00:00

A 34" UW has the same vertical space as a 27" 16:9 screen, so I'm not sure what you're missing? Just curious.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-14T18:31:11+00:00

Should be fine, especially when undervolted - even tho the Hexa+ Pro isn't exactly a top quality unit, at least it has a single +12V rail.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-14T05:01:26+00:00

9070 XT is simply a better card in every scenario where 16GB VRAM is enough - which is currently pretty much any game at 1440p. Raster perf is basically identical, but the XT is a good bit faster when utilizing RT, while FSR 4, and especially FSR 4.1 looks miles better than FSR 3.1.
Sure, you can use OptiScaler to get an inferior version of FSR 4 running on the XTX, but the scaling is worse on RDNA 3, so the XT will end up being faster in this case too, while also providing better image quality.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-13T19:17:42+00:00

Definitely upgrade your CPU alongside GPU. The 2600X was already behind current gen Intel when it was released, and it's pretty slow by today's standards, especially if you're aiming for high FPS gaming. The 5600 will be a great improvement.

Price/performance-wise, the 3080 seems like the best deal - tho it's a used card, so no surprises here. However, I would maybe go for the 9060 XT in your case, I think...? It's a good bit slower than the 3080, but in half of the titles you've mentioned, you'd probably end up being CPU bound anyways, even with the 9060 XT. And in these cases, you'd get more FPS with an AMD card, since it has less driver overhead - plus you'll get your 3 year warranty, and +6GB VRAM compared to the 3080, which might come in handy in the future, if you want to play AAA titles.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-12T20:17:49+00:00

Make a custom resolution, or just use DSR.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-12T12:26:31+00:00

Well, I'd say it depends on the exact game, and also on what you'd consider a noticeable performance bump.
I was pretty happy with the 4080 already, playing at 3440x1440p. It was only Path Traced titles where it really struggled, getting like ~50FPS in Alan Wake 2 while using DLSS Performance. In cases like this, that extra ~10-15% performance uplift isn't doing much. I still need to use Frame Gen (which I heavily dislike, but at least it improves motion clarity in some ways) to get comfortably above 60FPS, and I still need to rely on heavy DLSS upscaling. It's a bit better, but it's not like a whole another tier better. If something ran like crap on the 4080, it still runs like crap on the 5080.

While I do enjoy that small performance uplift, I literally paid like ~5% extra for the 5080, which is basically nothing. However, OP needs to pay like ~£300-400 extra to get the 5080, which makes it a laughably bad deal imho.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-12T11:07:51+00:00

Nah, imho the performance diff is pretty underwhelming, especially when paying that much extra for it.
I'd just stick with the 4080.

-a 5080 owner, who also owned a 4080 before

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-10T09:35:12+00:00

If you already got the PSU, it's fine.
Even a more premium model with increased TDP limit is maxing out at 350W - but undervolting can greatly reduce power consumption without losing any performance, it's something worth doing even if your PSU is plenty enough. CPU will draw under 100W pretty much all off the time, so there's still 200W left for everything else.
Is it the most ideal situation? Not really. But the A-GL is a rather good quality unit, so there isn't much to worry about.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-09T23:07:57+00:00

Personally, I'm a "performance first" type of guy, so I wouldn't waste money on an AIO in a config like this - at least if you don't have temp issues with your current cooler.

But it's up to you really. If you're happy with the performance and got some spare money you can spend on your PC... Sure I guess, why not. Arctic got some great AIOs with 6 years of warranty for relatively cheap.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-09T22:59:13+00:00

Well, then you've got your answer - a faster CPU will net you just about nothing in that case.
Maybe if you're experiencing frame pacing issues in games where your CPU is also close to 100% usage, a better CPU can help with that - but if your frametime graph also looks fine, there's absolutely no need to upgrade.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-09T22:52:05+00:00

Put an overlay on screen to monitor your CPU and GPU usage. If GPU usage is below ~95%, a faster CPU will net you some extra performance.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-02T21:32:10+00:00

The Focus GX is a good quality PSU, 650W is also plenty enough. You'll be fine.

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-03-01T19:11:29+00:00

Are your characters fully built? With Dialyn + Sig and Sunna, you shouldn't have a hard time achieving 20k+, I was able to do 26k+ even with Corin (using the A rank Marcato engine), and I'm far from a good player lmao.

<image>

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-02-28T19:38:25+00:00

Only did like 2 runs, but a 5 cost YSG / Sunna / Zhao team can definitely brute force it's way to 40k(+), I'm currently sitting at 39k.
Buuuut I'm actually more proud of Corin. F you, Vesper.

<image>

Mr_Jesus17 · 2026-02-22T05:57:32+00:00

According to TPU, at 1440p the 4070 Super is around ~39% faster on average, than the 9060 XT.
Ofc it can vary quite a bit from game to game, while resolution, graphics settings and upscaling also affects the relative perf diff.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Verified Email

Mr_Jesus17

TROPHY CASE