will a 5090 run this lol

[PKantos]

xD

[bob]

Lol

[Qwickkill]

No of course not don't be silly

[Hocane]

It won't achieve 60 fps 4K on epic settings without frame generation and dlss

[PKantos]

Originally posted by Hocane:

It won't achieve 60 fps 4K on epic settings without frame generation and dlss

whats with games now being over reliant on things like frame generation and dlss now days.

[Ahhtaczy]

Originally posted by PKantos:

Originally posted by Hocane:

It won't achieve 60 fps 4K on epic settings without frame generation and dlss

whats with games now being over reliant on things like frame generation and dlss now days.

Name a game that doesn't use Path Tracing, Ray Tracing, or any other complex real time reflection and lighting and is reliant on AI Super-sampling and Frame Generation?

The only games that "rely" on DLSS/FSR and Frame Generation are games that use those advanced real time lighting and reflections, or maybe the developers are using those features (DLSS/FSR) to allow players with lower end hardware to use new features (Ray Tracing, Etc).

[PKantos]

Originally posted by Ahhtaczy:

Originally posted by PKantos:

whats with games now being over reliant on things like frame generation and dlss now days.

Name a game that doesn't use Path Tracing, Ray Tracing, or any other complex real time reflection and lighting and is relent AI Super-sampling and Frame Generation?

The only games that "rely" on DLSS/FSR and Frame Generation are games that use those advanced real time lighting and reflections, or maybe the developers are using those features to allow players with lower end hardware to use new features.

Those new features don't really add much tbh. games 10 years ago looked just as good.

[Ahhtaczy]

Originally posted by PKantos:

Originally posted by Ahhtaczy:

Name a game that doesn't use Path Tracing, Ray Tracing, or any other complex real time reflection and lighting and is relent AI Super-sampling and Frame Generation?

The only games that "rely" on DLSS/FSR and Frame Generation are games that use those advanced real time lighting and reflections, or maybe the developers are using those features to allow players with lower end hardware to use new features.

Those new features don't really add much tbh. games 10 years ago looked just as good.

That is just objectively wrong. Features like Path Tracing make a world of difference in terms of environmental lighting, reflections too. If you played Cyberpunk 2077 with Path Tracing, there is no way in hell you are going to say that Dying Light (2015) looks just as good.

[PKantos]

Originally posted by Ahhtaczy:

Originally posted by PKantos:

Those new features don't really add much tbh. games 10 years ago looked just as good.

That is just objectively wrong. Features like Path Tracing make a world of difference in terms of environmental lighting, reflections too. If you played Cyberpunk 2077 with Path Tracing, there is no way in hell you are going to say that Dying Light (2015) looks just as good.

Plenty of games that still hold up to today games in terms of graphics, Batman Arkham Knight, Witcher 3, AC Origins, Last of Us etc.
It seems to be that devs are over reliant on these new fancy features.
Maybe ultra realism isn't the way to go.

[Ahhtaczy]

Originally posted by PKantos:

Originally posted by Ahhtaczy:

That is just objectively wrong. Features like Path Tracing make a world of difference in terms of environmental lighting, reflections too. If you played Cyberpunk 2077 with Path Tracing, there is no way in hell you are going to say that Dying Light (2015) looks just as good.

Plenty of games that still hold up to today games in terms of graphics, Batman Arkham Knight, Witcher 3, AC Origins, Last of Us etc.
It seems to be that devs are over reliant on these new fancy features.
Maybe ultra realism isn't the way to go.

Your not comparing the games correctly. Go play Last of Us on PS3, not the remastered version. Then compare that to Last of Us Remastered on PC.

[PKantos]

Originally posted by Ahhtaczy:

Originally posted by PKantos:

Plenty of games that still hold up to today games in terms of graphics, Batman Arkham Knight, Witcher 3, AC Origins, Last of Us etc.
It seems to be that devs are over reliant on these new fancy features.
Maybe ultra realism isn't the way to go.

Your not comparing the games correctly. Go play Last of Us on PS3, not the remastered version. Then compare that to Last of Us Remastered on PC.

Whatever you reckon bud. Immediately gloss over the other games and single out last of us lmfao. Regardless I'm not interested in being drawn into a argument. I disagree with what you're saying.
Also I was talking about the PS4 Remastered release in 2014. "Hence games look good 10 years ago"

[Serious]

It's true that pathtracing could be objectivly much better in terms of visual quality as rasterizing could ever be. Simply by the fact that pathtracing follows actual physical correct calculations, while rasterising was never physcial correct but just a simplification of lightning and shadows. That's esp. important for more complex calculations like translucent objects (which are partially impossible without raytracing).
Though this pathtracing needs to be set up correctly to look actually this good. And that's where ASA failes a lot. Esp. at areas where lightning is not just the classic global sunlight like aberration, multi-lightsource areas and caves in general.
So yes... pathtracing if objectvly better looking, but just when it's correctly set up. And this setup is much easier with rasterizing.
One reason why every game at this point of technical development needs an option to disable raytracing (without console commands).

It's mandatory part of the devlopment for (not just ark) devs to optimize the pathtracing to a reasonable degree, there are many simplifcations available and those are used even in non-realtime renders as pretty much no one see a difference. They are also available in UE5. As even 4090 can't run the game at 1440p on ultra at stable 60 fps without upscaling/fg it's on wildcard to use the optimizations options UE5 offers and probably even configure them for ark.

Or they say: You already bought it and played more than 2 hours so take our FSR3 implementation and be thankful you get stable 60+ fps with it :D

[Hailey]

i mean 4090 doesnt run it well so LOL

[Sunlight]

Can barely run this ♥♥♥♥, non-optimized game on my 4090, so doubt a 5090 relying on AI frame generation will.

[Hocane]

Originally posted by PKantos:

Originally posted by Hocane:

It won't achieve 60 fps 4K on epic settings without frame generation and dlss

whats with games now being over reliant on things like frame generation and dlss now days.

GPU companies have shifted their focus on A.I

The 5090 will have more powerful upscaling but not in terms of raw power. It will still struggle on native settings.

Look at it as a software upgrade.

Native resolution is not coming back. Upscaling is the future and you better just accept it and move on.

[Hqmzlch]

Originally posted by PKantos:

Originally posted by Ahhtaczy:

That is just objectively wrong. Features like Path Tracing make a world of difference in terms of environmental lighting, reflections too. If you played Cyberpunk 2077 with Path Tracing, there is no way in hell you are going to say that Dying Light (2015) looks just as good.

Plenty of games that still hold up to today games in terms of graphics, Batman Arkham Knight, Witcher 3, AC Origins, Last of Us etc.
It seems to be that devs are over reliant on these new fancy features.
Maybe ultra realism isn't the way to go.

I agree, and about that "10 years ago games" too.
Idk what they're doing but they're doing it wrong.