Would you be satisfied with 70 - 90 fps on your 1440p 144hz monitor?

[Alxndr]

I have a 4070 and in most modern games at 1440p max settings without ray tracing or upscalers I can get somewhere in the region of 80 fps stable. However enabling ray tracing (or the even more intensive path tracing) forces me to turn on dlss and sometimes even frame gen on top to achieve that 70fps.

I do feel a little cheated out because my rig cost like $2500 with the monitor and I'm essentially limited to console levels of fps.

Are my complaints justified or am I just expecting too much and letting the "comparison is the theft of joy" mentality affect me?

[Bing Chilling]

well i don't have a 1440p monitor but i do have a 144hz 1080p with freesync
and honestly anything above 70 is fine to me.

also games now basically require some sort of upscalling to run decently. Hell some don't even let you turn it off. Optimisation is becoming a thing of the past were companies are prioritising dev time over optimisation to hit a deadline that was unrealistic from the start, it's RARE to see a game released in the past 2-3 years that works properly and runs well on launch.

to answer your question though, no you aren't expecting to much, it's the gaming industry as a whole is expecting to little now. people will come out of the wood works to defend broken and un optimised games saying things like "it'll get better with patches you're being to harsh" it'll just keep happening until people vote with their wallets but we all know that isn't going to happen.

[gwwak]

I am generally ok with 60+ fps in my games. Opinions will vary. Gamers playing competitive titles likely want 144+.

[_I_]

console fps is ok for most
but 1440p-4k is out of reach for consoles at native res without the console using its res scaling features

[wesnef]

I'm fine with 60. I only have a 144hz monitor because it was too hard to find a 60hz monitor anymore, when I bought it.

[C1REX]

I usually play with locked 60fps or 120fps and both look fine for me but different screens handle 60fps differently. I use 2 gaming TVs at 4K (120Hz and 144Hz). Both handle 60fps perfectly as all TVs are designed to do so.

Some of the heaviest single player games can’t be played at stable 144fps. There is no CPU on the market than can give stable 100fps in the incoming Monster Hunter Wilds for example.

[Monk]

You are forgetting most consoles run a mix of medium and high settings at best and very few games outside of racing are 4k native.

Thankfully, dlss looks far better than any other upscaling tech so should be made use of in most cases I find.

If you want to see how you actually compare to a console, try running their settings and remember they often won't maintain 60fps in demanding titles.

End of the day, only you can say if you have a good or bad experience.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

4070 is not the best choice for this price range. Should have gone with 4070 Ti Super.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Why not? It should still be smooth. Use GSync or FreeSync

[skOsH♥]

If I get 90 to 100fps I am generally fine with this. I like 90-100fps at 2k. I don't need 4k

[Agenda 2025]

turn off vsync.

[The Brown Hornet]

60+ is all you need in reality. Nvidia and other manufacturers are delighted that you have bought into frame chasing, that's money in the bank for them

[Monk]

Originally posted by The Brown Hornet:

60+ is all you need in reality. Nvidia and other manufacturers are delighted that you have bought into frame chasing, that's money in the bank for them

Why do you persist with screaching such drivel?

Higher fps is both more responsive and smoother, yes there are diminishing returns as you get really fast screens, but 60fps is not great, the difference from 60 to 120 is enormous, from 120 to 240 is noticeable, beyond gets into far more subtle improvements admittedly purely from a biological perspective, but, if you are on a 360Hz or 480Hz screen, you are most likely playing a load of competitive games where even they help if you have the skill.

[¤☣wing☢zeяo☣¤™]

Originally posted by Alxndr:

I do feel a little cheated out because my rig cost like $2500 with the monitor and I'm essentially limited to console levels of fps.

No you're not, you say I run at max settings but console games don't, infact many console games have settings that go below low vs PC settings, watch some Digital Foundry vids.
If you have a game and tweak the settings to console equivalent you will find your FPS shoots up, also console games often run under 1080P to keep FPS up.

Just expecting a game to run at X FPS at max settings because you paid X amount is a silly way to look at it, the game dev is responsible for how a game runs and to push the envelope they often push beyond current capabilities.

Originally posted by Alxndr:

am I just expecting too much and letting the "comparison is the theft of joy" mentality affect me?

Yeah a bit, just play and have fun, turn the FPS counter off, don't obsess over max settings High usually looks as good as Ultra and bags a ton of FPS and remember it is a mid tier PC wanna go max save for that X3D and 90 series GPU.

Remember if you ran a PC game at max settings at native 1440P on a console it would get 2 FPS on a modern title.

[wesnef]

Originally posted by Monk:

Higher fps is both more responsive and smoother, yes there are diminishing returns as you get really fast screens, but 60fps is not great,

Can you tell me how I'm to recognize this "not great" lack of smoothness? Or can I only do it if I play at higher for a long time, then go back to 60?

the difference from 60 to 120 is enormous,

Maybe for you. /shrug

Maybe my eyes just suck. (which, honestly, I'm feeling is a bonus, since I'm not "required" to spend out the ass for expensive GPUs & monitors to get this supposed amazing 120+ experience.)

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by Alxndr:

I do feel a little cheated out because my rig cost like $2500 with the monitor and I'm essentially limited to console levels of fps.

Your settings are likely much higher than any console. You said you are running at "max" settings, 1440p. A console is usually running the equivalent of medium-high settings and using things like checkerboard rendering or dynamic resolution scaling. You're running it at full native resolution with no upscaling at all.

If you turn things down to console-equivalent settings, you can expect much higher framerates than a console with your $2500 rig. Right now you're comparing apples and oranges.

Check out Digital Foundry on Youtube for optimized settings for whatever games you're running. Often you can turn some settings down strategically with little to no reduction in image quality while gaining a lot of performance.