By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Johnw1104 said:

That's not unreasonable.

I must confess and admit that a few months ago I splurged for the first time on a top-of-the-line gpu in the Titan (up until now I've generally aimed for the best cost-to-performance ratio). A gross waste of money as all top tier hardware always is (especially gpu's, which age faster than other parts), but it was clear from testing videos and such that the bar for 4k and the better HTC Vive VR experiences was exceedingly high. The Titan was the only gpu that was able to handle both with consistency.

In my experience, even the 1080ti here can struggle at times to maintain 4k settings. 4k gaming is really still in its infancy, and is exceedingly expensive. I think the compromised "4k" we see in the PS4 Pro and Scorpio might have convinced people that it's easier to achieve and out to be cheaper. Thankfully, in just a couple years my grossly expensive gpu will be worth very little and 4k will be far more accessible at cheaper costs, but for now it's mostly out of reach.

*Edit* I should clarify that I'm assuming you wish to keep the settings as maximized as possible, rather than sacrificing most of them to achieve resolution. Many games can hit 4k if you're willing to turn all of those various, resource-hogging settings down, but I often find I prefer many of them to better resolution.

Good points. The problem with these kinds of threads is that it equates PC and console versions. It's conveniently ignored that PC uses higher quality assets and more complex rendering such as lighting. PC also uses actual 4k and actual 60fps.

All in all this means that PC versions are several times more demanding. If you consider that you have to stitch 3 PS4 Pros together to reach the performance of a 1080ti it puts the $800 price into perspective.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.