Chrkeller said:
Even if not side by side the difference is massive. For halo infinite, the trees specifically look awful on the 3050. And yes a 3050 to 4090 is more than a generation. That was kind of the point. Graphic jumps exist, it simply isn't apparent for consoles because the jump isn't cost effective. A 4090 is a Porsche. Native 4k, locked 120 fps, full RT and ultra settings across the board.. the average gamer can tell an immediate and massive difference. There is still a long way to go before consoles hit diminishing returns. People just think we hit diminishing returns because of cross gen games holding back new hardware and consoles being really underpowered this gen. I assume it is because storage is super expensive and heat dissipation. Prior to my 4090 I had a 4070, that was still a massive jump over the 3050. The 3050 is great example because it will be around where the switch 2 lands in power and supports DLSS, which isn't remotely as game changing as people think it is. The 3050 is stuck at low settings (cant touch medium, muchless high or ultra) and looks immediately worse because memory bandwidth. The switch 2 is going to have a memory bandwidth bottleneck. |
You're contradicting yourself, you're saying that the graphics jump isn't apparent on consoles but then go on to say there's still a long way to go before consoles hit diminishing returns.
Diminishing returns, doesn't mean no returns.
And the fact that your example relies on a gap bigger than a generational console jump proves my point, not yours...
You also said yourself that many of these advances rely on good/modern/large displays. What proportion of the market has access to a large high-end display, capable of 120fps?
