Are GPU's A Scam

[Badwheels]

Any gamer will tell you that FPS is the bees knees to getting a good experience while playing a game. For sim racers, low FPS can cause you to crash, lose time and otherwise feel like you are wasting your time trying to get better.
We make compromises by lowering the resolutions in games to get the maximum fps possible.

Considering the 2 major players in the GPU market are about to release(cough) a new generation of products, I feel like the "fps chase" is just a mind fog. If 60 fps is needed for smooth game play, most gpu can do that without breathing hard unless there is 4k in play. So when Nvidia comes out with the 4/5/6xx or AMD with the 6xxx line, what are they really improving.

My last few cards have been dual Rx480's, RTX2080 ti, RTX 3080 ti and RTX 3090. The games I have played while running these are AMS2, RF2, AC, ACC, PC2, F1 2010-2020. In every game I run everything to the max. No compromise. My monitors have been 27" 2560x1440 and 38" 3840x1600. I have kept a spreadsheet of fps in every game for every card I have bought.

Honestly, I have not seen any jaw dropping fps increases since RTX2080 ti. When the new cards come out, they never "test" them with the games most sim racers play. It has been my experience in these games that the GPU doesn't seem to make a great difference. Even ACC, where everyone swears it is not optimized, is no issue with these cards. Maybe people with multiple screens , VR or something else are seeing the need to reduce graphics, but I am just not seeing it.

It's seems there is the marketing, " 20% faster than the last generation" versus the " is this thing really needed for what I do"? Maybe someone can enlighten me why a new GPU comes out every 2 years. Is it a solution looking for a problem ?

 

[Emery]

If 60 fps is needed for smooth game play, most gpu can do that without breathing hard unless there is 4k in play.

That's the thing and the good reviews will point that out, but don't forget that, at least for racing sims, we really want to be above 90 fps for smooth gameplay with a maximum number of cars on the first lap and that takes some gpu power with a good cpu.

And who doesn't want 4k or VR? I'm pushing the envelope with triple 4k and the 3090 is barely sort of adequate for 60 fps. THAT's why faster is better (but I'm not using my rig much these days, so I'm sitting out of the 4000-series upgrade).

 

[Badwheels]

That's the thing and the good reviews will point that out, but don't forget that, at least for racing sims, we really want to be above 90 fps for smooth gameplay with a maximum number of cars on the first lap and that takes some gpu power with a good cpu.

And who doesn't want 4k or VR? I'm pushing the envelope with triple 4k and the 3090 is barely sort of adequate for 60 fps. THAT's why faster is better (but I'm not using my rig much these days, so I'm sitting out of the 4000-series upgrade).

Again, you are at the edge of fps requirements. Most people are not there. So these 2 year cycles of "bigger, better, faster" just seem like noise.

 

[Metla]

If it wasn't for VR my 1070 would still be doing just fine.

in fact it is still doing just fine, In my sons PC, running all his games at over 100fps...

 

[Deleted member 1066209]

Again, you are at the edge of fps requirements. Most people are not there. So these 2 year cycles of "bigger, better, faster" just seem like noise.

These new GPUs are catering to people like him. If you're like "most people", you can settle for a secondhand card instead.

 

[Fat-Alfie]

I'm still running a used GTX1080 through a used Samsung Odyssey+ at 90fps

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

I'm still running a used GTX1080 through a used Samsung Odyssey+ at 90fps

So, from that one can be safe in saying that you don't need the newest GPU to make great tracks!

 

[Enzo Fazzi]

Couple things here;

1. Simracing titles are typically quite CPU heavy, so yes, a new generation GPU will not necessarily increase your FPS. On top of that, they're also very much a niche, so it is not surprising that they're not part of benchmarks. Furthermore, they're also not part of benchmarks because most simracing titles (except for maybe ACC), run on game engines that are a decade (or more) old.

2. 144hz (or higher) monitors are starting to become the norm for gamers. that's obviously a bit more than 60fps. Then for simracing, as others mentioned, many use VR which also requires a bit more GPU power.

3. New generation GPUs come with more than just a normal rendering increase. The new Nvidia lineup will have better DLSS and raytracing. Not something used by simracing titles, but AAA games will surely use new technologies.

4. GPUs aren't used solely for gaming. People who double their gaming PC for rendering purposes (CAD, video editing etc...) will benefit from a GPU upgrade in more than one way.

Then finally, it's up to the individual to decide if a new card is worth it. You don't have to buy a new GPU when they come out.
I typically skip a generation.

 

[Badwheels]

Couple things here;

1. Simracing titles are typically quite CPU heavy, so yes, a new generation GPU will not necessarily increase your FPS. On top of that, they're also very much a niche, so it is not surprising that they're not part of benchmarks. Furthermore, they're also not part of benchmarks because most simracing titles (except for maybe ACC), run on game engines that are a decade (or more) old.

2. 144hz (or higher) monitors are starting to become the norm for gamers. that's obviously a bit more than 60fps. Then for simracing, as others mentioned, many use VR which also requires a bit more GPU power.

3. New generation GPUs come with more than just a normal rendering increase. The new Nvidia lineup will have better DLSS and raytracing. Not something used by simracing titles, but AAA games will surely use new technologies.

4. GPUs aren't used solely for gaming. People who double their gaming PC for rendering purposes (CAD, video editing etc...) will benefit from a GPU upgrade in more than one way.

Then finally, it's up to the individual to decide if a new card is worth it. You don't have to buy a new GPU when they come out.
I typically skip a generation.

On your point 4, even if you are doing those types of task, is a 2 year cycle really going to improve your productivity ? I am mostly trying to keep this discussion to sim racing software. And if you skip a generation, do you see a quantum leap in performance in the sims you play ?

 

[Enzo Fazzi]

On your point 4, even if you are doing those types of task, is a 2 year cycle really going to improve your productivity ?

Lets assume 1840 work hours per year (40 hours times 46 weeks). Double this for two years = 3680 hours
If you work only 1% faster with the new GPU (It's likely more in most cases), at €25,- an hour (another low number to be safe), the GPU will have essentially paid itself back already.
3680 * 0.01 * 25 = €920,-

Of course this changes when you only do these things as a hobbyist, but again, it's down to the individual to make this choice.

I am mostly trying to keep this discussion to sim racing software.

The title of your thread is asking if GPUs are a scam. My point is that manufacturers couldn't care less about the small number of people that buy a GPU only for simracing. The market is much, much bigger than that and thus, development is aimed at the adding value for the mass, not for the niche.

And if you skip a generation, do you see a quantum leap in performance in the sims you play ?

Not sure what you're looking for with quantum leap, but when I upgraded from my old GTX1080 to the RTX3080 I have now, I was able to run much higher settings while keeping a steady 144 fps with 5760x1080 resolution.
My video rendering times were cut in half.
I know that in my case there is no point in upgrading to a 4000 series now, as my older CPU (i7 7740X) is holding the GPU back at the moment.

 

[Novopaine]

Beyond triple screens (which does require significant horse power), we're hitting the realm of diminishing returns where more frames aren't needed. 8K screens are kind of pointless for desktop unless you're gaming on a high end TV. This is why we've seen a shift in focus to technologies like Ray Tracing. If faster doesn't make more sense, then more realistic and believable environments is the way to go. (at least that's my take)

The one corner that we still need more horse power for is VR. I'm hoping the upcoming generation of cards will be more than capable for maxed out VR without breaking the bank. I don't think this will be the case, but we'll have to wait and see. I'm still waiting for Valve to announce their next killer VR headset. It would be nice to know the requirements prior to investing in my next GPU this fall.

 

[markie44]

For me the benefit isn't marginal. Being able to run consistent 90fps on a G2 VR with rain would be incredible. Honestly, 60fps doesn't cut it in VR. Even with a 3080 I'm way off that figure on shutoko servers, but I'd agree there is only marginal benefit - if any - on lower resolution setups.

Always going come down to the value equation. No plans to upgrade but if Valve release a mega index 2, might rethink. If a GPU was being used for paid work, that would be a completely different story. Anyone want to pay me to play AC? No, didn't think so

 

[thepharcyde]

Try MSFS 2020 - it will bring any non RTX card to it's knees
Definitely not a scam.

But relating it to sim racing, VR racing was not possible until even a RTX2070 was upgraded to a RTX3080 for me in ACC.

 

[Badwheels]

Try MSFS 2020 - it will bring any non RTX card to it's knees
Definitely not a scam.

But relating it to sim racing, VR racing was not possible until even a RTX2070 was upgraded to a RTX3080 for me in ACC.

But in your case, are we talking about a non-optimized title ? There have been complaints about the heavy gpu requirements of ACC to look nice. But now you have to spend lots of money on a gpu maybe because the developers didn't code efficiently.