Nvidia CEO - You'd be crazy buying a new graphics card without raytracing support

Written by Jon Sutton on Tue, Aug 20, 2019 3:26 PM

An interesting remark from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang ha perked a few ears during a recently Q2 2020 earnings call. Huang bigged up the success of the GeForce RTX 20 Super series launch, suggesting anybody buying a graphics card right now would be “crazy” not to buy a video card capable of raytracing.

“Super is off to a super start,” said Haung, according to transcripts from Yahoo Finance. “At this point, it's a forgone conclusion that [if you’re]  going to buy a new graphics card and it's going to last through two years, three years, four years, to not have ray tracing is just crazy.

“In terms of ray tracing content, it just keeps coming out and  between the performance of Super and the fact that it has ray tracing hardware, it's going to be super well-positioned for through all of next year.”

Naturally, Jensen and his cohorts at Nvidia have a mighty keen interest in making sure you choose GeForce RTX when you pick up your next graphics card. It’s the unique selling point which makes the entire RTX range tick, a graphical endeavor which just isn’t possible on AMD Radeon hardware right now. 

But, incidentally, Jensen Huang has also quietly thrown Nvidia’s entire GeForce RTX 16 series headlong into oncoming traffic. In one fell swoop, he’s told us anyone buying one of their own GeForce GTX 1660 Ti’s is pretty much unhinged, destined for Bedlam. 

For Nvidia, it would appear the focus is very much on the higher margins which can be achieved with its RTX graphics cards. On that front, and despite disappointing fiscal results, Huang has said the Super series is providing a real boost to Nvidia’s prospects. 

“Because the entire ecosystem and all of our execution engines are so primed, we were able to ship a fair number through the channel,” explained Huang. “And so, and yet if you do, spot checks all around the world. They are sold out almost everywhere. And the pricing in the spot market is drifting higher than MSRP -- that just tells you something about demand. And so that's, that's really exciting as Super is off to a super start.”

What do you reckon then, is a raytracing GPU a necessity if you want to have any hope of future-proofing your system? Or is it just a gimmick that's a long way from becoming standard? Let us know what you think of Jensen's comments below!

Our favourite comments:

GTX 1660 Ti, 1660, and 1650 buyers are indeed CRAZY! because Ray Tracing is far more important than your daily needs.

Everglow46

Ray tracing right now seems useless because of the big draw backs with FPS. But i'm willing to wait a few years for it to improve. From all fronts. Intel, AMD and Nvidia.

While team green was first for hardware acceleration ray tracing, it doesn't mean it'll ultimately be the best in the end. Gotta wait for the others to join in.

ItsTheGamerEdit123

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
319
Offline
admin badge
20:31 Aug-26-2019

Yeah you would be crazy not to spend 500$ on a graphics card. It's a total necessity. What kind of world does he live in? The vast majority of PC gamers don't even play any of those games....

2
Rep
191
Offline
junior admin badge
08:42 Aug-27-2019

He's in millionaire lala land

0
Rep
69
Offline
17:12 Aug-25-2019

"I’m not crazy, my mother had me tested" - Sheldon Lee Cooper Ph.D., Sc.D.

1
Rep
23
Offline
05:21 Aug-25-2019

True..and by the time amd implements it (and they will), nvidia will have already mastered its functions, and amd will only just start having problems with it...so those few fps's of raw power today are bound to cancel themselves tomorrow.

0
Rep
0
Offline
03:47 Aug-25-2019

no you are the crazy here you ****ing idiot

1
Rep
35
Offline
22:05 Aug-24-2019

Observe....

1
Rep
4
Offline
11:24 Aug-24-2019

you'd be crazy not to sell a kidney for an rtx card, cuz ray tracing is far more important than your health

4
Rep
2
Offline
03:39 Aug-24-2019

GTX 1660 Ti, 1660, and 1650 buyers are indeed CRAZY! because Ray Tracing is far more important than your daily needs.

7
Rep
44
Offline
09:01 Aug-23-2019

Just checked on Amazon and I still see that the 2060 is 350 euros, but yeah sure I'M the crazy one.

3
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:13 Aug-23-2019

Hehehe, 2060 and ray tracing don't mix well together, maybe at 720p XD

1
Rep
191
Offline
junior admin badge
07:07 Aug-23-2019

Nice try Jensen.


Not falling for it


0
Rep
-7
Offline
11:52 Aug-22-2019

ugh Yeah i would agree. But i wont be spending anything on these cards until the price drops. and the other point he could of made is the fact there is no point spending thousands on 1 card, you may aswell get 2 and go sli. 1 wont cut it.

0
Rep
97
Offline
admin approved badge
11:23 Aug-22-2019

Ray tracing right now seems useless because of the big draw backs with FPS. But i'm willing to wait a few years for it to improve. From all fronts. Intel, AMD and Nvidia.


While team green was first for hardware acceleration ray tracing, it doesn't mean it'll ultimately be the best in the end. Gotta wait for the others to join in.

5
Rep
154
Offline
admin approved badge
01:57 Aug-22-2019

Eh, it just looks like another uselesss feature that I wouldn't be using like PhysX. Sure, it'll look nice but you're risking crippled performance and lower graphical fidelity. It's just not worth it, even if you had the highest available RTX GPU the cost wouldn't be justifiable to me. Another note, I feel if developers really wanted this feature in their games they could just code it themselves... There are games that have excellent lighitng and shadows without the help of RTX. I can't name anything off my head but I think you get what I'm saying.

7
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:34 Aug-22-2019

And you are absolutely correct.

4
Rep
1
Offline
22:39 Aug-21-2019

I have a feeling that ray tracing will be doomed for the same reason as 3D blu-ray technology: lack of content. There will be of course a few titles with brilliant RT execution and enthusiast supporters, but it will likely fade out.

1
Rep
191
Offline
junior admin badge
07:05 Aug-23-2019

If the implementation of RTX get's easier then we'll see more games that use it.
But the price of the hardware is still to high and the FPS drop isn't worth it (to me at least).

0
Rep
-6
Offline
21:30 Aug-21-2019

i remember when apple released iphone with 64 bit processor everyone said its marketing gimmick but it was future. Today we can buy 64bit cpu phone for much lower price. Now people say RTX is a gimmick, pls watch minecraft or rtx on & off

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:44 Aug-21-2019

Still a gimmick, just like PhysX, gameworks and all that other mumbo jumbo...

4
Rep
5
Offline
21:46 Aug-21-2019

Ray Tracing is the future. Gameworks and PhysX were gimmicks, but this is different. It's an actual new and beneficial technological improvement and not a gated feature set.

4
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:53 Aug-21-2019

And it doesn't matter. Objectively it doesn't. Why? Because with or without ray tracing, games exist and it doens't affect the most important thing about games and that's gameplay and mechanics and don't tell me that for some people graphics matter the most... if that's true I always point them to the movie theater.


Games are games because of gameplay first and everything else is at best secondary.


So a gimmick is a gimmick. Sacraficing die space, performance gain, increasing costs of hardware and software, losing performance... beneficial I see... Just for lighting... so that our games can look more realistic as if I can't look outside my window... As if minecraft will suddenly sell twice as much due to ray tracing.

6
Rep
5
Offline
22:34 Aug-21-2019

Why the hell are you gatekeeping games? Games are games because they offer choices and interactability. That said, whatever someone enjoys in a game is a completely subjective thing that's impossible to argue about.

5
Rep
5
Offline
22:34 Aug-21-2019

Some artists strive to make their art photorealistic. Games are a form of art, and some members of the community also want to make and enjoy a photorealistic experience that may be their best way to immerse themselves into the game...

4
Rep
5
Offline
22:34 Aug-21-2019

... or create a piece of art that they've been trying to make. Ray Tracing is a more realistic representation of lighting, and realtime Ray Tracing is a substantial achievement that can only help in that regard.

0
Rep
5
Offline
22:41 Aug-21-2019

I myself prefer the more artistic graphics in a game, but I still do appreciate and very much enjoy photorealistic games too for some eye candy. I don't think graphics are the most important part of a game, but they definitely are...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:47 Aug-21-2019

Bahahaha, I love how people always go with the subjective card. Both Objective and Subjectives are to be challanged and so, I shall challange both.


And the moment gameplay is not the primary focus, it's not a proper game. That's what makes games to begin with, gameplay. Visuals never mattered, hell the most successful games of each generation, of each era, of each decade, of all time were ones that didn't have a hint of realistic graphics, what they had was Unique and/or excellent gameplay, then excellent levels and problems to complement the gameplay. On the other hand visually impressive games like Crysis 2 and 3 seem to be mediocrely successful in comparison at best, or Ryse Son of Rome, with even more impressive visuals and even worse success both critically and publically...

3
Rep
5
Offline
22:42 Aug-21-2019

... an integral part that can either make or break the experience you're going for.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:48 Aug-21-2019

The only time graphics can make or break a game is when that's all there is to the game.

2
Rep
23
Offline
18:21 Aug-22-2019

Graphics aren't everything, but to me they're still pretty damn important..I install medieval 2 tw every now and then when I wanna play a medieval strategy...and each time I deinstall it 2 hours later-cause I can't stand its crap graphics

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:24 Aug-22-2019

Lol.

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
09:53 Aug-22-2019

@Psychoman - This is all very reductive, gameplay and visuals aren't mutually exclusive.At a AAA studio, it isn't the same person working on gameplay mechanics and photorealistic textures. We want both aspects to continue to get better, surely? Photorealism isn't always the right choice but we want that choice to be there, and it also opens the door to better-looking fantastical games as well.

3
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
09:58 Aug-22-2019

Being anti ray-tracing is just nonsense as well. Makes no sense. It's factually a better method for lighting, whether you want a photorealistic game or now. Developers are still free to manipulate light sources however they see fit, it doesn't just have to be a lamp lighting a desk.

4
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:00 Aug-22-2019

Look, I'd be for ray tracing if we didn't have any shading and lighting, but we do and it's not much worse than ray tracing. Ray tracing is a next to none to a minor improvement for games that already have good lighting at the cost of tons of negatives.
Just like PCEGamer said, tons of games have great lighting without ray-tracing. For minecraft for example it makes a big difference because minecraft has no proper lighting and shading, but compared to the shader's mod it's barely better if at all in some cases...

3
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
10:25 Aug-22-2019

You've just made two great cases for raytracing. You're saying rasterisation looks worse than raytracing and that Mojang struggled to implement decent lighting in Minecraft. Raytracing is hideously expensive but it's better. That doesn't make it a gimmick, it just means it's not going to have a rapid uptake. If it were a gimmick it would fade away, but I think we both know it's here to stay.

4
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:25 Aug-22-2019

If it's here to stay it's because Nvidia will use all it's gtx 1000 series money to make it stay...


And none of my cases are for ray tracing. Better =/= Better. What I mean by that is, would you pay 1000$ for a 1% better GPU than your current one? I doubt it. It's similar with ray tracing, but much worse. As it increases hardware development and production cost, it takes away die size which otherwise would be used for more performance, and on top of that it tanks performance, it increases game and engine development costs.


Mojang didn't implement it, because nobody paid them to... Otherwise as I said there is a shader mod for minecraft that is a bit worse than ray tracing.

1
Rep
19
Offline
18:41 Aug-22-2019

To me textures absolutely make or break a game i cant stand lower res tex they completely pull me out of the game. Lighting is importnat but no so much to me, ill always use high res textures mods in older games to make them look way better and extend longevity of the game i still think tex should be a bigger priority

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:50 Aug-22-2019

And I just start a game and play it. XD

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:11 Aug-22-2019

Oh you special snowflake, you. I believe that peoples opinions on what they want and enjoy from a game is subjective, unless you probably think they should only like what you tell them to like, which seems to be the case here.

1
Rep
5
Offline
20:11 Aug-22-2019

Graphics can often pay a significant part in the gameplay, and you don't have any modern game which goes one without the other. Also, as Jon mentioned, visual artists don't program and vice versa, so graphics shouldn't ever impact the game.

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:12 Aug-22-2019

As for Ray Tracing, it's here to stay because it's a better and more realistic way to render light, and the technology is only going to improve from now on. Also better = better, unless that word has a different definition I'm not aware of.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:19 Aug-22-2019

well you either don't read or you don't read, as usual. I said that better =/= better, when 1% improvement costs 1000$, that was the example, ray tracing is far worse as you it costs a lot more.


And nobody is special mate.


And again "subjective" doesn't mean that everything after it is vaild and justified, and fine and good and accepted, subjective is to be challenged as much as objective. If you want to not get challenged then don't say anything, otherwise objective or subjective challenged it is. And quite frankly Subjectiveness is much more reasonable to be challanged than Objectiveness.


And when graphics take about 80-90% of the budget, resources and time of the game, they definitely matter... It's rather them spend that resources towards gameplay, content & level design

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:06 Aug-22-2019

But it's not a 1% improvement, is it? It's 30-40% + RTX. But the price here is not a discussion. I was very vocal, and still am, about RTX GPUs being absurdly priced and awful value for money.

2
Rep
5
Offline
21:07 Aug-22-2019

Again you're placing words into my mouth. Subjective is subjective, it's neither valid or invalid, justified or not. ITS SUBJECTIVE. Challenging a subjective opinions often lead people running in circles in an infinite argument.

1
Rep
5
Offline
21:07 Aug-22-2019

Kinda like what ends up with you, but mostly for different reasons. Give me a sheet that says graphics take 80 to 90% of the budget. You claim it, so I want to see it.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:25 Aug-22-2019

First I was giving a hypothetical example with the 1% for 1000$, the point is that ray tracing is much worse than that example... holy crap... do I have to write 500 words per expression explaining it?


And challenging objectiveness is meaningful? If someone says that gravity repulses objects from the earth and the other person says that it attracts it to the earth, then you can literally just drop something and boom...


Subjective things have aguments and reasonings which can be debated...


Otherwise if it's just subjective, everyone can go and be "my opinion is f@ck you opinion" and debates stop existing... -_-


And if that's the case people shouldn't give opinions...


So subjectiveness is to be challenged.

1
Rep
5
Offline
21:36 Aug-22-2019

Yes, they f*cking can. That is a subjective opinion. Subjective opinions are to be challenged, but they also need to know when to challenge them and if they'll ever lead to anything.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:18 Aug-22-2019

And I do. I say ray tracing doesn't matter and isn't worth it due to tons of negatives and minor improvements, people say it matters due to it being mildly better ignoring all negatives and what we currently have... duh, excellent oportunity to be challenged.

0
Rep
116
Offline
22:24 Aug-22-2019

It is though first of it's kind. If we shut down a startup because it doesn't give us everything we want then they probably wont ever get to such a point. Ray Tracing is a superior method of simulating lighting. That's not subjective, that's a fact. Realtime Raytracing is a serious achievement as well.

1
Rep
19
Offline
23:20 Aug-22-2019

Just cause RTX isnt what it could end up being in 3-35 years time right now doesnt mean its trash and that it should be abandoned. Just getting RT running in real time is impressive considering it takes render farms days to render 1 frame/scene. Also current RT only produces 1/16 combined rays that pixar recommends

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:26 Aug-22-2019

and we are to suffer for years due to it? How is that pro-consumer?
They should left ray-tracing to the professional GPUs and sold them to big comapanies that do massive 3d projects that require real time ray tracing or would benefit greatly from real time ray tracing.


People didn't care for gameworks and that also had objectively better visuals too, but had many negatives and the visuals without it were more than good enough, just like ray tracing, so how is this any different?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:50 Aug-22-2019

Ray tracing should have been like all technologies.
In the beginning it should be for government(includes the army too) usage if needed(not all tech is needed by the government obviously). Then goes to big company(or organizations) usage and after time has passed, technology has improved to the point it's easily implemented, accessible and with next to no or no drawbacks be trickled down to mass public consumer products.

1
Rep
19
Offline
00:11 Aug-23-2019

what??? Raytracing has been used in films for nearly 25 years now even longer what are you a caveman? Should i go brush my teeth with a branch instead of a modern one or a sonic one which is even better? What kind of asinine logic is halting progress. Also gameworks outside of HBAO+ was a massive failure

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:13 Aug-23-2019

And yes you should suffer. Suffering breeds character and why should they cancel a technology that WILL look better over time spin this tune in the next 10 years when raytracing should be at 16/16 recommended rays if not sooner. You cant halt progress well YOU can by living in the middle of the forest

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:16 Aug-23-2019

I was talking about real time ray tracing and you can see it's yet not to the point that the consumers should be paying for it or using it as it has negatives and drawbacks.


And gameworks if a failure because it's just like ray traying is now... Though as I said before Nvidia will pour all their money they've accumulated for the past few years to make it stay and chances as it will stay way before it's good enough and has next to no or no draw backs.


Why do I have to literally go and say everything in detail... what's the point of context, when I said above ray tracing I obviously meant real-time ray tracing... and if it's not obvious try to grasp...


I should start talking in definitions, cuz otherwise I have to correct myself for everything... -_-

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:17 Aug-23-2019

Then I hope future video cards cost 100000$ minimum so that we can suffer to build character. And let's hope food starts costing 10000$ too so we can build more character, cuz why not... and let's hope water goes to **** so it's limited and we can suffer and build character... sounds like an amazing plan, would definitely be interesting XD

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:20 Aug-23-2019

And I want to stop progress? People have been defending AMD, intel and Nvidia's lack of actual generational and year over year improvement for half a decade now and I've been bashing them, with people being against me and suddenly when Ray tracing is barely benefitial at it's current state with tons of drawbacks and negatives, including halting technological performance improvements, suddenly, let's all go for ray tracing?

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:23 Aug-23-2019

What do you expect RTX to look perfect instantly? What are you on about besides compare yourself to when you were 2 and now 20 surely you made some progress? Although thats probably debatable too

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:27 Aug-23-2019

Yes you want to halt back GRAPHICAL progress noone is talking about performance here i think you are a bit lost. There is no way forward other than ray tracing and upping textures and finding some small solutions to better AA everything else is nearly tapped and RTX opens a new path forward in the decades to come

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:29 Aug-23-2019

No I don't expect it to look perfectly, wtf, I said it tons of times it's bad due to the Negatives and drawbacks.


Negatives and drawbacks that I'm mentioning for the nth time:
Increases hardware development and production costs
Takes die space that could be used for extra execution units and thus extra performance
thus it also regresses performance and performance improvements
actually tanks performance
It increases game and engine development cost


All of those are huge negatives. They might have been overlooked if we didn't have any form of lighting and shading until now, but we do and it's great, not as good, but absolutely great.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:33 Aug-23-2019

RTX only opens the path to more stagnation in the GPU market and even more excuses from the companies to milk us further... All for better lighting that we didn't NEED and most would have never even wanted or even bother finding out that it exists in the first place... -_-


When the companies start telling people what products to buy instead of the people telling what products the company should produce we are screwed...

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:34 Aug-23-2019

And youve completely missed the point again this entire discussion was not ABOUT performance we all agree that RTX currently is not worth it for the performance cost and not looking all that better. But as time goes on performance issues will be mitigated/eliminated and it WILL LOOK BETTER thats everyones point.

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:22 Aug-23-2019

@Psychoman yes cuz its easy to read peoples minds through text? what are you on about either type it or not i cant guess what you are talking about. And just cuz RTX isnt good in its infant stage does not mean it wont get better and widely adopted which it clearly will. Its called progress.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:34 Aug-23-2019

Talking in the context of realt-time ray tracing acceleration isn't enough?

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:36 Aug-23-2019

obviously they had to sacrifice all of the die and everything to make it work but there is no other way around it do what what AMD did and just sit on their ass? What about AMD?s stagnation they cant even beat nvidia when nvidia is slappin minimal % upgrades with RTX and raytracing on top...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:41 Aug-23-2019

When did I exclude AMD from stagnation? AMD, Intel and Nvidia have been milking us for over a decade ojn the CPU side of things and for 7 years on the GPU side of things.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:40 Aug-23-2019

Then we should get it when it's got no negatives...


If they invent a new revolutionary car engine that gets 15% more power per liter displacement, but it consumes 70% more fuel(equivalent of perofrmance drop) and costs 2x times as much with the promise that in the future, with future re-designs it will bring 50% more power per liter displacement, with the same fuel consumption and cost the same as a regular engine, do you think people would tolerate and buy the current one? They are going to wait for all the drawbacks to be cleared adn then buy it. It's the exact same thing with ray tracing.


Bring it to the table once it's got no drawbacks, even if it looks worse than the current lighting...

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:43 Aug-23-2019

I dont think i need to explain to you why things dont work that way look at games you might get version 1.0 as release but how many times is that just an alpha version or a beta yeah in a perfect world this would have come out in another 10 years when it will look a lot better than todays lighing,reflection,refractions

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:44 Aug-23-2019

shadows,etc etc. But there is also massive potential there to put it into gameplay with the reflections and shadows at play good horror stuff can be made but it needs to evolve yes working on it in private and releasing it later would have been WAY smarter but things just dont work that way aka INVESTORS Nvidias

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:46 Aug-23-2019

pockets arent limitless despite what you might think so they need funding for this as it will get more expensive and complex to develop further. Something that you never take into account is the actual cost of developing things and that car example is horrible as this is entertainment not a necessity to transport.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:46 Aug-23-2019

I'm absolutely against alphas and beta, and early-access games that in any shape or form can accept money from the customer(be it paying for the game, in-game purchases, or even donations) as then they lose their meaning...


And I'm against games that come out unfinished and/or borken and get fixed later, which is why I didn't get BF5 and BF4 straight away for example, until they got finished or fixed. BF5 was unfinished and BF4 was broken.


And it's not only me, before you go and say it is. Tons of people are against it.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:49 Aug-23-2019

And yeah death to the stock market and all this investor bullcrap and everything associated with them... literally the company and the customers suffering for a handfull of people's benefit, it's brilliant tbh, but it's gotta burn... screw that...

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:52 Aug-23-2019

@Psychoman againts it ever being a thing or againts the negative drawbacks currently? Probably the second and yes but all im saying is give it a few years and it will spread everywhere onto consoles aswell at this point its inevitable real time raytracing is here to stay in whichever version not just NVIDIA's RTX

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:55 Aug-23-2019

Yes, I never said it should never exist... damn i know I suck at talking/writing, but I think it's obivous we are talking current state RTX... and almost guaranteed(99% for sure) the near 5 years of RTX...


Gameworks was the same, if they waited more and developed it more and optimized it much better people would have loved it because it could have had minimal impact on performance and look better and behave better.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:52 Aug-23-2019

And again you are advocating for comapnies that have actively been screwing their customer base for years(AMD, Nvidia and Intel)... what's next rooting for EA's loot boxes and micro-trasnactions?

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:54 Aug-23-2019

Im advocating for progress you can always buy a mac and see how apple treats you. Good luck with that btw

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:59 Aug-23-2019

Yeah for progress at the expense of the customer...


And when I'm advocating for progress that is NOT at the expense of the customer pretty much 99% of people defend AMD, Nvidia and Intel... great... -_-


So end-all be all, people(the customers) are defending companies over the customers and it's not for every company, it's selective, as nobody defends gaming AAA publishers, because it's the popular opinion to defend hardware companies but not software companies... that's all I'm getting for this...

0
Rep
5
Offline
11:07 Aug-23-2019

Yes, you're the only one calling out Nvidia, AMD and Intel on their bullsh*t. A knight in shining armor. That victim move and generalization really doesn't suit you. I don't know why you think you're better than the rest but so be it.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:15 Aug-23-2019

Man you love putting words into other people's mouths...


And I'm not the only one, but here on GD nobody seems to be informed how badly we are getting screwed by them... AMD, Intel and Nvidia are the hardware equivalent of what EA has become but much worse... and people love them... beats me why.

0
Rep
5
Offline
15:36 Aug-23-2019

I do? I mean you did it multiple times here and in the comment section below, but I'm the one putting things into your mouth? I'm just framing how you act and what you say in a clear way.

0
Rep
5
Offline
15:36 Aug-23-2019

I beg to differ. I believe that people on this site are in general more informed and understanding that the rest of the places I've been to. They just take a more logical and realistic approach to subjects...

0
Rep
5
Offline
15:37 Aug-23-2019

... instead of the irrational and downright abysmal approach you tend to often have. I said it before, just stick to what you know unless your goal is to make a fool of yourself. If it's the latter you're on the right path.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:47 Aug-23-2019

Clear way? What I say is what I say... how is anything you said that I said, anything I said?


And no they are going with the path of least resistance and the most easy path, that's probably the most normal thing to do, but when a big mass of people is opposed to something staying quiet is the worst idea possible and even worse supporting what is screwing you over...


Why don't you support AAA practices like DLC, loot boxes and micro-trasnactions, but you support all the crap that is equivalently worse than what AAA publishers are shoving down our throats? Why? What's the logic behind that? Giving a free pass to hardware companies, but not software companies?

0
Rep
5
Offline
16:11 Aug-23-2019

Fcking stop trying to sound phylosopycal for fcks sake. It doesn't work nor adds anything apart from confusion, which is probably what you want I think.

0
Rep
5
Offline
16:12 Aug-23-2019

You see, as humans, we have a limited time on this planet. I don't know about you, but achieving everything is impossible for a human. It is important to set priorities. That way, something that's lower priority...

0
Rep
5
Offline
16:12 Aug-23-2019

... is lower on the to do list, and if it's not paramount for your survival in most cases, bothering with it is just wasting time you don't have. I enjoy technology but I do prefer games, so they are a larger issue for me.

0
Rep
5
Offline
16:13 Aug-23-2019

You have an issue with people putting things into your mouth and then you go and do the very same thing in literally the next comment. But alright I'm used to it when talking to you.

0
Rep
5
Offline
16:13 Aug-23-2019

I have no good will towards microchip companies, but liking a new technological achievement has nothing to do with it. Scrutinizing everything is a great way to never achieve or do anything.

0
Rep
5
Offline
16:14 Aug-23-2019

But I'm done with you. I'm done with trying to aruge someone who gets crazy the second people don't agree to all the points he makes because he believes his opinions should be valued more than others.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:22 Aug-23-2019

I don't see how I'm crazy, but ok...


Enjoy minor improvements at the cost of big negatives.

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:24 Aug-23-2019

Smaller and smaller improvements have been happening for a while now and they're not exclusive with the release of RTX GPUs. So if this is your whole point, than it makes even less sense.

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:25 Aug-23-2019

I honeslty don't care how many percents we get with the next gen improvement. My problem is, and always was the price. As long as the prices cover for the cost of the product and the margins are no higher ...

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:25 Aug-23-2019

... than 30% (which is an arbitrary limit, but I believe a fair one), than I'm completely and utterly fine. I don't believe that the slowdown is exclusive to them wanting to give less for more as you do, ...

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:25 Aug-23-2019

... but I do belive that it certainly plays a part in the story.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:17 Aug-23-2019

How am I phylosophical, what is the matter with you? You are super literal and then suddenly you put meanings in things there are no more meanings to them... O_O


Again I never said I hate real time ray tracing, I like it, but it's not worth it as is, that's why I said it's bad because of all the negatives and just like in every other sphere of any other product, people should avoid it until it comes out without any downsides... why should we make exceptions for hardware companies?

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:25 Aug-23-2019

But yes you did. You said that RT is completely and utterly pointless and that they should have never attmpted it at all. You later did move the goalposts by adjusting the argument a few times, but that was the innitial one.

1
Rep
5
Offline
20:25 Aug-23-2019

Yes, it's not worth it, it's literally the first gen. By that logic buying the first gen of anything is a stupid move, and that simply doesn't make sense because nothing would exist then.

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:26 Aug-23-2019

Look at my system. Do you see an RTX GPU here? No, you don't. That's because I don't think they're worth the cash. What else do you want, or expect, me to do apart from that? Burn down their HQ?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:37 Aug-23-2019

Am I said it's a gimmick and that it's like physX and gameworks... and it's true... those were my first two comments... All those three things could have been more than gimmicks if executed better and if they weren't anti-consumer...


Both of those were better visuals that were not worth it due to PhysX increasing the cost of the GPUs and lowering performance and Gameworks lowering performance... I didn't say that they never should have made made ray tracing... again what the hell are you reading.


Then I said that ray tracing in games that already have good lighting improves things barely, but it has tons of downsides. I compared it to paying 1000$ for 1% improvement, but worse


Like where do you read those things. As always putting words in my mouth and reading something in the sky

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:38 Aug-23-2019

And let's be honest Nvidia is pushing Ray Tracing for the public so hard so that they can screw over the competition, especially when Intel went to AMD to get licenses and patents for desktop graphics instead of them...

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:46 Aug-23-2019

Of course they're doing so to f*ck over the rest. That though doesn't excuse the fact that it is a better and more realistic way to render light.
And If you can't read what you yourself are talking about, than I'm kinda done.

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:47 Aug-23-2019

Looking forward to you doing something about all this.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:46 Aug-23-2019

And buying first gen things is good when they don't have every possible downside for a minor improvement.


If AMD came out with a GPU that was 10% better than the rx 5700xt, but it costed 2000$ and had 400W power consumption, but it had a revolutionary new architecture that would be miles better after 5-10 generations, would you buy that GPU? Would you defend it? I doubt it. Everyone would tell them to bring it out when it's good. Would anyone buy or defend that GPU? It's the same here...

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:48 Aug-23-2019

Excuse me, but am I defending these GPUs? If so, where? I'm just stating the obvious. You are the one who can't accept the obvious because it doesn't fit your line of thinking.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:52 Aug-23-2019

... And yet again you don't get the example...
In my example AMD's new hypothetical architecture is the equivalent of ray tracing, currently the first generation is 10% better than let's say RDNA, but it costs 2000$ and it consumes 400W of power, would you defend this architecture, just because 10 years from now and 5-10 generations from now it will be a lot better without the downside of low efficiency and high cost? And the first generation is objectively 10% better than RDNA, just like ray tracing is a currently a bit better... -_-


No you wouldn't, nobody would and it's the exact same...

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:54 Aug-23-2019

I don't work with hypothetical because those might or might never happen. And if I do they're often closer to reality and not such an extreme example. No one can argue fiction, so I'm not going to either.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:01 Aug-23-2019

but with Ray tracing you get 2x times lower performance(at the very least), which is exactly like in my example 2x times higher power consumption than the rx 5700XT at 400W instead of 200W and it costs 2000$ instead of 400$, which is true as Ray tracing increases the cost of so many things which I've already mentioned, including the price of the GPUs to the customers, so it's not just the price to the customer we have to take into a count...


My example is spot on and you just don't want to admit it... And i'm using it because you clearly can't see it directly with ray tracing as is...

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:06 Aug-23-2019

Your examples couldn't be farther from what you're trying to prove, and I've said what I wanted to say above. I'm not gonna run in circles with you anymore. Think what you want to think as far as I care. I've tried. It's a lost cause.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:41 Aug-23-2019

How so?

0
Rep
116
Offline
22:06 Aug-23-2019

Every time I visit the site there are 50 new messages in this thread. This is the article with the most comments I've seen since I joined the site 7 years ago. Good job.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:33 Aug-23-2019

You've missed some then XD

0
Rep
116
Offline
23:45 Aug-23-2019

I've missed a lot. The damn article won't stop buzzing.

0
Rep
13
Offline
21:17 Aug-21-2019

Why trust any of them all they want is your money other than that what do any of us matter

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:19 Aug-21-2019

It would be interesting if a company wanted customers on a personal and emotional level, other than exploiting them for more money.

1
Rep
13
Offline
21:39 Aug-21-2019

well duh they are not here for our undying emotional love, my point is picking sides....stupid, only do whats best for you

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:41 Aug-21-2019

Yup, always buy the product, never buy the brand. Currently what is best for us is to boycott them by not buying anything until their profit margins go in check... I wish they could get sued like the memory companies did and have a upper ceiling to their profit margin percentages.

0
Rep
13
Offline
21:48 Aug-21-2019

All things in good time Ive learned that time has a funny way of bringing things to light dont sweat the small stuff look at EA, I feel "good things" are coming....and ill be watching with a bowl of popcorn. on a side note my info is outdated i have a 2400G super cheap does everything i want lol

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:54 Aug-21-2019

I don't see how the second part is relevant, but hey as long as the PC does what you need it to do, it's great.
Now unlike EA, AMD and Nvidia are a duopoly, EA is just one of hundreds and thousands.

0
Rep
0
Offline
16:06 Aug-21-2019

You'd be crazy and/or stupid buying a new ( overpriced shi te) graphics cards like 2070 super, 2080, 2080 super when you can buy a used 1080 ti with overall the same performance at much lower price.

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:41 Aug-21-2019

Not everyone can buy a cheap used gtx 1080Ti, hell I can't even buy a used gtx 1080Ti XD

4
Rep
49
Offline
18:24 Aug-21-2019

i can't even buy used GTX 970

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:25 Aug-21-2019

There are no gtx 970s available second hand? Damn, very sad as the gtx 970 was a wildly popular GPU...

0
Rep
19
Offline
18:57 Aug-21-2019

Dont buy that 3.5GB VRAM hasnt aged well at all in modern games if you can find rx 580's or 1060 6GB those are your best options for 1080p 60fps.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:10 Aug-21-2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv8vhzW7Uiw
Here even in 2019 games the gtx 970 competes with the rx 470 which has always been its equivalent, though no modern comparison against the rx 470 so here is the rx 570. In amd optimized the AMD GPU wins and in Nvidia optimized titles the Nvidia wins.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf7rf7pr4GM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YuLnSDx6zU


plays modern games just fine.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:10 Aug-21-2019

The 3.5GB Vram thing was brilliant on Nvidia's part, with the cut bus, even you stuck 12GB of VRAM on the gtx 970 it wouldn't have gotten better performance... and after they fixed it with a driver or whatever it no longer accessed the slow 0.5GB of VRAM so there was no slow down.


If the gtx 970 had a full 256 bit bus and more cache it wouldn't have costed 320-330$, but more like 380-400$, so I'd say Nvidia did brilliantly with the gtx 970, still the r9 390 was a better buy a the time as it was faster and cheaper.

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:16 Aug-21-2019

youre actually trolling the 3.5GB vram was an insult the card was marketed as having 4GB they gave you 3.5 why are you standing up for nvidia in this case vram has no effect on performance but a massive effect on stuttering which the 970 is notorious for as 4Gb is barely the minimum unles low/medium settings

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:19 Aug-21-2019

Hey you can get your opinion from the internet or you can go with facts. As I showed you in those videos you obviously didn't bother watching(surprising I thought people loved videos), in 2019 it can play 2018-2019 AAA games at 1080p ULTRA with great performance... so you stating that 4GB is barely the minimum is wrong...


Though considering that 90% of the internet is spamming that you need 6-8GB of VRAM, I'm not surprised...

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:38 Aug-21-2019

I watched the videos man and like i said these games are running on medium/low i can see the texture quality just by looking at the video im not blind as ive been replaying RE2 and the maxed out textures look so much better. These arent ultra settings clearly you havent played these games on them i can guarantee you

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:40 Aug-21-2019

none of these games run 60fps ultra on the 970. Except for Far cry new dawn and world war Z (which i havent played) those ran north of 60 on my system with my rx 480 = 970. All other games were 40-65avg on medium/high forget ultra that will dip down to 30 and im talking from experience THESE ARENT ULTRA SETTINGS.

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:43 Aug-21-2019

the 970 doesnt have enough VRAM simple as that RE2 alone on maxed out eats the full 11GB of my card. With the rx 480 i was limited to high settings 0.5GB VRAM and the 970 is limited to medium textures which you can clearly see in the video. Yes the game still ran great but it wasnt on ultra buddy youre delusional

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:46 Aug-21-2019

And i know you probably wont bother watching this but here is what ultra looks like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRHanb-BmY . Compare that to the first link and you can clearly see even through youtubes horrible compression how much worse that first video you linked looks like..again ive played all of these games.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:53 Aug-21-2019

Literary the second video says that all games are tested on ultra... and it got 60fps average at least. RE2 at high was close to 90fps average and 77fps 0.1% low and on ultra it was 60fps... like come on... why are you lying that you watched them?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:56 Aug-21-2019

You have to know that modern game engines don't clear the VRAM until it's filled, cuz they are using something similar to a garbage collector since they are not hard-coded optimzied like before.

0
Rep
19
Offline
19:59 Aug-21-2019

oh for crying out loud most of these are first areas of the game you realize how demanding shadow of the raider gets later on in open areas and RE2 as soon as you enter the mansion? That first area is the best perf part of the game and it was barely 60fps this isnt proof of any kind just skewed results im talking

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:00 Aug-21-2019

from personal experience as ive played most of these games on my rx 480 and yes clearly if you have a 9900k/9700k/9600k you are carrying the 970 by a lot skewing results even more. Trust me get into more demanding areas of the game and youll see the FPS hit down to 30,40 easily on high/ultra for 60fps medium/high

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:07 Aug-21-2019

Yeah it's not because the GPU just doesn't have enough compute power and that the scene has more polygons and is more demanding, it's totally the VRAM and VRAM alone...


Dude a GPU needs a certain amount of bandwidth to benefit from a certain amount of VRAM... you can't just slap more VRAM and get more performance once the bandwidth becomes the bottleneck and then it's the compute power that bottlenecks too...

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:12 Aug-21-2019

Youre shifting the argument in a pointless direction let me steer you back i said the VRAM is not enough to max games out and if you try it you will get stuttering as an obvious lack of VRAM. You claim otherwise that it can run beyond its 3.5GB when GPU's are hard capped to whatever VRAM they have regardless of

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:13 Aug-21-2019

in game settings the card just wont go above or it will and it will stutter BADLY. That's the issue i dont think the 970 is a bad card nor the rx 480 but its not good enough to max games out high settings yes and from my experience its minimal difference anyway. medium-high big diff its a great card for esports light

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:15 Aug-21-2019

light games and what not. This varies by engine to engine obviously the 970 n rx 480 have serious limitations on them but you get what you pay for at the end of the day my problem is with nvidia scummy lying that it had 4GB and then shifting the blame onto marketing AND YOU,YOU of all people being okay with that fact.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:15 Aug-21-2019

How am I shifting the argument... -_-
Freaking hell, every time people tell me I'm shifting the argument, when I'm dead on point...


Fine let's stick 128GB on a gt 610 and play games, cuz that's all that matters...

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:17 Aug-21-2019

When you legit whine and complain about the smallest discrapancies these companies make but you are completely fine with giving nvidia a blank slate cause the 970 was a cheap card... to me it sounds like you would cut any budget/cheap card serious slack but complain about the high end for days...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:19 Aug-21-2019

No... I just don't get my opinion on the internet... -_-


If they left the 256 bit bus and the cache on and all the 4GB of VRAM were at full speed, it would still not get more perofrmance as the compute performance is NOT enough... --
ffs... -
-


That's like putting a 512 bit bus on a gt610 and slaping 16GB of VRAM and expecting it to play games on ultra... it won't... why? Not enough compute performance.

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:20 Aug-21-2019

Caz you constantly shift the argument to pointless directions to keep arguing for the sake of arguing cause you cant win. It's simple as that as someone once said it's hard to win an argument againts a smart person but its impossible to win one againts a dunce. The amount of dumb arguments you make makes you the latter

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:20 Aug-21-2019

I whine where there is objective whine... the gtx 970 was handled perfectly, they just should have stuck 3.5GB of VRAM to begin with on the GPU... The gtx 980 in some sircumstances didn't benefit from all 4GB of VRAM, let alone a gtx 970 with less cuda cores, TMUs and ROPs...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:22 Aug-21-2019

I'm straight on point... when discusing VRAM of a GPU you can't skip the rest of the GPU.

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:26 Aug-21-2019

nope you coudlnt be further if you tried. You keep thinking VRAM is tied to performance for some reason... As ive said already 2 times when you run out of VRAM you cant use higher settings in game as the worst case scenario you will get bad stuttering so you CANNOT max games out why cant you understand this?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:26 Aug-21-2019

It's not as simple as just VRAM... and I watched tons of benchmarks of the gtx 970, it can play games at 1080p ultra(not 4-8x MSAA, so don't be a smart arse), so it's a good pick if it costs 50-70 euro...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:27 Aug-21-2019

Because I've played games that say that are using more than 4GB on my GPU and they didn't stutter... -_-

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:27 Aug-21-2019

Like i legit dont understand how you cant wrap your brain around the actual fact that you are limited to 3.5GB VRAM thats it. Nooone is saying to slap 8GB or 16GB on the 970 like the stupid argument you are making what im saying is YOU ARE LIMITED to 3.5 so your in game settings are LIMITED to 3.5 THATS IT

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:28 Aug-21-2019

Yes, but even if it had a 512 bit bus and was NOT limited to 3.5GB it won't get any extra performance, nor will benefit from more than 3.5GB of VRAM...

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:28 Aug-21-2019

As ive said above games are hard coded now to cap at your VRAM even RE2 uses nearly 13GB but in hwinfo its only 10.8GB usage for me the game simply CANNOT exceed my phsycial VRAM as well as games cant go above 4GB on your card even if you select higher settings you wont get them or you will get stuttering/text pop in

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:29 Aug-21-2019

THATS MY ENTIRE POINT holy man do you understand english? How can you not see we agree on the fact that you are limited to 3.5GB and it wont affect performance i agree WITH THIS but NVIDIA LYING that it has 4GB is my issue. I dont care if it had 4GB it would only let you pick slightly higher settings in games

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:33 Aug-21-2019

and look not once did i say the 970 was bad or a trash card just that the lying and marketing from nvidia was beyond scum on that card. My main point is that you are limited to 3.5GB VRAM that's it you are LIMITED this is an objective fact you cant pick higher settings or use above that in game simple as that.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:33 Aug-21-2019

texture pop-in doesn't mean worse performance nor stutters... -_-


Here the game says it will use 12.34GB of VRAM out of 3.94GB of the gtx 970 and yet the game does NOT stutter and it can run it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7sZlmuesHA

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:35 Aug-21-2019

I never said VRAM has anything to do with performance as it obviously doesnt but stuttering if the engine doesnt hard code a cap and forces the card to push more VRAM (i tried this by setting everything to max on my rx480) the stuttering was insane but without that i would get crazy texture popin everything in that gam

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:36 Aug-21-2019

then i set everything to max rebooted and had no issues. Again i said this 75 times and you still cant get it VRAM DOESNT AFFECT PERFORMANCE. it effects the VRAM usage you are LIMITED to thats it simple as that. You are limited to 3.5GB thats it. It doesnt effect performance we are agreeing on this for the last 10 post

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:39 Aug-21-2019

Then I don't see the problem.
I personally didn't notice texture pop-ins in the video I sent you either, so it ran great if you ask me, you just need to lower the AA due to those areas with tons of objects to be all aliased and the gtx 970 can't keep the 60fps up and it will run perfectly fine on the gtx 970... Again 12.34GB out of 3.94GB on the gtx 970, ran great, no stutters and if there were any pop-ins they were minimal.


So yeah even if it's capped, you can see that it runs just fine, so what's the big deal?


Any other game the gtx 970 wouldn't run on ultra and would stutter due to the 3.5GB of VRAM?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:39 Aug-21-2019

then why did you say that it wouldn't be good due to the 3.5GB of VRAM?

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:41 Aug-21-2019

This depends on game to game basis surely you must have experienced VRAM stuttering before more common in problematic games. And im saying despite what the in game says you cannot exceed the phsycial limitation on the card of 3.5GB you can select whatever option a good game will cap you at 3.5GB instead of stuttering

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:43 Aug-21-2019

Cause 3.5GB is a limitation that you cant go past and as game progress they will eat more VRAM and if i recall i said 3.5GB VRAM was bad as it is easily maxed out. Pretty sure i said that not that 3.5GB is bad but you cant max games out actually thats exactly what i said over and over it has nothing to do with perf

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:45 Aug-21-2019

Even if the game is saying 12Gb out of 3.5GB you arent actually running all of the 12GB of textures but are instead filling the 3.5GB VRAM bus and getting cut off there its simple as that you cant see what the game phsyicaly cant deliver and render to your monitor so there is no difference in game and i can confirm tha

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:46 Aug-21-2019

As even when i ran RE2 at max settings it ran the same and looked the same but for some reason i was no longer getting this annoying texture popin which the engine is notorious for even for RE7 it was the same. Probably some type of pre-fetch coding issue or whichever either way the game looked the same but with my

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:47 Aug-21-2019

1080ti maxed out at 11Gb/out of 12 or 13GB max or whatever it eats up the difference is clear. Its not so much on the characters but the enviroments themselves before there was this fading texture effect or "culling" as many engines use to reduce texture load. With the 1080ti the image is always crisp and clear

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:49 Aug-21-2019

Im sure you know about engine occuling and the likes as youve said you have done coding before something very similar can be examined in witcher 3 and its shadows. Even at stock ultra the game has terrible shadow occuling you have to edit the .ini and push settings further (which has a huge perf impact as shadows tend

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:56 Aug-21-2019

I've never done any advanced 3d graphics to have to deal with it, if you are reffering to occultation, not sure about "occuling".
And the witcher 3 is amazing with VRAM management, but they use tons of sneaky techniques in it to reduce VRAM usage.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:48 Aug-21-2019

yes, it will, and that's great.
And you might actually start using a little system memory once you run out of VRAM. But I've never stuttered due to lack of VRAM, only due to lack of performance or poor optimization of a game. Hell my GPU can't benefit from more than about 3GB of VRAM, I only got the 4GB version, because there were no 2GB versions available in my country yet.


Stuttering due to not having enough VRAM is long gone afaik, maybe the games that would stutter from lack of VRAM are old anyway, so running out of VRAM is practically impossible on them...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:51 Aug-21-2019

On the other hand the lack of bandwidth can cause lower performance even with tons of VRAM.


That's why until 2016 those double buffer GPUs were a dumb idea to buy unless you are crossfire or SLI, which is what their real usage was for as in SLI and crossfire VRAM did NOT stack...


The rx 480/470/570/580 8GB were meant for Crossfire and NOT for extra performance or any sort of gains outside of crossfire.
Same with the gtx 960 4gb, gtx 780 6GB, hd7970 6gb, r9 380 4gb and so on... the double VRAM buffer was meant for multi-GPU setups.


But people bought them and Nvidia and AMD made them because 99% of people think that the VRAM determines GPU performance and 0.9% think that the extra VRAM helps on those GPUs...

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:55 Aug-21-2019

You are completely wrong lack of VRAM causes lower performance not bandwidth look at the crap 290x with its 512bit bus and it cant outperform nvidias 128 bit bus...what are you on about. When you run out of VRAM which is easy with 3.5GB you will experience stuttering and fps drops as result of RAM usage only you are

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:56 Aug-21-2019

immune to this stuttering by the sound of it maybe they should study you as a unique specimen since your experience is always different from everyone elses. As well as bogus claims about stuff thats not true 3.5GB vram is bad as its easily maxed out you cant go above it as when you do you stutter. simple and factual

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:00 Aug-21-2019

Yeah, we are totally going to ignore that the r9 290x has next to no delta color compression, whereas Nvidia's Kepler has 1.5x times better delta color compression, Maxwell has 3x times better delta color compression, reducing bandwidth needed by about 3x times, on top of having higher VRAM clock speeds, so the bandwidth is NOT 4x times lower, but more like 2-3x times lower, Pascal has about 5x better delta color compression than the r9 290x... -_-


Look you won't go above the maximum of VRAM in modern any game in the past decade or so. The game stops once the VRAM is filled.


On the other hand most modern games use a garbage collector for the VRAM that fills it up to the maximum and then frees only what it needs to.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:00 Aug-21-2019

Again you are ignoring literarly everything except VRAM capacity...

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:05 Aug-21-2019

@Psychoman thats cuz that is my main issue with the 970 and more to the fact that they lied about the 4GB. I dont endorse a companies product when they lie about it and deliver whats not true the 970's performance is solid only at 1080p and especially for the money. Try moving up in resolution and see how VRAM goes up

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:26 Aug-21-2019

It's hard to argue a man who thinks he knows everything about everything.

1
Rep
19
Offline
21:29 Aug-21-2019

I mean i feel like im not saying anything crazy here right about the 970? i feel like most people would agree that it was scummy what nvidia did with it and 3.5GB is an issue as its easily maxed out obv VRAM doesnt effect perfm unless you run out of it in specific games then you get stuttering,reduced fps,texture issue

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:35 Aug-21-2019

I agree with you. Nvidia definitely lied about 970 and I think they didn't get as much flak over it as they should honestly. And I have also experienced stuttering due to lower VRAM before so I know exactly what you are talking about.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:35 Aug-21-2019

@StevenPlebster that's why I'm not arguing with you.


@IlluminatiEyes
Yeah problem is most people got their opinion on the internet... and those specific games are at least a decade old so that won't be a problem. And I never disagreed that it was scummy from Nvidia to lie to us, what was not scummy is speccing the GPU perfectly well to give us the best possible product for the money.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:35 Aug-21-2019

@StevenPlebster name the game I will test it.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:39 Aug-21-2019

@Psychoman I honestly can't remember, and it wouldn't really matter as it's a discussion with you anyway. And I very well know I don't know everything. That's why I give my input where I know some stuff and skip places I definitely don't.

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:39 Aug-21-2019

Have you tried the new geforce drivers does the low latency work on pascal? I remember using anti lag on my rx 480 and it felt super good you could feel the lower input even more at lower fps or maybe you havent tried it im not sure whether to bother updating if it doesnt work but i do want that feature its good.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:44 Aug-21-2019

I haven't had a chance to, I've been fairly busy lately and will probably be for quite some time now. You have the same GPU, did you try it?

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:46 Aug-21-2019

No but nvidia has only said its for turing atleast from what i gathered from the post so i assumed it wont work with pascal and i havent seen anyone comment that they tested it i dont always update drivers instantly as there could be issues but getting a lower input lag is always a good thing. Ill bite the bullet n try

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:48 Aug-21-2019

I don't think you have anything to lose. It'd really suck if it were gated to Turing only. Definitely not a good choice, but probably kinda expected from Nvidia.

1
Rep
19
Offline
21:49 Aug-21-2019

@Psychoman ive ran into running out of VRAM and stuttering as a result in a few games yeah its not universal as ive said i still dont think 3.5GB or 4GB is a good thing even when i bought the rx 480 4GB in 2017 it was a mistake should have went for the 8GB model as games started to move to 4GB+ usage on ultra that year

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:51 Aug-21-2019

Yeah thats my feeling with nvidia at this point i get why they update Turing with the integer updates but i hope this stuff trickles down to pascal or maxwell as its a useful feature. Im gonna try it out and see if its similar to what anti lag brought in terms of lowering input lag

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:58 Aug-21-2019

RX 580 4gb vs rx 580 8gb in 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCA8-gNebAU
Gee, I wonder why all those games are running equally as good on both GPUs without stuttering...

0
Rep
19
Offline
22:01 Aug-21-2019

@Psychoman bruh stop with the strawman videos im telling you what i experienced not what some youtube video says. You claim i make up stuff on the internet yet you are the one always linking to strawman video claiming otherwise you cannot convince me of what i experienced it wont happen. Also again look at textures

0
Rep
19
Offline
22:02 Aug-21-2019

in that video thats medium/low settings. Try ultra in mass effect andromeda in fact max it out and see how it works out for you. I remember what issues i had with that game with my rx 480 4gb despite it being "recommended" the 4GB was not enough to max everything out high settings ran far smoother at 60fps

0
Rep
19
Offline
22:07 Aug-21-2019

And this was on an 4670k a 4 core cpu not the one you have or the one i currently have also 8GB of RAM which wasnt a problem but games in 2017 started getting 16GB recommendations but i never really ran into issues with 8GB i just want to point out the system i had 2 years ago perhaps it wasnt all GPU related

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:14 Aug-21-2019

I'm not saying you make up stuff, simply that what you say is logically wrong and thus most likely wrong.


And Mass Effect Andromeda had or still has many memory leaks, no? Just like Mirror's Edge Catalyst on the two highest settings and IDK about Andromeda, but Catalyst did benefit from every sip of VRAM and RAM possible, but if we are to take buggy games into a count, then we need single core CPUs at 10Ghz with tons of IPC to run arma 2 properly...

0
Rep
19
Offline
22:36 Aug-21-2019

@Psychoman you linked that video not me. Yes Andromeda had memory leaks im not sure if they ever fixed it only played that garbage fire once and even that was too much what im saying is factual evidental truth you are making baseless speculation on assumptions since you dont have higher VRAM GPU's to see the difference

0
Rep
5
Offline
22:38 Aug-21-2019

He literally called you an idiot. Damn.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:53 Aug-21-2019

I called nobody anything...


And yeah, I don't have them to make a comparison, but I haven't been to space to see if the earth is round either and yet tons of logic concludes it is... -_-


Logic > all as everything is based on logic, except that things that just are.

0
Rep
19
Offline
23:28 Aug-21-2019

You are too young to understand what you are saying? Is love logical? What about faith and countless other things people believe in yeah lets just discredit that and claim logic above all else. You simply lack the experience to know just how many illogical things are out there in the world and you assume everything

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:39 Aug-21-2019

Love is logical. We need love so that we can survive, cuz love makes us reproduce, it makes us form groups and it makes it so that we don't throw away our kids and our kids love us back so that we love them as much as possible so they get to use us as much as possible, as they should... love is very logical... I mean it's been romanticised for ages so that it can sell stuff, like books, and all sorts of different products...


Faith has logic behind it, it's for people who like to be told what's good and bad, what to do and what not to do. Those people are quite dangerous. If they were told that to kill everyone who is not of their faith is the most holy and good thing in the world and it's a must do and their group of people around them agreed they'd do it, well they did it in the past..

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:40 Aug-21-2019

And there is tons of material on love, all it's neurological chemistry and shiz... same with why people want faith...

0
Rep
19
Offline
23:46 Aug-21-2019

That might be the dumbest thing ive heard we dont reproduce cuz of love its due to our genetic programming the want to reproduce settle down and have kids is integral to our species. Animals dont love they reproduce out of base necessity love is completely illogical and unique to humans

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:51 Aug-21-2019

Yeah we are parasitic like that, but due to love we take care of our children, otherwise we wouldn't, just like you don't want to take care of other people's children.
Do some research, I'm sure the the moment you type neurological or evolutionary love, or biological love, you'll see that it's for some if not all the reasons I mentioned, especially to take care of the children...


Everything is logical in life, even what seems illogical.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:53 Aug-21-2019

And we are quite parasytic, just like parasytes we love to be rewarded, nowadays it's dopamine, in the past it was an equivalent. And since we feel good being alive we evolved to sadly not regenerate or reverse age or divide and make a new younger versions of ourselves, but to have offspring. What a failed mutation we are. XD

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:57 Aug-21-2019

Hell we code AI(machine learning AI) to be just like us. Rewards and punishment and let it strive for the reward. Of course in that case rewards and punishments are more abstract than that, but still and then it starts evolving every time it gets punished and try to replicate everything gets it rewarded. For us rewards are Dopamine, Sex Hormones, Vasopressin and punishments are some other hormones I forgot the names of... so yeah...

0
Rep
19
Offline
00:00 Aug-22-2019

Than what is logical to you buy 1gb,2gb VRAM cards good luck running 2019 games. Going forward 4gb VRAM will be minimum as next gen consoles set in. Butt noo ofc according to you VRAM doesnt matter its a mythical illusion that doesnt benefit games at all. Yes please lets keep crappy 1k,2k textures forever shall we?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
00:13 Aug-22-2019

Dude, they fit GPUs with as much VRAM as they can benefit from a combination of bandwidth and compute performance allows for a GPU to benefit from and use EFFECTIVELY a certain amount of VRAM, otherwise it just fills up the VRAM and EFFECTIVELY use part of it... -_-


As I said otherwise they'd be spamming GPUs with 8-16GB of GDDR5 VRAM, especially during 2015-2017 when it was dirt cheap... -_-

0
Rep
19
Offline
05:07 Aug-22-2019

Ok i just re tested RE2 on my bros system with my rx 480 and the same issue happens when is set everything to MAX and the VRAM (no motion blur) after a bit of play time of running around the mansion i get massive stuttering,hitching and huge fps drops. Once lowered to the recommended 2.6GB VRAM and everything

0
Rep
19
Offline
05:09 Aug-22-2019

else maxed out the game runs smooth as butter with some slight stutter here and there (im very sensitive to it) but it runs well north of 60fps closer to 80 on avg. So its pretty obvious the 4GB VRAM buffer is an issue and please tell me you dont have these problems when you MAX the VRAM buffer to the 12GBs actually

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:46 Aug-22-2019

I tested it too on my r9 380. So a disclaimer, I don't own the game, I downloaded it cracked it for this test purpose. I played for 2 hours straight. And even when it says it consumes 12.9GB of VRAM and when it says it consumes 1.23GB, it stutters only when loading new areas and when it spawns a ton of enemies enemies, there is a micro stutter, again regardless of settings, textures, image quality, resolution(well I haven't tested a different resolution than 2560x1080), IDK if that micro-stutter is normal, but it has nothing to do with the settings, maybe cuz it's cracked and with an older patch or something, or it's just normal for the game.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:49 Aug-22-2019

That's not to say I had a dead solid FPS, obviously it fluctuated based on how many objects and details were on the screen, again regardless of settings, if more details were rendered on the screen the fps went down and when less details were rendered it went up, but not stuttering.

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:46 Aug-22-2019

One thing i noticed was that it only happens in the mansion i assume you played a bit through that section. I ended up loading later sections of the game like the sewer and it ran completely fine stutter free and so did the last level i have no idea whats up with this game. The reason im asking is perhaps the VRAM

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:47 Aug-22-2019

is damaged on this card in some way and as it gets more used it starts stuttering. Im asking this cause this is the mining RMA card i got back when my card died. I dont have any other GPU's to test other than the 1080ti which doesnt have this issue BUT that micro stutter is still there even on a legit copy of the game

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:48 Aug-22-2019

when loading new sections/or enemies and entering areas. So its a software issue and im putting my money on denuvo im not sure if DMC5 uses the same engine atleast i think it does im too lazy too look it up but that game was stripped of denuvo and i had 0 micro stuttering in it but RE regardless of settings in some are

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:56 Aug-22-2019

I could also try to put the card into my system to eliminate any CPU issues and record it as i can easily replicate it and its horrendous in the mansion particularly in the parking area of the game and as you run around the mansion but once its lowered tex look horrific but it runs A LOT better and more smoothly

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:03 Aug-22-2019

Yes I did and I did have lower FPS in Leon's mansion, but the (micro)stutters yet again were when generating new rooms(areas) and not when just playing in an area, fps was lower for sure, my GPU can't play it maxed out at 60fps average at 2560x1080 there.


And I guess it's most likely denuvo, DMC5 doesn't have this problem as it loads most of the map from the get go and loads extra small details as you progress through the level and look at them.

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:16 Aug-22-2019

People are parasitic is the most moronic thing I've heard anyone say ever. Sometimes, you know, when you clearly don't know sh*t, it's honestly better to just keep quiet. But you just can't help yourself can you?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:26 Aug-22-2019

So we can survive without living on earth, without a host? just like a parasite needs a host we do need one too. And we don't enjoy the reward stimulated to our brains of reproduction and growth just like parasites?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:28 Aug-22-2019

On top of that I presume that you think that parasites are bad, they are not, just because they can damage or kill humans, doesn't make them evil or anything, just another organism living, growing, reproducing, surviving, no different than us.

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:42 Aug-22-2019

@StevenPlebster i tried out the ultra low latency it works great just as well as anti lag did its effectively the same thing. Anyway i recommend trying it out someone also said it works on maxwell too which is great. I didnt want to update yesterday as there was a bug that installed geforce exp i hate that software

0
Rep
5
Offline
20:50 Aug-22-2019

@IlluminatiEyes Thanks, I'll give it a try when I have more free time.

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:03 Aug-22-2019

@Psychoman i think equating all humans to parasites is dumb but not entirely false. Not all humans pursue money and false promises of short sighted satisfactions such as dopamine, what about ghandi or buddha or countless others that have lived selfless lives just cuz we are genetically programmed for reproduction

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:05 Aug-22-2019

and greed and selfishness doesnt mean all human beings behave this way. Not everyone has kids or families and is a "leech" as you equate people too. Sure in this capitalistic world its easy to see only the worst of human beings especially on the internet but its not like that irl and everywhere you go. However there

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:06 Aug-22-2019

plenty of greedy,vain,ignorant people on this planet that have brough us to many terrible situations in life but you cant assume everyone is like that.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:11 Aug-22-2019

Dude just the fact that we need a host to survive makes us parasites, that's the core of being a parasite.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:06 Aug-22-2019

All humans need a host, that being the earth like parasytes, and all humans enjoy dopamine. IDK about money, money is an abstract concept, and it's dumb, but nothing can be done about it.


And being selfless is being selfish about other people or things, because it is YOU who thinks that you should help people, it is YOU who beleives that X should be done for the benfit of Y and so on...

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:08 Aug-22-2019

@Psychoman By that logic than any living being on Earth is a parasite, and that's even stupider than your first claim to be honest. You've outdone yourself brother! Parasites are organisms that cannot survive without a host organism.

1
Rep
5
Offline
21:08 Aug-22-2019

And, as far as I'm aware, Earth is not an organism. And when did I insinuate that parasites are bad? That's something you just put into my mouth, as you tend to do. Dopamine release has nothing to do with parasites.

1
Rep
5
Offline
21:08 Aug-22-2019

They don't need a pleasure stimuly to keep on living, they need a host, and usually as non intelligent, or low intellignt organisms, thier primary, and most often only, drive is survival.

1
Rep
19
Offline
21:09 Aug-22-2019

This is the most twisted logic ever what HOST? what effin host do humans need? you being born from someone isnt you being a host and no not everyone enjoys the pursuit of dopamine as it is stupid and shortsighted people explore their minds with different substances sure but not just to get "high" or "get off"

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:10 Aug-22-2019

Just stop Psychoman. Genuinely, just stop. Stop and f*cking think for a second at least once before you spill that sewage out of your mouth. You think you're smart but you're really not. You really are not.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:08 Aug-22-2019

@IlluminatiEyes
Since I can't reply above anymore. Also it's not hard to test for damaged VRAM, stress tests usually do and if there are no artifacts it means it's fine. It's just the game stutters due to Denuvo or just optimization, most-likely a combination of both and it has nothing to do with VRAM and hardware as a whole.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:11 Aug-22-2019

@StevenPlebster
I said a HOST, NOT a living organism. Who says a HOST has to be a living organism?

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:14 Aug-22-2019

A F*UCKING DICTIONARY DEFINITION !!!

1
Rep
19
Offline
21:15 Aug-22-2019

Not to mention that as human beings we have free will a concept a parasite cant even comprehend. Parasites only existence is predicated on leeching or consuming their host. Thats all a parasite does and is programmed for we as humans evolve,grow,learn etc were infinitely more complex than a parasite will ever be.

1
Rep
19
Offline
21:17 Aug-22-2019

At this point either your language of english is severely limited to the point of kindergarden level or you havent learned anything in life yet. Dont spew nonsense when you dont have basic knowledge of biology who is this HOST what HOST? a spirit? so now were bringing imaginary things into conversations..great logic

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:18 Aug-22-2019

So my computer is biological organism when it hosts a server a? -_-
Also have you heard of an inorganic host? Another type of host.


Dude do you have the illness where you take thinks way too literal and way too narrow-minded or something?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:21 Aug-22-2019

So just because we are not 100% the same as parasites, we are not parasites? Then just because african american people are not 100% the same as caucasian then they are no people or vice versa? O_O


Defend humans all you want, but we are parasitic as hell. And we like to think we are very great and advanced and amazing when we are not...

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:24 Aug-22-2019

AHHAHAHA im dying of laughter from these two comments YOURE ACTUALLY A BRAINLET. yes humans mucho parasito we need de la host? What host? oh right i cant explain that its uhh inorganic its right there floating in the sky YEAHH that host that one. Im actually mentally deficient so imaginary concepts are real =your brain

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:27 Aug-22-2019

Are you reading this. It hurts, it definitely hurts. My fcking god. I definitely don't think people are great or perfect, but I know we're not fcking parasites at least.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:27 Aug-22-2019

well you didn't even bother typing in "innorganic host" in google...


We are not parasites when we can survive in space indefinitely until we die of old age or physical interaction with an object.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:30 Aug-22-2019

Defend humans. And what the f*ck are you? A God? An omnipotent all knowing being? That explains a lot honestly. I typed inorganic hosts, the only thing I'm getting are chemical research papers, not a PC hosting a server.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:25 Aug-22-2019

When your computer hosts a server it's hosting a FCKING SERVER. INORGANIC HOSTS are not what you think they are you dumb idiot. You PC is not an inorganic host when it hosts a fucking server you brain fart.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:27 Aug-22-2019

Sure... -_-
And why should we view humans differently than humans?

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:30 Aug-22-2019

F*cking what?

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:31 Aug-22-2019

cuz a parasite is literally too retarded too know its a parasite. You wouldnt even be able to function you would literally be a mute/blind/inexistant entity that would float around to consume other organism? In what way is this equal to human beings you are actually brain dead. Ive never seen anyone insult themselves

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:32 Aug-22-2019

this way and the entire human species. I can only imagine you consumed some potent drug and perhaps came to some 3rd eye level concept while you were drooling on yourself in your own underwear. "And why should we view humans differently than humans?" WHAT DOES THIS EVEN FKIN MEAN LOL

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:33 Aug-22-2019

Just leave it. Just leave it. I'm off, I spent way too much time and I've got a lot more important things to be doing than argue a God apparently. It's a futile effort. Should've just left this conversation and never said anything.

1
Rep
19
Offline
21:36 Aug-22-2019

I will i will just end on this piece for him. READ CARL JUNG you will understand HOW COMPLICATED human beings are what the EGO is what the SHADOW is these are real selves within ourselves but we are not some parasite and i dont care about what low level psychology you can understand but what you are saying is retarded.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:37 Aug-22-2019

Ok so you guys are 100% literal... great... --
So unless we are literally a parasite we are not a parasite, very open-minded I see... -
-


We share the core principles of parasites... but whatever... we can't survive without something to leech off of, in our case the earth, don't call it a host if you don't want to, because there is no way that there can be many types of host, because "I'm right.com" says so, but it's the same, every human behaves and does what makes him feel good, usually dopamine. Out intellect is pretty much irrelevant to this, I'm not saying we are chemically, neurologically, physically, LITERALLY parasites... -_-

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:38 Aug-22-2019

He probably doesn't read books, they're probably too simple and basic for him. Written by just mere humans, my god. Imagine that disgrace.

1
Rep
5
Offline
21:40 Aug-22-2019

Parasites have principles apparently.
I wash my dishes by hand so I'm a dish washing machine all of a sudden. Your logic, not mine.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:44 Aug-22-2019

an complex structure of a particular organization or system(apparatus) using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task is a machine, you can be defined as such, so yeah you are a dish washing machine. :P


see it's easy to use "I'm right.com".

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:39 Aug-22-2019

We say we are complicated, because we can't understand ourselves... just because it's complicated to us doesn't mean much... Why do people put humans as the pedestal of everything... if a human is too weak to lift something then it's heavy, if a human can't comprehend something or it's hard to comprehend, then it's complex, and so on... why do we think we are so important and great and the center of the universe?

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:42 Aug-22-2019

Because we are the most intelligent species in the entire known universe as of know. What should we put on a pedestal YOU? You are such a brainlet if we were parasites and DID WHATEVER we pleased WHO WOULD BUILD ROADS,WORK,EVOLVE,WHO MADE THE PC THAT YOU TYPE FROM??? A FKING HUMAN BEING that is the pedestal we carry

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:43 Aug-22-2019

just cuz you are worthless and stupid and cannot invent anything or contribute to society as a whole does not mean ALL HUMANS ARE. you are the issue and this mentality you have will certanly prevent you from ever achieveing anything in life espiecally with your "WE ARE HERE FOR A GOOD TIME NOT A LONG TIME" mentality.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:43 Aug-22-2019

Why do you think you're not a human? Why do you speak of humans as you're not a part of the same species? Because that's our way of understanding. If an ant cant lift a ball but I can, than that ball is not heavy for that ant apparently.

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:46 Aug-22-2019

you have a very narrow minded,toxic,stupid,ignorant,unintelligent view of the world. Open your mind up learn about yourself improve yourself then maybe you will achieve things in life instead of spreading misery around and thinking "HEY EVERYONE IS AS SHET AS I AM" . You are only harming yourself and at this point IDC

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:46 Aug-22-2019

@IlluminatiEyes Are you saying I'm not a human? O_O


Again you are putting our accomplishments as if they matter to the universe at all... If we stopped exsiting nothing would change in a meaningful way in the universe.


@StevenPlebster go to "I'm right.com" and check what the word "WE" means.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:46 Aug-22-2019

If an elephant can topple down a tree but a human cant only through sheer force, than doing that is easy for an elephant but hard for a human. If you ask a question from a human perspective than you're going to get a related answer? No?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:47 Aug-22-2019

How am I harming myself?

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:50 Aug-22-2019

By not thinking. By believing that you're above being human. By making absurdly stupid statements. And many, many more.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:56 Aug-22-2019

Dude you always say thing about me that I never said or things that I've said that I have never said... How am I above human?

0
Rep
5
Offline
22:05 Aug-22-2019

Considering you always refer to humans and people as a detached party, I came to a simple conclusion that you probably aren't human.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:49 Aug-22-2019

So your argument is that we should never do anything because it doesn't matter in the perspective of the universe? Is that it? That seems to be so I guess.
Stupid point of view, nothing more.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:50 Aug-22-2019

No exactly because nothing matters we can do things. If things mattered we'd all be doing the same things... Why would you want them to matter? That's just plain masochism.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:53 Aug-22-2019

And yours is just plain nihilism. And I don't subscribe to that.

1
Rep
19
Offline
21:54 Aug-22-2019

"No exactly because nothing matters we can do things. If things mattered we'd all be doing the same things… Why would you want them to matter? That's just plain masochism." I think i just sustained permanent brain damage from reading that. If everything is pointless than whats the point in doing anything? there isnt

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:03 Aug-22-2019

Exactly, imagine if there was a point, a purpose a meaning. Let's say the meaning of life is War, doesn't how, why and what, we just somehow know it is War and the killing of others, well what if I don't like war? What if I don't want to go to war? What if I don't want to kill people? Nope... that's the meaning of life and that's what I gotta do and people who dislike war would be miserable.


Without having a purpose, meaning or reason, we do what we want to do, just because. Why do we NEED a point? IIRC seeking a purpose or meaning is a survival instinct or something like that as it gains us an advantage.


This guy, "Blaise" explains it much better than me:
http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/1124-why-do-we-as-human-beings-seek-meaning/

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:49 Aug-22-2019

@StevenPlebster
I'm going to get the answer that it's hard for HUMANS, but not that it's hard as a whole. Which was exactly my point.

0
Rep
5
Offline
21:51 Aug-22-2019

Its hard for humans because you're asking a question from a perspective of a human. Who's perspective do you want to take?

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:54 Aug-22-2019

My point is that it shouldn't be taken from a perspective... But as a ultimate physical limitation, which we are yet to find out what is. But we like to be self-important, even though we are yet another mutation on this planet.

0
Rep
19
Offline
21:56 Aug-22-2019

I think you watched a george carlin stand up once and bill burr since you are literally parroting what bill burr said about im.right.com and george carlins lines. Bruh quoting comedians and then thinking you understood what they were saying isnt the same thing. Go back in rewatch it a few times maybe let your brain boo

0