Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hardwareunboxedJoin us on Floatplane: https://www.floatplane.com/channel/HardwareUnboxedBuy relevant products ...
I kinda disagree with his assessment that 30-40fps in this style of game isn’t playable. I find it completely playable in this game.
Also use of DLSS at 1080p balanced or performance setting to get near 60fps wouldn’t be that terrible vs not be able to play IMO. DLSS even at 1080p doesn’t look anywhere near as bad as FSR2.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, I completely agree. People act love to act like FSR 2 is “absolutely terrible” and “uncomparable” to DLSS, when in reality they’re really rather close in quality. FSR has less ghosting and more shimmering, DLSS has more ghosting and less shimmering. Yet, if you suggest that FSR 2 is comparable to DLSS, people act like you’ve just committed a war-crime.
I kinda disagree with his assessment that 30-40fps in this style of game isn’t playable. I find it completely playable in this game.
Used to console gaming? lol
You might disagree but that’s not most people, only if you are used to gaming at a merely 60fps or bellow with low refresh rate then maybe.
But anyone who used to play at 144-200+ fps and high refresh monitors, EVEN 60 can feel choppy and is like a bare minimum, no one wants to play feeling those stutters that comes with low fps, as soon as it starts dropping in the 50s, it feels like power point, some of us even get dizzy wit that shit.
most people are using 1080p 60hz monitors with 3060s . What are you talking about. 30fps is playable, been playable since the dawn of video games . When crysis came out, no hardware that year could give you 50fps at 1024x768 resolution . Just think for a moment .
I kinda disagree with his assessment that 30-40fps in this style of game isn’t playable. I find it completely playable in this game.
Also use of DLSS at 1080p balanced or performance setting to get near 60fps wouldn’t be that terrible vs not be able to play IMO. DLSS even at 1080p doesn’t look anywhere near as bad as FSR2.
FSR 2 looks fine. DLSS handles the shimmering a lot better. Thats the only difference really and its minor.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, I completely agree. People act love to act like FSR 2 is “absolutely terrible” and “uncomparable” to DLSS, when in reality they’re really rather close in quality. FSR has less ghosting and more shimmering, DLSS has more ghosting and less shimmering. Yet, if you suggest that FSR 2 is comparable to DLSS, people act like you’ve just committed a war-crime.
Used to console gaming? lol
You might disagree but that’s not most people, only if you are used to gaming at a merely 60fps or bellow with low refresh rate then maybe.
But anyone who used to play at 144-200+ fps and high refresh monitors, EVEN 60 can feel choppy and is like a bare minimum, no one wants to play feeling those stutters that comes with low fps, as soon as it starts dropping in the 50s, it feels like power point, some of us even get dizzy wit that shit.
That’s absolutely not most people lol. For 144+ FPS on games like Alan Wake 2 you’re looking at a tiny sliver of gamers on high end PCs.
most people are using 1080p 60hz monitors with 3060s . What are you talking about. 30fps is playable, been playable since the dawn of video games . When crysis came out, no hardware that year could give you 50fps at 1024x768 resolution . Just think for a moment .
I don’t believe for a secondary most people are that dump for still on 60hz and buying a 3060.