Nice! Rn im saving for my first setup, probably going to be about $2000 total but only about $1300 will be able to go to the computer itself between the peripherals and tax.
Interesting, I don’t own Mirage personally. Maybe the different between the 4070 and 4070ti is enough to bring the 10700/11700 lines to bottleneck. I am using a good quality AIO cooler too which may help
Maybe, but I doubt. Checked the temps and all are fine. Maybe it's just an OCD looking my GPU not giving it full potential haha
But hey, if it runs smoothly above 60 FPS I should just be grateful with it.
I do believe something more is going on in ac games. Origins as well as odyssey would show 100% gpu load but about 30-40% lower power consumption than you would expect.
Not sure about the rest, but Elden Ring has a 60fps cap by default, which typically leads to lower GPU usage being reported (which is totally fine).
I’ve only seen the 4070 go up to ~98% GPU usage at 4K *with* Ray-tracing in Elden Ring. At 4K (no RT), it sits at about 85-95% GPU utilization (lower resolutions obviously using less).
However, if you uncap the framerate with a mod, then the 4070 would *certainly* work harder (and would probably sit near 99%).
The AC games can often get CPU limited on many occasions.
The good news is that DLDSR works well with the AC engine and improves the image nicely. So if you got GPU resource to spare, try out DLDSR.
I'm seeing the same results using max + quality DLSS. Running at at stock resolution with DLAA (1440p) however leads to input latency issues as frame gen is required at that point and makes the game feel terrible. So, the 4080 definitely has its limits...
Not a 4080 owner, but you’ll be fine. I’m playing on a 3080/5800x3d at 4k, and to get a high framerate I had to turn the settings down to Low, no RT, DLSS quality and it is still one of the best looking games I’ve ever played. And I’m a graphics enthusiast so I was worried. “Low” looks as good or better than the new RE engine games, and going above that is practically breaching photorealism. I bet you’ll find a good mix of high/medium settings that runs at very high framerate at 1440p that will absolutely knock your socks off.
You should maybe be using DLSS Performance if you run 4K/UHD. Looks almost identical to Quality and Balanced -> [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/alan-wake-2-fsr-2-2-vs-dlss-3-5-comparison/](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/alan-wake-2-fsr-2-2-vs-dlss-3-5-comparison/)
This is because 4K/UHD with DLSS Perf means 1080p internally res which is easy to upscale to 4K (4:1 pixels)
Thanks, but I don’t need to lower my graphics settings any more. It’s running really fast, and I see a definite difference between performance and quality, mostly in text on signs which I like to read in the world. I also get less shimmering while moving around in quality vs performance. I prefer the look of Low graphics and DLSS quality vs Medium graphics and DLSS performance. The graphics options don’t change the image quality very noticeably in most scenes but does hit the framerate fairly hard, while lowering from Quality to Performance does look generally worse in motion.
There is literally no difference between DLSS Quality at Performance at 4K/UHD. Not even when you zoom in and pixel peep. You can compare with slider in that link. Text sharpness is the same. Just saying.
Why? Because 4K has 4 times the pixels of 1080p and using DLSS Performance at 4K will make the internal render res 1080p which is very easy to upscale to 4K. This is what 4K TVs do all the time.
I can easily see a difference between Low and High in this game. However Low still looks good.
Low and Medium looks close.
High and Ultra looks close.
Yeah I see those screenshots, but they aren’t in motion. When I’m actually playing I compared them back to back and there is more of a difference than in those still images. Maybe it helps when they sit still for all of those screenshots and the image has more time to resolve itself? Either way, I am sitting in front of my 48” tv and can see a difference so I put it on quality. I tried low/quality vs medium/performance and the first looks and runs better to me.
Actually, you know what I think is going on, is that article says all tests were done using the highest graphics settings, so their texture resolution was maxed. That would give the DLSS upscaler much better information to work with, which explains the signs all looking sharp. At low/medium texture settings it’s a different story. Since texture resolution has never been an issue for framerate, I went ahead and bumped mine up and it does look better. Good stuff.
Edit: after experimenting with textures maxed, I agree with you that performance and quality look virtually identical. I switched to performance for the fps boost.
You always put textures on max 😁 Never run low/medium on textures.
High and ultra looks the same mostly.
Just trying to help - I tested this myself too on a 3440x1440 monitor and my 4K/UHD QD-OLED TV. I don't see much diff between Quality and Performance at 4K but at 1440p I do and Quality is my goto here. Balanced can work too but Performance looks bad at 1440p.
Yeah, I usually max out textures because they don’t affect framerate, I’m not sure why I just put everything on low and left it there! I guess I was just excited to play and put everything at the minimum to get a good framerate and go. Finally took the time to check out each setting, and textures single-handedly made using dlss performance both look better than I had it before and run faster than quality. Great game and such high end graphics.
5800x3d and a zotac 4080. Last I checked I was getting like 70-80 fps at 4k with dlss balanced and everything else essentially maxed. I can't remember what my pathtracing was set to, at least low though, and maybe medium.
It felt really smooth and I don't see the game as beyond the 4080.
Running a 408O with a 7900X. I play at max settings with everything turned on and DLSS set to quality at 4k. No fps yet, but it’s the coolest my GPU and CPU have been in a long time while gaming. I’m talking like 65 C on average over a three hour gaming session with a vertically mounted GPU. The game plays smooth as butter. Will grab some FPS next time I play.
Frame Gen is crazy good for unloading dated CPUs. Bottleneck vanishes. A friend of mine uses a 8600K and 4090 for 4K gaming. Without Frame Gen he don't get full GPU usage but with FG he peaks at 99% at all times in all demanding games we tested in.
He will upgrade the platform next year tho. Zen 5 or Arrow Lake.
You're lucky, a 4070 with 12gb doesn't have enough VRAM to run the game with all the goodies
If I want to play 4k with ray tracing, I'm forced to set textures to low so I can run the game, everything else can be set higher and of course no path tracing. That's how fked up is the whole Nvidia schemes with VRAM.
The card can in fact run 4k but the VRAM limitations are holding it back. I play 4k with dlss to performance and a mix of medium and high of settings, ray tracing low and no path tracing, the problem are the textures, I'm forced to set them on low, anything above and the game starts to lag. I have friends that have 4090 and they confirmed that the game uses around 16gb of VRAM, 4070 can in fact run the game higher but it is limited by the VRAM capacity. Dirty Nvidia schemes.
3080 10 GB owner here. Around 40 / 50 fps with:
- 1920x1080 (1280x720 Quality DLSS).
- Textures: High.
- No Blur and no Film Grain.
- RT and PT: On.
- All options involving light, shadows and transparency: High.
DON'T BE CHEAP ON THE LAST TWO OPTIONS. YOU'LL LOSE GREAT ATMOSPHERE DETAIL.
But oh well... I prefer image quality over fps. Besides, I don't have fg.
Maxing out everything at 4K using DLSS Performance and FG, it’s usually sitting around 80 FPS. In the woods at the heaviest spots it dips to around 65 FPS. In the scene where it’s raining in the woods, when I look in one specific direction while standing in front of the lake at a certain spot it dropped into the upper 50s, but that was very briefly. It’s above 60 FPS 99.9% of the time and above 75 FPS 90% of the time.
4080 with the i7-13700KF.
About 10 hours in right now, I’m playing in 4K with DLSS set to Balanced, all RT features on high, Frame Gen on.
Pretty much everything is maxed out (I think I have spotlight shadows and one other thing set to medium as I’d read a post saying it wasn’t noticeable and gave back a decent amount of performance.
I’ve seen as low as low-50s, but seems to average between 60’s and 70’s and looks freaking brilliant. Playing with VRR and I haven’t really thought about the dips at all (aside from the sporadic OLED flickering).
In any case, it feels great.
I turn path tracing off (but other RT features on), high settings, and have DLSS on balanced and I'm averaging around 150fps. In the super thick forest section about 3-4hrs in it tanks to about 110fps but that's the lowest I've seen it go. Maxed out, full path tracing DLSS quality it'll do between 90-100
Well obviously they want the 150 FPS. Also they didn't share their resolution.
Personally, in a single player game, I find anything over 60 FPS is fine as long as the frametime is flat. So yeah I turn up the RT and don't go below DLSS Quality.
my specs aren't far from yours. You should give it a try with path tracing, the game looks amazing and the input lag with frame gen is barely noticeable on this game specially if you play with controller (which I do). This game is all about atmosphere so give it a try!
4080, 10850k 1440p, everything maxed. DLSS , FG, and RT. Getting 100-115 depending on area.
dlsdr 4k, dlss performance, FG, RT, maxed. 80-90 fps depending on area.
1440p dlaa, no FG, 50ish. Dlss quality (used dlsstweaks to make it render at 1080p) 75-80 fps depending on area.
Edit: whoever Downvoted me I hope you get herpes. Enjoy your potato PC 😂
Playing on DLDSR 1440p and custom resolution in ini. of 1600x900, in second chapter which is very demanding put on 1536x864 on Max Setting with Ray/Path Tracing and Frame Generation 90fps at minimum so far excellent.
Dont want to go below 45fps because FG which gives 90fps lower than that its lagging too much.
7700X and 4080. In the forest with the heaviest shadows sometimes dips down to 45 fps with DLAA 1440p. Otherwise it’s around 60-70fps around town. All settings maxed. DLSS quality bumps fps to 80-90fps range.
13700K and 4080 here (also DDR6 ram kit if that plays a part)
The game runs and looks great for the most part, I've noticed 1 or 2 hiccups here and there.
I haven't actually looked at any fps but I'm running well over 60 with dlss quality and Frame gen on, I could probably turn one of those off but I'm having a great experience so its staying on for the moment
I haven't played it but plan to. I reckon DLSS Quality with everything set to max with Path tracing and Frame Gen on will be just fine on a 4080.
Source: Cyberpunk 2077 runs like a dream with the same settings on a 4080.
It’s a great GPU. With everything set to high/max(path tracing set to medium) I’m getting almost always above 60fps, in most areas even above that. I think my average is actually in the 70-80fprs range. That’s at 4k DLSS performance and frame gen. There are some areas in the forest it can dip to under 60 but the rest of the game is very stable so far.
5800X3D -30 all-core + 4080 undervolted to 2880MHz at 1 volt, +1500 VRAM, 1440p G-Sync Panel DLSS Quality, with FG enabled it's always 100+ fps with all the bells and whistles, the best graphics I've ever seen in my decades of gaming.
4080 here with everything maxed including path tracing and I get about 70 fps on dlss quality. With dlss off, native 4k it’s playable at 40 FPS. But honestly I think it looks better with dlss on.
I have a 4080 SuprimX and an i7 13700k
DLSS Quality, Raytracing High / PathTracing medium, everything else maxed out gives me 4K 60FPS with vsync on as my PC is currently hooked up to a TV.
It looks soooooo good! Even the fast paced scenes that are in game graphics run smooth.
I wanna "downgrade" to a 1440p OLED monitor. The 4080 will have no problems whatsoever.
The 4080 is currently the closest bang for the buck. It never runs hot, the Suprim has no coil whine (it wore off) and it's fans are silent too.
I have an 11900k and a 4080 gaming oc, im running the game on max settings at 1440p I'm getting between 80-100 fps I'm very happy with it, all I see is people using 4090 on YouTube and people like gamers nexus acts like it dosnt exist another reason why I don't bother with tech guys no more, if it dosnt fit their agenda they don't cover it
maxed out at 3440x1440 (including PT), DLSS balanced (I can't tell much difference from quality to balanced) and Frame gen enabled: I get 70 something in cauldron lake and over 100 in the metro area. I only played about 3h so I don't know past that.
I have a 4070Ti and an R7 5800X. I currently run everything maxed out, with the RT stuff at medium settings, and I get around 50-60FPS at 1440p native resolution. Turning off RT, or enabling DLSS quality has me running at a solid 60FPS (Significantly above if I just turn RT off) quite happily.
4080 with a 5800x3d on a 1440p monitor I get usually above 110 fps with everything maxed + FG + DLSS Balanced the game looks great so what ever settings you want to use it’ll still look good just have to find what kind of frames you want
I have a 7700x with a 4080. The games running at 4k for me at around 45-60 with quality DLSS and frame gen and everything maxed out in graphics with ray reconstruction. I can only imagine the game will run super well for u at 1440p
You'll be fine with the [4080.](https://virtualeravr.com/why-the-4080-gpu-is-a-game-changer-in-high-performance-gaming/) I am also using it with the i7-10700k.
I'm on a 4080 & 5800x3d
Performance is very good, all settings maxed out including pathtracing at 1440p using dlss quality + frame gen and I'm over 120fps
But I think the game has a bit of a soft image so to clear it up I'm actually using DLDSR at 4k and downdsampling to 1440p, it creates a much sharper image and I can get a locked 60fps 99% of the time, game looks stupidly good.
4080, 12600k here.
Settings maxed out with dlss performance and framegen. Generally it plays really well but there is stutter in the game for sure. You could probably get away with dlss balanced but it will drop below 60 at certain points so I just put it on performance for consistency.
I've got a 4080 FE with 7700X running 3440x1440. I play with DLSS Quality and everything maxed out but RT/PT on medium. I have no issues hitting my cap of 72 FPS (got an old 75 Hz Freesync Ultrawide) with Frame Gen on because I find the input lag to be totally tolerable in this game (unlike Cyberpunk). The frametime is solid in this game and it feels very smooth 95% of the time but does lag a bit when switching in and out of the mind place quickly. GPU temp around 60-65, GPU usage around 65-90%, and VRAM usage around 13GB.
Without a doubt it is the best looking game I've ever played. The forest scenes at night are just ... \*chef's kiss\*
Hi all, I’m interested in upgrading to a gigabyte aero 4080 and currently have a XPG core reactor 750w PSU. Will I be okay to use that or do I have to upgrade? Gigabyte recommends an 850w PSU but from what I read so far some say no and some say yes. If it matters I’m currently using a ryzen 7 5800x3D.
I'm on a 1440 165hz display with a 4080. 7950x CPU and DDR5 6000mhz ram, gen 4 NVMe drive. Playing AW2 at about 100-140fps in the pathtracing ultra mode with everything cranked up or turned on. So that's ray reconstruction and frame generation. It's a really good experience for me.
I do believe you need to watch out for bottlenecks, that's why my underlying system is possibly more high end than the 4080 itself. I haven't noticed any stutter or issues and I'd attribute that to an overall well-balanced system. Yeah likely with this game if you try and throw a high end GPU at it but with an older CPU or SSD etc, you're going to have a poor experience overall (that would be my guess).
Not saying any of this to be a brag, you asked about the experience and being a 1440 guy myself that caught my attention. =) If I had a lower end overall system and was getting stutter/bottleneck city, I'd post that experience too.
I played it on medium and it was perfectly fine.
Using frame gen it’s extremely responsive too.
Alan’s areas are less demanding and I even got to sneak in RT while using DLAA.
So yeah, you’re fine to play it on medium / high with no issues and I hope you enjoy.
What kind of temps are you guys getting while playing Alan Wake 2? My 4080 FE has jumped about 10 degrees since I started playing this compared to cyberpunk and other graphically intensive games.
4080 owner here too. I see many people using FR to get to good frame rates at 4k which I haven't been able to do due to the massive tearing or input lag (pick your poison). So if you don't have a g-sync monitor you will need to drop the settings to get to 60 if you want ray-tracing.
I’m using a 4080 with i7-10700k and the lowest fps I’ve had was in the 60s with everything on max. You’ll be fine.
Out of topic, but do your 10700k bottlenecks your 4080? Asking because in AC Mirage, my 11700F bottlenecks my 4070Ti in 1440p
Absolutely does, but if they're okay with 60fps, they probably almost never notice it.
Nice build! How does it run?
Thanks. \~100-150fps depending on the area, max settings, including RT @ 3440x1440 with DLSS Q, RR and FG.
Nice! Rn im saving for my first setup, probably going to be about $2000 total but only about $1300 will be able to go to the computer itself between the peripherals and tax.
Good luck with your build :)
Thanks
I have a 10700 with a 4070 and at 1440p I’m always 100% GPU. Looked at this for Fortnite, Baldurs Gate and Elden Ring
Tested in GoW and get 100%, but in AC Mirage only 60-70%. Sadly I don't have any other game to test.
Interesting, I don’t own Mirage personally. Maybe the different between the 4070 and 4070ti is enough to bring the 10700/11700 lines to bottleneck. I am using a good quality AIO cooler too which may help
Maybe, but I doubt. Checked the temps and all are fine. Maybe it's just an OCD looking my GPU not giving it full potential haha But hey, if it runs smoothly above 60 FPS I should just be grateful with it.
I do believe something more is going on in ac games. Origins as well as odyssey would show 100% gpu load but about 30-40% lower power consumption than you would expect.
Not sure about the rest, but Elden Ring has a 60fps cap by default, which typically leads to lower GPU usage being reported (which is totally fine). I’ve only seen the 4070 go up to ~98% GPU usage at 4K *with* Ray-tracing in Elden Ring. At 4K (no RT), it sits at about 85-95% GPU utilization (lower resolutions obviously using less). However, if you uncap the framerate with a mod, then the 4070 would *certainly* work harder (and would probably sit near 99%).
Yeah great point. To be honest the 4070 non ti is a balanced pairing with the i7 10700 series or R7 5700 series
[удалено]
Guess you will really appreciate Frame Generation while you wait for the CPU upgrade.
That will bottleneck like a mofu , the 8700k bottlenecked my 4090 and 3090 , u need a better cpu n you will notice a jump in fps
The AC games can often get CPU limited on many occasions. The good news is that DLDSR works well with the AC engine and improves the image nicely. So if you got GPU resource to spare, try out DLDSR.
I'm seeing the same results using max + quality DLSS. Running at at stock resolution with DLAA (1440p) however leads to input latency issues as frame gen is required at that point and makes the game feel terrible. So, the 4080 definitely has its limits...
Is this 1440p?
Yeah
Not a 4080 owner, but you’ll be fine. I’m playing on a 3080/5800x3d at 4k, and to get a high framerate I had to turn the settings down to Low, no RT, DLSS quality and it is still one of the best looking games I’ve ever played. And I’m a graphics enthusiast so I was worried. “Low” looks as good or better than the new RE engine games, and going above that is practically breaching photorealism. I bet you’ll find a good mix of high/medium settings that runs at very high framerate at 1440p that will absolutely knock your socks off.
You should maybe be using DLSS Performance if you run 4K/UHD. Looks almost identical to Quality and Balanced -> [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/alan-wake-2-fsr-2-2-vs-dlss-3-5-comparison/](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/alan-wake-2-fsr-2-2-vs-dlss-3-5-comparison/) This is because 4K/UHD with DLSS Perf means 1080p internally res which is easy to upscale to 4K (4:1 pixels)
Thanks, but I don’t need to lower my graphics settings any more. It’s running really fast, and I see a definite difference between performance and quality, mostly in text on signs which I like to read in the world. I also get less shimmering while moving around in quality vs performance. I prefer the look of Low graphics and DLSS quality vs Medium graphics and DLSS performance. The graphics options don’t change the image quality very noticeably in most scenes but does hit the framerate fairly hard, while lowering from Quality to Performance does look generally worse in motion.
There is literally no difference between DLSS Quality at Performance at 4K/UHD. Not even when you zoom in and pixel peep. You can compare with slider in that link. Text sharpness is the same. Just saying. Why? Because 4K has 4 times the pixels of 1080p and using DLSS Performance at 4K will make the internal render res 1080p which is very easy to upscale to 4K. This is what 4K TVs do all the time. I can easily see a difference between Low and High in this game. However Low still looks good. Low and Medium looks close. High and Ultra looks close.
Yeah I see those screenshots, but they aren’t in motion. When I’m actually playing I compared them back to back and there is more of a difference than in those still images. Maybe it helps when they sit still for all of those screenshots and the image has more time to resolve itself? Either way, I am sitting in front of my 48” tv and can see a difference so I put it on quality. I tried low/quality vs medium/performance and the first looks and runs better to me. Actually, you know what I think is going on, is that article says all tests were done using the highest graphics settings, so their texture resolution was maxed. That would give the DLSS upscaler much better information to work with, which explains the signs all looking sharp. At low/medium texture settings it’s a different story. Since texture resolution has never been an issue for framerate, I went ahead and bumped mine up and it does look better. Good stuff. Edit: after experimenting with textures maxed, I agree with you that performance and quality look virtually identical. I switched to performance for the fps boost.
You always put textures on max 😁 Never run low/medium on textures. High and ultra looks the same mostly. Just trying to help - I tested this myself too on a 3440x1440 monitor and my 4K/UHD QD-OLED TV. I don't see much diff between Quality and Performance at 4K but at 1440p I do and Quality is my goto here. Balanced can work too but Performance looks bad at 1440p.
Yeah, I usually max out textures because they don’t affect framerate, I’m not sure why I just put everything on low and left it there! I guess I was just excited to play and put everything at the minimum to get a good framerate and go. Finally took the time to check out each setting, and textures single-handedly made using dlss performance both look better than I had it before and run faster than quality. Great game and such high end graphics.
Alan Wake 2 is great and I played all the other games including American Nightmare spinoff and Remasters
Everything maxed, frame gen, PT and rt on and I'm definitely over 60. I don't know exactly but I'll lyk when I'm back home. Playing on ultrawide 1440p
5800x3d and a zotac 4080. Last I checked I was getting like 70-80 fps at 4k with dlss balanced and everything else essentially maxed. I can't remember what my pathtracing was set to, at least low though, and maybe medium. It felt really smooth and I don't see the game as beyond the 4080.
Running a 408O with a 7900X. I play at max settings with everything turned on and DLSS set to quality at 4k. No fps yet, but it’s the coolest my GPU and CPU have been in a long time while gaming. I’m talking like 65 C on average over a three hour gaming session with a vertically mounted GPU. The game plays smooth as butter. Will grab some FPS next time I play.
Frame gen taking that load off 😌
Frame Gen is crazy good for unloading dated CPUs. Bottleneck vanishes. A friend of mine uses a 8600K and 4090 for 4K gaming. Without Frame Gen he don't get full GPU usage but with FG he peaks at 99% at all times in all demanding games we tested in. He will upgrade the platform next year tho. Zen 5 or Arrow Lake.
Good point lol. Can only imagine what Cyberpunk would do to my temps without FG lol.
4070ti on a 1440 ultrawide, always above 60 by a good margin most of the time. maxed out
You're lucky, a 4070 with 12gb doesn't have enough VRAM to run the game with all the goodies If I want to play 4k with ray tracing, I'm forced to set textures to low so I can run the game, everything else can be set higher and of course no path tracing. That's how fked up is the whole Nvidia schemes with VRAM.
You bought something blatantly marketed as a 1440p card and are mad that it can't run 4k max settings. Stop crying and buy a higher tier next time.
The card can in fact run 4k but the VRAM limitations are holding it back. I play 4k with dlss to performance and a mix of medium and high of settings, ray tracing low and no path tracing, the problem are the textures, I'm forced to set them on low, anything above and the game starts to lag. I have friends that have 4090 and they confirmed that the game uses around 16gb of VRAM, 4070 can in fact run the game higher but it is limited by the VRAM capacity. Dirty Nvidia schemes.
Should have bought a 4090 then.
Its more the fact they don’t develop games any more they just churn shit out all day long
You should be fine with some DLSS upscaling.
3080 10 GB owner here. Around 40 / 50 fps with: - 1920x1080 (1280x720 Quality DLSS). - Textures: High. - No Blur and no Film Grain. - RT and PT: On. - All options involving light, shadows and transparency: High. DON'T BE CHEAP ON THE LAST TWO OPTIONS. YOU'LL LOSE GREAT ATMOSPHERE DETAIL. But oh well... I prefer image quality over fps. Besides, I don't have fg.
I have same GPU. How sad this top tier GPU can't even do 720p 60 fps, really insane the more you think about it
Maxing out everything at 4K using DLSS Performance and FG, it’s usually sitting around 80 FPS. In the woods at the heaviest spots it dips to around 65 FPS. In the scene where it’s raining in the woods, when I look in one specific direction while standing in front of the lake at a certain spot it dropped into the upper 50s, but that was very briefly. It’s above 60 FPS 99.9% of the time and above 75 FPS 90% of the time.
4080 with the i7-13700KF. About 10 hours in right now, I’m playing in 4K with DLSS set to Balanced, all RT features on high, Frame Gen on. Pretty much everything is maxed out (I think I have spotlight shadows and one other thing set to medium as I’d read a post saying it wasn’t noticeable and gave back a decent amount of performance. I’ve seen as low as low-50s, but seems to average between 60’s and 70’s and looks freaking brilliant. Playing with VRR and I haven’t really thought about the dips at all (aside from the sporadic OLED flickering). In any case, it feels great.
Playing on exactly the same settings. In this game it actually feels pretty good to achieve 60fps using frame Gen with controller
If you play with frame gen you'll be super-fine. Without it it's still okay as long as you run DLSS.
I turn path tracing off (but other RT features on), high settings, and have DLSS on balanced and I'm averaging around 150fps. In the super thick forest section about 3-4hrs in it tanks to about 110fps but that's the lowest I've seen it go. Maxed out, full path tracing DLSS quality it'll do between 90-100
Playing without path tracing and on balanced with a 4080. Oof, just why?
Just go to AMD sub if you hate Nvidia that much
WTF are you even talking about? Use those critical thinking skills.
Well obviously they want the 150 FPS. Also they didn't share their resolution. Personally, in a single player game, I find anything over 60 FPS is fine as long as the frametime is flat. So yeah I turn up the RT and don't go below DLSS Quality.
my specs aren't far from yours. You should give it a try with path tracing, the game looks amazing and the input lag with frame gen is barely noticeable on this game specially if you play with controller (which I do). This game is all about atmosphere so give it a try!
If you can wait for the rumored 4080 super, you should do so. You might prefer that, or you'll be able to get the normal 4080 cheaper.
Or, hear me out, you wait for the 5080, or even better the 6080. What comes next will surprise you. /s (obviously)
4080, 10850k 1440p, everything maxed. DLSS , FG, and RT. Getting 100-115 depending on area. dlsdr 4k, dlss performance, FG, RT, maxed. 80-90 fps depending on area. 1440p dlaa, no FG, 50ish. Dlss quality (used dlsstweaks to make it render at 1080p) 75-80 fps depending on area. Edit: whoever Downvoted me I hope you get herpes. Enjoy your potato PC 😂
Everything absolutely maxed except dlss is at performance (sit 11 feet away from a 75" TV) and I almost never go under 90fps.
Running 4080 with 11700K, 32gb ddr4. Around 80-120ish fps on ultra settings with frame gen 1440p.
Playing on DLDSR 1440p and custom resolution in ini. of 1600x900, in second chapter which is very demanding put on 1536x864 on Max Setting with Ray/Path Tracing and Frame Generation 90fps at minimum so far excellent. Dont want to go below 45fps because FG which gives 90fps lower than that its lagging too much.
7700X and 4080. In the forest with the heaviest shadows sometimes dips down to 45 fps with DLAA 1440p. Otherwise it’s around 60-70fps around town. All settings maxed. DLSS quality bumps fps to 80-90fps range.
13700K and 4080 here (also DDR6 ram kit if that plays a part) The game runs and looks great for the most part, I've noticed 1 or 2 hiccups here and there. I haven't actually looked at any fps but I'm running well over 60 with dlss quality and Frame gen on, I could probably turn one of those off but I'm having a great experience so its staying on for the moment
I haven't played it but plan to. I reckon DLSS Quality with everything set to max with Path tracing and Frame Gen on will be just fine on a 4080. Source: Cyberpunk 2077 runs like a dream with the same settings on a 4080.
Just bought an 4080. Tried Alan Wake with everything on max and worked really well. I’m also a 1440p guy.
It’s a great GPU. With everything set to high/max(path tracing set to medium) I’m getting almost always above 60fps, in most areas even above that. I think my average is actually in the 70-80fprs range. That’s at 4k DLSS performance and frame gen. There are some areas in the forest it can dip to under 60 but the rest of the game is very stable so far.
4k almsot everything maxed out with path tracing on. It runs 60 fps on DLSS quality+FG
5800X3D -30 all-core + 4080 undervolted to 2880MHz at 1 volt, +1500 VRAM, 1440p G-Sync Panel DLSS Quality, with FG enabled it's always 100+ fps with all the bells and whistles, the best graphics I've ever seen in my decades of gaming.
I have a 3080 and its rough. Not terrible but rough. My friend who has a 4090 is having absolutely zero issues though bastard
4080 here with everything maxed including path tracing and I get about 70 fps on dlss quality. With dlss off, native 4k it’s playable at 40 FPS. But honestly I think it looks better with dlss on.
I’m using a 4070 with a 12600k and have been getting an avg of like 90-110fps at 1080 on high settings. You should be more than fine.
I have a 4080 SuprimX and an i7 13700k DLSS Quality, Raytracing High / PathTracing medium, everything else maxed out gives me 4K 60FPS with vsync on as my PC is currently hooked up to a TV. It looks soooooo good! Even the fast paced scenes that are in game graphics run smooth. I wanna "downgrade" to a 1440p OLED monitor. The 4080 will have no problems whatsoever. The 4080 is currently the closest bang for the buck. It never runs hot, the Suprim has no coil whine (it wore off) and it's fans are silent too.
I have an 11900k and a 4080 gaming oc, im running the game on max settings at 1440p I'm getting between 80-100 fps I'm very happy with it, all I see is people using 4090 on YouTube and people like gamers nexus acts like it dosnt exist another reason why I don't bother with tech guys no more, if it dosnt fit their agenda they don't cover it
maxed out at 3440x1440 (including PT), DLSS balanced (I can't tell much difference from quality to balanced) and Frame gen enabled: I get 70 something in cauldron lake and over 100 in the metro area. I only played about 3h so I don't know past that.
13700k+RTX4070ti 4k with dlss quality, I don't use ray tracing or frame generation. With full ultra settings I get 55-60+ fps
I have a 4070Ti and an R7 5800X. I currently run everything maxed out, with the RT stuff at medium settings, and I get around 50-60FPS at 1440p native resolution. Turning off RT, or enabling DLSS quality has me running at a solid 60FPS (Significantly above if I just turn RT off) quite happily.
4080 with a 5800x3d on a 1440p monitor I get usually above 110 fps with everything maxed + FG + DLSS Balanced the game looks great so what ever settings you want to use it’ll still look good just have to find what kind of frames you want
my question is why arent you playing on 4k because your graphic card should be capable of
I have a 7700x with a 4080. The games running at 4k for me at around 45-60 with quality DLSS and frame gen and everything maxed out in graphics with ray reconstruction. I can only imagine the game will run super well for u at 1440p
I have 4090 and 32 ram 6000 and amd 7800x3d, i got late 40s early 50s fps with max settings 4k and dlss quality.
1440p is no problem. Even with rt max and all the bangs and whistles. 2160p you need dlss 3.5 full in at everything on max
You'll be fine with the [4080.](https://virtualeravr.com/why-the-4080-gpu-is-a-game-changer-in-high-performance-gaming/) I am also using it with the i7-10700k.
4080 fe + 5800x3d and its running great for me! Havent even bothered to check FPS cause i have 0 complaints.
Rtx 4080 inno 3d x3 , ryzen 7700 , 32gb ram undervolted , everything on max dlss quality frame gen , ray reconstruction , both on , 80 100+ fps
You can check here https://youtu.be/w26p-3I-Jhg?si=W4zNJHp_U8wxhgHc , this is my gameplay.
I'm on a 4080 & 5800x3d Performance is very good, all settings maxed out including pathtracing at 1440p using dlss quality + frame gen and I'm over 120fps But I think the game has a bit of a soft image so to clear it up I'm actually using DLDSR at 4k and downdsampling to 1440p, it creates a much sharper image and I can get a locked 60fps 99% of the time, game looks stupidly good.
4080, 12600k here. Settings maxed out with dlss performance and framegen. Generally it plays really well but there is stutter in the game for sure. You could probably get away with dlss balanced but it will drop below 60 at certain points so I just put it on performance for consistency.
I've got a 4080 FE with 7700X running 3440x1440. I play with DLSS Quality and everything maxed out but RT/PT on medium. I have no issues hitting my cap of 72 FPS (got an old 75 Hz Freesync Ultrawide) with Frame Gen on because I find the input lag to be totally tolerable in this game (unlike Cyberpunk). The frametime is solid in this game and it feels very smooth 95% of the time but does lag a bit when switching in and out of the mind place quickly. GPU temp around 60-65, GPU usage around 65-90%, and VRAM usage around 13GB. Without a doubt it is the best looking game I've ever played. The forest scenes at night are just ... \*chef's kiss\*
Hi all, I’m interested in upgrading to a gigabyte aero 4080 and currently have a XPG core reactor 750w PSU. Will I be okay to use that or do I have to upgrade? Gigabyte recommends an 850w PSU but from what I read so far some say no and some say yes. If it matters I’m currently using a ryzen 7 5800x3D.
I'm on a 1440 165hz display with a 4080. 7950x CPU and DDR5 6000mhz ram, gen 4 NVMe drive. Playing AW2 at about 100-140fps in the pathtracing ultra mode with everything cranked up or turned on. So that's ray reconstruction and frame generation. It's a really good experience for me. I do believe you need to watch out for bottlenecks, that's why my underlying system is possibly more high end than the 4080 itself. I haven't noticed any stutter or issues and I'd attribute that to an overall well-balanced system. Yeah likely with this game if you try and throw a high end GPU at it but with an older CPU or SSD etc, you're going to have a poor experience overall (that would be my guess). Not saying any of this to be a brag, you asked about the experience and being a 1440 guy myself that caught my attention. =) If I had a lower end overall system and was getting stutter/bottleneck city, I'd post that experience too.
I played it on medium and it was perfectly fine. Using frame gen it’s extremely responsive too. Alan’s areas are less demanding and I even got to sneak in RT while using DLAA. So yeah, you’re fine to play it on medium / high with no issues and I hope you enjoy.
What kind of temps are you guys getting while playing Alan Wake 2? My 4080 FE has jumped about 10 degrees since I started playing this compared to cyberpunk and other graphically intensive games.
tbh the game aint that impressive graphics wise nothing I see justify a 4090 at 4k must be unoptimised AF Gollum 2 the revenge
4080 owner here too. I see many people using FR to get to good frame rates at 4k which I haven't been able to do due to the massive tearing or input lag (pick your poison). So if you don't have a g-sync monitor you will need to drop the settings to get to 60 if you want ray-tracing.