It is not measured by the meter. In 4k, even 10 fps more can make you happy. You will not notice differences in 1080p or 1440p, where the counter exceeds 100 fps, but at higher resolutions it changes the page.
Of course, everyone has their own options. It can play excrementably in 4K or invest in a video card that will give it at least a decent experience.
Except for the adapter, I can't understand you. Did you pay attention to the temperatures? They could offer you a 0.5 Kg flea with 85-95 degrees, for the feeling.
The heavy weight comes from the best performing cooler that a founder edition has had so far. At 300-400W you should have SSD temperatures, priceless.
Its clear you don't understand all of what things really mean in GPU land, let me elaborate.
- They
can't offer a 0.5 Kg flea because Nvidia's GPUs want to run <80C for correct boost properties. And Nvidia wants their cards to boost as they do, because economically, that makes a lot more sense than baking even bigger monolithic dies. You're turning reality around, saying they've blessed the 4090/4080 with a 3 slot, 2.1Kg monster. I say, its the only way they're going to deliver on their wanted performance gap to Ampere. They need high clocks and relatively large dies on the smallest available node to release a worthwhile chip. That story won't last, unless you desire a 4 slotter next time.
- Previous FE coolers had a different approach: they were blowers that throttled like nobody's business. But, Nvidia cannot do that anymore, as described and proven, they
need these cards to boost to even be remotely competitive / worthwhile compared to last gen. This is further underlined by the fact they're reshuffling their Ampere stack below the 4080. There isn't any point in releasing more, and their margins will suffer if they push volume on 4nm.
- Price makes or breaks a product unless you have more money than sense. You can fill in for yourself what you have more of now; I hope you'll be wiser after this post. 1200 for this product is way beyond sensible, has no relation to economic developments, no relation to a sensible price increase compared to previous gen, and every relation to Nvidia pushing the highest margin in Geforce history. Margin you're happily paying, apparently, to chase 10 FPS in 4K that can be gained by changing a few game settings too.
- Everyone has their own options yes, but that's a different stance than considering what is good or bad about a product. I would hope you can separate those two things, I do.
- There is no different measurement for 4K. You're talking about the gap to reach 60 FPS steady so 'it is playable'... guess what. You can tweak settings on 4K to hit 60. Or 120. Nothing changes the page anywhere but your own emotional attachment to draggin a quality slider all the way to the right. Its emotion. Not rationale.
Top end performance is, was and will never be special in GPU land, because gen-to-gen performance increases need to land where it matters for games to really make use of it. By the time there is enough content to really enjoy that extra performance in a meaningful way (something more than moving from V High to Ultra settings), your top priced GPU is already yesterday's news. Software chases hardware, and devs look at market share for hardware performance levels to determine what's sensible to build. Heck, even state of the art RT is added to games post release, go figure. Nowhere is there a cutting-edge piece of content that is really challenging today's hardware. The days of Crysis are over and they ain't coming back, we've seen what happened to Crytek. Crysis is that perfect example proving all of the above: people most played that game years later, when they had GPUs that could run it proper. Name me one game that has that quality today.
)
for my office pc.