GPU at 98.5°C. Not great not terrible.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
492 points (98.8% liked)
Greentext
7008 readers
803 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But that's the maximum the sensor will report!
I bought the whole sensor, I'm gonna use the whole sensor.
Sir the fans are starting to sound like a f15 fighter taking off
Center it under the desk and prepare for takeoff
ray-tracing? Sure let's give it a try.
Ok I don't see a difference and my fps dropped by a 100.
High performance lighting? We had a tool for that.
It was called texture baking.
The big benefit of raytracing now, imo (which most games aren't doing), is that it frees games up to introduce dynamic destruction again. We used to have all kinds of destructible walls and bits and bobs around, with flat lighting, but baked lighting has really limited what devs can do, because if you break something you need a solution to handle all the ways the lighting changes, and for the majority of games they just make everything stiff and unbreakable.
Raytracing is that solution. Plug and play, the lighting just works when you blow stuff up. DOOM: TDA is the best example of this currently (although still not a direct part of gameplay), with a bunch of destructible stuff everywhere, and that actually blows up with a physics sim rather than a canned animation. All the little boards have perfect ambient occlusion and shadows, because raytracing just does that.
It's really fun, if minor, and one of the things I actually look forward to more games doing with raytracing. IMO that's why raytracing has whelmed most people, because we're used to near-flawless baked lighting, and haven't really noticed the compromises that baked lighting has pushed on us.
If ray tracing can give me back the fun of tunneling through the ground with explosives that the first Red Faction games let me do, I will 100% change my mind on the technology. I have missed 100% destructible environments.
Several new or in-development games have it. I'm playing Enshrouded right now and it's really impressive how good both the destruction and the building is, easily the best I've ever seen. And they just showed off the upcoming update with full water physics:
https://youtu.be/vBAnTKGioq4
The lighting is also superb, IMO, though I'm not sure if it's actual ray tracing or not.
Is there a story or what’s the gameplay like? Can I play by myself or must I work with others?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh yeah. For example the game "Teardown" uses a software ray tracing for lighting. Most Minecraft shaders also do ray tracing I think...
Of course these are voxel based examples which are a lot easier on the processor. You need hardware ray tracing for high poly destructible structures and I have absolutely nothing against the technology.
I just don't like how the technology is abused by studios to push out unoptimized games running at ~50 fps on 3090s
Oh, does it? I was literally thinking to myself that Teardown was an interesting example of destruction, and wondering how they did their lighting. RT makes perfect sense, that must be one of the earliest examples of actually doing something you really couldn't without RT (at least without lighting it well).
But yes, agreed that recent performance trends are frustrating, smearing DLSS and frame gen to cover for terrible performance. Feels like we're in a painful tween period with a lot of awkward stuff going on, and also deadlines/crunch/corporate meddling etc causing games to come out half-baked. Hopefully this stuff does reach maturity soon and we can have some of this cool new stuff without so many other compromises.
But compiling levels takes so long with baked lighting :( /s
I know it actually does take some time and does slow down level building. But until every supported graphics card can handle fully race traced environment lighting you'll be stuck with that process anyway.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ray is tracing as fast as he can. 1 frame per minute and his hand is cramping.
"Normally cartoons aren't live. It's hell on the animators."
Also, you turn it off and the performance is somehow still shit until you restart the game.
"By a one hundred"
Sir! She won’t hold! What do we do?!
Frame Generation
But sir, the visual integrity!
"I'm going to the graphics building now, to render the scene. They're going to want maximum quality. I don't know if I can make visual fidelity better for you... but I can certainly make it worse."
What am I supposed to play on "High" settings like some kinda peasant? Jk, my gpu is so old if it were a kid it would be starting 1st grade this year.
We really need to get rid of this line-go-up mentality, because it translates directly into tech companies telling you to buy something new every few months. Phones, GPUs... Every time they can push for shorter replacement cycles, they will. Good on you to not cave in to the pressure, my 1050Ti still runs as great as day one for the games that I play since day one.
"I don't have a large TV or monitor so nobody needs an up to date GPU!"
It's a much different story at 1440 and 4k.
I mean, if a slight increase in visual fidelity is worth a couple hundred (if not thousand) bucks every year or two to you, then sure, treat yourself. But I don't see the need to buy a slightly faster thing every year that basically will do the same as the old. And that's before mentioning the resources used up for producing soon-to-be-ewaste or software bloat.
It is always the same story, cars, phones, computers, smart fridges, clothes... companies try to push people to buy the shiny new thing for obvious reasons. Companies trying to build products that last get out-competed. The line must go up.
GTFO 🤣
The card is 9 years old, not 2. I bet you the number of gamers swapping cards every 2 years is in the single digit percentage.
I am in a peer group of friends and colleagues making 175-300k a year and not a single one of them is swapping a GPU every 2 years.
As I said, if 4k and high settings is worth the investment for you, sure, go for it, treat yourself. I am in no position to preach about ascetic life or anything. Eat out, go on holidays, buy a new gaming PC, life is short.
I cannot seem to find numbers on GPUs in particular, only marketing or AI bullshit "articles". But smartphones seem to have a replacement cycle in western countries ranging from 1.5-3 years, depending on who you ask. And that is average, meaning that for every weirdo like me, who keeps their phones until they break, there are around three people who get a new phone every year.
That sounds pretty insane to me. Sure, new products are better. But I don't want to own a better product. I want to play games, or in the case of smartphones, chat and doom-scroll on the go.
A 1050ti would play games worse than PowerPoint on my 1440/165hz monitor.
Maaaan. My 1080 was chuggin for games I was playing three years ago. I’m lucky I got a sweet deal on some secondhand 3070tis for my partner and myself from someone my mum knows. I got a new game a couple days ago for us and we both had to drop down to “high” for 100FPS at 1440p.
glances at 1660 Super...
Does math...
Greetings, Comrade!
1660su works with everything except shitty Unreal5 games with forced lumen and stuff. I just replaced mine with an AMD somethingorother, but it wasn't because of performance.
Yeah, I've got no complaints; I mostly play Indie titles anyway so nothing too strenuous. Balatro & Deltarune aren't exactly a stress test, I doubt Silksong will push beyond its limits either.
I plan on running this bad boy until it bites the dust. And then I'll get an AMD card so I have an easier time with the drivers. Took me days to get my games running on Debian.
To get a stable 60 in Grounded 2 I have to run it at 50% render resolution. Why yes, it uses UE5, how did you know?
Mine is going to go to 2nd grade in like 10 days.
yipes, my gpu cant manage max settings anymore, time to sell my other spleen I guess.
Man, DLSS (the upscaling part) is such a great technology. I'm definitely glad that FSR isn't bound to a brand or model, but DLSS just does so much better.
It's a shame they decided to give up on improving the upscaling and instead go with fake frames that add ghosting and latency.
I'm definitely glad that FSR isn't bound to a brand or model, but DLSS just does so much better.
Not sure if you haven't kept up with the current-gen AMD cards, but FSR 4 released with the current RX 9000 series and is roughly halfway between DLSS 3 and DLSS 4 in overall image quality (i.e., it's good, but has some specific strengths and weaknesses compared to DLSS) and doesn't run on older-gen GPUs. With FSR 4, AMD gave up on the hardware-agnostic upscaling approach -- I guess because the quality just isn't there -- and worked with Sony on this new approach that uses their own hardware "AI cores" the same way Nvidia uses the equivalent cores for DLSS.
Have you heard of our lord and savior Optiscaler?
https://github.com/OptiScaler/OptiScaler
Doo dee doo, there I go again, hacking more frames and render quality into CyberPunk 2077, so I can prettify my cyberdeck while I'm on my Steam Deck, wheee!
Hey you wouldn't maybe happen to have any unsecure bluetooth devices nearby you, set to maybe accept any pairing attempts?
I remember when I was playing the early access version of Baldur's Gate 3 at potato fidelity. I bought a new (to me) GPU since then, but I'm pretty sure FSR and its Linux implementation massively improved since then, too.
TBH I never bother with "high" settings in the first place unless the game is like 15 years old, I'd rather have an even quieter PC and/or a more stable framerate than that little bit more of visual fidelity.
I recognize the words you are using, but they don't seem to make any sense to me when put in that order.
What do you mean specifically? I understood that comment very well
I'm being facetious. I just don't grasp leaving visual fidelity on the table for overkill performance.
There are two ways to approach PC gaming's fiddly, inconsistent performance in my book: either you have hardware powerful enough to crank it up and forget about it or... you do the actual work of setting up a target for performance and tuning the game to perform within that spec while looking as good as possible.
I mean, it's not overkill performance. Having a consistent framerate is worth a lot, and I like enjoying the sound of a game without headphones, too. I should probably look into getting an aftermarket cooling solution again, but chances are that I'll need to a bigger PC case for that, which is kind of a pain.
Consistent performance and good thermals are important, but that's the poing of having a performance target. You decide what fps you want to get and tune settings until you get it with the best possible visuals. It's definitely not potato fidelity across the board.
Of course it depends on your hardware, but there are plenty of games that run on more than potato mode even on integrated graphics these days.
The potato fidelity I mentioned was because my system literally couldn't do any better with that game, but I really wanted to play it. Usually I don't bother with games that my system won't be able to run well.
DLSS is the graphic control rods
Buy fewer candles?
No.
"Framerate holding steady at 98.445."
"Not great, not terrible."
My graphics card sounds like a wind tunnel when I play vanilla Morrowind.
view more: next ›