Yeah I'm not sure why a PC gaming enthusiast would want their PC to be less capable of current gen consoles now!!
Using a 4K screen is fine (as it's more or less all you can find for televisions now), but that doesn't mean the extra pixels will make a significant difference to one's viewing experience. As far as watching video goes, aside from perhaps 4K blu-ray discs, the detail levels of most video sources are compressed so much as to make the extra resolution over 1440p largely redundant. Any 4K streaming service will appear a bit blurry on a 4K screen when viewed up-close due to the low bit-rates and their resulting artifacts, with the amount of data being transferred typically being lower than even a 1080p Blu-ray, and as a result, such content tends to look rather similar on a 1440p display.
The new consoles will be making heavy use of upscaling in most games to output a "4K" signal at a reasonable performance level, just as the prior-gen "4K" consoles did. You might occasionally get native 4K in some ports of games designed for older hardware, but the actual rendering resolution of most titles will likely be around 1440p or lower, with framerates targeting 60 or even 30fps in some cases, especially as the hardware ages and more-demanding games are developed.
Just a name. Why 3060Ti need base card like 3060 to exist first? So far all the naming only indicate the cards positioning in the stack. It did not meant to dictate the card as a refresh or anything like that. Heck nvidia can even called it 3060 super if they want to. 3060 does not need to exist first before 3060Ti or 3060 super.
This isn't true, especially when adjusting for inflation. Go back 10 years, GTX 480 was $500 at launch, $600 adjusted for inflation. Go back 20 years to the Geforce 2 Ultra, MSRP was $500. Adjusted for inflation, that's over $750. Go back even further to 1998. Voodoo 2 launch price was $300. That's $480 adjusted and you still needed a 2d video card to pair with it.
and
$400 is not affordable by any means, maybe $200-250 is, but not $400.
From a consumer perspective, the only logical way to compare value is to pick price points and compare what you get now for that cost vs what you got in the past. Whether you're shopping for a $100 card or a $5000 card, the same process applies. It makes no sense to try and compare based on product names arbitrarily picked by a company.
You might want to check monitor prices. That tsunami of 4k displays hit earlier this year. They're quite affordable now. $700 for a monitor is ridiculous. Try half that or less. Also keep in mind that VR eats up a lot of pixels. People looking for 4k performance might be running a pair of VR 3k or 2k eyeball displays that can be demanding on GPUs. Decent VR is now starting at $300 too. GPU prices have been pushed up way too far relative to other system components.
Almost any argument breaks down when taken to the extreme. When was the last time you bought an electronic device and determined whether you were getting good value by comparing it to something that's almost 40 years old from the same category? No one with common sense would do that. When you buy a new TV, you compare to models from the last few years, not a black and white RCA tube screen from the 1950's.
Ok, my mistake. I wasn't looking at anything above 100hz. You're right that the 144hz 4k monitors are stupid expensive. I don't play multiplayer competitive shooters, so top-tier monitor refresh rates don't matter to me.
You answered your own question - NVIDIA's naming implies it to most people.
I guess it depends on where you are in the world. In September 2014, the price for an EVGA GTX 970 SC was £280, and a GTX 980 was around £480 (I can't remember exactly how much, as I decided it was too expensive, and got the 970) - that's equivalent to £321 [970] and around £550 [980] today (using RPI, which is an inaccurate and inherently inflationary measure of inflation). Looking at the prices for the 3000 series on Overclockers (3060 isn't listed):
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram