1 00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:09,840 the most powerful gaming CPU on the planet is it enough to play modern games 2 00:00:05,759 --> 00:00:12,719 on a massive 8k OLED tv like this z1088 3 00:00:09,840 --> 00:00:19,520 from lg and what graphics card could possibly be worthy to find out we have 4 00:00:15,920 --> 00:00:23,359 the two absolute fastest top-of-the-line 5 00:00:19,520 --> 00:00:25,359 gpus from both AMD and NVIDIA 6 00:00:23,359 --> 00:00:30,320 representing team red and weighing in at a cool 7 00:00:26,439 --> 00:00:34,239 1500 us dollars is the rog strix Radeon 8 00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:36,960 rx 6900 xt liquid cooled edition and for 9 00:00:34,239 --> 00:00:43,600 team green we've got the 2 000 10 00:00:38,559 --> 00:00:46,320 MSI NVIDIA rtx 3090 supreme x 11 00:00:43,600 --> 00:00:52,239 either one of them alone costs more than an xbox series s series x and 12 00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:55,199 playstation 5 combined and is capable of 13 00:00:52,239 --> 00:00:59,840 consuming in excess of 700 watts of power under heavy load at stock speeds 14 00:00:58,480 --> 00:01:04,640 and today we'll be overclocking both of them to 15 00:01:02,079 --> 00:01:09,760 their absolute limits fortunately our sponsor seasonic has got 16 00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:15,119 us covered with their tx 1000 80 plus titanium power supply it's efficient 17 00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:20,600 quiet fully modular and comes with a 12 year warranty let's make this poor thing 18 00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:20,600 hurt shall we 19 00:01:27,119 --> 00:01:33,680 the MSI rtx 3090 supreme x is a powerful 20 00:01:30,720 --> 00:01:38,720 card to be sure and at least on paper it is well ahead of its competitor the 21 00:01:35,439 --> 00:01:41,759 Radeon 6900xt thanks in part to its 22 00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:43,200 super fast GDDR 6x memory 23 00:01:41,759 --> 00:01:49,280 but here's the thing AMD pulled off a pretty major surprise 24 00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:51,439 when the rx 6900xt managed to hold its 25 00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:57,360 own against this monster in traditional rendering at 4k thanks in large part to 26 00:01:54,640 --> 00:02:01,759 its even faster but much smaller infinity cache also 27 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:06,399 the built-in water cooling on this version of the card can't hurt its 28 00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:10,800 chances actually both of these are among the best available in their class 29 00:02:08,319 --> 00:02:16,560 featuring overkill cooling a factory overclock triple eight pin power 30 00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:18,239 connectors oh and of course RGB for that 31 00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:22,560 extra FPS and the Radeon actually has another 32 00:02:20,239 --> 00:02:27,599 trick up its sleeve that NVIDIA doesn't have support for yet 33 00:02:24,879 --> 00:02:32,239 smart access memory also known as resizable bar support allows the CPU in 34 00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:38,560 our system because we're using a ryzen 5900 xt to access all of the GPU's 35 00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:43,760 memory at once rather than in the traditional 256 megabyte chunks this 36 00:02:41,680 --> 00:02:50,080 would ordinarily speed up memory intensive games sometimes by a lot but 37 00:02:46,959 --> 00:02:51,760 whether that advantage translates to 8k 38 00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:56,640 remains to be seen just like my sick limited edition foil 39 00:02:54,160 --> 00:02:59,440 GPU shirt from ltdstore.com like these gpus we can only make a 40 00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:03,040 limited number of these by the way and we are expecting them to sell out fast 41 00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:07,920 so go go go anyway meantime 42 00:03:04,640 --> 00:03:10,959 our GPU bench is ready to freaking go 43 00:03:07,920 --> 00:03:13,760 here with the aforementioned ryzen 5950x 44 00:03:10,959 --> 00:03:19,360 16 core CPU a fresh install of Windows and of course our seasonic prime tx 1000 45 00:03:16,640 --> 00:03:22,080 80 plus titanium power supply again that's to be sure that we're not 46 00:03:20,480 --> 00:03:26,560 bottlenecking ourselves in any meaningful way we're also going to be 47 00:03:23,760 --> 00:03:31,519 using these tools from NVIDIA right here to monitor our power consumption in real 48 00:03:29,440 --> 00:03:35,040 time as we run our tests so that's pretty fun there's no way to please 49 00:03:33,040 --> 00:03:38,799 everyone these days hey they want you to test in a closed case so that you don't 50 00:03:36,959 --> 00:03:43,760 give a thermal advantage to some card designs over others but 51 00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:47,680 the thing about a closed case is that it's like you can't access the i o when 52 00:03:45,760 --> 00:03:51,519 you have the power measurement stuff hooked up and everything before we 53 00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:55,280 actually overclock the cards we're doing some baseline testing at their stock 54 00:03:53,440 --> 00:04:00,959 speeds to see how they compete at 8k 55 00:03:57,439 --> 00:04:03,280 like AMD technically has the vram for it 56 00:04:00,959 --> 00:04:07,760 way more than the rtx 3080 but it's slower so like 57 00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:11,760 that's tough hey yeah it's like almost half the speed yeah it seems like it'd 58 00:04:09,439 --> 00:04:16,479 be fine for you know working on large projects like as a prosumer card but for 59 00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:19,040 actual gaming then again we will try to overclock it 60 00:04:17,840 --> 00:04:26,400 later that's actually not terrible it's like 50 plus FPS and 61 00:04:23,759 --> 00:04:31,600 remember this is a g-sync capable display so 62 00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:36,080 it is not currently enabled oh did you not enable it it's best to disable it 63 00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:40,320 for uh benchmarking that's true still in terms of the gaming experience 55 FPS 64 00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:45,759 with adaptive sync not bad certainly like on a console you wouldn't 65 00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:48,800 complain about that nope on a pc i wouldn't complain about that yeah maybe 66 00:04:47,199 --> 00:04:53,040 not in this game in this game i'd like to have a little bit more oh we're 67 00:04:50,479 --> 00:04:56,800 definitely getting some judder though you can really see it in those panning 68 00:04:54,479 --> 00:04:59,840 shots yeah with the g-sync that wouldn't be such a big deal though yeah i want to 69 00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:05,120 get out into a more open area but i'm getting like 75 80 FPS in here man this 70 00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:09,360 game is so well optimized it could probably run on like a toaster if you 71 00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:14,000 really needed to how are we doing for power consumption Anthony looks like 72 00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:16,800 we've peaked at uh 461 watts and we're 73 00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:20,639 averaging about 420. nice something to note here though is 74 00:05:18,639 --> 00:05:24,160 that while the game is never dropping below 60 FPS 75 00:05:22,479 --> 00:05:29,039 Anthony do you see that judder and those micro stutters oh yeah yeah it's like 76 00:05:26,560 --> 00:05:31,039 hitching every i don't know like every time 77 00:05:29,840 --> 00:05:34,800 maybe yeah yeah so 78 00:05:32,960 --> 00:05:38,800 hopefully overclocking will help us a little bit with that let's see 79 00:05:36,479 --> 00:05:43,360 oh it's hot oh it's hot yeah yeah yeah yeah always yeah that 80 00:05:40,639 --> 00:05:48,479 backplate is used actually for cooling yeah no kidding jeez 81 00:05:46,240 --> 00:05:52,960 well it's handling it actually looks like NVIDIA might not have the only 8k 82 00:05:51,039 --> 00:05:57,520 gaming card on the market what does the frame rate display show uh 83 00:05:55,039 --> 00:06:00,400 it shows 55. oh wow that's okay 84 00:05:58,320 --> 00:06:04,880 very similar and you know what i need to get out into a more open area first but 85 00:06:02,479 --> 00:06:09,360 it actually doesn't feel quite as juddery how's our power consumption 86 00:06:07,199 --> 00:06:15,919 power consumption has peaked so far at 384 and we're in around 311 average 87 00:06:13,840 --> 00:06:20,000 and to be clear that's just the GPU the numbers we're talking about there not 88 00:06:17,759 --> 00:06:22,400 the entire system so yeah like 100 watts less for 89 00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:26,080 similar questions performance 90 00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:31,520 it's a lower FPS reported by the game 91 00:06:28,639 --> 00:06:37,520 but it's actually a little bit smoother feeling in terms of the frame delivery 92 00:06:34,400 --> 00:06:40,160 which is not what i actually expected 93 00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:42,960 uh freesync is anon right i could check that 94 00:06:41,039 --> 00:06:46,720 ah i don't know i see tearing i don't think so 95 00:06:44,479 --> 00:06:50,160 okay so back to the same thing with the pillars look how much smoother that is i 96 00:06:48,800 --> 00:06:53,120 think we're gonna need to run some more testing and get the peeps some some real 97 00:06:51,919 --> 00:06:58,960 numbers here the rest of our games went about as you'd expect with AMD trailing NVIDIA 98 00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:02,960 significantly at about three quarters of the performance to shadow the tomb 99 00:07:00,240 --> 00:07:07,440 raider and it's even worse with ray tracing enabled and that doesn't even 100 00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:10,960 consider dlss NVIDIA's deep learning super sampling that runs the game at a 101 00:07:09,440 --> 00:07:15,840 lower resolution then uses machine learning to upscale it 102 00:07:13,919 --> 00:07:20,160 it's a great feature and in supported games honestly NVIDIA is just 103 00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:24,000 untouchable red dead redemption 2 has a similar 104 00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:28,720 story in minimum frame rates but the average closes the gap somewhat while 105 00:07:26,160 --> 00:07:32,400 forza horizon brings us much closer at roughly a 10 performance difference 106 00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:39,199 finally ha would you look at that 107 00:07:35,039 --> 00:07:40,720 cs go has AMD winning at stock speeds 108 00:07:39,199 --> 00:07:44,960 very interesting this simpler title lends credence to the 109 00:07:42,639 --> 00:07:50,639 notion that AMD's raw raster performance may be higher than NVIDIA's regardless 110 00:07:47,599 --> 00:07:53,280 of memory throughput and f1 2020 gives 111 00:07:50,639 --> 00:07:56,000 us another win for team red dang i was worried this wasn't going to 112 00:07:54,639 --> 00:07:59,919 be much of a like ultimate showdown but 113 00:07:58,479 --> 00:08:05,919 turns out we've got a battle on our heads now let's get to overclocking NVIDIA's 114 00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:11,039 newer versions of GeForce experience provide a way to automatically do 115 00:08:08,080 --> 00:08:16,160 overclock scanning and set power targets unfortunately adjusting the voltage or 116 00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:22,000 power target made the oc scan crash the system and MSI afterburner similarly 117 00:08:19,280 --> 00:08:25,840 either crashed or settled on an unstable overclock whenever performing an oc scan 118 00:08:24,319 --> 00:08:29,360 for a while there we thought our card might already just be at peak 119 00:08:27,599 --> 00:08:35,039 performance but manually overclocking we were able to 120 00:08:31,280 --> 00:08:36,959 bump the core by about 100 megahertz and 121 00:08:35,039 --> 00:08:42,080 800 megahertz on the memory before we started losing stability and performance 122 00:08:39,599 --> 00:08:46,640 to down clocking and error correction in order to do that though of course we 123 00:08:43,519 --> 00:08:46,640 have to raise our power limit 124 00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:53,839 and apply as for your core voltage honestly 125 00:08:51,040 --> 00:08:58,560 increasing it might work against you as much as for you because you'll be more 126 00:08:55,680 --> 00:09:02,240 likely to hit your power limit so Anthony says he actually got about the 127 00:09:00,160 --> 00:09:06,000 same results with it cranked as with it just to at nothing so 128 00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:10,160 whatever you know what you only live once all right crank it yolo yolo 129 00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:15,440 something to watch out for here is that those gddr6x memory chips get extremely 130 00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:20,560 hot even under normal circumstances and they are going to get even hotter now so 131 00:09:17,920 --> 00:09:24,560 the back plate of this card is necessary for keeping them cool so far this 132 00:09:22,640 --> 00:09:30,320 actually doesn't really seem any better we're getting about 133 00:09:26,560 --> 00:09:32,320 70 65 to 75 FPS which is 134 00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:35,519 pretty much what we saw before i'm also feeling a bit more stuttering 135 00:09:33,839 --> 00:09:40,000 than i did on AMD that's something that based on the measurements we took ahead of time we 136 00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:43,680 were not expecting yeah there's definitely a judder yeah 137 00:09:42,560 --> 00:09:49,440 see that did it look worse than the Radeon card to you i feel like the Radeon 138 00:09:47,680 --> 00:09:52,880 didn't have as severe stuttering 139 00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:58,240 at least based on what i'm seeing here and what's in my memory uh maybe i'm 140 00:09:55,440 --> 00:10:02,160 just crazy but it looks worse here that does not look like 70 frames per 141 00:10:00,880 --> 00:10:07,200 second period yeah it looks kind of like 45 or 142 00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:10,240 50. yeah if that and not a smooth 50. yeah it almost reminds me like the 143 00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:15,040 microstarter you'd get from multi GPU yeah frame rate high consistency low how are 144 00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:19,279 we doing for power 500 peak 145 00:10:18,079 --> 00:10:26,959 and the average looks like it's floating in around 146 00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:28,800 440 450 so we're up a lot higher yep 147 00:10:26,959 --> 00:10:34,320 that's higher all right half our power supply dedicated just to 148 00:10:30,800 --> 00:10:36,079 the GPU and this tool does not measure 149 00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:39,200 fine enough time increments to see these like micro spikes that can take place 150 00:10:37,760 --> 00:10:43,120 from time to time now we'll throw the AMD card back in and i'll try not to 151 00:10:41,279 --> 00:10:46,720 punk myself here and touch the back plate 152 00:10:44,959 --> 00:10:51,120 we expect it to be even hotter than last time AMD's Radeon software offers 153 00:10:48,959 --> 00:10:57,760 overclocking controls directly setting the card to 2600 megahertz seems to be 154 00:10:54,160 --> 00:11:00,160 about as high as we can go out of the 155 00:10:57,760 --> 00:11:04,079 gate any higher and it'll throttle to this speed anyway 156 00:11:01,760 --> 00:11:08,800 just add full voltage and a power target and then the memory we were actually 157 00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:10,959 able to set as high as possible and it's 158 00:11:08,800 --> 00:11:15,040 possible we could have even gone farther if we had a bit more control over memory 159 00:11:12,959 --> 00:11:18,880 frequency okay so let's try cranking the power limit for one thing 160 00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:23,200 uh main frequency you can leave max frequency 2600 161 00:11:21,440 --> 00:11:27,120 and RAM just you can go advanced control just to see 162 00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:31,600 how much that is uh yeah 2150. okay 163 00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:36,079 apply changes okay it was not my imagination last time this is noticeably 164 00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:40,079 smoother than the NVIDIA experience although if the numbers are anything to 165 00:11:37,920 --> 00:11:44,160 go by it's a bit of an outlier what's also a better experience compared 166 00:11:42,399 --> 00:11:48,240 to NVIDIA though is the overclocking headroom on this card 167 00:11:45,680 --> 00:11:53,519 at the low end we still only got about uh five percent improvement but on the 168 00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:56,560 high end we were looking at up to 15 16 169 00:11:53,519 --> 00:12:00,160 faster performance so that's 170 00:11:56,560 --> 00:12:02,720 pretty cool this might be my imagination 171 00:12:00,160 --> 00:12:07,200 but it seems like it is far smoother than before um i think it is smoother i 172 00:12:05,680 --> 00:12:14,320 don't know if i would describe it as far smoother it's definitely smoother though 173 00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:16,240 we're getting 60 to 70 mid FPS we were 174 00:12:14,320 --> 00:12:19,680 getting like 50 to 60 before weren't we actually that's true isn't it 175 00:12:18,240 --> 00:12:24,480 okay yeah and it is noticeably smoother to operate 176 00:12:22,240 --> 00:12:29,680 i'm surprised AMD comes out with a pretty clear win at least in do maternal 177 00:12:27,360 --> 00:12:32,959 although you know what Anthony i am seeing more stuttering now that we've 178 00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:36,720 overclocked it or judder rather 179 00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:40,079 see that how it'll go smoothly for a little bit and then it'll like 180 00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:44,800 like the NVIDIA card how's our power consumption looks like 181 00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:51,680 415 watts maximum uh we're averaging around 360 362 watts 182 00:12:49,920 --> 00:12:56,240 as far as you know not too shabby overall neither card had 183 00:12:54,720 --> 00:13:00,000 terribly impressive overclocking headroom but that's not a huge surprise 184 00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:04,800 considering that both of them already had factory overclocks applied 185 00:13:02,399 --> 00:13:08,880 for our results we did eek out a frame or two here and there on both cards in 186 00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:12,160 shadow of the tomb raider but ray tracing remains a pain point for AMD 187 00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:17,440 with minimums that are still in the single digits red dead redemption 2 and 188 00:13:14,720 --> 00:13:22,240 forza horizon meanwhile put AMD a couple of percentage points closer to NVIDIA 189 00:13:19,120 --> 00:13:25,519 than stock which in forza puts the 6900 190 00:13:22,240 --> 00:13:28,399 xt within the 10 mark and as we might 191 00:13:25,519 --> 00:13:33,360 expect cs go improved by a significant margin maintaining AMD spot well ahead 192 00:13:30,959 --> 00:13:36,560 of NVIDIA but this time in every measurable way 193 00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:41,120 the tldr then is this AMD's best puts up a valiant effort for 194 00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:46,000 the 500 price difference against the 3090 sometimes coming close or even 195 00:13:44,000 --> 00:13:50,959 beating it at 8k but only sometimes it still falls short 196 00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:54,320 in more demanding titles even with its greater overclocking headroom which only 197 00:13:52,880 --> 00:13:59,199 serves to further highlight the importance of technologies like dlss and 198 00:13:56,959 --> 00:14:03,680 how much not having it is holding AMD back right now and not just in ray 199 00:14:01,279 --> 00:14:08,560 tracing either outside of doom eternal which surprisingly was quite a bit 200 00:14:05,519 --> 00:14:10,800 smoother on AMD gddr6 seems to be 201 00:14:08,560 --> 00:14:17,519 helping NVIDIA out tremendously because remember ak is four times the number of 202 00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:19,360 pixels as 4k just the frame buffer alone 203 00:14:17,519 --> 00:14:25,040 that is each frame displayed on the screen is nearly 204 00:14:21,079 --> 00:14:28,320 128 megabytes which is exactly enough to 205 00:14:25,040 --> 00:14:30,560 hobble the 6000 series 128 megabytes of 206 00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:35,600 ridiculously fast infinity cache leaving them with memory that's just over half 207 00:14:32,880 --> 00:14:40,720 as fast as ampere's for everything else with that said if AMD had a dlss analog 208 00:14:38,399 --> 00:14:44,800 to reduce this memory footprint AMD might have been more competitive more 209 00:14:42,480 --> 00:14:49,360 often so it seems reasonable to suggest that if AMD had equipped the 6900xt with 210 00:14:47,800 --> 00:14:53,680 gddr6x things might look quite a bit different 211 00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:57,600 which makes me wonder how much of a bottleneck it would have been for NVIDIA 212 00:14:55,440 --> 00:15:00,800 if they had stuck with pci express gen 3 this time around 213 00:14:58,959 --> 00:15:03,040 get subscribed for our video because we are going to be exploring that by the 214 00:15:02,079 --> 00:15:08,399 way so then is 8k gaming a lie 215 00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:13,920 well it's complicated while i participated in some of NVIDIA's 216 00:15:10,560 --> 00:15:15,199 early promotion for 8k gaming on the rtx 217 00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:21,040 3090 and it does work in the same way that a 218 00:15:18,000 --> 00:15:22,880 primitive hammer can pound in a nail 219 00:15:21,040 --> 00:15:27,519 it's clear that it's not practical for every game today and as more visually 220 00:15:26,000 --> 00:15:32,560 elaborate titles trickle out over the next few years new hammers will be much 221 00:15:30,560 --> 00:15:36,720 more appropriate tools to handle them at this resolution but this was still an 222 00:15:34,959 --> 00:15:42,160 interesting exercise for a couple of reasons first because of how demanding 223 00:15:39,519 --> 00:15:45,680 it is gaming at 8k can give us a glimpse into how a card's performance might 224 00:15:43,920 --> 00:15:50,639 evolve over time AMD famously squeezed several years of 225 00:15:48,399 --> 00:15:55,199 life and performance improvements out of its Radeon 7970 226 00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:59,279 and it looks like compared to NVIDIA they may have a bit more headroom here 227 00:15:57,040 --> 00:16:02,480 again oops AMD cards over there and second while you might roll your 228 00:16:01,360 --> 00:16:08,240 eyes and say who cares nobody has an 8k monitor 229 00:16:05,360 --> 00:16:12,240 the same was true for 4k a short while ago and even if you only use a 4k 230 00:16:11,279 --> 00:16:16,800 display super sampling or running at a higher 231 00:16:14,399 --> 00:16:20,720 resolution than native then down scaling it is still the best way to reduce 232 00:16:18,800 --> 00:16:26,959 shimmering and other artifacts while preserving 100 of the detail in an image 233 00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:28,880 and 4x super sampling at 4k means 234 00:16:26,959 --> 00:16:33,600 rendering at 8k fun fact to close this out dlss NVIDIA's 235 00:16:31,920 --> 00:16:37,199 killer app that allowed them to market this card as an 8k gaming solution with 236 00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:41,759 a straight face is currently used to render at a lower 237 00:16:39,440 --> 00:16:46,959 resolution and then blow it up to your display's native res but that wasn't how 238 00:16:44,480 --> 00:16:51,680 it was first introduced it was a form of anti-aliasing hence the super sampling 239 00:16:49,519 --> 00:16:54,480 in the name and it's very good at this task 240 00:16:52,639 --> 00:16:59,199 so good in fact that its second iteration it now legitimately enables 241 00:16:57,040 --> 00:17:03,279 high impact features like ray tracing to run at a lower resolution while 242 00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:07,760 preserving most of the sharpness and detail of native rendering this point is 243 00:17:05,600 --> 00:17:12,000 especially painful for AMD whose ray accelerators already significantly lag 244 00:17:09,919 --> 00:17:17,760 behind NVIDIA's rt cores anyway the main takeaway is that neither 245 00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:21,120 AMD nor NVIDIA is even close to creating 246 00:17:17,760 --> 00:17:22,240 a GPU that can natively run 8k 247 00:17:21,120 --> 00:17:26,640 maxed out aaa games and that upscaling tricks are 248 00:17:25,199 --> 00:17:31,360 here to stay and by the way one more takeaway is that 249 00:17:29,200 --> 00:17:37,760 unless your screen is this big 8k has a much smaller impact on your 250 00:17:33,840 --> 00:17:39,200 gaming experience than say HDR or 251 00:17:37,760 --> 00:17:42,559 running at a higher refresh rate for smoother animations and that last one 252 00:17:41,440 --> 00:17:49,039 you can actually check out our whole video about that here on the subject of smoothless smoothness 253 00:17:47,280 --> 00:17:53,919 big shout out to sonic for keeping our test benches running smoothly as can be 254 00:17:51,919 --> 00:17:57,679 they have observed these gpus both of them actually spiking north of a 255 00:17:55,600 --> 00:18:02,559 thousand watts for very very short durations which can wreak havoc on over 256 00:18:00,160 --> 00:18:05,679 current protections and our tx1000 handled them like a champ you can check 257 00:18:04,559 --> 00:18:12,080 it out at the link in the video description and of course they've got lots of other power supplies to fit any 258 00:18:09,600 --> 00:18:12,080 budget