As a PC gamer, I've spent years chasing high frame rates, and it's one of the main reasons why I currently own the RTX 4090. Back when it first came out, it was hard to resist the 60% performance improvement over the RTX 3090, which I had been using at the time. But the GPU landscape is pretty different in 2025. Prices have skyrocketed, and performance gains from one generation to the next aren't as impressive as they used to be.

With the GPU I already own, it doesn't really make sense to splurge thousands of dollars on a newer one just for a 25-30% uplift in frame rates. That's why I've reconsidered my approach to gaming performance. Instead of upgrading, I could simply dial down the graphics settings from Ultra to High, or even Medium, to improve my frame rates and get a smoother experience. This way, I get more value out of my current GPU and avoid chasing modest performance gains with each new generation.

High-end GPUs are incredibly expensive

Why even bother paying full price for modest performance gains?

One of the main reasons I've stopped chasing high frame rates is the absurd pricing of high-end GPUs, such as the RTX 5090. The RTX 4090 I currently have may be three years old at this point, but it's still the second-fastest consumer GPU you can buy. This card launched at $1,599 and offered a roughly 60% performance uplift over its $1,499 predecessor, the RTX 3090. Looking back, I don't regret splurging on it because the gains proved to be worth the money over the years.

However, if you look at the RTX 5090, for example, you only get an average performance uplift of 27% at 4K compared to the RTX 4090. And the worst part? It costs 25% more, which is a tough pill to swallow when the gains are nowhere near as dramatic. Spending a lot more for modest performance improvements really doesn't make sense, especially when you can lower graphics settings and enable features like DLSS upscaling or frame generation for a similar overall gaming experience. Nowadays, the cost of chasing flagship GPUs far outweighs the benefits, and that's why it's smarter to squeeze more performance out of the hardware you already own.

Upscaling and frame generation help a ton

Why upgrade when you can use software trickery to boost FPS?

We all know that playing AAA games, especially at higher resolutions like 4K, can be pretty taxing on the GPU. Not so long ago, your only option if you needed more FPS at Ultra settings was to buy a more powerful GPU. But that's far from the case today; modern GPUs not only pack the raw horsepower that's needed for gaming, but also include software features that help push frame rates beyond what the hardware alone can deliver. Nvidia's DLSS has helped me resist the temptation to upgrade my GPU recently.

For instance, with DLSS upscaling, I can play any AAA game I want at 4K resolution without worrying too much about frame rates because my GPU can render it internally at a lower resolution, like 1080p or 1440p, and upscale it. Sure, the visual quality doesn't quite match native 4K rendering, but it's pretty close that I struggle to tell the difference until I compare each frame side by side. And if I'm still not happy with the frame rates, I can enable frame generation in supported titles so that my GPU inserts AI-generated frames between real frames to boost FPS and improve perceived smoothness. Yes, frame generation introduces artifacts and increases latency, but these minor trade-offs are worth the FPS uplift in AAA single-player titles.

High and medium presets are underrated

The difference between Ultra and High settings is usually minimal

If there's one thing that I've learned from fiddling with graphics settings across hundreds of games as a long-time PC gamer, it's that the Ultra preset is rarely worth it. In most cases, these settings hurt performance more than they improve visuals. Yes, there's an improvement compared to High presets, but most people won't be able to tell unless they compare each frame side by side and zoom in on the finer details. With High settings, you get 90% of the visual quality that Ultra settings provide, but at a fraction of the performance hit.

That extra 10% improvement in shadow quality, volumetric fog, lighting, and other effects is what usually drags FPS down and makes gameplay feel stuttery or inconsistent. Even at medium settings, most AAA games don't look completely different from High presets, especially once you start moving around in the game. The quality of the character models, shadows, and environment mostly remains intact, while the performance boost is dramatic. Regardless, I don't mind sacrificing visual quality, especially if it means smoother gameplay and more consistent frame pacing. For someone who mainly plays competitive games, fluidity matters far more than ray-traced reflections and pixel-perfect visuals.

Lowering settings helps me save a lot of money

I used to get excited every time Nvidia or AMD released a new GPU, but the price-to-performance ratio has become worse, especially in the high-end segment. Why would I even want to pay 25% more than I did for my current GPU when I know FPS would only improve by 20-30%? That doesn't seem like progress; if anything, it makes me feel like I'm chasing diminishing returns. I'd rather fine-tune my graphics settings to squeeze out as much FPS as possible without compromising too much on visual fidelity. And thanks to DLSS upscaling and frame generation, I'm more inclined than ever to skip an entire GPU generation instead of splurging on the flagship models.