Originally Posted by InfernalDarkness
Thus I think urging people to get the best GPU within their budget is still a good idea.
I kinda assume the OP probably thought they were buying the best GPU in their budget? Does anybody buy the least GPU for their budget?
Give people faster hardware and they will just try to display even more fully textured geo with it etc.. there's some sort of "rule" about this.. like Moore's Law but different.
Anyway.. if you are working with the above scene.. and you are art directing the leaves on the bush in the foreground does it really matter if everything in the background is displayed while you do that, especially if having all that other stuff displayed is bringing your machine to it's knees?
From my point of view.. since the end result is always from the software renderer there is very little use in displaying fully textured geo in the viewport. There are some specific exceptions like facial animation. Even then for character animation I'd want to replace all the high res textures so that the scene doesn't choke on 8k maps everytime you load it or switch on textured display in the viewport. It's a pain to have to deal with different textures for rendering versus animation but is worth it rather than trying to throw hardware at it. But or the most part we do everything we can to make the scene interactive for the given task including update hardware.