Nvidia RTX Discussion

So it looks like the 12gig 4080 ($900) is actually a different GPU core to the 16gig 4080, it has 2000 less cuda cores 🤦 basically it's a xx70 series GPU priced at 1k 🤣

I honestly think AMD will follow Nvidia with pricing if their performance is similar, maybe undercut $100 here and there, end result is still GPUs that are way overpriced, I'd put money on the 7800 being $800 and 7800xt being $1000.

Intel have an opportunity to do some real good for low to mid tier this time around and hopefully price well, it's just their drivers are shocking.

And when they make the 5060 $1000 the next time around is that fair as it's still technically a luxury item? That's the way Nvidia are going

Well I guess my earlier comment is mute as we've already hit that point 🤦🤣

What will the 4070 die be I wonder, they've also left a big gap between the 4080 16gig and the 4090 both price and performance wise to slot another GPU or two in.

And apparently the full die has 18k+ cuda cores Vs the 4090s 16k so again room for another GPU.

Here's praying some Chinese company starts making affordable GPUs 🤣👌

If you were trying your very best to make people buy new 4000 series cards, you wouldn't support DLSS 3.0 on the 3000 series.

That's obviously the correct answer but I was just wondering what their bullshit answer was

60FPS is a bare minimum not 'all a normal display can render anyway'. The vast majority of PC displays go well over this and 144Hz has been a safe mainstay for many years (I had a 120Hz monitor in 2012) and we've had 240Hz for a couple of years now too though I'll fully admit that's heading way into diminishing returns territory. I don't mean to be harsh but this reminds me of the 'you only need 30 fps' or 'the human eye can't see more than 30fps' comments when that's all consoles could realistically do. Now the current gen can usually do 60 via some performance mode the number has flipped to 60 but the attitude is the same. If 60 is enough for you fine (without any sarcasm, each to their own) but it's not to a huge amount of gamers, console or PC. As I mentioned earlier I see it as a minimum and feel comfortable at 90+. And if you want that in modern high fidelity titles at 4K (real 4K, none of this 'dynamic' or checkerboarding nonsense) then you need DLSS, ditto if you want reliable 4K + intensive RT at 60+. If that is not your aim then absolutely it's not required and a good AMD card should be just fine, FSR 1 was decent but rough and now 2 is better though still not quite up there quality wise. There's also TSR in unreal engine 5 which compares favourably to DLSS 2.x as seen in Tokyo Ghostwire (which backported it to UE4).

TL;DR - DLSS makes perfect sense for high end gaming at 4K it's literally a game-changer :).

But that's exactly the point. He said "the vast majority", not "no-one needs this". You're arguing your personal case, which is absolutely the minority of the overall gaming market.

I have a 240hz monitor myself, but just a 3060Ti. It runs stuff great, obviously latest games not a hope in hell of even reaching 100fps stable, but equally not a chance in hell I was dropping 1,500 on a 3090Ti, and equally as zero a chance I'd drop cash on any of these ridiculous 40 series RTX cards.

The overwhelming majority of gamers just want an affordable card that can run games well - myself included, even though I do personally demand at least 90+ fps. You would be crazy if you think that the average gamer is demanding 4k ultra, 120+ fps, etc. They don't. Look at the steam card charts. The most popular cards are GTX1060, RX580, class cards.

The average gamer doesn't care a damn about Ray Tracing, and not really DLSS either. Nvidia is aggressively trying to bully the market into thinking they're absolutely essential for everyone and thus justifying their crazy prices.

Grand if you can afford them, but absolutely don't justify these comical prices.

Sure they justified the RTX series pricing initially with that, even though performance was fairly crap. Ray tracing was practically unusable.