How many 4080/4090 owners plan to upgrade to a respective 50 series when available?

WilyKit said:
That is NOT what YOU said though. You said "hard limit" when talking about new GPU's. I've seen the video. Jensen was talking about moving away from rasterization and towards ray/path tracing, which will require tons more GPU grunt.

So your latest goal post shift is all the more reason we need new and more powerful GPU's.

At this point I'm not sure if you're intentionally misrepresenting or if you genuinely have no idea what it is you're reading/hearing.
Click to expand...
I will certainly filter my posts more carefully. Thanks for helping me out in that area.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Definitely getting a 5090 because I don't see any way for AMD to compete next gen. 7900 XTX falls short in raster performance compared to the 4090 while using even more power, still doesn't have upscaling tech that's as good as DLSS, and let's not even talk about ray tracing.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you don't need to be #1 in order to be successful. I think people that are happy with current Nvidia direction have no good reason to switch.

I think HUB's recent video about the Intel Arc 750 is interesting from the perspective of what "might be" if Intel continues on their path. But, obviously, way way way too early to tell. I think when people looked at AMD's lesser offerings and guessed their pricing had more to do with Intel, I think they were right.

And maybe I'm wrong about the possibility of small gains for Nvidia when reaching beyond the 4090, maybe there's a ton more headroom to be had (??). But if I just spent $1600+ and now I'm going to spend $2000+ to get a 5% increase... IMHO, I would think that would be bad value. Now, if it's 30%... and of course we're talking a 4K users club only.... ???
 
cjcox said:
Sometimes you don't need to be #1 in order to be successful. I think people that are happy with current Nvidia direction have no good reason to switch.

I think HUB's recent video about the Intel Arc 750 is interesting from the perspective of what "might be" if Intel continues on their path. But, obviously, way way way too early to tell. I think when people looked at AMD's lesser offerings and guessed their pricing had more to do with Intel, I think they were right.

And maybe I'm wrong about the possibility of small gains for Nvidia when reaching beyond the 4090, maybe there's a ton more headroom to be had (??). But if I just spent $1600+ and now I'm going to spend $2000+ to get a 5% increase... IMHO, I would think that would be bad value. Now, if it's 30%... and of course we're talking a 4K users club only.... ???
Click to expand...

For the 4090 to the 5090? Yes I believe there is quite a bit of headroom left because going from 3090 -> 4090 Nvidia kept the same GDDR6 while the 5090 should be using much much faster GDDR7 that will probably do most of the heavy lifting with the massive increase in memory bandwidth. TSMC 4nm -> 3nm is also able to put out large 600+mm2 dies which is what Nvidia has been targeting for the high end for many years now. The problem starts when we go towards the RTX 60 series that's when things get kinda cloudy.
 
cjcox said:
Sometimes you don't need to be #1 in order to be successful. I think people that are happy with current Nvidia direction have no good reason to switch.

I think HUB's recent video about the Intel Arc 750 is interesting from the perspective of what "might be" if Intel continues on their path. But, obviously, way way way too early to tell. I think when people looked at AMD's lesser offerings and guessed their pricing had more to do with Intel, I think they were right.

And maybe I'm wrong about the possibility of small gains for Nvidia when reaching beyond the 4090, maybe there's a ton more headroom to be had (??). But if I just spent $1600+ and now I'm going to spend $2000+ to get a 5% increase... IMHO, I would think that would be bad value. Now, if it's 30%... and of course we're talking a 4K users club only.... ???
Click to expand...
Can you point me to which nvidia card was only 5% faster that the previous gen card it replaced? You’re on an epic roll of making shit up today.
 
WilyKit said:
Can you point me to which nvidia card was only 5% faster that the previous gen card it replaced? You’re on an epic roll of making shit up today.
Click to expand...
It's hypothetical. Is there a "base" for performance increase vs cost that you believe is the "fhe floor" when considering an upgrade from the 4090?
 
cjcox said:
It's hypothetical. Is there a "base" for performance increase vs cost that you believe is the "fhe floor" when considering an upgrade from the 4090?
Click to expand...
There's a ton of variables that would go into that decision. In no particular order of priority, some of the variables are:

1) What games i'm playing
2) What resolution i'm running
3) What the rest of my system looks like (will I be bottlnecked?)
4) What my financial outlook is at the time
5) Price and performance of the card
6) How bored I am

But a 5% gain for a 33% price increase isn't a realistic scenario. It's never happened before and virtually no chance it would ever happen.
 
It depends on the performance and new features. My 4090 is good for now, this is the first time ever that I don't really care how long it takes Nvidia to release the next line of GPUs. But if they released something 50% faster than the 4090 I would probably bite.
 
I’m a 4090 owner that is quite happy with performance at the moment. No need to upgrade.
 
madpistol said:
I’m a 4090 owner that is quite happy with performance at the moment. No need to upgrade.
Click to expand...
Same. And with games more and more depending on DLSS combined with the fact that I'm only running a 1600p ultrawide and not 4k, thinking it'll last a good while.
 
LittleBuddy said:
It depends on the performance and new features. My 4090 is good for now, this is the first time ever that I don't really care how long it takes Nvidia to release the next line of GPUs. But if they released something 50% faster than the 4090 I would probably bite.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I feel the same way. Does not bother me that the rumors are the 5000 series will be a year later than normal. Like sweet, I will still be top of the line for a record amount of time for once! This card is generally like "Is this the best you can throw at me?" lol.
 
III_Slyflyer_III said:
Yeah, I feel the same way. Does not bother me that the rumors are the 5000 series will be a year later than normal. Like sweet, I will still be top of the line for a record amount of time for once! This card is generally like "Is this the best you can throw at me?" lol.
Click to expand...
I had only heard it may be q1 2025 versus the typical time which would be q4 2024, so a 3 month delay. Where are you hearing a full year later? :)
 
cjcox said:
Sometimes you don't need to be #1 in order to be successful. I think people that are happy with current Nvidia direction have no good reason to switch.

I think HUB's recent video about the Intel Arc 750 is interesting from the perspective of what "might be" if Intel continues on their path. But, obviously, way way way too early to tell. I think when people looked at AMD's lesser offerings and guessed their pricing had more to do with Intel, I think they were right.

And maybe I'm wrong about the possibility of small gains for Nvidia when reaching beyond the 4090, maybe there's a ton more headroom to be had (??). But if I just spent $1600+ and now I'm going to spend $2000+ to get a 5% increase... IMHO, I would think that would be bad value. Now, if it's 30%... and of course we're talking a 4K users club only.... ???
Click to expand...
Nobody thought the 4090 would be that much more powerful than the 3090, and it ended up being 70% faster in rasterization and 100% faster with ray tracing for only a 6.7% price increase. The smallest gains from the top tier card in recent memory was the Titan X to 2080 Ti (25% in rasterization), but the latter was priced the same as the former.
 
Tough for me to say. I usually sell whatever card I currently own and buy something new whenever a major new generation of cards hits. I don't always if the uplift isn't huge, though. Sometimes I'll also wait if my other hardware probably needs an upgrade first. Ditto if my wife needs my hand-me-down hardware rather than me selling what I currently have. My current build is almost all brand new, so it should still be tip top when the 5090's hit, though. Plus, my wife has a 3090 powering a 1080p monitor. That should last her pretty much indefinitely.
It'll probably come down to what games are coming out around that time and what kind of new features/performance it promises. I *probably* will end up getting a 50-series card, but you never know.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Definitely getting a 5090 because I don't see any way for AMD to compete next gen. 7900 XTX falls short in raster performance compared to the 4090 while using even more power, still doesn't have upscaling tech that's as good as DLSS, and let's not even talk about ray tracing.
Click to expand...

The 7900 XTX falls short compared to the 4090 in raster...

...it also falls short on price by $600 MSRP, so I would hope the 4090 would be a better product.
 
I am absolutely gonna be upgrading my 3080 to a 5000 series, I've gotten really into AI image generation and I while I want more speed, I *NEED* more VRAM. I think with current workflows, 16GB should be a big enough upgrade over 12GB, but If SD starts working at 2k or 4k base images I'm absolutely gonna need 20GB+
I don't feel like upgrading to a 4090 at the current prices, and I tried a 3090Ti briefly and while it was nice, it's not a noticeable enough upgrade that's worth spending $$$ even if I sell my 3080... but in a few years without any other upgrades i'll be able to justify spending whatever the hell it costs for a 5080 or 5090.
 
HockeyJon said:
The 7900 XTX falls short compared to the 4090 in raster...

...it also falls short on price by $600 MSRP, so I would hope the 4090 would be a better product.
Click to expand...

The price argument now? Really? Ok then the 6950 XT costs nearly HALF as much as the 7900 XTX but provides about 80% the performance so I would hope the 7900 XTX is a better product. Price means nothing if you don't get the performance that you are targeting. You could sell me a GPU that's 1/3 the performance of the 4090 while only costing 10% the price and I still wouldn't buy it.
 
TheSlySyl said:
I am absolutely gonna be upgrading my 3080 to a 5000 series, I've gotten really into AI image generation and I while I want more speed, I *NEED* more VRAM. I think with current workflows, 16GB should be a big enough upgrade over 12GB, but If SD starts working at 2k or 4k base images I'm absolutely gonna need 20GB+
I don't feel like upgrading to a 4090 at the current prices, and I tried a 3090Ti briefly and while it was nice, it's not a noticeable enough upgrade that's worth spending $$$ even if I sell my 3080... but in a few years without any other upgrades i'll be able to justify spending whatever the hell it costs for a 5080 or 5090.
Click to expand...

I just bought a 4090 and I'm really happy with the performance (and VRAM) bump coming from a 2080ti and RTX5000 (2080) in my daily driver systems. That's even with me being fully aware that my platform is hobbling the card for gaming (this the last big upgrade for my X399 workstation). That said, I'm mostly using the 4090 for local ML - no real performance impact (running X399) for this use case.

For the 50-series, if I could get a similar jump in performance as 2080ti to 4090... then I'd certainly consider it. Given the rumors of 50 series in first half of 2025, that sort of jump could be possible. I'd probably be game if they offered the 5090 with 48gb+ of VRAM given the options that would allow for with local ML training or using some of the bigger text-generation models. Only options currently for 48gb+ cards are RTX (Quadro) and server cards that cost a small fortune - even used, sketchy ones from ebay.
 
MistaSparkul said:
The price argument now? Really? Ok then the 6950 XT costs nearly HALF as much as the 7900 XTX but provides about 80% the performance so I would hope the 7900 XTX is a better product. Price means nothing if you don't get the performance that you are targeting. You could sell me a GPU that's 1/3 the performance of the 4090 while only costing 10% the price and I still wouldn't buy it.
Click to expand...

Yes, the price argument, because price is always a factor. The 4090 currently has no challenger and the 7900 XTX is not intended to be one; AMD said it isn't. You're comparing a $1000 product to a $1600 product, which is an irrelevant comparison. You might as well be comparing a Corvette to a Formula 1 and saying the Corvette is a crap car because the F1 is faster. They're not in the same league and not intended to be. Clearly you're an F1 customer, and that's fine as well.

And yes, I would hope the 7900 XTX is a better product than the 6950 XT for this exact same reason. If AMD intends to charge more for it, it better be superior.

In any case, AMD is rumoured to once again not be targeting the halo class on the next release, so looks like you will be buying a 5090 after all, which will probably be $1800 this time because Nvidia gonna Nvidia, and that's also fine because their customer has told them they're willing to pay for it. I would do the same thing if I were Jensen.
 
HockeyJon said:
Yes, the price argument, because price is always a factor. The 4090 currently has no challenger and the 7900 XTX is not intended to be one; AMD said it isn't. You're comparing a $1000 product to a $1600 product, which is an irrelevant comparison. You might as well be comparing a Corvette to a Formula 1 and saying the Corvette is a crap car because the F1 is faster. They're not in the same league and not intended to be. Clearly you're an F1 customer, and that's fine as well.

And yes, I would hope the 7900 XTX is a better product than the 6950 XT for this exact same reason. If AMD intends to charge more for it, it better be superior.

In any case, AMD is rumoured to once again not be targeting the halo class on the next release, so looks like you will be buying a 5090 after all, which will probably be $1800 this time because Nvidia gonna Nvidia, and that's also fine because their customer has told them they're willing to pay for it. I would do the same thing if I were Jensen.
Click to expand...

Which is literally the point I was making in the first place, that AMD isn't going to compete with the 5090 hence I would be buying one over whatever AMD offers...I don't care that AMD is competing with Nvidia on some pricing front, they just aren't competing in the performance aspect at the very high end. I'm also not sure what makes you think that comparing the two is somehow irrelevant just because the price doesn't match. I'm comparing the BEST that AMD has to offer vs. the BEST that Nvidia has to offer. The best from Nvidia happens to cost a lot more, but it's also the better product IMO and whether or not it's worth the extra cost is purely a subjective matter from person to person.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Which is literally the point I was making in the first place, that AMD isn't going to compete with the 5090 hence I would be buying one over whatever AMD offers...I don't care that AMD is competing with Nvidia on some pricing front, they just aren't competing in the performance aspect at the very high end. I'm also not sure what makes you think that comparing the two is somehow irrelevant just because the price doesn't match. I'm comparing the BEST that AMD has to offer vs. the BEST that Nvidia has to offer. The best from Nvidia happens to cost a lot more, but it's also the better product IMO and whether or not it's worth the extra cost is purely a subjective matter from person to person.
Click to expand...

The price is relevant because AMD stated they're not trying to compete in that category. At the top of the chain, Nvidia is unchallenged, and they charge accordingly for that. There's no need to bring AMD into the discussion because they won't be considered by that type of buyer anyway. That was my point.

The 4080 vs 7900 XTX is a fair comparison because there are benefits and drawbacks to either and buyers in that category could find a way to justify going with either of those options. The 4090 buyer isn't looking at a 4080 either, though.
 
HockeyJon said:
The price is relevant because AMD stated they're not trying to compete in that category. At the top of the chain, Nvidia is unchallenged, and they charge accordingly for that. There's no need to bring AMD into the discussion because they won't be considered by that type of buyer anyway. That was my point.

The 4080 vs 7900 XTX is a fair comparison because there are benefits and drawbacks to either and buyers in that category could find a way to justify going with either of those options. The 4090 buyer isn't looking at a 4080 either, though.
Click to expand...

So just because AMD says they won't compete with the 4090 we are just supposed to pretend they don't exist or something and never bring them up in any conversation regarding the top end? Just because AMD won't compete with the 5090 I'm not supposed to mention that as part of my reason for getting the 5090 and act like AMD should not be part of the discussion? Ok then.
 
MistaSparkul said:
So just because AMD says they won't compete with the 4090 we are just supposed to pretend they don't exist or something and never bring them up in any conversation regarding the top end? Just because AMD won't compete with the 5090 I'm not supposed to mention that as part of my reason for getting the 5090 and act like AMD should not be part of the discussion? Ok then.
Click to expand...

If they have no option capable of competing with the 4090 and openly state they have no intention of delivering one then yes, bringing AMD into the discussion is pointless because 4090 shoppers will not consider them. You will be buying the 5090 because that will be your only option if you want the best of the best, assuming AMD doesn't deliver something that competes with it, and currently it looks like they will not.
 
It is so far away if it is in 2025... an other 18 month of unreal 5 release with the 4090 having an hard time keeping 40 fps and the type of person that bought a 4090 will get more and more likely to upgrade over time.

It would mean no new GPU until 2027 at least maybe 2028 if they skip the 5090, perfectly reasonable obviously specially if you have a 4090, but we are not talking about particularly reasonable people ;)
 
HockeyJon said:
If they have no option capable of competing with the 4090 and openly state they have no intention of delivering one then yes, bringing AMD into the discussion is pointless because 4090 shoppers will not consider them. You will be buying the 5090 because that will be your only option if you want the best of the best, assuming AMD doesn't deliver something that competes with it, and currently it looks like they will not.
Click to expand...

That is such a weird mindset to have. By your logic if AMD's Zen 5 completely obliterates Intel's offering on all fronts then when someone is making a purchasing decision, they can't even mention that Intel doesn't have a real competitor to Zen 5 as part of their reason for not getting an Intel CPU just because "Intel can't compete so they aren't worth bringing into discussion". If the company cannot compete then that alone is reason enough to bring them up into discussion, to freaking say that they cannot compete and hence that's WHY you are going with the other brand.
 
MistaSparkul said:
That is such a weird mindset to have. By your logic if AMD's Zen 5 completely obliterates Intel's offering on all fronts then when someone is making a purchasing decision, they can't even mention that Intel doesn't have a real competitor to Zen 5 as part of their reason for not getting an Intel CPU just because "Intel can't compete so they aren't worth bringing into discussion". If the company cannot compete then that's reason enough to bring them up into discussion, to freaking say that they cannot compete and hence that's WHY you are going with the other brand.
Click to expand...

Why is that a weird mindset? The performance gap between the 7900 XTX and the 4090 is massive. They're not even in the same league. Intel has offerings for certain use cases that compete well enough with Ryzen on the top end that you can consider both depending on the use case (although again, pricing does matter). AMD has offerings in the GPU space to compete with the 4080 and below, but nothing that competes with the 4090. Until that changes, no one at the top end of the GPU buying market will even look at AMD because AMD has nothing to show them, unless they decide they no longer want to pay what Nvidia will charge them for the privilege, and charge them they will.
 
HockeyJon said:
Why is that a weird mindset? The performance gap between the 7900 XTX and the 4090 is massive. They're not even in the same league. Intel has offerings for certain use cases that compete well enough with Ryzen on the top end that you can consider both depending on the use case (although again, pricing does matter). AMD has offerings in the GPU space to compete with the 4080 and below, but nothing that competes with the 4090. Until that changes, no one at the top end of the GPU buying market will even look at AMD because AMD has nothing to show them, unless they decide they no longer want to pay what Nvidia will charge them for the privilege, and charge them they will.
Click to expand...

Did you not read my post? I'm being hypothetical here: What IF, again IF, Intel gets destroyed by Zen 5 in every single aspect at every single price point. Ryzen 5 destroys i5 in price, energy consumption, performance, everything. Same goes for Ryzen 7 vs i7, Ryzen 9 vs i9. IF Zen 5 were to destroy their Intel counterparts at every single price point, meaning that Intel cannot in fact compete with AMD at ALL, does that suddenly mean that nobody should ever bring Intel into a discussion about CPU purchases anymore to even state that simple fact? By your logic, yeah nobody should ever talk about Intel anymore because they cannot compete at any given price point, Intel has nothing to show them so they aren't even worth the mention. Nobody should even say "I'm buying a Ryzen 5 this gen because Intel is unable to compete"?
 
MistaSparkul said:
Did you not read my post? I'm being hypothetical here: What IF, again IF, Intel gets destroyed by Zen 5 in every single aspect at every single price point. Ryzen 5 destroys i5 in price, energy consumption, performance, everything. Same goes for Ryzen 7 vs i7, Ryzen 9 vs i9. IF Zen 5 were to destroy their Intel counterparts at every single price point, meaning that Intel cannot in fact compete with AMD at ALL, does that suddenly mean that nobody should ever bring Intel into a discussion about CPU purchases anymore to even state that simple fact? By your logic, yeah nobody should ever talk about Intel anymore because they cannot compete at any given price point, Intel has nothing to show them so they aren't even worth the mention. Nobody should even say "I'm buying a Ryzen 5 this gen because Intel is unable to compete"?
Click to expand...

Ok I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, so we'll leave it there. Enjoy your day.
 
HockeyJon said:
If they have no option capable of competing with the 4090 and openly state they have no intention of delivering one then yes, bringing AMD into the discussion is pointless because 4090 shoppers will not consider them. You will be buying the 5090 because that will be your only option if you want the best of the best, assuming AMD doesn't deliver something that competes with it, and currently it looks like they will not.
Click to expand...
They'll compete with the 4090, it just won't be until the 60 series is available.

On a serious note, AMD exiting the "high end market" isn't new. Their PR is simply making official what has been in practice for several years now. I mean, when was the last time AMD truly held the performance crown and competed at the very top of the stack? IIRC, it was with the Radeon 5970 back in 2009

nVidia is so far ahead they sand bag their own launches "just incase" AMD surprises them, and they immediately release a "Ti" version of their top end SKU vs AMD having to come up with an entirely new architecture to achieve the same thing, and often times still falling short.
 
WilyKit said:
They'll compete with the 4090, it just won't be until the 60 series is available.

On a serious note, AMD exiting the "high end market" isn't new. Their PR is simply making official what has been in practice for several years now. I mean, when was the last time AMD truly held the performance crown and competed at the very top of the stack? IIRC, it was with the Radeon 5970 back in 2009

nVidia is so far ahead they sand bag their own launches "just incase" AMD surprises them, and they immediately release a "Ti" version of their top end SKU vs AMD having to come up with an entirely new architecture to achieve the same thing, and often times still falling short.
Click to expand...

When was the last time AMD competed at the very top of the stack? I would say literally last gen. The 6900XT wasn't far behind a 3090 at all (not counting RT). In most games the 3090 was only single digits faster unlike this gen where the 4090 is on average like 25% faster than the 7900XTX.
 
I rode my 2080ti for almost five years.. Hope to get at least three to four out of the 4090.
 
WilyKit said:
On a serious note, AMD exiting the "high end market" isn't new. Their PR is simply making official what has been in practice for several years now.
Click to expand...
I think the 6900xt ($1000) and the 6950xt (announced at $1300, launched at $1100) were solidly in the high end market (went almost toe to toe with the 3090-3090ti making not really arguable that they were not), the 7900xtx ($1000, 24GB of vram on 529mm on close to latest node, 384 bits bus) as well even if it could be more disputable.

Even the 3080-6800xt were high end imo, the 3080 was a 628mm die with a 320 bits-GDDR6x config with a $700 USD price tag during a low time demand wise for GPU less offering more than 85% of the performance of the 3090, competing with that is competing at the high end.

A generation topping at a 5700xt would be being out of the high end market and that explicitly what Kepler a main launcher of the rumors said.
 
MistaSparkul said:
When was the last time AMD competed at the very top of the stack? I would say literally last gen. The 6900XT wasn't far behind a 3090 at all (not counting RT). In most games the 3090 was only single digits faster unlike this gen where the 4090 is on average like 25% faster than the 7900XTX.
Click to expand...
And then nvidia dropped the Ti. The 6900/6950XT falls flat in comparison when it comes to RT.
 
WilyKit said:
And then nvidia dropped the Ti. The 6900/6950XT falls flat in comparison when it comes to RT.
Click to expand...

Obviously that's why I said "not counting RT". The 6950 XT still managed to compete well with the 3090 Ti, again if you don't count RT.

1693363608783.png


1693363654804.png
 
WilyKit said:
Curious where everyone stands at the moment? I often skip a generation but the latest Paul’s Tech News video I watched says 50 series in 2025. If accurate, that’ll make 40 series the “current” gen a full year longer than 30 (and 20) series before it.

That timeline puts me firmly in the “will upgrade” camp. I’ll feel I got my monies worth if I run the 4090 for 3 years and having a GPU far more powerful than I really need has been a great experience in frame rate consistency and smoothness. I just hope, in my 3rd attempt, I’ll finally be successful in getting a FE model.
Click to expand...


I will be upgrading as long as its at least 50% faster.
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
If you're spending $1,000+ on a video card these days then you can't ignore ray tracing.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did, meant nothing to me when I bought the 6900XT, I also don't plan to upgrade again as it plows through anything I play at 1440p. I wanted a raster powerhouse and it fit the bill and was cheaper and easier to find then the Nvidia 3090. Pretty much 100 fps or better at maxed out settings in everything I play, which goes good with my 144Hz monitor. Ray tracing just is not there yet as a feature that makes it a need to have, maybe in 4 or 5 years it will be there in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top