$2,500 RTX-5090 ( 60% faster than 4090 )

gerardfraser said:
As someone who buys a bunch of new gear EG: 6x RTX 4090 GPUS,NVIVIDA Go fuck yourself with the nutty nutbar pricing
Click to expand...
It won't matter if gamers don't like the top teir Blackwell prices as there are plenty of people willing to pay a LOT for the latest GPUs. I am sure Nvidia will try to stay competitive in the value sector re 5060 gpus. Which, if they are still competitive to the competitors, is that really unfair?
 
GoodBoy said:
I think the 5090 FE will land at $1599. The performance increase over previous gen is generally expected. They've built LHR cards, so if the consumer GPU's can be kept out of the AI boom in the same way, demand will not be insane and prices should be normal.

Keep in mind, Nvidia wants to sell the chips that are going to get used for AI work at a much higher price, so I suspect they will put in limiters for consumer GPU's to keep them from being repurposed.
We can hope I guess.
Click to expand...
Maybe on training, but on inference those card being good at it will be a selling point for games and not something you want to necessarily gimp, what Tensor core will be on the 5000 series could open interesting DLSS and other use case like their AI run game demo, they could want the 5060 to nearly double the PS5 pro 300 int8 Tops and by the end of the line you end up with quite the inference machine. Unlike coin mining, AI inference has been a crucial part of Nvidia gaming card since DLSS 2 got good enough and will grow as about all hard to run new game support it now.

The 2 big gimp they can and will continue to do is the interconnect between card and the amount of vram, they removed NVLINK completely on consumer Lovelace and did not increase the VRAM. We can suspect something similar for Blackwell, modest increase with skus going from only 12gig to 36 gig would not be surprising.

And outside memory limit with gaming cards, even if the model fit when you look at benchmark, the pro line seem to scale better than the gaming GPUs
https://lambdalabs.com/gpu-benchmarks

When using in FP32
1xGPU
RTX 3090 : 1.49
RTX A40..: 1.36

2xGPU
RTX 3090 : 2.68
RTX A40..: 2.68

4xGPU
RTX 3090 : 4.08
RTX A40..: 5.20

8xGPU
RTX 3090 : 6.88
RTX A40..: 10.56
 
I keep reading all this $$ talk and sit here with a 3070 waiting until a 4070 gets cheap enough for my budget after one car dying this week and the other needing repairs. I figure I can pay for a 4070 around the middle of 2025. At least reading about all this great tech is both interesting and cheap.
 
MistaSparkul said:
No it isn't, that was because of crypto. The 4080 launched for $1200 then the 4080 Super dropped it to $1000 despite people buying up the 4090 like mad for AI. Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Yes, crypto led to the initial run up, but Nvidia is still testing the waters to see what gamers are willing to pay, and gamers lined up to buy the $1600 4090, so they have their answer. 4080 Super, which is functionally almost identical to the 4080 anyway when benchmarked, is $1000, still a big jump from last generation’s pricing. They’re trying to find a price that the market will accept, and the reality is there was little reason to buy a 4080 for $1200 when you could get a 4090 for $1600. A 4080 for $1000 is a different discussion, and it’s still a lot higher than a $700 3080.

4060 series is going UP 10% now in price based on the latest reports. Nvidia is going to be doing a lot of supply management going forward to maintain higher prices from everything I can see.

Bottom line, the question was asked, “why are people mad about what others spend their money on?”. The answer is simple, it’s impacting the price of the product stack.

It doesn’t bother me. I bought the stock, so please continue to buy GPUs and tell your friends to do the same. I just understand why gamers are upset about it.
 
HockeyJon said:
Yes, crypto led to the initial run up, but Nvidia is still testing the waters to see what gamers are willing to pay, and gamers lined up to buy the $1600 4090, so they have their answer. 4080 Super, which is functionally almost identical to the 4080 anyway when benchmarked, is $1000, still a big jump from last generation’s pricing. They’re trying to find a price that the market will accept, and the reality is there was little reason to buy a 4080 for $1200 when you could get a 4090 for $1600. A 4080 for $1000 is a different discussion, and it’s still a lot higher than a $700 3080.

4060 series is going UP 10% now in price based on the latest reports. Nvidia is going to be doing a lot of supply management going forward to maintain higher prices from everything I can see.

Bottom line, the question was asked, “why are people mad about what others spend their money on?”. The answer is simple, it’s impacting the price of the product stack.

It doesn’t bother me. I bought the stock, so please continue to buy GPUs and tell your friends to do the same. I just understand why gamers are upset about it.
Click to expand...

If gamers are mad then go buy AMD as it's been said before. Otherwise stay mad :ROFLMAO:
 
GoodBoy said:
I think the 5090 FE will land at $1599. The performance increase over previous gen is generally expected. They've built LHR cards, so if the consumer GPU's can be kept out of the AI boom in the same way, demand will not be insane and prices should be normal.

Keep in mind, Nvidia wants to sell the chips that are going to get used for AI work at a much higher price, so I suspect they will put in limiters for consumer GPU's to keep them from being repurposed.
We can hope I guess.
Click to expand...

I’ll say there is little chance it launches at the 4090 price. I would expect at least $1800, because Nvidia knows they can get that for it. The consumer told them they could.
 
MistaSparkul said:
If gamers are mad then go buy AMD as it's been said before. Otherwise stay mad :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

AMD is adopting a “Nvidia price -10%” pricing model these days. Not exactly a smashing deal in most cases compared to what you could get in previous generations, especially because they have to discount because they’re behind in frame generation, frame smoothing, and RT processing. The 3080 was a great card at a great price, but crypto killed that, and AI is killing the rest. Gamers lining up for a $1600 4090 didn’t exactly help create deals either.

That said, if I were in the market, a 7900GRE with overlocked VRAM is interesting.
 
criccio said:
This whole idea is missing a ton of perspective, I think.

To some, high end PC gaming desktop hardware is a hobby, nothing more. Spending $1000-$2000 on a new "thing" for your hobby every few years isn't that unheard of if it makes you happy.

Take a step back and look at hobbies in general. Car guys, for example. $2000 for a new set of wheels is going to get you some relatively cheap wheels. A fancy mountain bike can easily be over $2000. (well over, if you are into the good stuff).

The list goes on and on, if you just look at this stuff for what it is, a hobby, its really not that big of a deal if there are people willing to pay it. I think people lose a little perspective thinking way too much about PC parts specifically and not the wider picture of hobbies.
Click to expand...
I will admit that I am looking at this through a very narrow lens called "personal experience". Admittedly, my experience is just that, "mine". I agree with your basic premise of cost per year relative to other hobbies. Here's where we part ways......

Again viewing through the narrow lens of my own experience. How many AAA single player games will I personally pick up and play per year? At this stage of my life very little appeals to me in the AAA arena so per year I may purchase one or two games max. Let's say that game ends up being decent and I put in 30-50 hours before beating it and calling it a day? Game beat? Now what? That 2500.00 video card is just being used for what? To play games that I already had in my Steam log and most likely played fine with my previous card? So I spend the rest of the year playing games I've already played in the past until the process repeats itself EVERY 2-3 years? That said, if there were an abundance of excellent, AAA games "that appealed to me", then Id likely pay $2500.00 for hundreds or perhaps thousands of hours of yearly entertainment.

earlier post i made in this thread

"I think I'm coming to the end of "modern pc" gaming after 30 years in the hobby. This trend of possible 2500.00 gpu's combined with "modern games" that really don't target my age bracket is forcing me to reevaluate my priorities. At least I have thousands upon thousands of past pc, arcade and retro console games to ensure that I will always be a "gamer"; just not a so called "modern gamer" with the stomach to pay for 2500.00 video cards to play games that no longer speak to me........"
 
Last edited:
I find it funny when some want to argue the price the video cards are going for do not matter. When in reality it matters quite a bit as the prices are so high that most people are just not buying them. Then that even a rub for those that are willing to pay anything to have the best, if the rest of the public is not upgrading then having that top flight card is worthless as no games will come out to push that high end card. Instead you get things tacked on a after thought that runs like garbage. So even if the prices do not bother you, it's in your best interest as well that the prices on the whole product stack start coming down, so others will upgrade. If the prices are higher again this generation and I normally upgrade every other gen, then I will be sitting this one out myself. I have a feeling many more people that normally upgrade are feeling the same way as me this time.
 
Gideon said:
I find it funny when some want to argue the price the video cards are going for do not matter. When in reality it matters quite a bit as the prices are so high that most people are just not buying them. Then that even a rub for those that are willing to pay anything to have the best, if the rest of the public is not upgrading then having that top flight card is worthless as no games will come out to push that high end card. Instead you get things tacked on a after thought that runs like garbage. So even if the prices do not bother you, it's in your best interest as well that the prices on the whole product stack start coming down, so others will upgrade. If the prices are higher again this generation and I normally upgrade every other gen, then I will be sitting this one out myself. I have a feeling many more people that normally upgrade are feeling the same way as me this time.
Click to expand...

Only the 4080 got a ridiculous price increase. The 4060 is actually $30 cheaper than a 3060, 4060 Ti is the same price as a 3060 Ti, 4070 and 4090 are $100 more than a 3070 and 3090, and 4070 Ti is $200 more than a 3070 Ti. The 4080 seems to be singled out when talking about massive price hikes and acting like it affected the whole product stack when it was the only one out of the entire product stack that got such a massive hike. IF every single SKU in the product stack got a price hike as massive as the 4080 did then I'm sure the outlook from buyers would be different right now. But for the 40 series gen, I am not spending a lot more money than what I spent on a 30 series.
 
HockeyJon said:
I don't think it's that as much as the fact that others showing a willingness to spend insane amounts of money on a good video card means the rest of us have to as well when we want to upgrade.
Click to expand...
What he said. I could care less where you spend your money unless your spending habits affect me personally. The willingness to keep buying Nvidia at ever more higher price points affects my wallet and that's personal is it not?
 
MistaSparkul said:
Only the 4080 got a ridiculous price increase.
Click to expand...
It got a price decrease. Unless you're comparing it to 3080 which you can't, that's an entirely different GPU. Might as well be comparing it to an RX580 at that point, same difference. I don't subscribe to this idea of linking "classes" of cards from previous generations, it doesn't make any sense to me.
 
criccio said:
It got a price decrease. Unless you're comparing it to 3080 which you can't, that's an entirely different GPU. Might as well be comparing it to an RX580 at that point, same difference. I don't subscribe to this idea of linking "classes" of cards from previous generations, it doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

Same but that's the argument being made apparently *shrug*
 
My final guesses:

  1. Most Likely: $2499 for the 5090, it's 80 percent faster than a 4090 on average, but Nvidia claims it's double. I'm guessing the 4090 gets discontinued or is continued to be sold as a light AI card, the 5080 is 1499 it's a 16 gb card and 25 percent faster than the 4090.
  2. Less Likely: $2999 for the 5090, it's a 32 gb gaming / ai card. $ 1599 for the 5080, 16 gb card but 25 percent faster than the 4090, 4090 gets sold at the same price as a light AI card having 24 gb of memory.
  3. Least likely: $1599 for the 5090, 24 gb of vram replaces the 4090, $999 for the 5080 replaces the 4080 super and matches or is 15 percent faster than the 4090.
  4. See you in November?

Sorry for the edit, realized I wanted a few more guesses.
 
Decko87 said:
My final guess: $2499 for the 5090, it's 80 percent faster than a 4090 on average, but Nvidia claims it's double. I'm guessing the 4090 gets discontinued, the 5090 is 1499 it's a 16 gb card and 25 percent faster than the 4090. See you in November?
Click to expand...
Lol.
 
Ziggy_Stardog said:
Maybe to match the same markup of profit of their AI chips?
Click to expand...
3080 for $699 was unobtainium for 2 years. If you wanted one you either got lucky and sniped one before it went OOS or, more commonly, you paid a scalper more than 699. This wasn’t lost on nvidia. Why leave profit on the table when you can cut out the scalper and pocket additional money.

I see both sides of this argument and agree with both. What anyone spends their residual income on is no one else’s business. At the same time a willingness to spend certainly does not go unnoticed. The primary job of every cooperation is to be profitable. To think a company as profitable and successful as nvidia isn’t noticing and making adjustments along the way is laughable.

I forget which YT channel it was, but one of the better known ones even made a video during this time stating nvidia will never release an 80 class card for $700 again
 
Last edited:
My hunch is that Nvidia is not a fool to let the gaming side slip like this.

$1599 "founder's base price for the 5090:
  • 70% faster than the 4090, Nvidia will claim it is 100% faster (in selected scenarios) and 200% fast in RT (in selected scenarios).
  • DP 2.1, a better stronger energy cable,
  • GDDRX²³+Ex memory (or wathever don't make a dent on their enterprise supply line).
It use failed yelds to the enterprise blackwell, naturally.

In the end, everyone is happy (and a little poorer).
 
GoodBoy said:
Keep in mind, Nvidia wants to sell the chips that are going to get used for AI work at a much higher price, so I suspect they will put in limiters for consumer GPU's to keep them from being repurposed.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope not. The 5090 just being 80% (assuming this number holds) faster at only gaming is probably not enough for me to invest in one. If they completely gimp the Stable Diffusion and AI workload speed, I would probably not even bother with it. With (and many times without) DLSS, the 4090 does plenty good enough even at 4k, outside of some more recent titles.

There are other things they do to keep consumer GPUs from really getting repurposed for high end (ie multimillion or multibillion, or highly funded startup) company use, like poor scalability and probably worse driver support, along with probably generally less specialization towards that workload.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I certainly hope not. The 5090 just being 80% (assuming this number holds) faster at only gaming is probably not enough for me to invest in one. If they completely gimp the Stable Diffusion and AI workload speed, I would probably not even bother with it. With (and many times without) DLSS, the 4090 does plenty good enough even at 4k, outside of some more recent titles.

There are other things they do to keep consumer GPUs from really getting repurposed for high end (ie multimillion or multibillion, or highly funded startup) company use, like poor scalability and probably worse driver support, along with probably generally less specialization towards that workload.
Click to expand...
"just" 80% faster at gaming?
 
And bear in mind if there is,in the end, a war in Taiwan, then all bets are off... The 5090 would be delayed or it would cost ten times the price of a single 4090...
 
leSLIe said:
And bear in mind if there is,in the end, a war in Taiwan, then all bets are off... The 5090 would be delayed or it would cost ten times the price of a single 4090...
Click to expand...
Main reason we need that TSMC Arizona fab spun up asap. I mean, not just for 5090's but everything else based on TSMC's processes.
 
WilyKit said:
"just" 80% faster at gaming?
Click to expand...
Even At 4k the 1080 was 70% faster than the 980 and Pascal is a legendary release.

How much Lovelace gained over Ampere could have put really high expectation (the 3070 ti use all of a 392 mm GA104, 256 bits bus, a 4080 super has a 379mm on 256 bits, both running at 300w, the 4080 super is around 80% faster at 1440p, so Lovelace pretty much did just that +80% or so on the hardware level).

That Samsung 8 to TSMC 4N (or TSMC 28 to TSMC 16 for Pascal), does not happen everytime, would they do +80% 2 gen on a row like this.... they will make 125mm-96 bits 100 watt card that play like a RTX 3080 in some game... Laptop gaming would get quite viable.

Expectation are set quite high for a maybe not even getting on TSMC 3N node (and even that would not have been that crazy of a node boost), they have all the room in the world to boost the 5060-5070-5080 has much as they need/want over the previous generation, 2x if they need-want is easy if they are ready to eat some margin, but on the 5090.....not a pure decision but an actual challenge.
 
WilyKit said:
"just" 80% faster at gaming?
Click to expand...

Yes. The problem is that the games that do not run at decent refresh rates at current 4k native don't just run "kind of low", I think they run really low. If I hit 20fps on a 4090, getting 36FPS instead isn't going to just make my day. And if I have to use DLSS and/or lower the resolution, then it doesn't matter. Both cards would probably hit plenty good enough FPS.

For possibly 2k+ it's not a great value proposition if they also gimp my ability to do hobby AI stuff. These are prosumer range prices. This 4090 isn't just roughly 2x as fast as my 3080 Ti in gaming. It provides 2x VRAM and 2x stable diffusion speed. That combined value proposition got me to upgrade. 2k for a crippled one trick pony that wouldn't necessarily make any noticeable differences on existing titles is a hard pill to swallow. If I get a bonus (which I likely will) or raise, sure I'll might cave in anyway, but maybe not.

So yes, I think the "just"... Is justified. I didn't even mean to do it.

I think they need ~2.5x (multiplicative)--not 1.8x--performance increase for that to be a no-brainer, as much of a stretch as that may be. Might be a gen for me to skip, maybe not. All hypothetical anyway.
 
Last edited:
Decko87 said:
I'm on my 7900 XTX wondering what game is worth the price of a 4090 after I paid 825 for this. As cool as path traced cyberpunk would be I'm not really interested, I finished the game a year ago. I played Metro and control with RT at 1440p on a 3060 ti years ago. There's still nothing worth the money. I'm not dropping 2.5k on a 5090 for 4k path traced portal, a game I beat over a decade ago. Diablo 4's RT is shadows and reflections only, so that's out the window now as well. If you watch the preview videos it's hard to even tell a difference. Alan Wake 2 is the only convincing new title I've seen with proper RT, but that alone isn't enough to get me to drop the cash. The fact of the matter is RT won't really be a thing until consoles are using it regularly. Maybe once the PS5 pro is out for a few years and PS 6 is on the way we'll start getting more good games with native RT, until then I don't care.


Seriously what is the point of this? Losing 30-50 % of your performance for what exactly? A slightly better reflection in water you'll be in for half a second and less sharp shadows.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4NYCr1ynb4
Click to expand...

Have you actually played the game with ray tracing after the update, or are you just judging it by the various scenes of the person standing still in this video? It's not just shadows and reflections. The particles are also affected by the lighting, and embers coming off fire light up the area around them too. The lighting being projected through the foliage and various other transparent world objects affects how dull or sharp the shadows being projected are. The lighting is much more realistic and worth it, and you can really see it in motion.
 
LittleBuddy said:
It would be a 25-30% performance uplift, it is relatively standard over the past 20 years. I wouldn't say it's a "poor gen on gen improvement". There have been generations were we only saw a 15-20% uplift.

There are a few generations that stand out that exceeded that: Ada Lovelace, Pascal, Kepler
Click to expand...
No no I don't think you understand. Past several gens aside from the initial 4070 launch, it was the 70, not the 80 card that matched the previous gen flagship in performance. 20-series was another bad one but I think got better over time where the 70 Super was matching 1080 Ti performance. Give or take of course. But see below.

3070 = 2080 Ti
2070 Super = 1080 Ti
1070 = 980 Ti
970 = 780 Ti
etc. etc.

Then with the 40-series, the 4070 barely matched a 3080, not the 3090 Ti. That went to the much more expensive 4070 Ti. Somewhat fixed now with the 4070 Super.

So to hear that the 5080 will only match the 4090 is...disappointing. Of course there is such a big gulf of performance between the 4080 / 4080 Super and 4090, maybe it makes sense.
 
Sir Beregond said:
No no I don't think you understand. Past several gens aside from the initial 4070 launch, it was the 70, not the 80 card that matched the previous gen flagship in performance. 20-series was another bad one but I think got better over time where the 70 Super was matching 1080 Ti performance. Give or take of course. But see below.

3070 = 2080 Ti
2070 Super = 1080 Ti
1070 = 980 Ti
970 = 780 Ti
etc. etc.

Then with the 40-series, the 4070 barely matched a 3080, not the 3090 Ti. That went to the much more expensive 4070 Ti. Somewhat fixed now with the 4070 Super.

So to hear that the 5080 will only match the 4090 is...disappointing. Of course there is such a big gulf of performance between the 4080 / 4080 Super and 4090, maybe it makes sense.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt a 5080 is just going to match a 4090 but I'm not surprised that all these "rumors" are saying whatever they can to generate buzz and get clicks whether it's overhype like saying the 5090 will be 3x faster than a 4090 or generating mass disappointment by saying the 5080 will only match a 4090.
 
Armenius said:
Have you actually played the game with ray tracing after the update, or are you just judging it by the various scenes of the person standing still in this video? It's not just shadows and reflections. The particles are also affected by the lighting, and embers coming off fire light up the area around them too. The lighting being projected through the foliage and various other transparent world objects affects how dull or sharp the shadows being projected are. The lighting is much more realistic and worth it, and you can really see it in motion.
Click to expand...
There's no RT lighting in the game, it's shadows and reflections only.
 
Sir Beregond said:
No no I don't think you understand. Past several gens aside from the initial 4070 launch, it was the 70, not the 80 card that matched the previous gen flagship in performance. 20-series was another bad one but I think got better over time where the 70 Super was matching 1080 Ti performance. Give or take of course. But see below.

3070 = 2080 Ti
2070 Super = 1080 Ti
1070 = 980 Ti
970 = 780 Ti
etc. etc.

Then with the 40-series, the 4070 barely matched a 3080, not the 3090 Ti. That went to the much more expensive 4070 Ti. Somewhat fixed now with the 4070 Super.

So to hear that the 5080 will only match the 4090 is...disappointing. Of course there is such a big gulf of performance between the 4080 / 4080 Super and 4090, maybe it makes sense.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even talking about xx70 vs xx90. I was talking about generational performance. But I don't see what you're getting at saying that a 70 series card matches the previous generations flagship.

770 does not beat or equal Titan
970 does not beat or equal Titan Black
1070 beats Titan X (Maxwell) by 8%
2070 does not beat or equal Titan Xp
3070 beats 2080Ti by 4%, loses to Titan V (Including 2080Ti here because Titan V was expensive)
4070 does not beat 3090 or 3090 Ti

Most of the time the 70 series does not match a flagship from the previous generation.

780 does not match or equal Titan
980 equals Titan Black
1080 beats Titan X (Maxwell)
2080 equals Titan Xp
3080 beats 2080Ti and Titan V
4080 beats 3090 Ti

80 series cards usually beat the previous flagship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top