Any of you guys skipping 5 series?

[eidairaman1]

Then I'm pleased to inform you that a 4070 Ti Super goes down to 200W with no undervolt and just nvidia-smi configuration just fine, without losing much gaming performance. 180W is also doable for compute, though I did not benchmark that for games. Anything lower and performance begins to crumble.


Nah, FX 5200's where the game's at.

That is what was in the XBox, I know this because NFSU was maxed out on Detail on my ATi All In Wonder 9700 Pro and it was a visually beautiful racer (Think ATI Ferrari F40 Demo), the fx5200 on lowest settings ran it but the xb looked the same as the 5200, a joke.

I have a 4090 and am totally thinking about skipping 5 series. Anyone else?

My Answer, Yes I need an Upgrade for my whole rig as of cpu, mobo, gpu.

Mint Green Arrow it is for me; Upward, Forward!


MARCH!

 

[Ruru]

That is what was in the XBox, I know this because NFSU was maxed out on Detail on my ATi All In Wonder 9700 Pro and it wasa visaually beautiful racer (Think ATI Ferrari F40 Demo), the fx5200 on lowest settings ran it but the xb looked the same as the 5200, a joke.

FX 5200 was horrible. Hell, even a high-clocked GF2 MX400 beat it on most cases (sometimes having an older HW DX support actually benefits something).

 

[eidairaman1]

FX 5200 was horrible. Hell, even a high-clocked GF2 MX400 beat it on most cases (sometimes having an older HW DX support actually benefits something).

I started with a GF2 GTS Pro 64, it just died within 2 years. My bro had a MX card, it did the same. I Walked away because of that, then again because of no support for agpgart in vista for nf2. (FFS it played COD4 MW 2007 With a Sapphire ATi Radeon X1950 Pro 512 AGP awesome in WXP)

At this Rate I'd like to see Imagination Technologies/PowerVR release a Dedicated Discreet GPU to womp all 3, it might be a pipedream though

RELEASE THE KYROS!!!

 

[Dyno]

Supposedly, 12GB of Vram is the standard or minimum. I read it in some article couple of weeks ago.

 

[yfn_ratchet]

Supposedly, 12GB of Vram is the standard or minimum. I read it in some article couple of weeks ago.

It's the minimum for the 'it'll last' kind of card since newer games are continuing to sprawl in memory usage. There's games coming out that'll run on cards with 2GB of memory and there's games coming out that'll stutter without a generous 16GB diet. Kinda depends on what you want out of gaming.

 

[Launcestonian]

No, my next gpu upgrade will be RDNA 5.

 

[Ruru]

Supposedly, 12GB of Vram is the standard or minimum. I read it in some article couple of weeks ago.

6GB for entry-level with 96-bit bus
8GB for lower mid-end with 128-bit bus
12GB for mid-end with 192-bit bus
16GB for lower high-end with 256-bit bus
20GB for mid-level high-end with 320-bit bus
24GB for high-end with 384-bit bus
32GB for enthusiast-level with 512-bit bus

Or that's how I would segment the lineup if I'd be a GPU manufacturer with current VRAM requirements etc.

edit: would be interesting to see HBM again on gamer-grade cards, though we're already seeing nice bandwith with GDDR6X

 

[eidairaman1]

6GB for entry-level with 96-bit bus
8GB for lower mid-end with 128-bit bus
12GB for mid-end with 192-bit bus
16GB for lower high-end with 256-bit bus
20GB for mid-level high-end with 320-bit bus
24GB for high-end with 384-bit bus
32GB for enthusiast-level with 512-bit bus

Or that's how I would segment the lineup if I'd be a GPU manufacturer with current VRAM requirements etc.

edit: would be interesting to see HBM again on gamer-grade cards, though we're already seeing nice bandwith with GDDR6X

What would be nice is a modular gpu where you can configure it with the chip you want/need and the amt of ram for it...

 

[Dr. Dro]

I remember some people selling their HD 4870 512MBs and getting a 1GB version when they were released a little later. I guess that 512MB was too meh for a high-end card even in 2008.

It was about as tight as 4 GB GPUs today, I'd say. At the time 1080p and beyond were considered high resolutions and most monitors aimed at "performance" had a 16:10 1680x1050 resolution, which could already push the games of the time well beyond 512 MB.

4890's RV790 was a improved version of the RV770 (HD 4870) with twice the default memory and some optimizations that enabled it to reach higher clocks. I believe there was a 2 GB 4870, but those were very rare at the time. There was a 4870 X2 (and curiously a 4850 X2, with two 4850 cores - I think Sapphire exclusive if I recall correctly, I remember seeing them available for purchase back then), but a 4890 X2 was never released - they skipped to the 5970 which had two 5870 cores at 5850 clock speeds. It was the fastest dual-core card for some time, until the GTX 590 and HD 6990 came around.

 

[eidairaman1]

It was about as tight as 4 GB GPUs today, I'd say. At the time 1080p and beyond were considered high resolutions and most monitors aimed at "performance" had a 16:10 1680x1050 resolution, which could already push the games of the time well beyond 512 MB.

4890's RV790 was a improved version of the RV770 (HD 4870) with twice the default memory and some optimizations that enabled it to reach higher clocks. I believe there was a 2 GB 4870, but those were very rare at the time. There was a 4870 X2 (and curiously a 4850 X2, with two 4850 cores - I think Sapphire exclusive if I recall correctly, I remember seeing them available for purchase back then), but a 4890 X2 was never released - they skipped to the 5970 which had two 5870 cores at 5850 clock speeds. It was the fastest dual-core card for some time, until the GTX 590 and HD 6990 came around.

If ATi/AMD had made the Ram just a single pool instead of 2 parallels it could have been something that might of worked and gave an advantage as a frame buffer for higher resolutions at the time.

 

[windwhirl]

I have a 4090 and am totally thinking about skipping 5 series. Anyone else?

... Still sitting here with an RX 580 and I'm still not that interested in a GPU upgrade? Granted, I'm on 1080p 60Hz, so it's fairly manageable still, but...

My two strongest arguments to buy a new GPU are:

1-If I'm gonna leave the machine doing Folding@Home, I want it to actually make the work in short time and make it worth some good points

2-My current GPU is old enough to the point where I have to start considering that it might spontaneously fail one day, so it'd be nice to have a replacement ready.

So... not much of an argument to buy a new one currently.

 

[stimpy88]

What do you think mid range vram should have?

8GB entry level, 12-16GB 5060/5070, 24-32GB 5080, 32-48 4090, and finally 48-64GB for the Titan.

 

[iameatingjam]

100% I am. I usually end up buying every other gen. There was a bit of an exception recently going from a 3070 to 4090 but that was because of 1) overheating and 2) not enough vram.. As long as my 4090 works I'll keep using it. And I guess I'll just have to live with the anxiety of the connector bursting into flames at any moment lol.

 

[Kminek]

I don't know yet. I am fine with my RTX 3080, I'll wait for RL tests and comparsions and will see.

 

[gffermari]

I don't know. Sometimes I get bored of the hardware I have and need a change.

 

[Ruru]

It was about as tight as 4 GB GPUs today, I'd say. At the time 1080p and beyond were considered high resolutions and most monitors aimed at "performance" had a 16:10 1680x1050 resolution, which could already push the games of the time well beyond 512 MB.

4890's RV790 was a improved version of the RV770 (HD 4870) with twice the default memory and some optimizations that enabled it to reach higher clocks. I believe there was a 2 GB 4870, but those were very rare at the time. There was a 4870 X2 (and curiously a 4850 X2, with two 4850 cores - I think Sapphire exclusive if I recall correctly, I remember seeing them available for purchase back then), but a 4890 X2 was never released - they skipped to the 5970 which had two 5870 cores at 5850 clock speeds. It was the fastest dual-core card for some time, until the GTX 590 and HD 6990 came around.

Also the first card to be sold with 1GHz core clock (some factory overclocked ones, I had one which OC'd to 1045MHz as well)

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

I personally got a wombo combo of a 4K60 display and an RX 6700 XT. Not quite what the doctor ordered to put it mildly. Will buy a 5090, unless something extraordinary happens.

 

[Ruru]

I personally got a wombo combo of a 4K60 display and an RX 6700 XT. Not quite what the doctor ordered to put it mildly. Will buy a 5090, unless something extraordinary happens.

Bought the same combo myself in late 2022 Got a RTX 3080 though as I got a good deal. 6700 XT is now on my 2nd PC and it's a beast with 1080p

 

[Frick]

Nah, FX 5200's where the game's at.

I have one of those in an unopnened box..

I personally got a wombo combo of a 4K60 display and an RX 6700 XT. Not quite what the doctor ordered to put it mildly. Will buy a 5090, unless something extraordinary happens.

Yeah I do regret getting that 4K monitor, but it was also quite cheap (€250 in 2021, Samsung U32J590U). 1440p would have been so much better, I'm using 250% scaling anyway. The 6950XT is doing alright, but already it requires fiddling with settings.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

regret getting that 4K monitor

Frankly it's the best decision I've ever made. My eyes are hefty grateful because I'm working with text way more often than I play video games. I'd really get myself an 8K monitor but it feels a tad too ambitious at this point. Perhaps another decade..?

 

[Ruru]

Frankly it's the best decision I've ever made. My eyes are hefty grateful because I'm working with text way more often than I play video games. I'd really get myself an 8K monitor but it feels a tad too ambitious at this point. Perhaps another decade..?

Agree. Switching from 1080p to 4K was my best upgrade ever (after getting my first SSD) what it comes to computers.

Yeah I do regret getting that 4K monitor, but it was also quite cheap (€250 in 2021, Samsung U32J590U). 1440p would have been so much better, I'm using 250% scaling anyway. The 6950XT is doing alright, but already it requires fiddling with settings.

125% scaling here, 27" 4K120 & 32" 4K60 monitors.

 

[Klemc]

4K comes from TV that needed higher res to display on 50" ++ screens, PCs should stay at 1440p for higher hertz/fps instead.

 

[Ruru]

4K comes from TV that needed higher res to display on 50" ++ screens, PCs should stay at 1440p for higher hertz/fps instead.

4K120 has enough hertz for me.

 

[Apocalypsee]

I wanted to upgrade to anything new but...there isn't anything new at the moment. I might buy RTX 4070 at some point, think it's about the same performance as 3080 I used to have, minus the huge power consumption. Buying Intel Arc isn't worth it because Battlemage is around the corner, I still wonder where AMD RDNA4 when I need it? If I wanted to buy new card, ray tracing performance is high on the list, 3080 can handle ray tracing at 1080p in cyberpunk without DLSS I'm fine with that level of performance (about 40-60+fps from what I can remember). I stick to 1080p because I can't afford bleeding edge GPU to run anything higher.

 

[Ruru]

I wanted to upgrade to anything new but...there isn't anything new at the moment. I might buy RTX 4070 at some point, think it's about the same performance as 3080 I used to have, minus the huge power consumption. Buying Intel Arc isn't worth it because Battlemage is around the corner, I still wonder where AMD RDNA4 when I need it? If I wanted to buy new card, ray tracing performance is high on the list, 3080 can handle ray tracing at 1080p in cyberpunk without DLSS I'm fine with that level of performance (about 40-60+fps from what I can remember). I stick to 1080p because I can't afford bleeding edge GPU to run anything higher.

Yeah, 3080 draws a LOT of power*. Almost the same amount what my whole PC consumed with 6700 XT before.

At least mine runs cool as it has a waterblock.

*especially when I have overvolted, overclocked and put the power target to the max. Hits ~350W easily