Will you buy a RTX 5090?

[Raffles]

Of course.

I can't wait to see how big my e-peen looks when I get my hands on one

 

[Hyderz]

Nein

 

[nguyen]

2 years ago this would be me lol I feel you man....3200+ is rough though I'd probably skip the 90 class at those prices at any time lol 1700 usd last gen was painful although now that I've seen 50 series less so.

I figured 1600usd at launch for the 4090 was a steal LOL. I don't feel so strongly about 5090 however it would still be the fastest GPU for the forseeable future anyways, I will take the best I can get .

I predict that 5090 prices will fall steeply when RTX6000 come and wipe the floor with it, Nvidia might push up RTX6000 schedule if they see a threat with UDNA. So I guess most people should skip the RTX5000 entirely (unless they have 4K 240hz screen that need MFG LOL).

Oh and 4090 just became even more potent with Transformer model too, solid visuals and performance with 4K DLSS.P + FG

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I figured 1600usd at launch for the 4090 was a steal LOL. I don't feel so strongly about 5090 however it would still be the fastest GPU for the forseeable future anyways, I will take the best I can get .

I predict that 5090 prices will fall steeply when RTX6000 come and wipe the floor with it, Nvidia might push up RTX6000 schedule if they see a threat with UDNA. So I guess most people should skip the RTX5000 entirely (unless they have 4K 240hz screen that need MFG LOL).

Oh and 4090 just became even more potent with Transformer model too, solid visuals and performance with 4K DLSS.P + FG

until Nvidia fixes this Frame generation is pretty much dead to me.....




I'm not going to enable anything that increases input latency while lowering the real framerate on top of all the other downsides that are still noticeable to me up to about 120 natively rendered frames..... I like the tech but it isn't worth spending crazy money for it....

I hear you though for 4k 240hz there really is no other option input latency be damned. You basically need a 5090 even to use it at 4k with decent settings in my book.

 

[RJ]

I'm still on a 2080ti. Just last week I missed out on a crazy deal for a 3090, all other used 3090 offers seemed meh since that one.
So I moved up to get a used 4090 but awful deals, some wanted $1800 - $2000, others wanted even more for them. So I figured, if I spend that much on a 2yr old used GPU, might as well just get a new GPU with a warranty, even if 5090 is not much faster than a 4090.
Definitely not going to pay scalpers, neither the official ones (cough Astral cough) nor the scummy ebay ones, even if I have to stay on Turing another 6 years.

 

[nguyen]

until Nvidia fixes this Frame generation is pretty much dead to me.....


View attachment 381875View attachment 381876

I'm not going to enable anything that increases input latency while lowering the real framerate on top of all the other downsides that are still noticeable to me up to about 120 natively rendered frames..... I like the tech but it isn't worth spending crazy money for it....

I hear you though for 4k 240hz there really is no other option input latency be damned. You basically need a 5090 even to use it at 4k with decent settings in my book.

Outside of some visual anomalies, there is nothing else to be fixed with FG nor MFG

I don't have a problem with HUB nitpicking MFG, it's their job, but they could have used a bit more perspectives. For example, you can use MFG x3 mode on a 240hz screen to get 80FPS base, that way input latency is low enough and you get insane motion clarity @ 240hz (or x4 mode for 360hz monitors)

I don't know about you but I have played plenty of competitive games that I could distinguish the input latency difference way beyond 200FPS, but 100FPS with FG is good enough for single player to me, and I do notice the extra motion clarity from 80FPS Native rendered to 120FPS "fake frames" more than the increase in input latency.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Outside of some visual anomalies, there is nothing else to be fixed with FG nor MFG

I don't have a problem with HUB nitpicking MFG, it's their job, but they could have used a bit more perspectives. For example, you can use MFG x3 mode on a 240hz screen to get 80FPS base, that way input latency is low enough and you get insane motion clarity @ 240hz (or x4 mode for 360hz monitors)

I don't know about you but I have played plenty of competitive games that I could distinguish the input latency difference way beyond 200FPS, but 100FPS with FG is good enough for single player to me, and I do notice the extra motion clarity from 80FPS Native rendered to 120FPS "fake frames" more than the increase in input latency.

It's super easy for me to pick out on a monitor and I can only stand the latency on a controller unless the base framerate is 100-120 and at that framerate I'd rather not use it regardless.

On a TV like an LG oled it isn't so bad with a controller ofc.. I wish it wasn't obvious to me.

I'll be indifferent about MFG till I use it locally but I doubt I'll enjoy artifacts being on the screen 66-75% of the time and even worse latency.

To be honestly I can't remember the last time I used regular frame gen maybe 6 months ago might give it a go with the transformer Tensor cores model... oh yeah I turned it on in silent hill 2 for 10 seconds and was like nope.

 

[Scattergrunt]

I'm not going to enable anything that increases input latency while lowering the real framerate on top of all the other downsides that are still noticeable to me up to about 120 natively rendered frames..... I like the tech but it isn't worth spending crazy money for it....

yea, this is basically how I feel about frame gen in general. if the 240FPS I'm getting from my game doesn't actually feel like 240FPS, then its not really 240FPS to me. I think there's a practical purpose to frame gen but for all my needs I could care less about it. Plus, from my experiences with latency in general, sometimes having super bad latency in one game can completely throw you off for awhile in other games where your latency isnt nearly as bad even with muscle memory. Just probably me though.

If NVIDIA can improve the latency alot, I can see MFG and FG becoming akin to DLSS as being extra little cushions for gamers running weaker hardware which supports it. The chances that publishers / developers dont abuse that fact is pretty slim though, if the history of DLSS / FSR and how games that came out after their popularization show anything.

I'm still on a 2080ti. Just last week I missed out on a crazy deal for a 3090, all other used 3090 offers seemed meh since that one.
So I moved up to get a used 4090 but awful deals, some wanted $1800 - $2000, others wanted even more for them. So I figured, if I spend that much on a 2yr old used GPU, might as well just get a new GPU with a warranty, even if 5090 is not much faster than a 4090.
Definitely not going to pay scalpers, neither the official ones (cough Astral cough) nor the scummy ebay ones, even if I have to stay on Turing another 6 years.

Yea I feel ya, I'm on a 2080S rn and I'm not going for a huge jump myself. Trying to snag a RX 7700XT, RX 6800, RTX 3070Ti or RTX 3080, but no luck so far. So I guess that answers my question; No, Not buying a 5090, and I might like 6 years from now lol.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

yea, this is basically how I feel about frame gen in general. if the 240FPS I'm getting from my game doesn't actually feel like 240FPS, then its not really 240FPS to me. I think there's a practical purpose to frame gen but for all my needs I could care less about it. Plus, from my experiences with latency in general, sometimes having super bad latency in one game can completely throw you off for awhile in other games where your latency isnt nearly as bad even with muscle memory. Just probably me though.

Everyone has different sensitivity to latency and artifacts so I'm not surprised that people use and like it and if those two things don't bother them that's awesome for them i honestly wish it wasn't obvious to me. The smoothing effect can look nice when movment isn't sporadic so if they can make latency at least not go down vs the base frame rate and remove the artifacts I'd be more on board with it. The problem for me a least is the base frame rate has to be high enough that I'd take the 90-120fps without the artifacts over the latency hit and artifacts its a trade off.

Again I like the idea of the technology but they really haven't improved the image quality of the generated frames over the last two years which is kinda a bummer and some developers suck at implementing it out of the dozen or so games I've tried it with half were broken implementations and only 2 I would classify as usable. Its gotten to the point that I ignore it although I should probably at least run around with it for 10-15m in games that support it. FF7 Rebirth and Ninja Gaiden 2 Black already run fast enough to the point I don't need it.

The kicker is once they actually make it good it will be locked to whatever gpu generation they decide to fix it with lol.

 

[AVATARAT]

The RTX 5090 is the best 4k gaming card out right now and yes its priced like heaven because Nvidia wants to make huge profits.

The RTX 5090 is a monster that even 9800x3D can't feed at 4k, the problem with the low FPS isn't the card and the terrible marketing with those fake framerates, it's the games that aren't optimized or have too much RT and that makes them unplayable.

So would I buy it - if I want the top FPS on the market and have the money - yes. Do I need air conditioning to use it - yes absolutely

In reality - there are few games that need such a card and half of them are crap, others can be played with a slower card at lower resolution with the same fun. After all, most of the newest games have to wait to fix all the bugs between 3 and 6 months , and in that time is the price of the 5090 will drop by a decent percentage, especially if there is no demand

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The RTX 5090 is the best 4k gaming card out right now and yes its priced like heaven because Nvidia wants to make huge profits.

The RTX 5090 is a monster that even 9800x3D can't feed at 4k, the problem with the low FPS isn't the card and the terrible marketing with those fake framerates, it's the games that aren't optimized or have too much RT and that makes them unplayable.

So would I buy it - if I want the top FPS on the market and have the money - yes. Do I need air conditioning to use it - yes absolutely

In reality - there are few games that need such a card and half of them are crap, others can be played with a slower card at lower resolution with the same fun. After all, most of the newest games have to wait to fix all the bugs between 3 and 6 months , and in that time is the price of the 5090 will drop by a decent percentage, especially if there is no demand

Regardless of pricing it's going to be a ton of fun for anyone who can or chooses to afford one.

Hopefully it only gets better over time.

 

[3valatzy]

Nope, of course, the card is not worthy it at this moment.
Waiting for AMD to deliver something comparable at 1/4 the price, is the best tactics . .

 

[Scattergrunt]

Nope, of course, the card is not worthy it at this moment.
Waiting for AMD to deliver something comparable at 1/4 the price, is the best tactics . .

Expecting AMD to deliver 5090 performance is kind of foolish. AMD excels imo when they weren't trying to be the top dog.. many of their mid range cards are held in great standing cause of that. Still seeing many people rocking 6700xt and 6750xt's to this day, and the 7700XT is pretty popular too. Even earlier than that, look at Polaris / RX 400 series. I'm just hoping the RX 90xx series is actually gonna be able to deliver the mid range performance at great prices that I've expected AMD to give.

I hope the 9070 XT is more efficient than the 7900XTX atleast. Not that its aiming for that performance anyway, bute the 7900XTX was a weird gpu. Strangely inefficient in a lot of aspects compared to the 4080 / 4080S, while still having its own advantages (if few)

Hopefully it only gets better over time.

That's all we can really hope for man.

 

[3valatzy]

Expecting AMD to deliver 5090 performance is kind of foolish.

It's foolish to think that the backported RTX 5090 is the end of the road and there will never be anything faster than it.
The only way this to happen is if AMD goes bankrupt.

You actually need only a 400ish mm^2 2nm GPU to achieve performance parity.

 

[Scattergrunt]

It's foolish to think that the backported RTX 5090 is the end of the road and there will never be anything faster than it.
The only way this to happen is if AMD goes bankrupt.

I dont think I ever said nor implied that AMD would never beat it. Its just not something I expect AMD to do right now, nor something I think AMD should do, and its pretty clear thats not what they're trying to do with there next series of GPU's either. Especially when theres more feasible and tangible ways for them to succeed.

Most of what I said was referring to at the moment rather than beyond that.

 

[3valatzy]

I dont think I ever said nor implied that AMD would never beat it. Its just not something I expect AMD to do, nor something I think AMD should do, and its pretty clear thats not what they're trying to do with there next series of GPU's either. Especially when theres more feasible and tangible ways for them to succeed.

Most of what I said was referring to at the moment rather than beyond that.

I never implied waiting for later today.

 

[AVATARAT]

Nope, of course, the card is not worthy it at this moment.
Waiting for AMD to deliver something comparable at 1/4 the price, is the best tactics . .

Two years later they probably will, you're right, we just have to wait

 

[Scattergrunt]

I never implied waiting for later today.

I'm not even gonna try to make sense of what your trying to get at here? I guess there is some sort of language barrier or something?

Either-way, AMD doesn't really need its own 5090, nor do I think people really want a 9090 XTX or whatever they would call a hypothetical top end gpu for this generation. Though I'm already unsure about the delays they did for the 9070 XT and 9070. I hope they do well when they launch at least.

Two years later they probably will, you're right, we just have to wait

"Savvy customers buy AMD", which in complete fairness, I can certainly agree with for the last 2 generations of GPU's before this one. I'm sure we'll see the same sort of stuff this generation too in terms of value, hopefully.

 

[Bomby569]

Two years later they probably will, you're right, we just have to wait

in a couple years the 8060 will crush that sad waste of sand 5090 for a fraction of the price, so i will just wait. Those are the big brain moves

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Two years later they probably will, you're right, we just have to wait

I love hardware in general so I like to see any gpu they put out but at this point I try to have 0 expectations their gpu division seems to have an identity crises and they've been so up and down over the last decade mostly down in my book...

 

[Scattergrunt]

in a couple years the 8060 will crush that sad waste of sand 5090 for a fraction of the price, so i will just wait. Those are the big brain moves

If NVIDIA can pull out the huge performance gains per generation that they used to be able to do, then oh yeah. Not really sure though, as those days are kinda dead now in terms of raw raster tbh.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I'm not even gonna try to make sense of what your trying to get at here? I guess there is some sort of language barrier or something?

Don't feel bad I have no idea what he's trying to say obviously it's beyond us mere mortals comprehension.

If NVIDIA can pull out the huge performance gains per generation that they used to be able to do, then oh yeah. Not really sure though, as those days are kinda dead now in terms of raw raster tbh.

I'll wait for reviews but the top end isn't the issue the 5090 is whatever it can be decently fast at 4k enough to where it would be obvious even if you were blindly playing on one vs a 4090 my issue is I doubt that will be the case for the cards under it vs what they replace.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Don't feel bad I have no idea what he's trying to say obviously it's beyond us mere mortals comprehension.

Perhaps my young age is failing me right now and I need to return back to the crib with a binky and needing coddled.

This gif is pretty accurate to how I was feeling trying to understand what he was saying. Maybe more sleep would help... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt

 

[Bomby569]

If NVIDIA can pull out the huge performance gains per generation that they used to be able to do, then oh yeah. Not really sure though, as those days are kinda dead now in terms of raw raster tbh.

that's not asking much, in 3 generations.
The beast 1080ti in 3 generations was outclassed by insanely cheap cards

 

[Scattergrunt]

that's not asking much, in 3 generations.
The beast 1080ti in 3 generations was outclassed by insanely cheap cards

I mean in complete fairness, most of the huge jumps that I'm referring too was due to die sizes for GPU's shrinking primarily (as far as im aware, I honestly havent done a super due diligence there yet tbf), but still the 40 series left me feeling mixed, which the 40 supers did redeem. I'm curious to see where the 5070 lands, as thats where that sort of stuff matters imo (the midrange)

I think the 1080Ti would be ironically an example of what I mean. If we were still in the olden days the 1080Ti would be beyond illrelevant before even the 50 series came out, but it wasn't, and will still probably be considered pretty usuable for 1080p even when a potential 5060 drops. (I pray to god that the 5060 isnt just another 4060 situation, or I will be fuming..)