Next Gen GPU's will be even more expensive

[Vayra86]

When I last had the 7800 XT, my video power consumption was around 45-50 W. Did they improve on something by software?

Good choice of video, btw!

Yeah but that was some time ago already I believe

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah but that was some time ago already I believe

Around 3 months ago or so.

 

[tfdsaf]

After all of the latest leaks it is now pretty much confirmed that the 5900 will cost at least $2500, with all the other models within $100 margin of what I originally posted.

 

[sepheronx]

Make it $10K for a 5090.

Guarantee people will buy.

All the re(tar)dit posters having their 5090's on passenger side with seatbelt over it saying "hurr look what I picked up when grabbing food at grocery store and fumbling to say hi to a woman".

Honestly, I blame all of you for this ridiculous prices.

 

[Chrispy_]

Make it $10K for a 5090.

Guarantee people will buy.

All the re(tar)dit posters having their 5090's on passenger side with seatbelt over it saying "hurr look what I picked up when grabbing food at grocery store and fumbling to say hi to a woman".

Honestly, I blame all of you for this ridiculous prices.

The wealthy are to blame for the 4090 since they will pay whatever the asking price is, almost without exception.

IMO you don't need a 4090. I've owned a 3090 and found it underwhelming, not because of the insane rendering power it had for its day, but because it was too much for the game developers to cater for.

Art assets and poly counts are optimised for the highest "reasonable" target audience, and that's been the consoles for the last 15+ years. Owning a more powerful PC will give you the luxury of running the console-equivalent "quality" settings at "performance" framerates, but most of the time when you increase the resolution you just see individiual polygons where the developers didn't bother to add more detail because less than 1% of the audience would ever be able to experience it. Same deal with texture resolutions.

The other problem with having so much GPU power on tap is that trying to run a game at many multiples the framerates that the developers originally targeted. I've seen occasional instances of hitching and hiccups trying to chase 240fps in a game that was originally written to run at 60. In most games where there's no issues at higher framerates, you still have the problem that sometimes there is just a non-GPU bottleneck, and no matter what hardware you have you are going to drop momentarily to a much lower number. Trust me, when you're running at 240fps, suddenly dropping to 70fps because of some CPU or bandwitdth issue is really jarring, but if you're bumbling along at a pedestrian 100ish fps, especially with VRR, you're not even going to notice it. The 1% and 0.1% benchmark scores suddenly become a whole lot more important to you at very high framerates.

If you have a lot of (but not unlimited) money then just buy a high-end GPU that offers performance well beyond the curve. Now is a terrible time to buy a high-end GPU with the next generation imminent but for the majority of 2024 a 4070 Ti Super or a 7900XT has been all the GPU you really need, and those are 1/3rd the cost of the stupidly-priced 4090.

Having the $2000 4090 doesn't really add anything significant over the $800 4070Ti Super - Whether you have a 4090 or not, games capped at 60fps are still capped at 60fps, Skylines II will still run at 20fps, you're going to be getting very fluid framerates at max settings, and engine hiccups and other bottlenecks are still going to make your game slow with frame drops and inconsistences that you notice it occasionally - because the GPU has no say in those matters.

 

[Zazigalka]

The wealthy are to blame for the 4090 since they will pay whatever the asking price is, almost without exception.

IMO you don't need a 4090. I've owned a 3090 and found it underwhelming, not because of the insane rendering power it had for its day, but because it was too much for the game developers to cater for.

Art assets and poly counts are optimised for the highest "reasonable" target audience, and that's been the consoles for the last 15+ years. Owning a more powerful PC will give you the luxury of running the console-equivalent "quality" settings at "performance" framerates, but most of the time when you increase the resolution you just see individiual polygons where the developers didn't bother to add more detail because less than 1% of the audience would ever be able to experience it. Same deal with texture resolutions.

The other problem with having so much GPU power on tap is that trying to run a game at many multiples the framerates that the developers originally targeted. I've seen occasional instances of hitching and hiccups trying to chase 240fps in a game that was originally written to run at 60. In most games where there's no issues at higher framerates, you still have the problem that sometimes there is just a non-GPU bottleneck, and no matter what hardware you have you are going to drop momentarily to a much lower number. Trust me, when you're running at 240fps, suddenly dropping to 70fps because of some CPU or bandwitdth issue is really jarring, but if you're bumbling along at a pedestrian 100ish fps, especially with VRR, you're not even going to notice it. The 1% and 0.1% benchmark scores suddenly become a whole lot more important to you at very high framerates.

If you have a lot of (but not unlimited) money then just buy a high-end GPU that offers performance well beyond the curve. Now is a terrible time to buy a high-end GPU with the next generation imminent but for the majority of 2024 a 4070 Ti Super or a 7900XT has been all the GPU you really need, and those are 1/3rd the cost of the stupidly-priced 4090.

Having the $2000 4090 doesn't really add anything significant over the $800 4070Ti Super - Whether you have a 4090 or not, games capped at 60fps are still capped at 60fps, Skylines II will still run at 20fps, you're going to be getting very fluid framerates at max settings, and engine hiccups and other bottlenecks are still going to make your game slow with frame drops and inconsistences that you notice it occasionally - because the GPU has no say in those matters.

That is very reasonable. 4K Dlss performance on 4080 will run similar to 4090 Dlss quality. Is the difference in image quality worth paying 2x the price ? I don't think so.

 

[Frick]

The wealthy are to blame for the 4090 since they will pay whatever the asking price is, almost without exception.

IMO you don't need a 4090. I've owned a 3090 and found it underwhelming, not because of the insane rendering power it had for its day, but because it was too much for the game developers to cater for.

Art assets and poly counts are optimised for the highest "reasonable" target audience, and that's been the consoles for the last 15+ years. Owning a more powerful PC will give you the luxury of running the console-equivalent "quality" settings at "performance" framerates, but most of the time when you increase the resolution you just see individiual polygons where the developers didn't bother to add more detail because less than 1% of the audience would ever be able to experience it. Same deal with texture resolutions.

The other problem with having so much GPU power on tap is that trying to run a game at many multiples the framerates that the developers originally targeted. I've seen occasional instances of hitching and hiccups trying to chase 240fps in a game that was originally written to run at 60. In most games where there's no issues at higher framerates, you still have the problem that sometimes there is just a non-GPU bottleneck, and no matter what hardware you have you are going to drop momentarily to a much lower number. Trust me, when you're running at 240fps, suddenly dropping to 70fps because of some CPU or bandwitdth issue is really jarring, but if you're bumbling along at a pedestrian 100ish fps, especially with VRR, you're not even going to notice it. The 1% and 0.1% benchmark scores suddenly become a whole lot more important to you at very high framerates.

If you have a lot of (but not unlimited) money then just buy a high-end GPU that offers performance well beyond the curve. Now is a terrible time to buy a high-end GPU with the next generation imminent but for the majority of 2024 a 4070 Ti Super or a 7900XT has been all the GPU you really need, and those are 1/3rd the cost of the stupidly-priced 4090.

Having the $2000 4090 doesn't really add anything significant over the $800 4070Ti Super - Whether you have a 4090 or not, games capped at 60fps are still capped at 60fps, Skylines II will still run at 20fps, you're going to be getting very fluid framerates at max settings, and engine hiccups and other bottlenecks are still going to make your game slow with frame drops and inconsistences that you notice it occasionally - because the GPU has no say in those matters.

This might be true if you run at 1080/1440p/60hz (and don't look at new AAA releases), but up that to 4K/60hz and you can use all the GPU power you can get your hands on. Today things are a bit different, but for a while 4K monitors were more common and cost the same as, or less than, 1440p monitors, at least in my parts of the world.

 

[Waldorf]

@Frick
there is nor forced connection between moni and game res, you can play in 2K on a 4K screen just fine.

like Chrispy said, having a vrr screen (4K) and running newer stuff in 1440p synced is more fun, than when i had just gotten the gpu and played on a non-synced 2K screen,
and given im not expecting any improvement on my eyesight when getting older, i probably stay with 2K res for most games anyway, unless i swap moni for a 65in and be able to read stuff (in-game) easier

 

[Hankieroseman]

After all of the latest leaks it is now pretty much confirmed that the 5900 will cost at least $2500, with all the other models within $100 margin of what I originally posted.

I read on VIDEOCARDZ Rog Strix RTX5090=$2000 USD and 600 Watts required and DP 2.1.

 

[freeagent]

Have at it boys..

Eat the Rich.

 

[rethcirE]

As someone who only upgrades every 3-4 years I'm safely under my rock at the moment.

2019 --> 2023 --> 2027?

Wake me up around then.

 

[sepheronx]

Don't feel like quoting but to those who said "don't need a 4090, get a 4080"

Rtx 4080 prices are over $1000 CAD. More like closer to $1500 CAD. All while our wages are decimated because of inflation.

So even a 4080 is out of average persons budget. Hell, 4070 is out of most budget as well since that is price range most will pay for a whole PC.

If Intel and AMD can come out with a banger that does well in ray tracing and frame generation to handle the future of shit quality and poorly coded games *cough* Stalker 2, Silent Hill 2 remake, etc*cough* excuse me... then they got it. But they won't. And game developers will continue to rely on DLSS and RT because of laziness.

 

[Knight47]

Nah, some very trustworthy humans said over on reddit that next gen gpu's wont cost more than current gen and there will be a massive price cut(at least 30%) in q1 for 4000 series cards. 7900XT is $600 now, the 8900XTX will be 500-600$

 

[eidairaman1]

Nah, some very trustworthy humans said over on reddit that next gen gpu's wont cost more than current gen and there will be a massive price cut(at least 30%) in q1 for 4000 series cards. 7900XT is $600 now, the 8900XTX will be 500-600$

Since in 25 they should be going UDNA

 

[3valatzy]

Discounts:

AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX drops to $764, Radeon RX 7800 XT now at $419 - VideoCardz.com

Radeon RX 7900 XTX was never this ‘cheap’ PowerColor has reduced the price of two of their products. You can now grab the Radeon RX 7900 XTX Hellhound for just $764.99, the lowest price for AMD’s flagship RDNA3 GPU to date. This AMD model is currently on sale at various retailers for over $800...

videocardz.com

 

[Marcus L]

Since in 25 they should be going UDNA

That comes after rdna4 so more than likely q4/26 or q1/27

 

[maxfly]

I very nearly pulled the trigger on a 7900xtx @ 8 bills but heard the 8900xt/xtx would potentially have some added features/performance for around the same price. So I holstered ye olde wallet for now. If the rumours aren't true I'll pick up a 7900xtx when I get around to upgrading my CPU and MB and call it good.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to look at nvidiot GPUs but one must do their due diligence. $1600 for a 4090 and potentially 2k for a 5090 is full on stupid IMO. As we know all to well the rest of the stack will inevitably be priced just as foolishly. Spending as much on a GPU as the rest of my rig simply doesn't sit well with me. The money doesn't phase me, it's the principal of the matter. I refuse to be part of this bassackwards Nvidia problem. Particularly when I had just as much fun gaming with my grandson on his Xbox as I do on my rig. That's a sad ass situation that I honestly never thought I would find myself in. To be seriously considering a console over a new GPU...wtf has happened to the world LMAO?!!

 

[TumbleGeorge]

the 8900XTX

8900xt/xtx

What? AMD again change it's mind and decide to make top class graphic cards with rDNA 4?

 

[3valatzy]

I very nearly pulled the trigger on a 7900xtx @ 8 bills but heard the 8900xt/xtx would potentially have some added features/performance for around the same price.

No. The fastest card will be RX 8700 XT, just like RX 5700 XT was with Navi 10.

 

[eidairaman1]

Just grab a card now, then sell it later

 

[Krit]

If Intel and AMD can come out with a banger that does well in ray tracing and frame generation to handle the future of shit quality and poorly coded games *cough* Stalker 2, Silent Hill 2 remake, etc*cough* excuse me... then they got it. But they won't. And game developers will continue to rely on DLSS and RT because of laziness.

New games probably have more performance drop than actual new gen gpu performance uplift. New shit game engines and poor optimization (almost always) is just waste of resources. Efficiency is extremely low gpus let's say over last 10 years become much more powerful but actual game visuals are struggling to keep up. Starfield is a great example. And look at Residant Evil 4 (2023) it has worse graphics (visuals) than Residant Evil Village (2021) and Resident Evil 2 Remake (2019) with higher requirements. It's something like two steps forward and three steps back.

 

[Dr. Dro]

After all of the latest leaks it is now pretty much confirmed that the 5900 will cost at least $2500, with all the other models within $100 margin of what I originally posted.

Source? Not even gossip sites like VideoCardz have anything on this. You're just stirring the pot

 

[TommyT]

if people keep buying them even then the prices are just sky rocket. so i guess nvidia keep increse them till the mid-range gpu cost 1000$

LOL

 

[Chrispy_]

I don't know why I'm even bothering to look at nvidiot GPUs but one must do their due diligence. $1600 for a 4090

Where are you finding these $1600 4090s? They're $2300-2500 and have been >$2000 for at least a year!

4070 Ti Super is 70-80% the performance for 1/3rd the price.
7800XT makes a lot of sense at $419 (linked above) for barely 1/6th the price.

The 7800XT is obviously a lot slower, but it'll basically match the 4090's 4K framerates at 1440p, and there's a reason people call 1440p the sweet spot. Cranking up resolution has very diminishing returns.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I'm still struggling to understand the author's purpose for posting on this thread. It must be because the English language and way of thinking of people who have lived for centuries under capitalism are difficult for me to figure out.