Next Gen GPU's will be even more expensive

[eidairaman1]

I Vividly remember playing that on my 9800 Pro when I first slapped it in my system. Yep, fully cranked was pretty cool and it was quite funny as my mate tried to play it on his GeForce 4200 Ti. He came around the next day and say "Gees, your 9800 Pro pumps out the pixels".

But it wasn't until I played Far Cry (first DX9 title) that I was really awe struck, with the jungle and water reflective graphics. I thought it was really impressive for it day.

This was the Radeons (ATi) most competitive market share of all time through to the X800's. Really hoping things can turn around here like what they have done with their CPU department.

View attachment 378289

What bugs me is at the time Far Cry was great visually but couldn't keep me hooked. Guess I was more for Deus Ex, UT, COD, Ghost Recon/Rainbow 6, Counter Strike.

 

[Outback Bronze]

What bugs me is at the time Far Cry was great visually but couldn't keep me hooked. Guess I was more for Deus Ex, UT, COD, Ghost Recon/Rainbow 6, Counter Strike.

Yeah, those were the days. Even Doom 3 was pretty decent graphically. Fear, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Half Life 2 also brings back a lot of nostalgia They all brought my X800 Pro to a slide show in their prime.

 

[eidairaman1]

Yeah, those were the days. Even Doom 3 was pretty decent graphically. Fear, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Half Life 2 also brings back a lot of nostalgia They all brought my X800 Pro to a slide show in their prime.

Yeah I jumped to an X1950 Pro AGP and it ran COD4 flawlessly inspite the Athlon XP not gaving SSE2 instructions, modified 2 .msi files and I was taking others out in that game lol

 

[tfdsaf]

Latest leaks show the RTX 5080 being 1700 euros. To me this seems fairly normal, probably a 100 euros tax because its eurozone and probably another 100 euro tax because its asus rog brand, so we essentially get to 1500 euros, which is the price I reported 3 months ago now.

Again the 5080 is extremely likely to cost $1500/1500 euros, but it will be sold at 1600+ euros in Europe due to taxes there and add in a bit of a brand tax, ass in a bit of artificial scarcity and we are looking at prices that are 1700 to 1800 euros for a measly 5080 with 16gb of vram.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Latest leaks show the RTX 5080 being 1700 euros. To me this seems fairly normal, probably a 100 euros tax because its eurozone and probably another 100 euro tax because its asus rog brand, so we essentially get to 1500 euros, which is the price I reported 3 months ago now.

Again the 5080 is extremely likely to cost $1500/1500 euros, but it will be sold at 1600+ euros in Europe due to taxes there and add in a bit of a brand tax, ass in a bit of artificial scarcity and we are looking at prices that are 1700 to 1800 euros for a measly 5080 with 16gb of vram.

Possible I'm still guessing 1200-1300. The price shown was with 20% vat and then the asus tax and early listing are always optimistic as they probably won't even know the price till Nvidia announces it. Afaik Nvidia only give aib a range it could possibly be.

 

[nguyen]

Yeah, those were the days. Even Doom 3 was pretty decent graphically. Fear, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Half Life 2 also brings back a lot of nostalgia They all brought my X800 Pro to a slide show in their prime.

Me trying out Oblivion, Half Life 2 and Far Cry with HDR on the 6800GT

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Me trying out Oblivion, Half Life 2 and Far Cry with HDR on the 6800GT
View attachment 378292

I was more into console gaming still but had a Dell with a 6600GT. Pretty sure that was my first Nvidia card.... All ATI prior to that.

I still remember the crazy looking Dell XPS laptops from around that time with I believe was 9700 although it was a desktop 9600XT in disguise If I remember correctly.

Back then I just rolled up to bestbuy and bought whatever looked cool lol..... I do remember the fake HDR age though it was cool.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Maybe 1 day coder finds a solution to force mgpu in all games for AMD, intel and nvidia. Long ago I built mine to run 2 290s but after both companies canned the idea i just was like well there goes that idea.

True. Same for physx. No real desire. Fps. Want it, pay for it. Simple as that. I think its neat amd still offers it however. The driver seems stable too.

Back in 07, grabbed a 2600 XT Diamond OC 512mb. Thing was pretty decent HL2. I really liked that card too.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

3 more days boys... 3 more days.... Till 99% of the diy buyers hopes and dreams are crushed.

 

[Sir Beregond]

While that's the popular online narrative in the vocal minority we are, in the grand scheme of things it would appear that Ada was quite a success for Nvidia and sold well overall. The products themselves were largely fine, some really good even, the standout issue was the pricing across most teirs but it seems that most regular folk saw everything else get price inflated around them too and just sucked it up.

All the folders I know love the 40-series. You could pump out better PPD with a 4070 Ti than a 3090 at half the power. The really are good cards...just branded and priced all wrong.

 

[x4it3n]

More you buy from nvidia dumber it gets over time. But also it could be deliberate leak from nvidia to set up 1200/1300$ (as a great price) Easy manipulation even if it costs 1200/1300$ it's not a great price by any means.

Imo if the 5080 is really ~30% faster than the 4080 but more than $1000 then it's definitely not worth upgrading.
Nvidia need to make a good Gen on Gen value to make people want to upgrade... they already messed up with the 4080 being priced 50% higher than the 3080 ($1200 vs $800) while being 50% faster... So if they think most people will be ok to pay $1300 again to get 30% more performance, I really doubt a lot of people will!

Maybe RTX 20, GTX 10 and slower GPUs owners could be tempted but it's another topic, I'm just talking about RTX 40 => RTX 50 upgrading value. Once again the only "worthy upgrade" seems to be x90 tier (if priced at $2000 or below but more wouldn't make it a great upgrade either).

All the folders I know love the 40-series. You could pump out better PPD with a 4070 Ti than a 3090 at half the power. The really are good cards...just branded and priced all wrong.

Any objective person will say that RTX 40s are great GPUs overall!
The big issues were :
- TERRIBLE pricing on all x60, x70 and x80 GPUs
- x60 GPUs stuck with only 8GB VRAM
- x70 (except Ti SUPER) with only 12GB VRAM
- some 12VHPWR connectors melting on 4090s (I have one but have never had any issues even when OC & 530W BIOS)

 

[Sir Beregond]

Imo if the 5080 is really ~30% faster than the 4080 but more than $1000 then it's definitely not worth upgrading.
Nvidia need to make a good Gen on Gen value to make people want to upgrade... they already messed up with the 4080 being priced 50% higher than the 3080 ($1200 vs $800) while being 50% faster... So if they think most people will be ok to pay $1300 again to get 30% more performance, I really doubt a lot of people will!

Maybe RTX 20, GTX 10 and slower GPUs owners could be tempted but it's another topic, I'm just talking about RTX 40 => RTX 50 upgrading value. Once again the only "worthy upgrade" seems to be x90 tier (if priced at $2000 or below but more wouldn't make it a great upgrade either).


Any objective person will say that RTX 40s are great GPUs overall!
The big issues were :
- TERRIBLE pricing on all x60, x70 and x80 GPUs
- x60 GPUs stuck with only 8GB VRAM
- x70 (except Ti SUPER) with only 12GB VRAM
- some 12VHPWR connectors melting on 4090s (I have one but have never had any issues even when OC & 530W BIOS)

Yep totally agree!

It's going to be interesting to see the price difference between the 5080 and 5070 Ti especially I think. If they really are both going to be GB203 / 16GB cards, then it will be interesting to see if the 5080 costs immensely more as a percentage over the 5070 Ti vs what their actual performance delta is also as a percentage.

 

[sn2x]

Imo if the 5080 is really ~30% faster than the 4080 but more than $1000 then it's definitely not worth upgrading.
Nvidia need to make a good Gen on Gen value to make people want to upgrade...

30% faster than 4080 would put 5080 at 4090-tier, maybe faster.

If that is the case then I don't see why it wouldn't do well even at $1200.

You could never get 4090 level gaming performance without spending $1600+.

If 5080 is = or faster than 4090 even at $1200, it will probably be praised.

It could end up being the biggest bar in the charts in a few weeks...

4080 seemed terrible value because you could spend $400 more on a 4090 and get proportionate (or more) performance.

5080 situation is different. There will be no $1600 5090.

 

[Sir Beregond]

30% faster than 4080 would put 5080 at 4090-tier, maybe faster.

If that is the case then I don't see why it wouldn't do well even at $1200.

You could never get 4090 level gaming performance without spending $1600+.

If 5080 is = or faster than 4090 even at $1200, it will probably be praised.

It could end up being the biggest bar in the charts in a few weeks...

4080 seemed terrible value because you could spend $400 more on a 4090 and get proportionate (or more) performance.

5080 situation is different. There will be no $1600 5090.

Sad really. In generations past, the 70-card would usually match the performance of the previous gen flagship. Example: 3070 and 2080 Ti.

Now you're lucky if the 80 card matches last gen flagship.

 

[xnery.007]

I don't think the reasoning that the RTX 5080 will match the performance of the 4090, and therefore should cost the same, is correct. The 5080 will need to offer an improved price-to-performance ratio compared to the 4080 SUPER, with which it will be compared. The 4080 SUPER, priced at $999, offers 4K performance that is 36% below the 4090, according to the latest TechPowerUp test.

If, for example, the rumored $1350 MSRP is accurate, we’re looking at a 35% price increase for a card that matches the 4090's performance. That’s a 35% higher price for 36% more performance. I don’t think Nvidia will convince anyone with that, and I believe they know it too. I think the price will be much lower than $1350. GDDR7 memory is more expensive, but the manufacturing costs are very similar to the $999 4080 SUPER.

 

[sn2x]

Sad really. In generations past, the 70-card would usually match the performance of the previous gen flagship. Example: 3070 and 2080 Ti.

Now you're lucky if the 80 card matches last gen flagship.

Its not so bad if you ignore the x90. I never bought a Titan, I'll probably never buy a x90.

The 4090 was probably the first flagship that was actually worth the price though.

 

[Sir Beregond]

Its not so bad if you ignore the x90. I never bought a Titan, I'll probably never buy a x90.

The 4090 was probably the first flagship that was actually worth the price though.

I mean sure, but xx90 functionally also replace xx80 Ti. 1080 Ti was the gaming flagship of Pascal. 2080 Ti was the gaming flagship of Turing. 3080 Ti definitely wasn't of Ampere, and 40-series didn't even bother releasing an 80 Ti.

 

[JustBenching]

I know you're being sarcastic here, but it's true. High-end buyers are (partially) responsible for pricing. Folks keep saying it doesn't matter how much the halo card costs, but it does. The price of the top parts level-sets the rest of stack. And why is that price where it is? Because buyers, as had been duly noted, will pay. This is, despite claims to the contrary, Not Good. The sub-$300 market is a wasteland. One current-gen card has a TDP less than 150W (and everyone hates it). Games race to saturate these high-power cards, 4K120U becomes the standard, and cards that can't meet it are decried as a waste of sand, and even the 4090 gets called "underpowered" without irony. The obsession with performance is harming the hobby.

It can't be true. If people don't buy low end cards at high prices, they will lower priced, regardless of how many 4090s are being sold.

 

[sn2x]

I mean sure, but xx90 functionally also replace xx80 Ti. 1080 Ti was the gaming flagship of Pascal. 2080 Ti was the gaming flagship of Turing. 3080 Ti definitely wasn't of Ampere, and 40-series didn't even bother releasing an 80 Ti.

x90 to me is a Titan. And with 5090 getting 2x the cores of 5080, x90 to me is now more like Titan Z (if Titan Z were a single GPU die...)

40-series at least got 4080 Super, which improved the value of the 4080 by around 20% and solidly beat the last gen flagship.

GPU market has changed.

Flagships used to be only 250 watts from Nvidia (back when the x70 matched the prior gen x80 Ti)
30-series flagship upped it to 350 watts. (and the 280 watt 4070 Ti matched it)
40-series flagship upped it to 450 watts. (and the 5080 is rumored to match 4090, but at 350 watts)
50-series flagship is seemingly upping it again to 500+ watts. (which 6080 might match it as a 400+ watt monstrosity).

I will probably never put a GPU capable of drawing 400+ watts in my machine so I just ignore them.

I don't think the reasoning that the RTX 5080 will match the performance of the 4090, and therefore should cost the same, is correct.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

The most I think it would be well received at is $1200. That would be 25% discount for 4090-tier performance (if the performance rumors are true).

 

[AusWolf]

Then foes!
This is not a sustainable behaviour which sooner or later will result in bankruptcy. Nothing lasts forever. The high performance semiconductor businesses are going to die off.

No, they're neither friends, nor foes. They're organisations with the main goal of making a profit. It is their interest to please us with their products, as much as it is our interest to vote with our wallets and not buy overpriced and/or shit products. These companies only become our foes when we start falsely believing that they're our friends.

 

[N/A]

The most I think it would be well received at is $1200. That would be 25% discount for 4090-tier performance (if the performance rumors are true).

It's the least they can get away with since the niece decided to sit this one out.

I will probably never put a GPU capable of drawing 400+ watts in my machine so I just ignore them.

That way you'll be limited to an RTX 7060 or something similar.

 

[The Riddler]

Generative A.I performance will be cruicial for this generation. What they promise in terms of productive AI performance matters more than anything else. This means that we will need a lot of VRAM because these apps are memory-hungry. Flux 1.1 Pro requires 24 GB of VRAM as far as I know. Open source video generators need nothing less. Chip manufacturers should offer different VRAM options to users. For example, why doesn't the RTX 5090 have a 64 GB option? (Or will it? It should!) I would rather buy a 32 GB RTX 5080 for $1800 than a 16 GB RTX 5080 for $1500.

So is the customer audience for this cards are only gamers? Or do we have to pay more if we have to use generative AI locally? Generative AI is becoming more and more popular and many people, myself included, don't want to store their information in the cloud and pay less for monthly subscriptions.

 

[tfdsaf]

30% faster than 4080 would put 5080 at 4090-tier, maybe faster.

If that is the case then I don't see why it wouldn't do well even at $1200.

You could never get 4090 level gaming performance without spending $1600+.

If 5080 is = or faster than 4090 even at $1200, it will probably be praised.

It could end up being the biggest bar in the charts in a few weeks...

4080 seemed terrible value because you could spend $400 more on a 4090 and get proportionate (or more) performance.

5080 situation is different. There will be no $1600 5090.

You always could though, I mean the GTX 970 was faster than the 780, 980 was faster than the 780ti, GTX 1060 was faster than the 980, 1070 was faster than the 980ti, RTX 2080 was faster than the 1080ti, RTX 3080 was faster than the 2080ti, etc...

That is how progress works, that is how new generations work, that is how its always been. You get 20-40% improvement over last gen for less price. Now this does not work for all GPU's in all generations, some GPU's are just garbage value, but overall this is how it is, how it should be.

The fact that we are not getting that is the issue we are talking about in this thread. We have over 1000 comments all talking about the issue of not getting any benefit from the next gen nvidia cards, just more consumer rape by the green team.

The fact that Nvidia raised prices through the roof last generation and the fact that they can't provide more than 30% generational uplift is on them! They are going to price the 5090 at least $2500, so does that mean that the 6080 should then cost $2500 if it matches it in performance? How about the 6090 if it costs $3500, should then the 7800 cost $3500 if it matches it in performance?

Do you see the bullshit in that? If that is the case its not progress anymore, its regress and why would anyone buy that?

 

[olymind1]

2002 - Radeon 9700 256bit 128 MB -250$
2016 - Radeon RX480 256bit 8 GB - 250$ (14 years later, has 64x vram !!!)
2024 - Radeon 7600 128bit 8 GB - 270$ (8 years later, same price, same vram, half bus width)
2024 - Radeon 7800XT 256bit 16 GB - 500$ (8 years later, 2x price, 2x vram)

Roughly the same price here in the EU.
I was an ATI/AMD fan, well, not that much anymore since 2016.

 

[x4it3n]

30% faster than 4080 would put 5080 at 4090-tier, maybe faster.

If that is the case then I don't see why it wouldn't do well even at $1200.

You could never get 4090 level gaming performance without spending $1600+.

If 5080 is = or faster than 4090 even at $1200, it will probably be praised.

It could end up being the biggest bar in the charts in a few weeks...

4080 seemed terrible value because you could spend $400 more on a 4090 and get proportionate (or more) performance.

5080 situation is different. There will be no $1600 5090.

5080 should be about 4090 performance or even faster because if not, it's a shame... 30%+ more performance in 2 years is not a crazy goal to achieve!
Also you can't really base Blackwell Performance/Price ratio against Lovelace as 1:1 knowing that every new generation is supposed to bring you more FPS/USD and the 4090 was already an overpriced product! The original 4080 at $1200 was an even worse value and didn't sell well at all...
Ps: RTX 40s are already 2 years old now, and even the 4090 is struggling at 4K with newer UE5 games!

If the 4090 had not been so bandwidth starved it would have been untouchable for a 5080 knowing that the 4090 has 60% more CUDA Cores than the 4080 SUPER but is only ~30% faster! Hence the use of a 512-bit on the 5090, but the 5090 will also pack 2x more CUDA Cores, 80% more Bandwidth and 2x more VRAM vs 5080 !

I know you're being sarcastic here, but it's true. High-end buyers are (partially) responsible for pricing. Folks keep saying it doesn't matter how much the halo card costs, but it does. The price of the top parts level-sets the rest of stack. And why is that price where it is? Because buyers, as had been duly noted, will pay. This is, despite claims to the contrary, Not Good. The sub-$300 market is a wasteland. One current-gen card has a TDP less than 150W (and everyone hates it). Games race to saturate these high-power cards, 4K120U becomes the standard, and cards that can't meet it are decried as a waste of sand, and even the 4090 gets called "underpowered" without irony. The obsession with performance is harming the hobby.

High-end GPUs have always been more expensive and their pricing have exploded since RTX GPUs came out, that's true. But x90 GPUs are Halo products, just like a Ferrari/Lamborghini/etc., their pricing cannot really be compared to a regular car either...

Regarding the 4K@120fps+ Standard, this is the new goal for PC Gaming!