- Joined
- Jul 24, 2024
- Messages
- 371 (2.02/day)
System Name | AM4_TimeKiller |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 5 5600X @ all-core 4.7 GHz |
Motherboard | ASUS ROG Strix B550-E Gaming |
Cooling | Arctic Freezer II 420 rev.7 (push-pull) |
Memory | G.Skill TridentZ RGB, 2x16 GB DDR4, B-Die, 3800 MHz @ CL14-15-14-29-43 1T, 53.2 ns |
Video Card(s) | ASRock Radeon RX 7800 XT Phantom Gaming |
Storage | Samsung 990 PRO 1 TB, Kingston KC3000 1 TB, Kingston KC3000 2 TB |
Case | Corsair 7000D Airflow |
Audio Device(s) | Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium |
Power Supply | Seasonic Prime TX-850 |
Mouse | Logitech wireless mouse |
Keyboard | Logitech wireless keyboard |
I am really impressed by cooling efficiency. Incredible results. Good job Nvidia. Wonder how much does liquid metal contribute to this. Hopefully someone will test it, eventually.
Now please, other manufacturers, kindly get inspired and don't ever come again with bigger than 3-slot GPUs in the future, okay?
As for performance, I used results from this review to calculate all resolution average:
RTX 4090 has around 18% less transistors count and 25% less compute units. I used all games average fps to calculate efficiency (not juct Cyberpunk) and RTX 5090 is in fact less efficient than RTX 4090, since it consumes roughly 20% more power per frame. Maybe the price increase (+$500) is let's say justified, but performance-wise and efficiency-wise this is far from being special. In other words, now all performance increases is about scaling - the more compute units, the more performance. The more you buy, the more you have, but definitely not save. Were the RTX 5090 priced at $1700, then you'd also get more for less. We'll see when they jump to 3nm or 2nm node.
What indeed is special, as I already mentioned, is cooling efficiency of RTX 5090 cooler. Really damn impressive. My doubts were unjustified, I must say.
Now please, other manufacturers, kindly get inspired and don't ever come again with bigger than 3-slot GPUs in the future, okay?
As for performance, I used results from this review to calculate all resolution average:
RTX 4090 has around 18% less transistors count and 25% less compute units. I used all games average fps to calculate efficiency (not juct Cyberpunk) and RTX 5090 is in fact less efficient than RTX 4090, since it consumes roughly 20% more power per frame. Maybe the price increase (+$500) is let's say justified, but performance-wise and efficiency-wise this is far from being special. In other words, now all performance increases is about scaling - the more compute units, the more performance. The more you buy, the more you have, but definitely not save. Were the RTX 5090 priced at $1700, then you'd also get more for less. We'll see when they jump to 3nm or 2nm node.
What indeed is special, as I already mentioned, is cooling efficiency of RTX 5090 cooler. Really damn impressive. My doubts were unjustified, I must say.
Last edited: