NVIDIA is full of shit
Technology
74
Beiträge
46
Kommentatoren
13
Aufrufe
-
they pay because AMD (or any other for that matter) has no product to compete with a 5080 or 5090
I have overclocked my AMD 7900XTX as far as it will go on air alone.
Undervolted every step on the frequency curve, cranked up the power, 100% fan duty cycles.
At it's absolute best, it's competitive or trades blows with the 4090D, and is 6% slower than the RTX 4090 Founder's Edition (the slowest of the stock 4090 lineup).
The fastest AMD card is equivalent to a 4080 Super, and the next gen hasn't shown anything new.
AMD needs a 5090-killer. Dual socket or whatever monstrosity which pulls 800W, but it needs to slap that greenbo with at least a 20-50% lead in frame rates across all titles, including raytraced. Then we'll see some serious price cuts and competition.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Folks, ask yourselves, what game is out there that REALLY needs a 5090? If you have the money to piss away, by all means, it's your money. But let's face it, games have plateaued and VR isn't all that great.
Nvidia's market is not you anymore. It's the massive corporations and research firms for useless AI projects or number crunching. They have more money than all gamers combined. Maybe time to go outside; me included.
-
Folks, ask yourselves, what game is out there that REALLY needs a 5090? If you have the money to piss away, by all means, it's your money. But let's face it, games have plateaued and VR isn't all that great.
Nvidia's market is not you anymore. It's the massive corporations and research firms for useless AI projects or number crunching. They have more money than all gamers combined. Maybe time to go outside; me included.
Cyberpunk 2077 with the VR mod is the only one I can think of. Because it’s not natively built for VR you have to render the world separately for each eye leading to a halving of the overall frame rate. And with 90 fps as the bare minimum for many people in VR you really don’t have a choice but to use the 5090.
Yeah it’s literally only one game/mod, but that would be my use case if I could afford it.
-
Cyberpunk 2077 with the VR mod is the only one I can think of. Because it’s not natively built for VR you have to render the world separately for each eye leading to a halving of the overall frame rate. And with 90 fps as the bare minimum for many people in VR you really don’t have a choice but to use the 5090.
Yeah it’s literally only one game/mod, but that would be my use case if I could afford it.
Also the Train World Sim Series. Those games make my tower complain, and my laptop give up.
-
Thanks for providing insights and inviting a more nuanced discussion. I find it extremely frustrating that in communities like Lemmy it's risky to write comments like this because people assume you're "taking sides."
The entire point of the community should be to have discourse about a topic and go into depth, yet most comments and indeed entire threads are just "Nvidia bad!" with more words.
Obligatory disclaimer that I, too, don't necessarily side with Nvidia.
-
Unfortunately, this partnership with OpenAI means they've sided with evil and I won't spend a cent on their products anymore.
enjoy never using a computer again i guess?
-
Folks, ask yourselves, what game is out there that REALLY needs a 5090? If you have the money to piss away, by all means, it's your money. But let's face it, games have plateaued and VR isn't all that great.
Nvidia's market is not you anymore. It's the massive corporations and research firms for useless AI projects or number crunching. They have more money than all gamers combined. Maybe time to go outside; me included.
Oh, VR is pretty neat. It sure as shit don't need no $3000 graphics card though.
-
I have overclocked my AMD 7900XTX as far as it will go on air alone.
Undervolted every step on the frequency curve, cranked up the power, 100% fan duty cycles.
At it's absolute best, it's competitive or trades blows with the 4090D, and is 6% slower than the RTX 4090 Founder's Edition (the slowest of the stock 4090 lineup).
The fastest AMD card is equivalent to a 4080 Super, and the next gen hasn't shown anything new.
AMD needs a 5090-killer. Dual socket or whatever monstrosity which pulls 800W, but it needs to slap that greenbo with at least a 20-50% lead in frame rates across all titles, including raytraced. Then we'll see some serious price cuts and competition.
And/or Intel. (I can dream, right?) Hell, perform a miracle Moore Threads!
-
I don’t really care how a frame is generated if it looks good enough (and doesn’t come with other notable downsides like latency). This almost feels like complaining about screen space reflections being “fake” reflections. Like yeah, it’s fake, but if the average player experience is consistently better with it than without it then what does it matter?
But it does come with increased latency. It also disrupts the artistic vision of games. With MFG you're seeing more fake frames than real frames. It's deceptive and like snake oil in that Nvidia isn't distinguishing between fake frames and real frames. I forget what the exact comparison is, but when they say "The RTX 5040 has the same performance as the RTX 4090" but that's with 3 fake frames for every real frame, that's incredibly deceptive.
He’s talking about DLSS upscaling - not DLSS Frame Generation - which doesn’t add latency.
-
I think DLSS (and FSR and so on) are great value propositions but they become a problem when developers use them as a crutch. At the very least your game should not need them at all to run on high end hardware on max settings. With them then being options for people on lower end hardware to either lower settings or combine higher settings with upscaling. When they become mandatory they stop being a value proposition since the benefit stops being a benefit and starts just being neccesary for baseline performance.
They’re never mandatory. What are you talking about? Which games can’t run on a 5090 or even 5070 without DLSS?
-
Yeah I got a 9070 + 9800x3d for around $1100 all-in. Couldn’t be happier with the performance. Expedition 33 running max settings at 3440x1440 and 80-90fps
But your performance isn’t even close to that of a 5090…….
80-90 fps @ 1440 isn’t great. That’s like last gen mid tier nvidia gpu performance.
-
The best part is, for me, ray tracing looks great. When I'm standing there and slowly looking around.
When I'm running and gunning and shits exploding, I don't think the human eye is even capable of comprehending the difference between raster and ray tracing at that point.
It absolutely is, because Ray tracing isn’t just about how precise or good the reflections/shadows look, it’s also about reflecting/getting shadows from things that are outside of your field of view. That’s the biggest difference.
One of the first “holy shit!” moments for me was playing doom I think it was, and walking down a corridor and being able to see that there were enemies around the corner by seeing their reflection on the opposite wall. That’s never been possible before, and it’s only possible thanks to raytracing. Same with being able to see shadows from enemies that are behind you out of screen to the side.
-
First, DLSS is supported on Linux.
Second, DLSS is kinda bullshit. The article goes into details that are fairly accurate.
Lastly, AMD is at parity with Nvidia with features. You can see my other comments, but AMD's goal isn't selling cards for gamers. Especially ones that require an entire dedicated PSU to power them.
Nvidia cards don’t require their own dedicated PSU, what on earth are you talking about?
Also DLSS is not “kinda bullshit”. It’s one of the single biggest innovations in the gaming industry in the last 20 years.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Since when did gfx cards need to cost more than a used car?
We are being scammed by nvidia. They are selling stuff that 20 years ago, the equivalent would have been some massive research prototype. And there would be, like, 2 of them in an nvidia bunker somewhere powering deep thought whilst it calculated the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
3k for a gfx card. Man my whole pc cost 500 quid and it runs all my games and pcvr just fine.
Could it run better? Sure
Does it need to? Not for 3 grand...
Fuck me!.....
-
Nvidia cards don’t require their own dedicated PSU, what on earth are you talking about?
Also DLSS is not “kinda bullshit”. It’s one of the single biggest innovations in the gaming industry in the last 20 years.
Low rent comment.
Second: you apparently are unaware, so just search up the phrase, but as this article very clearly explains...it's shit. It's not innovative, interesting, or improving performance, it's a marketing scam. Games would be run better and more efficiently if you just lower the requirements. It's like saying you want food to taste better, but then they serve you a vegan version of it. AMD's version is technically more useful, but it's still a dumb trick.
-
They’re never mandatory. What are you talking about? Which games can’t run on a 5090 or even 5070 without DLSS?
Correct me if I am wrong but maybe they meant when Publisher/Devs list hardware requirement for their games and includes DLSS in the calculations. IIRC AssCreed Shadows and MH Wilds had that.
-
enjoy never using a computer again i guess?
Oh so you support grifting off the public domain? Maybe grow some balls instead of taking the status quo for granted.
-
But your performance isn’t even close to that of a 5090…….
80-90 fps @ 1440 isn’t great. That’s like last gen mid tier nvidia gpu performance.
Not 1440 like you’re thinking. 3440x1440 is 20% more pixel to render than standard 2560x1440’s. It’s a WS. And yes at max settings 80-90fps is pretty damn good. It regularly goes over 100 in less busy environments.
And yeah it’s not matching a 5090, a graphics card that costs more than 3x mine and sure as hell isn’t giving 3x the performance.
You’re moving the goalposts. My point is for 1/4th the cost you’re getting 60-80% of the performance of overpriced, massive, power hungry Nvidia cards (depending on what model you want to compare to). Bang for buck, AMD smokes Nvidia. It’s not even close.
Unless cost isn’t a barrier to you or you have very specific needs they make no sense to buy. If you’ve got disposable income for days then fuck it buy away.
-
Not 1440 like you’re thinking. 3440x1440 is 20% more pixel to render than standard 2560x1440’s. It’s a WS. And yes at max settings 80-90fps is pretty damn good. It regularly goes over 100 in less busy environments.
And yeah it’s not matching a 5090, a graphics card that costs more than 3x mine and sure as hell isn’t giving 3x the performance.
You’re moving the goalposts. My point is for 1/4th the cost you’re getting 60-80% of the performance of overpriced, massive, power hungry Nvidia cards (depending on what model you want to compare to). Bang for buck, AMD smokes Nvidia. It’s not even close.
Unless cost isn’t a barrier to you or you have very specific needs they make no sense to buy. If you’ve got disposable income for days then fuck it buy away.
Better bang for your buck, but way less bang and not as impressive of a bang.
-
Better bang for your buck, but way less bang and not as impressive of a bang.
Not all of us can afford to spend $3000 for a noticeable but still not massive performance bump over a $700 option. I don’t really understand how this is so difficult to understand lol. You also have to increase the rest of your machine cost for things like your PSU, because the draw on the 5xxx series is cracked out. Motherboard, CPU, all of that has to be cranked up unless you want bottlenecks. Don’t forget your high end 165hz monitor unless you want to waste frames/colors. And are we really going to pretend after 100fps the difference is that big of a deal?
Going Nvidia also means unless you want to be fighting your machine all the time, you need to keep a Windows partition on your computer. Have fun with that.
At the end of the day buy what you want dude, but I’m pulling down what I said above on a machine that cost about $1700. Do with that what you will
