• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

5090 Price

Status
Not open for further replies.
GoRedwings19 said:
Snap I got one as well is it called like compu cleaner or someting like that. It's a beast.
Click to expand...

I have a DataVac one which I bought years ago (they are pretty expensive now!). It has anti-static brush attachments and everything. It looks like a small jet engine and is loud AF.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
Thanks for sharing. I probably ought to take stock of this. Re: 5090 I’m really not sure it’s worth £1k for the sake of playing a few games with a high texture pack…!

I was playing Helldivers 2 yesterday on my 3090. I got above 100fps with DLSS on at 4k and for that sort of game it was absolutely fine, still looked great. Do I really need more… it would be nice, but probably not increasing the actual enjoyment I get from the game!
Click to expand...
It's not just being able to play games that require the performance for high-res texture packs, but the actual time you will play those games for. I'd encourage you to look at the games you play and 1) identify which require >4090-level performance to enjoy, 2) how much time you actually put into playing those games. For me, these games were CP77 and Alan Wake 2 (and lately Indiana Jones). The actual amount of time I played these games was <55 hrs last year. That's a lot of clams for 55 hrs of using highest settings.

You can try to have fallicious logic arguments with oneself until the cows come home e.g. what if most games over the next 2 years need >16GB VRAM (they won't), what if every game supports PT/RT in a materially-important way (they won't and haven't for 6 years now). But really, if you're being honest with onesself, it comes down to pragmatics of what you need to actually enjoy gaming.
 
TBH even Indian Jones runs fine on mid-range cards. You just turn a few (mostly un-noticeable) details down. But even though it uses RT it isn't the best looking game I've ever seen.

Developers aren't going to make top end GPUs a requirement because they want to actually sell copies. Most people are running cards 2-3 generations behind now as upgrading is way too expensive and often pointless. Graphics quality in general hasn't really improved for a decade either, many games are still even being released with DX11.
 
Last edited:
These could be 2499 but don't forget about ocuk we slice on top so about 2699 I'd bet ..no chance ..
 
harmattan said:
As is tradition since... well, Riva-Voodoo days, I went back and forth between nV and AMD this gen. I started with a 7900xtx, then 4080 Super (for $%$£s and giggles), then 4090. I offloaded my 4090 Strix last month for a good amount and am now using my "back up" 6950xt. My experience this gen can be summarized by two broad points which have been constant across the past few generations, but particularly acute with this one: 1) materially reduced returns in improved experience above £900, 2) dlss/RT/frame gen have near-zero impact in actual in-game enjoyment. I expect these points to hold even more true with this upcoming gen. Honestly, I should have just stuck with the 7900xtx from the get go -- lots of mulah wasted for curiousity's sake.
Click to expand...

I too wish I had gone with an XTX - although there's a much bigger elephant in that room that I forgot to mention.

I primarily game on a quest3, and I have the impression in my head that radeon GPUS have big issues in VR? I don't know if that's exactly true or not. I know that I can't run DLSS in anything but ACC, and it looks like absolutely garbage up close, even on quality, on the highest resolution, super sampled to a point where the framerate is ****** - it's still blurrier than just reducing the scaling in that particular game. It's irrelevant, since it runs so terribly to not be worth playing.
 
ne0 said:
Yeah agreed. 4090 wipes the floor with 3090.
Click to expand...
Didn't it cost quite a bit more? I mean the 4080 leap frogged the 3080ti, 3090, and 3090ti - which is unusual for a card to jump like 3 or 4 tiers - but it was still considered a bad product.
 
kute said:
? They were different cards with different levels of performance and different prices?
Click to expand...
not really just the same chip, with marginal difference in performance..
amd caught nvidia offguard with the rx6000 series, so they had to rejig the lineup
all gamers expressed a strong preference for 3080 in that gen
 
Last edited:
kute said:
Didn't it cost quite a bit more? I mean the 4080 leap frogged the 3080ti, 3090, and 3090ti - which is unusual for a card to jump like 3 or 4 tiers - but it was still considered a bad product.
Click to expand...
4090 was only $100 more than the 3090 MSRP. The 4080 was a $700 > $1200 price hike which is why many considered it bad. It cost way too much, might as well go for the 4090 at that price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom