• 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.

Blackwell gpus

Grim5 said:
So:

5090 = 60% faster than 4090
5080 = 30% faster than 4080
5070 = 20% faster than 4070
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't disagree with the assertion that the gaps between cards are extending, and that's in contrast to the "old days", I suspect this is the new normal.

I expect (based on the rumourmill) that the 5090 will come in a little under £2k, the 5080 at around £1200. If the latter is the equivalent of a 4090, at £400-800 cheaper, that feels like a decent value proposition. That's a decent pound to performance increase. Of course, I'm not sure I need a 5080, let alone a 5090, but that might not stop me!

I think that a lot of the disappointment is born out of memories of the 1080, which was an outlier and born out of a very different market. 20% price/performance uplifts seem ok to me. Anything more than that is a bonus.
 
Ephraim said:
I think that a lot of the disappointment is born out of memories of the 1080, which was an outlier and born out of a very different market. 20% price/performance uplifts seem ok to me. Anything more than that is a bonus.
Click to expand...

I can accept that. But generally technology advancements meant it was either cheaper, command less power or maybe you got something more (as above a 5080 might be close to a 4090 but your excluding the shortfall of 8GB vram). In good generations you got all of that.

Tommy_Here said:
5080 will be 15-20% faster than 4090 if the 5090 is 60-70% faster then 4090 I just can’t see Nvidia putting that much of a performance difference between their two best cards
Click to expand...

This is where a true Ti card would fill the gap. It wont be the launch 5080. They will probably utilise the 3gb ram by then and offer something more than the baseline 16gb they will get away with which is a shame if your charging >£1000 in the first place.
 
Last edited:
gpuerrilla said:
I can accept that. But generally technology advancements meant it was either cheaper, command less power or maybe you got something more (as above a 5080 might be close to a 4090 but your excluding the shortfall of 8GB vram). In good generations you got all of that.



This is where a true Ti card would fill the gap. It wont be the launch 5080. They will probably utilise the 3gb ram by then and offer something more than the baseline 16gb they will get away with which is a shame if your charging >£1000 in the first place.
Click to expand...
Despite the panic over VRAM, I'm not actually sure that there is a lot to panic about. Would I like to see 24GB on a 5080? Sure! Do I expect massive problems on 16GB over the next 4 years? Not really.

I bought my 10GB 3080 on release about 4 years ago. I've not noticed a problem with it since. Could it run Indiana Jones at full textures with 10GB? No... but it's a 4 year old card, and that seems about standard for PC refresh times. Could it run the game? Sure.

I _do_ worry that if the lower end 50 series cards release with 8GB, that will be a problem in some games. But with Battlemage released and the 8000 series coming, I expect that there'll be alternatives at the 5060-ish price points, and hope that they are much better.

I can see a gradual inflation of the VRAM needed for games, probably to about 16GB in 5 years time. But it seems unlikely that any but the most thick-headed of devs is going to require that to run the game, as it'll likely alienate the majority of gamers who use mid-range cards.

I don't expect that the 50 series will represent a great generation of cards, but I think that the days of that are over, until Nvidia get some proper competition at the high end. But given that if I want to build a PC today the performance costs say £2000 and in January the same performance costs £1500, at the cost of some VRAM, I think I'm probably ok with that, given one supplier's dominance over the market.
 
Grim5 said:
5090 = 60% faster than 4090
Click to expand...
fry-futurama.gif
 
greatash said:
I was under the impression all the experienced redengine devs left hence the switch to UE.
Click to expand...
A fair few talented programmers left over the years but that wasn't the reason. They want to develop multiple projects in parallel so there was no way they'd increase the tech staff to the number required for them to keep their own engine.
 
its not just that, directx 12 is a different animal, it shifts a lot of heavylifting to developers which would have otherwise been within scope of driver teams at nvidia or amd in the dx 11 era (classic case of competency gaps), i believe we would see industrywide consolidation to few trusted game engines
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Which third party cards are people feeling this time around?

I’m hoping to get a PNY card - these aren’t a ‘big brand’ but seem to have the most consistent positive experiences, from what I can tell.

My experience with Gigabyte has been ‘OK’ as per my thread here they definitely cheaped out on their thermal pads on my 3090 and all Gigabyte cards I’ve had in my possession were prone to annoying fan ramping issues, requiring disabling RGB in the case of the 4090s. However, the Aorus 4090 was a lovely card… only sent it back because of a rattly fan. The ‘Gaming OC’ was a coil whiny piece of poo, just like the FE edition.

The FE edition 4090 was built like tank, very impressive, but the coil whine has put me off going ‘reference’ again tbh.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom