NVIDIA 5000 SERIES

Personality+ · 2025-01-11T19:38:55+0000

Grim5 said:
If nvidias fake frames really takes off it's going to come back to burn them

For example let's say you have a 4k 240hz OLED monitor, it's the best on the market right now. So all you need is 240fps. Nvidia comes out and says this 5070 or 5070ti will give you 240fps, great right, but now what is the point of the 5080 and 5090?

So where we are headed is in future Nvidia will sell us small and weak GPUs that create 100s of fake frames and no one will be buying high end GPUs anymore and they'll be kept and sold to data centers

If they reduce the latency so it feels like the native framerate, then they'll start charging for that **** monthly

jonneymendoza · 2025-01-11T19:42:43+0000

muon said:
So sacrifice image quality just to hit 4k?

Or are you complaining that your inflated expectations are rising more quickly than technology can actually do.

If Nvidia (or AMD) had never introduced RT, PT or made true GI possible etc., you'd have your Timespy quality looking games running at 4k 120 fps.

I think everyone knew what I meant.

You did as well.

Image quality of 4k is good. What are you on about?

muon · 2025-01-11T19:44:38+0000

Just looking at the Timespy 4K benchmark thread.

Time Spy Extreme DX 12 Bench.

Simple Rules. Please - If your CPU has integrated graphics remember to turn this off. No entries with the time data error message can be accepted. Post your CPU and GPU clocks. Post your Time Spy link. Post the drivers in use. Thread Navigation Links. Links to useful benches.

forums.overclockers.co.uk

It requires roughly a 20,000 GPU score to get 120 average on both GT1 and GT2. Only the 4090 can achieve it.

This should make it obvious that high fidelity 4k gaming isn't even possible on something released ages ago at 120fps. Timespy Extreme also looks rubbish by today's standards even though it is 4k.

jonneymendoza said:
Image quality of 4k is good. What are you on about?

Welcome to the problem. 4k doesn't make something good.

Calin Banc · 2025-01-11T19:47:16+0000

Grim5 said:
If nvidias fake frames really takes off it's going to come back to burn them

For example let's say you have a 4k 240hz OLED monitor, it's the best on the market right now. So all you need is 240fps. Nvidia comes out and says this 5070 or 5070ti will give you 240fps, great right, but now what is the point of the 5080 and 5090?

So where we are headed is in future Nvidia will sell us small and weak GPUs that create 100s of fake frames and no one will be buying high end GPUs anymore and they'll be kept and sold to data centers

5070ti will give you 60fps at perhaps 1440p once you start improving the games as new, more capable hardware, is available to run them. Like it always has happened.

muon · 2025-01-11T19:49:48+0000

Calin Banc said:
5070ti will give you 60fps at perhaps 1440p once you start improving the games as new, more capable hardware, is available to run them. Like it always has happened.

I mean even the 4070 Ti today does 1440p60 easily at close to max settings (if you ignore path tracing tech demos).

jonneymendoza · 2025-01-11T20:26:10+0000

muon said:
Just looking at the Timespy 4K benchmark thread.

Time Spy Extreme DX 12 Bench.

Simple Rules. Please - If your CPU has integrated graphics remember to turn this off. No entries with the time data error message can be accepted. Post your CPU and GPU clocks. Post your Time Spy link. Post the drivers in use. Thread Navigation Links. Links to useful benches.

forums.overclockers.co.uk

It requires roughly a 20,000 GPU score to get 120 average on both GT1 and GT2. Only the 4090 can achieve it.

This should make it obvious that high fidelity 4k gaming isn't even possible on something released ages ago at 120fps. Timespy Extreme also looks rubbish by today's standards even though it is 4k.

Welcome to the problem. 4k doesn't make something good.

When 4k first came out. 30 to 60fps was the norm.

Still today I would say 60fps is perfectly fine. Anything higher you may see a small improvement but I I would say 60fps is playable.

kute · 2025-01-11T20:48:24+0000

Joxeon said:
Those are under $600 though

Try more like +70% for the 3080, it even blew the 2080ti away. This was why people went nuts for it especially with an initial MSRP of £650.

Yea I have to conceed on this one, I'm just seeing how unreliable userbenchmark is, even outside of the AMD thing. I'm a bit in shock

parisv · 2025-01-11T20:49:28+0000

I could do with an fps bump on 7680x2160

Calin Banc · 2025-01-11T20:52:35+0000

muon said:
I mean even the 4070 Ti today does 1440p60 easily at close to max settings (if you ignore path tracing tech demos).

Well, you do get more advanced path traced or raster games that will require a performance toll no matter how you slice it.

Personality+ · 2025-01-11T20:56:21+0000

https://twitter.com/x/status/1878004170080309650

Vertigo · 2025-01-11T21:03:24+0000

Personality+ said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1878004170080309650

So 17/18% faster than a 4080, meaning it'll be only about 13/14% faster than a 4080 SUPER. What a waste of time.

ICDP · 2025-01-11T21:13:50+0000

Vertigo said:
So 17/18% faster than a 4080, meaning it'll be only about 13/14% faster than a 4080 SUPER. What a waste of time.

But FG extra fake frames and AI will make up for that.

gpuerrilla · 2025-01-11T21:13:56+0000

Vertigo said:
So 17/18% faster than a 4080, meaning it'll be only about 13/14% faster than a 4080 SUPER. What a waste of time.

gpuerrilla said:
I just seen a DF post where its ~17% which is poor but if that's the improvement over the 4080 then the jump of just over 50% is good enough for me.

Ampere or older cards OK, Ada - nah.

Grim5 · 2025-01-11T21:15:01+0000

Personality+ said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1878004170080309650

And some people here thought the 5080 was going to beat the 4090 in Raster, ha! You can't beat physics

Vertigo · 2025-01-11T21:16:01+0000

Grim5 said:
And some people here thought it was going to beat the 4090 in Raster, ha! You can't beat physics

The 4090 could end up being the next 1080Ti

Hostile_18 · 2025-01-11T21:18:00+0000

Grim5 said:
And some people here thought the 5080 was going to beat the 4090 in Raster, ha! You can't beat physics

So essentially half way between a 4080 and a 4090 for £600-800 less.

I don't think that's too bad.

Bidley · 2025-01-11T21:23:06+0000

Hostile_18 said:
So essentially half way between a 4080 and a 4090 for £600-800 less.

I don't think that's too bad.

It is if you're on 40 series, for the rest of us...

... Looks like RT's back on the menu boys!

gpuerrilla · 2025-01-11T21:25:02+0000

Its why Jensen was offering the 5080 for $999. If there was a 30% improvement it would have again been a $1250 product no doubt.

ICDP · 2025-01-11T21:30:15+0000

Hostile_18 said:
So essentially half way between a 4080 and a 4090 for £600-800 less.

I don't think that's too bad.

Being £600 cheaper than a 4090 doesn’t make it a good price. It has been possible to get close to that level of price/performance since the 4080 Super launched. Or if you are only considering raster the 7900 XTX has been a smidge faster for even lower prices.

The 5080 is genuinely a great performing GPU, it’s just nothing special for the price.

Grim5 · 2025-01-11T21:43:42+0000

Hostile_18 said:
So essentially half way between a 4080 and a 4090 for £600-800 less.

I don't think that's too bad.

Ah yeah you're right, just looked up the 4090 numbers at the same settings and yeah - so the 5080 is 18% faster than 4080 but still 22% slower than the 4090, roughly in the middle of the 4080 and 4090.
The 4090 still has more VRAM though, for what it's worth to anyone.