• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

$2500 5090 I’m out

criccio said:
Hot take: Some of you don't want to hear it, but the quieter and quieter group that in 2025 still only cares about native raster performance is slowly going to go away. Either get on board or I guess just moan on forums until you give up gaming.
Click to expand...

Cool and I hope you are good at being just a bit slow on a multiplayer shooter because of the increased lag of all those generated frames. Input lag is increased with all of this garbage just so I can say I have 200 fps but the playing experience is better at 100 fps with that stuff turned off. So you are paying a premium for generated frames that lowers the quality and increases the lag in the game. Just not what I want in my gaming experience.
 
Legendary Gamer said:
We might be seeing very marginal gains from the 4000 series to the 5000 series on pure raster with moderate RT gains.
Click to expand...

Some people will argue that "pure raster is dead", and they do have a point what with all games having RT in them now, and at least one title requiring RT, and the rest looking shitty in raster mode when RT is disabled.

That said, I still think pure raster is an important metric for comparison purposes.

It is no surprise that the one "benchmark" (and I use that term lightly) they have shared comparing the 5090 and 4090 without any DLSS is with Path Tracing.

Nvidia likes to play to their RT advantage by utilizing path tracing as much as possible, even when it is not reflective of performance across the board.

Not to be too harsh on Nvidia here. AMD does stuff like this too, prioritizing benchmarks like Ashes of the Singularity that performed great on AMD hardware, but that almost no one played.

You can't expect a n organizations own marketing department (professional liars) to present unbiased data. This is why competent reviewers that don't just blindly follow the "review guide" they receive are as important as they ever were today, but sadly there are also fewer of them than ever.

That image Brackle posted above (hold on, I'll post it again, as it appears it has slipped to the previous page) is all good and well:

1736274984239.png


It does indeed show a 35% increase going from the 4090 to 5090, and I don't think they are outright lying, because they'd get so much shit for that, but they are almost certainly doing a Path Tracing comparison, which very likely gives them an exaggerated advantage compared to the typical title on the market, and even CyberPunk itself if just run in the more mainstream (but still brutally on hardware) "RT High" preset.

So, while I don't think they are lying, I do feel certain they are intentionally distorting the truth by using this very particular comparison, especially considering it is at settings no one in their right mind would actually play at with either card.

If they instead posted some pure rasterization comparisons, it would likely be closer to the truth than this, and I would have respected them for that move.

There is nothing wrong with boasting about their RT performance, and new DLSS capabilities. I don't hold that against them. It is when they are sneaky about it, and try to slip it in there and use it as the basis for comparison I get annoyed. No one likes a sneak.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Some people will argue that "pure raster is dead", and they do have a point what with all games having RT in them now, and at least one title requiring RT, and the rest looking shitty in raster mode when RT is disabled.

That said, I still think pure raster is an important metric for comparison purposes.

It is no surprise that the one "benchmark" (and I use that term lightly) they have shared comparing the 5090 and 4090 without any DLSS is with Path Tracing.

Nvidia likes to play to their RT advantage by utilizing path tracing as much as possible, even when it is not reflective of performance across the board.

Not to be too harsh on Nvidia here. AMD does stuff like this too, prioritizing benchmarks like Ashes of the Singularity that performed great on AMD hardware, but that almost no one played.

You can't expect a n organizations own marketing department (professional liars) to present unbiased data. This is why competent reviewers that don't just blindly follow the "review guide" they receive are as important as they ever were today, but sadly there are also fewer of them than ever.

That image Brackle posted above (hold on, I'll post it again, as it appears it has slipped to the previous page) is all good and well:

View attachment 702325

It does indeed show a 35% increase going from the 4090 to 5090, and I don't think they are outright lying, because they'd get so much shit for that, but they are almost certainly doing a Path Tracing comparison, which very likely gives them an exaggerated advantage compared to the typical title on the market, and even CyberPunk itself if just run in the more mainstream (but still brutally on hardware) "RT High" preset.

So, while I don't think they are lying, I do feel certain they are intentionally distorting the truth by using this very particular comparison, especially considering it is at settings no one in their right mind would actually play at with either card.

If they instead posted some pure rasterization comparisons, it would likely be closer to the truth than this, and I would have respected them for that move.

There is nothing wrong with boasting about their RT performance, and new DLSS capabilities. I don't hold that against them. It is when they are sneaky about it, and try to slip it in there and use it as the basis for comparison I get annoyed. No one likes a sneak.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your thoughts and breakdown.

I expected the 5090 to be in the performance jump that we see it in. That's what I think, all of us have come to expect from a top tier card. It's the lower tier stuff that's really underwhelming. The generational uplift is minor compared to the 4000 series. I'm disappointed that Nvidia separated their product stack like this. However, they're doing what we have seen coming for a while now. Launch the flagship that's largely based off their top tier datacenter cards and cut the rest of the stack down, massively. And sell it at price points that make you the most money possible off that diminished hardware all the while leaning on your new 4.0 frame gen to actually get that performance. 4000 series owners would be wise to ignore or steer clear of this generation. The uplift is minimal. If you're a mega power user than there's only one choice, the 5090. Nothing else comes close, by design.

With AMD backing out of even attempting to compete and not really talking about their 9700XT... which means they expected to sell it for more and the latest Nvidia announcement screwed them. Way to not read the room or market. AMD said they were targeting the mid range and that's not true at all. It's pretty obvious they fully intended to sell these things around 750+ and now they need to see if they can sell them for sub 600 and if they can handle the loss. The only company that really targeted the original mid range / low range was Intel and Pat G didn't have any faith in their product so they pushed it out with no stock, and it flew off the shelves. I keep going back to his lack of vision and his statements about their being no value or future in Intel GPUs. What that team accomplished, generationally with no staff and no budget is profound. It's also the only product I am really excited for hearing more about higher versions.

Nvida has clearly stated they're not a gaming company. These cards are datacenter repurposed. Nvidia hasn't focused on gamers for a while now, other than to wring the last vestiges of life and blood of this tiny market for them. Can't fault them for it but I miss the days that we actually saw companies compete for the top gaming Video Card. That's what we used to call em. lol

I think I am going to be forced to sit on my 7900XTX for another generation, at least. Though, hopefully, I can upgrade my tertiary PC's with new, affordable, Intel GPUs. Finally move the 2080Ti to another machine. That's what I do, historically, is move the hardware around the house in order of usage and the fully replaced ones go to charity.
 
As a 4090 owner I was mildly interested in the 5090, but with the price increase and the Canadian dollar tanking I think I am going to skip this launch. I might be tempted by a 5080 ti in a year if the price is right or I might just wait for the 60 series.

I’m old school and value raster performance over all else. I will accept DLSS upscaling but the extra frame generation isn’t something that interests me and that appears to be the main selling point this gen.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Same bullshit different day.

Previous Gen: $1,599
Actual (after AIB premiums and horrendous markups and scalping) $2,299

Rumor $2,500.
Response: OMG, Shock and horror. Gaming is over. The end is coming. No one will be able to afford PC gaming anymore. I'm calling it quits.

Actual next gen: $2,000
Response: Oh, that's not as bad as we feared. OK then.

Maybe not as bad as we feared, but it is still a massive 25% MSRP increase in only 2 years. it IS pretty bad.

And what it actually going to wind up costing when the board partners, retailers and scalpers are done with it? $2,500 was probably pretty accurate TBH.

I feel like this is a purposeful strategy to let people get out all of their rage on a straw man of what could be, and minimize their rage at the real bad thing that actually happened. And it happens just about every release.
Click to expand...
The AIB cards will cost more as most are manufactured in China and will get hit with tariffs. FE cards are manufactured in Taiwan. Not knocking tariffs. I think more manufacturers should GTFO of China or at least diversify and have plants elsewhere.
 
WilyKit said:
The AIB cards will cost more as most are manufactured in China and will get hit with tariffs. FE cards are manufactured in Taiwan. Not knocking tariffs. I think more manufacturers should GTFO of China or at least diversify and have plants elsewhere.
Click to expand...

There were plenty of stories about companies starting to reconsider doing all of their manufacturing in China after they were shut down and had supply shortages during the pandemic. I wonder if that is still in the works, or if everyone forgot about it as soon as supply got back to normal.
 
WilyKit said:
The AIB cards will cost more as most are manufactured in China and will get hit with tariffs. FE cards are manufactured in Taiwan. Not knocking tariffs. I think more manufacturers should GTFO of China or at least diversify and have plants elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I expect the AIB 5080 cards to run around $1500 or more with tax, which is a big no for me, and I have no interest in a FE card. PC gaming for regular people is going the way of the Dodo bird.
 
I things go to plan, will put a 5080 fe on hold whilst I read the reviews and decide whether even worth it from a 4080s. Not paying 2k for a card to game on , even if I could get 10 without noticing...so 5090 not looking likely.
 
killroy67 said:
I expect the AIB 5080 cards to run around $1500 or more with tax, which is a big no for me, and I have no interest in a FE card. PC gaming for regular people is going the way of the Dodo bird.
Click to expand...
Yeah, everyone needs 4k dlss q/120fps with max settings on the bleeding edge of gaming to be able to game. You simply can't enjoy a video game without. :(
 
I thought this launch was ho hum. They hardly focused on the new cards and the data they have released doesn't really give a good idea of how the cards will perform. I will see over 2x performance gains in Blender and Daz Studio thanks to the RT gains but as for gaming, I can't really tell what the 5090 will deliver. Will I be able to force DLAA using DLSS tweak and combo it with 2.5 DLDSR in RDR2? It's hard to say where the 5090 raster is at or how the multi frame gen will feel. How many artifacts are going to be noticeable with all of these fake pixels being generated? It's all up in the air.

It will be nice to have 32GB of VRAM for art rendering and I guess I could finally use the 4k surface texture mod for Cyberpunk 2077 without running out of VRAM like my 4090 does. Still, $2000 is alot of money for a GPU and while I can understand that they pushed the VRAM to a more cutting edge DDR7 and added a large 8GB on top, it still comes down to what it will actually gain me compared to my 4090. I'm interested and will check out the reviews but I don't have my heart set on buying one of these at launch unless the reviews prove that it is a worthwhile upgrade. I feel that Nvidia is probably hiding behind DLSS and frame gen numbers because raster is lacking. Games like Cyberpunk fall below 60FPS with DLSS quality mode at 4k max everything which makes frame generation border line with a 4090. I want to know how fast this game is really going to run with DLSS quality and no frame generation.

The other issue I've been facing on a personal level is having enough quality games to play on this hardware. Lots of activist trash out there these days.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Yeah, everyone needs 4k dlss q/120fps with max settings on the bleeding edge of gaming to be able to game. You simply can't enjoy a video game without. :(
Click to expand...
I do try to get exactly what you said, but I am willing to turn down settings if needed, if I have to I'll go back to 2k gaming, I still have my Dell 1440p gaming monitor. But I wont spend $1500 or more to to stay on the bleeding edge, especially for the 2-3 good games that actually come around a year
 
GoldenTiger said:
Yeah, everyone needs 4k dlss q/120fps with max settings on the bleeding edge of gaming to be able to game. You simply can't enjoy a video game without. :(
Click to expand...

No It's not a hard requirement.

But once you invest in the screen that does it, you become obsessed with making it work, as scaling it just looks like crap.

I've made the mistake of doing this three times now.

Back in 2005, I was an early adopter of 1920x1200. It performed so poorly with my then 6800GT that I just kind of stopped playing games for 4-5 years.

Then in 2009-2010 I started getting into things again. Made the same mistake again and became an early adopter of 2560x1600 and went through 8 new GPU's in 3 years before finally being able to get my hands on the 2013 6GB Titan, and getting a GPU that could finally meet my performance requirements.

And that was briefly OK, but then even the Titan started not doing it. That, and I got the itch to upgrade my monitor again, and was an early adopter of 4k in 2015, and I have been chasing acceptable framerates ever since. Single 980ti --> dual 980ti's --> Pascal Titan X

The Titan X did the trick for a little while, but two years later by 2018 it was starting to lose its luster. I wanted to jump on the 2080ti at launch, but I hesitated due to the "RTX Space Invaders" issue, and then by the time that seemed resolved, it was too late in the GPU cycle to invest in a high end GPU. (at least for me). I'd wait until next gen I said. Then the 3000 series came out and the pandemic and crypto conspired to make them unobtainable (at least at unscalped prices) so I passed on that generation as well, with the Pascal Titan X getting more and more tired, and less and less able to handle the 4k screen.

Over the years I actually "invented" a few methods to make up for the inability of my GPU to keep up. For a while I created a custom ultrawide 3840x1646 resolution (essentially 21:9 letterboxed in the center of the 4k screen). This allowed for a slight (over 20%) performance increase.

My first 4k screen was a 2015 Samsung JS9000 TV. It didn't have any VRR, so I was stuck at v-sync, so games that I couldn't get to maintain 60+fps, would drop down to 30fps like in the bad old days, or I would have to disable v-sync and deal with immersion breaking tearing all the time.

On the JS9000 TV I discovered it was a "world" TV compatible with European TV standards, so I could actually run it at 50hz. For a while there when I played through Deus Ex Mankind divided I actually played at my letterboxed 21:9 ultrawide vsynced at 50hz, just to get it to work.

Luckily My later 4k screens (first an Asus XG438Q, and now an LG C3 OLED TV) had VRR. That tech has really been a life changer. I can;t believe I waited so long to get a screen with either G-Sync or Free-Sync.

Anyway, eventually I broke down and paid somewhat scalpy prices for a high end custom 6900xt as I just couldn't wait anymore. (it was actually AIB MSRP, but it was one of those crazy expensive AIB pre-scalped models). That lasted for like 8 months, but it was not enough, because RT was more and more becoming a requirement, so I lucked out and was able to get my hands on a 4090 at close to (AIB scalpy) MSRP, and have been using that since.

But I still can't quite make my minimum requirements of never dropping below 60fps at 4k Ultra with no DLSS (scaling or frame gen) in many titles. Some are OK, but many not.

Which brings us to the 5000 series. $2k is a lot to pay for a 35% increase, but if that 35% (in regular non-path tracing titles, without DLSS) holds up in independent reviews I may just bite. I just don't want to fight acceptable framerates anymore. It's getting really tiring.

I just want a GPU that does it once and for all, and keeps me happy for at least a couple of years. Maybe the 5090 will be it? I hope so.

But yeah, sometimes I wish I had just stayed at a more reasonable 2560x1440 resolution. Life would have been easier that way. But I didn't, and so here we are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hmz
like this
I'm coming from a 1070... so my upgrade cycles are long. I'm debating just biting the bullet for a 5090 or doing the 5080.
 
Ihaveworms said:
I'm coming from a 1070... so my upgrade cycles are long. I'm debating just biting the bullet for a 5090 or doing the 5080.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if I were in your shoes, if you don't actually need the 5090 levels of performance, I would just get a lower end card, and upgrade more frequently instead.

It winds up being so incredibly much more cost efficient to frequently upgrade a mid level card than it is to infrequently upgrade a high end one. And you also wind up having a better average experience over time, because if you keep a high end card longer, you have an initial period of amazing performance, and then a long tail of kind of meh performance where you try to keep it as long as you can to justify the price. By the end there, a frequently upgraded mid to low end card will give you much better performance at a fraction of the investment over time.

That's what I would do, if I hadn't locked myself into 4k.

But if you want to go 4k, or need very high framerates at 2560x1440, then you've got to do what you've got to do. I guess what I am saying is, it makes little to no sense to ever try to future-proof a PC. it's much more cost effective, and results in a much better experience to spend less more frequently, than to spend a lot all at once.
 
You know one thing I do find amusing is when people or what not talk of giving up a kidney to get a 5k series. Well I currently only have one, and I just got that with a transplant back in November, and I'll be damned if I give it away to Nvidia for a lousy card lol ;)
 
killroy67 said:
You know one thing I do find amusing is when people or what not talk of giving up a kidney to get a 5k series. Well I currently only have one, and I just got that with a transplant back in November, and I'll be damned if I give it away to Nvidia for a lousy card lol ;)
Click to expand...

I at least hope anyone who says that is not serious, but I guess you never know these days.

One would have expected that by getting lead out of the gasoline supply, people would have more of their brains left than in the past, but sometimes it sure doesn't feel that way.
 
They unlocked more performance with the 5th gen. How about they keep the same spec with the previous gen while still improving the performance?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I at least hope anyone who says that is not serious, but I guess you never know these days.

One would have expected that by getting lead out of the gasoline supply, people would have more of their brains left than in the past, but sometimes it sure doesn't feel that way.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree, especially with PC gaming, I've been doing this for 30 years now and the last 4-5 years I've become disillusioned with the whole PC gaming industry. I had more fun back with my early builds, even my old 486/66, now it's you have to have a $2000 card to play a game at 1440p, next release it'll be $3000, we'll see if they buy them then. It's like after covid gamers just lost their minds. We need to go back to when we had the 780's, 980's, 1080's as the flagship, and the eventual release of the Titan series.
 
Why would anyone pay $2000 for a 5090 and then play it with DLSS performance mode? This is another thing that annoys me with marketing. It's all about big numbers and enthusiastic influencers making money instead of informing people. Linus claims it has less flaws than DLSS 3.5 which sounds great but I wouldn't be shocked if he was just told to say that. I doubt performance mode looks better and has less flaws than quality mode which is what everyone with a 4090 is playing with. All I got from that video was that the game runs at 250FPS at an unknown resolution using performance mode and frame generation. If frame gen is pushing out more fake frames than it used to then it would be nice to know how many FPS the card is pushing out with DLSS quality mode and no frame generation. If FPS isn't high enough then it can display 10000FPS for all I care, it's going to feel like ass. I mean, I'm sure it's an improvement over what we have now, I'm just not sure it's worth spending $2000 over what I have now. Cyberpunk 2077 is a single player game and I really don't care about frame rates beyond 120FPS but I do care about real frame rates and not fake ones. Frame generation feels fine and I use it but it does require a solid foundation to work off of and that directly corelates with brute force raster performance which they don't bother to mention.
 
Keep your 4080 or 4090 and enjoy DLSS4 and enhanced frame generation if needed, wait until the next release and what it brings. If you're going to spend $1500 to over $2000 make damn sure it's more than worth it.

Personally I can't wait to see how the 4080 does with DLSS4 in Stalker.2.
 
Last edited:
the_sextein said:
Why would anyone pay $2000 for a 5090 and then play it with DLSS performance mode? This is another thing that annoys me with marketing. It's all about big numbers and enthusiastic influencers making money instead of informing people. Linus claims it has less flaws than DLSS 3.5 which sounds great but I wouldn't be shocked if he was just told to say that. I doubt performance mode looks better and has less flaws than quality mode which is what everyone with a 4090 is playing with. All I got from that video was that the game runs at 250FPS at an unknown resolution using performance mode and frame generation. If frame gen is pushing out more fake frames than it used to then it would be nice to know how many FPS the card is pushing out with DLSS quality mode and no frame generation. If FPS isn't high enough then it can display 10000FPS for all I care, it's going to feel like ass. I mean, I'm sure it's an improvement over what we have now, I'm just not sure it's worth spending $2000 over what I have now. Cyberpunk 2077 is a single player game and I really don't care about frame rates beyond 120FPS but I do care about real frame rates and not fake ones. Frame generation feels fine and I use it but it does require a solid foundation to work off of and that directly corelates with brute force raster performance which they don't bother to mention.
Click to expand...
They actually did show it. In a video, even. The 5090 at 4K with everything cranked including path tracing, was.....not even 30fps. It was about 27-ish.

DLSS Performance would then render the game at ~1080p. Which increases the framerate. Ray Reconstruction is a small framerate increase.
Then its upscaled back to 4K. Which actually has some non trivial overhead of a few frames. DLSS upscaling to 1440p in comparison, is nearly free.

So after that, the resulting framerate, gets 3 additional frames generated, per frame. Leading to the end result of about 250fps. If you do the math, that's 62.5 FPS as the framerate after DLLS Ray Reconstruction and upscaling, before framegen.
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
They actually did show it. In a video, even. The 5090 at 4K with everything cranked including path tracing, was.....not even 30fps. It was about 27-ish.

DLSS Performance would then render the game at ~1080p. Which increases the framerate. Ray Reconstruction is a small framerate increase.
Then its upscaled back to 4K. Which actually has some non trivial overhead of a few frames. DLSS upscaling to 1440p which is nearly free.

So after that, the resulting framerate, gets 3 additional frames generated, per frame. Leading to the end result of about 250fps. If you do the math, that's 62.5 FPS as the framerate after DLLS Ray Reconstruction and upscaling, before framegen.
Click to expand...
Pathtracing is great and all but there really is only like 4 games or so that use it effectively enough to warrant turning it on and taking the huge input lag hit. And seems like they just add one or two games with a good enough pathtracing (this past year was Indiana Jones + Wukong and the year before that was Alan Wake 2) We will have to see if more and more games start adding pathtracing. GTA 6 having pathtracing would be a big one for Nvidia.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I would argue that pre-ordering hardware is even more foolish than pre-ordering games.

That said, I do wish they got a hold of the launch shortages and scalping somehow. But that is not in their best interest.

They do the best when there is hype and shortages.

Not to mention that production capacity is limited. it takes like a decade and is prohibitively expensive to increase production capacity just to pump up launch quantities.

And if you instead wait, and build launch quantities before launching, the longer you wait, the less impressive your shiny new product is.

No, their incentive is to launch as soon as they can. They will build a minimal launch quantity so that it is not accused of being a paper launch, but after that, they are happy to brag to investors that they sold out, while letting angry consumers who can't find the products anywhere blame everyone from scalpers, to miners to AI companies (all of which are true, btw.) for the shortages, but never the manufacturer....

Whenever you wonder why something is a certain way, just follow the incentive.

Some of this will hopefully get a little better after some of the many new fabs under construction come online, and there is greater manufacturing capacity in the industry, so that everyone (AMD, Apple, Nvidia, Qualcomm and now even Intel) go shopping for manufacturing capacity at the same two fabs at TSMC and Samsung, but the truth is, demand is probably insatiable at this point. New fabs will come online, and heir capacity will likely be gobbled up faster than they can take orders.

There is sadly no going back the early 2000's when we were a niche market that wasn't competing as much with other markets, and thus weren't always fighting for capacity. PC Gaming is HUGE now, and its fighting for production capacity with any number of other industries, many of which have deeper pockets than we do, and it brings us to the situation we are in.

Can't blame Nvidia for prioritizing $20k AI products over even crazy $2K graphics cards when allocating the share of TSMC's manufacturing capacity that wasn't taken by Apple and others. Anyone would do the same in their situation. That's just business. Prioritize your biggest margin profit centers.
Click to expand...
I am aware of the why it is the way it is. However, I still find it stupid. They can bank on all of the above by opening up pre-orders and having anti-bot detection programs etc. It will simplify the first sale for real customers. That is all I am saying. We will never eliminate scalping and secondary sales. That happened with PS5 and XSX as well and prior to iPhone 16 also happened with iPhone 13, 14 and 15 at least where I live. However, PRE ORDERS were open and ability to send products out for weeks was there. Showing dates when new stocks will be replenished for primary sale is typically available for pre-orders with predictability for next 2-3 months at least. I remember for a iPhone 13 order I got a date 2 months out to receive it. Same for my PS5 order, I had a 2 week wait before I got it vs. people who were able to pick it up on day 1. It is not hard or new science. It is just stupid that this does not exist for computer hardware like graphics cards.

Anyways, messaged my local shop for a pre order card. Guy says once he has a price, he will sell me one. Probably scalp me a bit but I don't care.
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
They actually did show it. In a video, even. The 5090 at 4K with everything cranked including path tracing, was.....not even 30fps. It was about 27-ish.
Click to expand...

Its pretty simple math here, 170SM/128SM, 33% more SM than a 4090 which is basically what you'll get for a performance uplift without DLSS. 33% of 25fps is useless, so it'll be just as useless as the 4090 is currently (useless in the context of those types of games that are the "crysis" of this generation).
 
chameleoneel said:
They actually did show it. In a video, even. The 5090 at 4K with everything cranked including path tracing, was.....not even 30fps. It was about 27-ish.

DLSS Performance would then render the game at ~1080p. Which increases the framerate. Ray Reconstruction is a small framerate increase.
Then its upscaled back to 4K. Which actually has some non trivial overhead of a few frames. DLSS upscaling to 1440p which is nearly free.

So after that, the resulting framerate, gets 3 additional frames generated, per frame. Leading to the end result of about 250fps. If you do the math, that's 62.5 FPS as the framerate after DLLS Ray Reconstruction and upscaling, before framegen.
Click to expand...
They showed the raw frame rate but not the DLSS frame rate without frame generation. I wasn't sure if calculating it was as simple as you say but if DLSS is delivering 62 FPS on performance mode and frame generation starts to get laggy if the FPS drops below 60FPS then I would say this card can just barely handle a 3 year old game at 1080P and they want $2000 for it. They used to deliver 20% performance improvement with every card that released every year. Now they wait over two years between card releases and deliver less than 20% a year average while charging quadruple the price. I like Nvidia's innovations but they really need to deliver performance on the levels that they used to considering how overpriced they are now. It's getting harder and harder to justify the price of these new cards since the quality games are fewer and farther between and the price just keeps climbing with less and less performance to show for it. If all I planned to do with the card was game, I wouldn't even consider the 5090. I've got the money but buying one of these doesn't seem like a very smart purchase. It's not something I will be bragging about on the internet either. Owning a 5090 pretty much shows that you waste money on garbage products and allowed yourself to be ripped off because of FOMO.

Basically for $1000 you can get a 5080 that is 10FPS faster than a 4090 or you can pay $2000 and get a 5090 that is 20FPS faster than a 4090. That's what this looks like to me after more than two years of waiting. $100 dollars / 1FPS.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
No It's not a hard requirement.

But once you invest in the screen that does it, you become obsessed with making it work, as scaling it just looks like crap.

I've made the mistake of doing this three times now.

Back in 2005, I was an early adopter of 1920x1200. It performed so poorly with my then 6800GT that I just kind of stopped playing games for 4-5 years.

Then in 2009-2010 I started getting into things again. Made the same mistake again and became an early adopter of 2560x1600 and went through 8 new GPU's in 3 years before finally being able to get my hands on the 2013 6GB Titan, and getting a GPU that could finally meet my performance requirements.

And that was briefly OK, but then even the Titan started not doing it. That, and I got the itch to upgrade my monitor again, and was an early adopter of 4k in 2015, and I have been chasing acceptable framerates ever since. Single 980ti --> dual 980ti's --> Pascal Titan X

The Titan X did the trick for a little while, but two years later by 2018 it was starting to lose its luster. I wanted to jump on the 2080ti at launch, but I hesitated due to the "RTX Space Invaders" issue, and then by the time that seemed resolved, it was too late in the GPU cycle to invest in a high end GPU. (at least for me). I'd wait until next gen I said. Then the 3000 series came out and the pandemic and crypto conspired to make them unobtainable (at least at unscalped prices) so I passed on that generation as well, with the Pascal Titan X getting more and more tired, and less and less able to handle the 4k screen.

Over the years I actually "invented" a few methods to make up for the inability of my GPU to keep up. For a while I created a custom ultrawide 3840x1646 resolution (essentially 21:9 letterboxed in the center of the 4k screen). This allowed for a slight (over 20%) performance increase.

My first 4k screen was a 2015 Samsung JS9000 TV. It didn't have any VRR, so I was stuck at v-sync, so games that I couldn't get to maintain 60+fps, would drop down to 30fps like in the bad old days, or I would have to disable v-sync and deal with immersion breaking tearing all the time.

On the JS9000 TV I discovered it was a "world" TV compatible with European TV standards, so I could actually run it at 50hz. For a while there when I played through Deus Ex Mankind divided I actually played at my letterboxed 21:9 ultrawide vsynced at 50hz, just to get it to work.

Luckily My later 4k screens (first an Asus XG438Q, and now an LG C3 OLED TV) had VRR. That tech has really been a life changer. I can;t believe I waited so long to get a screen with either G-Sync or Free-Sync.

Anyway, eventually I broke down and paid somewhat scalpy prices for a high end custom 6900xt as I just couldn't wait anymore. (it was actually AIB MSRP, but it was one of those crazy expensive AIB pre-scalped models). That lasted for like 8 months, but it was not enough, because RT was more and more becoming a requirement, so I lucked out and was able to get my hands on a 4090 at close to (AIB scalpy) MSRP, and have been using that since.

But I still can't quite make my minimum requirements of never dropping below 60fps at 4k Ultra with no DLSS (scaling or frame gen) in many titles. Some are OK, but many not.

Which brings us to the 5000 series. $2k is a lot to pay for a 35% increase, but if that 35% (in regular non-path tracing titles, without DLSS) holds up in independent reviews I may just bite. I just don't want to fight acceptable framerates anymore. It's getting really tiring.

I just want a GPU that does it once and for all, and keeps me happy for at least a couple of years. Maybe the 5090 will be it? I hope so.

But yeah, sometimes I wish I had just stayed at a more reasonable 2560x1440 resolution. Life would have been easier that way. But I didn't, and so here we are.
Click to expand...
Image quality versus resolution has always been a compromise since the early days of 3D acceleration. You can game on a 4K display at 4K resolution with a RTX 4060, you just need to turn the image quality settings down until you hit a framerate that is acceptable to you. You can also still lower the resolution on LCD and OLED monitors, and the scaling for non-integer, non-native resolutions is pretty decent these days. I had to lower the resolution from 1600x1200 to 1280x960 on the almighty 8800 GTX in some games that didn't support SLI back in the day.
killroy67 said:
I would tend to agree, especially with PC gaming, I've been doing this for 30 years now and the last 4-5 years I've become disillusioned with the whole PC gaming industry. I had more fun back with my early builds, even my old 486/66, now it's you have to have a $2000 card to play a game at 1440p, next release it'll be $3000, we'll see if they buy them then. It's like after covid gamers just lost their minds. We need to go back to when we had the 780's, 980's, 1080's as the flagship, and the eventual release of the Titan series.
Click to expand...
Funny you mention the GTX 780 because second gen Kepler was the first one to not have the --80 card be the flagship, as the first Titan launched 3 months before the 780 did.
chameleoneel said:
They actually did show it. In a video, even. The 5090 at 4K with everything cranked including path tracing, was.....not even 30fps. It was about 27-ish.

DLSS Performance would then render the game at ~1080p. Which increases the framerate. Ray Reconstruction is a small framerate increase.
Then its upscaled back to 4K. Which actually has some non trivial overhead of a few frames. DLSS upscaling to 1440p which is nearly free.

So after that, the resulting framerate, gets 3 additional frames generated, per frame. Leading to the end result of about 250fps. If you do the math, that's 62.5 FPS as the framerate after DLLS Ray Reconstruction and upscaling, before framegen.
Click to expand...
Considering the 4090 gets around 15 FPS in that same location, 28 FPS is on the 5090 is not insignificant.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
There were plenty of stories about companies starting to reconsider doing all of their manufacturing in China after they were shut down and had supply shortages during the pandemic. I wonder if that is still in the works, or if everyone forgot about it as soon as supply got back to normal.
Click to expand...
I don't think supply ever got back to normal. Hell, there are routinely still barren shelves at my local grocery stores and some items are occasionally hard to get. If there's a sale there is never enough to go around. In all the years of my life, nothing like that had ever been a thing, until the damage that Biden's regime did to the world. It wasn't just the US that he cocked up.

In the past there was enough supply to get anything and enough competition or abundance that Nvidia couldn't push their artificial scarcity marketing tricks they have been banking on in recent years to drive prices to insane levels.
 
Last edited:
killroy67 said:
now it's you have to have a $2000 card to play a game at 1440p,
Click to expand...
I feel this is some FOMO building up if all settings are not set to max or something, people play perfectly fine at 1440p with a 6800xt gpu, people play perfectly fine around that resolution with a meager PS5 pro that cost $700 in total.

I have a 3070, I have 1440p and 4k monitors, game run fines... they choose by default ok setting that run and look quite good. The 9070xt will play game at 1440p perfectly fine will be my guess.
 
Who says, it is a reality for most games that you can max out settings and have a good time at 4K. Only minor exceptions exist and with courtesy of DLSS and FG it also looks great for the most part.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who are talking about this stuff actually have the hardware to share real experiences. I can’t see signatures in mobile version.
 
KickAssCop said:
Who says, it is a reality for most games that you can max out settings and have a good time at 4K. Only minor exceptions exist and with courtesy of DLSS and FG it also looks great for the most part.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who are talking about this stuff actually have the hardware to share real experiences. I can’t see signatures in mobile version.
Click to expand...
I’ve got a 4090, I think DLSS is amazing and FG is ass.

The only reason I’d want a 5090 (FE specifically) is I think it’s an engineering master piece
 
KickAssCop said:
Who says, it is a reality for most games that you can max out settings and have a good time at 4K. Only minor exceptions exist and with courtesy of DLSS and FG it also looks great for the most part.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who are talking about this stuff actually have the hardware to share real experiences. I can’t see signatures in mobile version.
Click to expand...

With that 4090 you're perfectly fine at 4K. I'm on an aging 3080ti and there are plenty of games that need more oomph at 4K.

I need a 5090 and I truly believe it will be a very 'future proof' card given that Nvidia are just playing around in their own field right now. AMD aren't even aiming to compete with a 4080 regular!

https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/gr...-is-fine-if-it-ends-up-being-the-right-price/

How long do you think it will take AMD to produce a card as fast as a 5090?
Or how long do you think it will take nvidia to beat it with a cheaper offering?

I'm saying 4 years from today, and I'll remember to come back to this thread in 4 years time! :p
 
pendragon1 said:
that. everyone expects to be able to max everything out when thats not the reality.
Click to expand...
Playing games with all settings maxed is great, but not always the case, I had to turn down several settings in Stalker2, mostly shadows but it still looks great. Is it really worth having a $2000+ card just to have shadows cranked up, who has time to look at them anyhow, especially a first person shooter.
 
Can the 5090 run Crysis at ultra and get over 60fps at 1080p? LOL That's all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top