$2500 5090 I’m out

[Deleted member 346393]

Thank heavens I'm not starting this hobby now and I actually got to see and experience the beginning of PC gaming and some of the greatest games and hardware. I think it's a new age of gaming and hardware and my best years are behind me. Im not sure if I'll build another gaming rig, I may just upgrade what I have, new cpu, gpu if I can afford one, and probably a lower card like a 6070. At this point I have more interest in going back to my roots and buying a retro rig and playing some of those awesome DOS games and early Windows 95/98 games. Believe it or not I still have my copies of Windows 95 and 98SE.

I've been spending much of my gaming time with Retroarch and revisting the classics. Just finished a full playthrough of Konami's Rush N Attack

 

[Epyon]

The 3090 to 4090 for $1500 was justified, for that price you were getting a massive performance upgrade, almost 70%.

But to pay $2,000+ whooping dollars for just 25% to 30% is absolutely ridiculous, and braindead stupid. Unless your a billionaire like Phony Stark and 2 grand is just sitting in your sock drawer as if it's pennies for normal folks LOL.

But again need wait for real reviews and benchmarks to truly see the performance "upgrade". And not with DLSS or AI gimmicks, just raw performance in games at ultra game settings.

To me a video card is just for gaming that's it. What else could I possibly do with a video card besides game on it?

AI work? I don't even know what that means. Or do people use these for like computer animation if you' work for Pixar or Disney as an artist or something?

I am one of those people. Houdini 3d rendering. Still wish it had more cuda cores.

 

[undertaker2k8]

Once you have seen bay area real estate all of this becomes a joke...but I admittedly digress.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

So which model of the 5090 will you be purchasing?

I like the full waterblocked 5090 waterforce they showed at CES at the Gigabyte booth, but am I going to throw $2500 at it? No way lol. I play Marvel Rivals competitively, not triple AAA titles. I'm telling you bro I'm not drinking the cool aid this time for $2500. If it was the same price at the 4090 just like the 5080 and 5070 are priced similarly to last gen maybe considering I sold my 4090 for 1800. Actually you know what I will get a 5090, in a year or two for a less than $1500 when it's price falls eventually when Jenson pulls his next heist on all the gamers in just about 2 years, I can wait, not paying early adopters tax this time for the first time in 15 years. Heck I think I'm going to invest in some gold in the meanwhile It's price should just increase over time, unlike the 5090 lol.

 

[WilyKit]

It seems invetiable that we will get smaller and smaller performance increases from hardware improvements for a higher and higher price. Moores law can't go on forever. Improvements to software (read DLSS) will eventually be where the improvements come from. Certainly this will happen within our lifetimes.

Maybe maybe not. GPUs aren’t CPUs. It wasn’t Moores law that forced Nvidia to give a 30% bump to GPU components responsible for raster performance, it was a design decision.

 

[Sir Beregond]

30-35% though still speculation, but still seems odd to consider it "only" 30% when factoring what was typical for past gens.

But seeing this only through a gaming lens may overlook what has professional markets salivating: the big boost in the memory department, a magic metric for AI/LLM stuff in particular. When I OC memory on a 4090, local LLM's (OpenLLaMa) and certain CUDA apps like AI video upscaling will see performance improve linearly with more memspeed.

33% more VRAM, clocked 33% higher, for a net +78% in raw bandwidth. That's significant. L2 cache size is still TBD but may impact this further. $1999 is a lot of money if 5090 is used as a toy, but it's white-hot for compute, AI, professional applications.

View attachment 703124

100%. Almost as hot as a $2 pistol for the AI, compute, professional market looking to upgrade 3090's or even 4090's. Given they've likely made money off of what those cards provided them, the $2k will be seen as a steal compared to Nvidia's other offerings for said market.

 

[harmattan]

Many can scale very high in graphics quality while having settings to still run on potatoes. Dunr awakening is one of them.

On release, Age of Conan was one of the first games using DX10, actually used its new features, and was very demanding. It really needed SLI or Crossfire to run well.

 

[Sir Beregond]

It seems invetiable that we will get smaller and smaller performance increases from hardware improvements for a higher and higher price. Moores law can't go on forever. Improvements to software (read DLSS) will eventually be where the improvements come from. Certainly this will happen within our lifetimes.

Buying the next gen card will be buying into the next gen software update.

The 5090 has 32gb of gddr7 and 92,000 million transistors, fe is 2000 retail.
The 4090 has 24gb of gddr6 and 76,300 million transistors. fe is 1600 retail.

So thats a 20.6% increase in transistor count and 33.3% increase in ram capacity. I am waiting for offical reviewers to give the performance increase to get a real sense of that. Price increase is 25%.

Here's the thing, you have approximately the same density of transistors and you're getting a much bigger die area and more memory and faster memory. I don't know what Nvidia could have done differently to make this crowd happy with the price increase. I don't see price gouging here as it seems a fair price increase over the 4090.

Just my .02...

As much as I don't like it, the $2000 MSRP actually makes sense to me for a variety of reasons:

• GDDR7 is almost certainly more expensive than GDDR6X, and they will be using 8GB more of it than they used of G6X on the 4090. The memory alone is going to me a lot more expensive in the overall cost of manufacturing the card
• Because its still on 5nm, but moving from 4N to 4NP, the die size had to increase to over 700mm2. From what I saw it's just barely shy of TU102 size (used in the 2080 Ti, Titan RTX). This will also add cost due to smaller yields per wafer
• That said, 5nm is a mature node at this point and yields are probably good, so was not a reason to increase price substantially more than what they did
• ...and lastly, Nvidia I am sure wants to maintain the same margins they did in previous gens for the 90-class. Honestly, the price could have been much much worse, so the fact they priced it $1999, tells me its probably down to material cost increase to make and wanting to keep same margins

Maybe maybe not. GPUs aren’t CPUs. It wasn’t Moores law that forced Nvidia to give a 30% bump to GPU components responsible for raster performance, it was a design decision.

It'll be interesting to see what everything below the 5090 looks like given they aren't vastly different in CUDA core count vs their 40-series counterparts, frankly 30-series too. Granted we will have architectural differences, but notice power also increased, so I will be interested to see that.

 

[GoldenTiger]

On release, Age of Conan was one of the first games using DX10, actually used its new features, and was very demanding. It really needed SLI or Crossfire to run well.

Pepperidge Farms remembers . Herald of Xotii reporting in (I think that's the right name!).

 

[evhvis]

The 3090 to 4090 for $1500 was justified, for that price you were getting a massive performance upgrade, almost 70%.

But to pay $2,000+ whooping dollars for just 25% to 30% is absolutely ridiculous, and braindead stupid. Unless your a billionaire like Phony Stark and 2 grand is just sitting in your sock drawer as if it's pennies for normal folks LOL.

But again need wait for real reviews and benchmarks to truly see the performance "upgrade". And not with DLSS or AI gimmicks, just raw performance in games at ultra game settings.

To me a video card is just for gaming that's it. What else could I possibly do with a video card besides game on it?

AI work? I don't even know what that means. Or do people use these for like computer animation if you' work for Pixar or Disney as an artist or something?

The big upgrade is the 32GB ram as the 5090 is more of a prosumer card than a gamer card and the extra ram is a big deal for other use cases. The 5090 probably pays for itself within a week in some businesses while others recoup the cost in a few months due to higher work throughput and less waiting. Some gamers buy them to run the latest games at max speed and to have the latest and greatest which is also fine.

The pricing is fine for the 5090 IMO and the only reason people are pissed at it is FOMO on e-penis++. There are plenty other cards you can buy that are good at prices seem to be quite a bit better overall on this gen compared to the launch of the 4000/7000 series. The 5080 is the highest tier pure gaming model with enough performance to satisfy 99.999% of gamers and the rest can deal with the extra cost or get realistic goals on how their PC must perform compared to their income. Being mad because top tier performance is expensive is kinda dumb IMO when reasonable performance finally is starting to become affordable again. If people get a 5090 then it is nice for them and you should be happy for them, just as you should be happy for someone getting a 9070 or a 5070.

I'm still stuck on my 3080 as there haven't been more than 3-4 titles that have been an issue and I am waiting for both benchmark and games that I want to play to see what I want to upgrade to. Atm. it is looking like a 5080, even if I can afford a 5090 just fine, because I base it on what I need to get good enough performance. Granted I would like to be able to do PT with DLAA, but it seems unlikely in this gen so might as well just get plenty good instead of more than I need 99% of the time. Lack of games that I want to play on PC is also another factor for me. Only like 2-3 games of interest in 2025 for PC, the rest I will do on consoles.

 

[Zorachus]

Yet, you will soon draw the wrath and fire of all the H.A.R.D.O.C.P. ers that somehow justify this new pricing model, and how your gamer card needs to be revoked because you have the gall to question these "enthusiasts".

There are some longtime members here who seem to simply play games 24/7 based on what I've seen in the years I've been on this forum, and for those guys I guess a 2k video card can make sense, but for the average gamer spending 2k on a video card is beyond my ability to understand.

Pretty much. Yep.

My gaming time lately is just World of Warcraft several nights a week for 45 to 60 minutes each night.

And that's about it. Maybe some Doom Eternal for half-hour here and there, or Boltgun ( Boomer shooter ) a bit.

But that's about all I play lately. I game 3 to 4 nights a week an hour or so before bedtime, and maybe a bit more on weekends if I have time, but that's not that often.

There's just no cool new games out for me that I'm interested in. Looking forward to Doom Dark Ages and Battlefield 6, that's it.

I only build my computers purely for entertainment, gaming and watching YouTube clips and reading online, never used it or need it for work whatsoever.

 

[killroy67]

Looking forward to Doom Dark Ages and Battlefield 6, that's it.

I'm really looking forwards to Borderlands 4 myself, also Battlefield 6, maybe the new Doom as long as it's like the first one, Doom Eternal I found was just way to stressful, always being on the verge of running out of ammo or health. i think my current rig and 4080 will be just fine with upcoming games, especially if DLSS4 is as good as claimed. I think it will be a big bonus for 4080 and 4090 users.

 

[Deleted member 346393]

Pretty much. Yep.

My gaming time lately is just World of Warcraft several nights a week for 45 to 60 minutes each night.

And that's about it. Maybe some Doom Eternal for half-hour here and there, or Boltgun ( Boomer shooter ) a bit.

But that's about all I play lately. I game 3 to 4 nights a week an hour or so before bedtime, and maybe a bit more on weekends if I have time, but that's not that often.

There's just no cool new games out for me that I'm interested in. Looking forward to Doom Dark Ages and Battlefield 6, that's it.

I only build my computers purely for entertainment, gaming and watching YouTube clips and reading online, never used it or need it for work whatsoever.

Similar profile as mine except I game on a crazy 180in triple plasma setup at 7080x3840 using Nvidia Surround. I have always been an enthusiast but pc gaming has lost it's shiny appeal for me and no matter how much shiny, new stuff I buy in the form of hardware the underlying decay of pc games is ever present!

That said, Im still looking forward to the next Doom and BF6.

 

[Zorachus]

Similar profile as mine except I game on a crazy 180in triple plasma setup at 7080x3840 using Nvidia Surround. I have always been an enthusiast but pc gaming has lost it's shiny appeal for me and no matter how much shiny, new stuff I buy in the form of hardware the underlying decay is ever present!

That said, Im still looking forward to the next Doom and BF6.

I remember clearly, when I built my new system exactly 2 years ago with nearly highest and hardware available at the time

I was so pumped up and excited to play all these games at Ultra Max settings on my new OLED monitor.

Then like couple months later was totally bored of all the games I thought I would like and barely use my computer and just went back to World of Warcraft a few nights a week and that's it.

I thought to myself damn I spent all this money and time building this badass PC gaming rig and I barely use it. It's still a very nice gaming rig today, and I only actually play games on it a few nights a week.

Hopefully Battlefield 6 is a good one and will get me hooked again.

Doom is the kind of game I'll play for 30 minutes or 1 hour at most and put it away for a few days and then go back to it.

Today's games just don't seem as cool as the old school games. Yeah they have the shiny new graphics but they lack soul and replayability compared to the classic Quake one or Quake 2 or old wolfenstein games

 

[Deleted member 346393]

Today's games just don't seem as cool as the old school games. Yeah they have the shiny new graphics but they lack solar replayability compared to the classic Quake one or Quake 2 or old wolfenstein games

Gaming is going though a similar phase as the rest of pop culture. Developers have nothing new to offer so everything is just a rehash and of poorer quality than in the past. Also, the most popular games seem to be made for people with ADHD.

 

[killroy67]

Gaming is going though a similar phase as the rest of pop culture. Developers have nothing new to offer so everything is just a rehash and of poorer quality than in the past. Also, the most popular games seem to be made for people with ADHD.

The best I've seen shooter wise in a while is Stalker2, great graphics and the monsters really scare the crap out of me! I'm hoping Borderland 4 is also another great game, I really enjoyed 2 and 3. We'll se about Battlefield 6, 5 was horrendous and 2042 was a disaster until they pretty much overhauled the whole game. I'm very excited at playing Half Life 2 RTX when it arrives, I consider it to be one of the best, and the graphics still look good to this day.

 

[evhvis]

Gaming is going though a similar phase as the rest of pop culture. Developers have nothing new to offer so everything is just a rehash and of poorer quality than in the past. Also, the most popular games seem to be made for people with ADHD.

The developers aren't the problem, it is the pencil pushers being very risk averse and stock holders wanting quick profit. Basically leads to lots of by the numbers games where a lot flop and some are wildly successful, but very little innovation. The innovation is mostly in indie titles and from a few large studios willing to take risks.

 

[Deleted member 346393]

The best I've seen shooter wise in a while is Stalker2, great graphics and the monsters really scare the crap out of me! I'm hoping Borderland 4 is also another great game, I really enjoyed 2 and 3. We'll se about Battlefield 6, 5 was horrendous and 2042 was a disaster until they pretty much overhauled the whole game. I'm very excited at playing Half Life 2 RTX when it arrives, I consider it to be one of the best, and the graphics still look good to this day.

Im still planning to get into Stalker 2. No time at the moment to really immerse myself.....

 

[Zorachus]

When do reviews come out?

 

[GoldenTiger]

When do reviews come out?

A day before launch.

 

[Zorachus]

A day before launch.

Thanks

 

[Zorachus]

So what's AMD doing this new 9xxx generation, sitting out the high-end GPU market, only making high-end CPU's?

I think AMD's new top video card will be on par with 4070 Ti / 4080 for a relatively affordable price?

 

[killroy67]

Battlefield is always my #1. I hope they use path tracing! Path tracing for Doom is confirmed.

Just my opinion but I think path tracing would kill Battlefield for frames, it's a game that you want good FPS, not struggling to get over 60 without turning on DLSS performance. Besides who has time to admire the scenery when you're busy trying not to die.

 

[Brackle]

Just my opinion but I think path tracing would kill Battlefield for frames, it's a game that you want good FPS, not struggling to get over 60 without turning on DLSS performance. Besides who has time to admire the scenery when you're busy trying not to die.

Yeah, I would have to agree. For fast paced games you want high framerate with no input latency. Something that Path tracing and FG would cause issues with.

 

[killroy67]

So what's AMD doing this new 9xxx generation, sitting out the high-end GPU market, only making high-end CPU's?

I think AMD's new top video card will be on par with 4070 Ti / 4080 for a relatively affordable price?

I bought a AMD 6900 XT and while it was a powerful card, it was terrible at ray tracing. Worst of all the drivers were terrible, always bugs, they pack so much crap into them it's not even funny. Unlike Nvidia where you can just install the driver and control panel (the real original CP) they basically make you have to install all the garbage you don't want as well.

 

[l88bastard]

I've been spending much of my gaming time with Retroarch and revisting the classics. Just finished a full playthrough of Konami's Rush N Attack

That game was the shit! I remember slogging through the NES version and drooling at the arcade version back in the day.

 

[XoR_]

I bought a AMD 6900 XT and while it was a powerful card, it was terrible at ray tracing. Worst of all the drivers were terrible, always bugs, they pack so much crap into them it's not even funny. Unlike Nvidia where you can just install the driver and control panel (the real original CP) they basically make you have to install all the garbage you don't want as well.

I had 6900XF for quite a while and did not experience much of any bugs. Not saying there are none but this "AMD drivers are terrible" without ever mentioning what was actually wrong seems ingenuine.

Myself what I think AMD needs to improve is:
1. Allowing to override AF in DX12/Vulkan games and not needing game to be started from their control center for DX11 games. Inability to force AF to 16x is a big issue for me.
2. Actually good upscaler - which is what FSR4 is supposed to be and from AMD Research Project demo it seems AMD has something good. Hopefully they don't screw it up.
3. Proper Reflex alternative - they already have it but so far adoption is quite bad compared to Nvidia. Maybe push game devs like Nvidia does? By push I mean support them more actively.

For now Nvidia provides better experience across the board except maybe rather dubious memory capacities at given price points - especially when it is Nvidia which push for memory heavy features only making their high end cards which are the only ones having good amount of memory more attractive.

 

[Deleted member 346393]

That game was the shit! I remember slogging through the NES version and drooling at the arcade version back in the day.

Played it almost everyday after school at a corner store arcade back in the summer of 85. I would sit in one spot and just knife ninjas as they came out and rack up huge points! Good times.....

 

[pippenainteasy]

Sadly, your probably correct.

Off topic, but how and why have CPU's not changed in price for like forever. They've actually come down in price.

20 years ago the top of the line processors were like $999, today they've almost the same price or cheaper. The 9800X3D is under $500 and a billion times better than a CPU from like 2005 era.

Benefits of off-shoring for sure, things were more expensive when things were made in America.

 

[XoR_]

Off topic, but how and why have CPU's not changed in price for like forever. They've actually come down in price.

Look at typical high-end CPU and typical high-end GPU - the latter is giant monster packed full with cooling and memory while CPU is just small rectangle with even less gold on it than they had in the past.

Besides CPUs do not increase performance nearly as much generation-wise as GPUs do.

If 5090 comes with only e.g. 33% performance improvement everyone will be sad and mad. 9800X3D is 27% faster in CB2024 and not even 10% faster in games (on average) with best available GPU running games at unusable 720p and people are buying the scalpers stock faster than they can get it.

There is demand for much faster hardware and not hardware that is barely faster that can be easily skipped. GPUs improve fast with new technologies coming all the time while CPUs performance improves slowly and any new technologies like additional instructions taking many years to be adopted and even decades to become actually necessary.

Then if AMD or Intel released CPU that is very expensive it would directly compete with older products.
Nvidia can increase prices by however they want because they at most compete with competition and older products... you can e.g. make feature not available on older GPUs and there, issue solved.

 

[sethk]

GPU makers (mainly Nvidia) have not restricted themselves to “what can I make for x dollars” the way desktop CPU has. If you want to see the same increasing size patterns look at server CPUs with 192 cores etc. that cost 5 figures.

 

[TheHig]

IMO they could just bring back the Titan and stop the gaming cards at the 80 Ti level. RTX 5000 Titan is 2 grand and a prosumer card that can game. The 80Ti is the top gaming focused card and has less and costs less. People get bent out of shape more it seems because the xx90 cards are insanely expensive for just gaming for most people to splash on.

However ,the marketing of Titan class cards to gamers who need to “stop being poor” really has been printing money for them with hype , FOMO and people’s insecurities.

 

[spine]

The thing is, people would be more upset if nvidia did an 'intel', and NEVER released a 5090 product in the desktop space until AMD finally, if ever, caught up.

At least nvidia don't wait for the market to catch up, instead just create their own market and charge accordingly. Prices could be WAY worse.

 

[killroy67]

Prices could be WAY worse.

Don't worry, they will be next release.

 

[harmattan]

Prices for 5090 and 5080 are starting to come to light with retailers here in the UK. In summary, pucker up butter cups. As expected, AIBs are tacking on a few hundred even for their bottom-rung models with additional fat added for retailers e.g. cheapest Zotac 5090 models will retail for $2400. This is for mainline retailers e.g. Best Buy, NewEgg equivalents that normally don't do big launch mark ups.

 

[Domingo]

Per their social media pages it looks like Microcenter is going the route of first-come-first-served with no online orders for pickup. In other words, I hope you have a comfy folding chair and some warm clothing. They haven't answered anything about their online store so I guess that could be an option. They haven't touched any questions about quantities, either.

 

[Armenius]

Nope.

Sure, I guess if you play old titles or e-sports titles designed to run on a 2009 Dell Inspiron laptop with integrated intel graphics, then its fine but most newer titles I've tried at 4k, the 4090 can't handle. (at least not without enabling DLSS fake pixels and fake frames)

I can get barely acceptable framerates in Cyberpunk with RT High, if - and only if - I enable DLSS scaling at Quality, which is an unacceptable sacrifice.

I required similar settings with Starfield. And the same with my test of Stalker2.

My take is DLSS (both upscaling and framegen) are things that should only ever be used out of desperation. You know, it's late in the lifecycle of your GPU and you are not ready to upgrade yet, so you enable DLSS to make it last a little longer. DLSS (or FSR or AMD's Frame Gen) should only ever be used as a Plan B.

If you are buying a GPU and planning to use DLSS out of the box, that is a major fail. Buy a GPU that can handle what you plan on using it for natively.

And that's why the 4090 is insufficient for me.

Yup. You're still operating on the expectations that you can run everything Ultra Max Overkill with absurd mods on the 4090 when that has never been the case for the top card going back to NVIDIA's first halo in the GeForce2 Ultra. Many a reviewer even back then were complaining about the "absurd" $500 price tag and not being able to justify it for the performance gains over the GeForce2 GTS 64MB.

The difference back then was parts were a lot cheaper, gpu's didn't cost thousands of dollars. I remember playing Hellbender, Fury3, Doom, on my 486/66 and Win95, oh man don't get me started with all the great DOS games ! C:/Doom.exe

I miss those days.

Cheaper? You were not able to run Doom at a locked 35 FPS with max windows size on a 486/66 DX2. You needed a Pentium to do that, and those cost more than $800 when they came out in 1993.

Those were great days, games were plentiful, and fun, I played so many titles back then, DOS and Win95 games, so many first person shooters came out then. Now it's maybe one or two, and you're lucky if you don't have to wait for 4-5 huge patches to play it. So yeah I would be more than happy to give all this fancy hardware up and go back to my first real gaming rig, a AMD K62 500 on a super socket 7, with a 3DFX Voodoo 2.

More than 14,000 games were released in 2024 alone. There were less than a thousand released in 1995, and only around 200 of those were released on PC.

I'd be interested in a poll thread to see what everyone's threshold is for buying a flagship card is. I bet most 4090 owners just don't care and would pay 5k+ for a card just to have it, even if the next fastest card was 90% as fast for less than half as much. For a lot of them, it's not even about the games, just about having the hardware.

$2,000 is my limit before tax, same for displays. The performance gains will have to be similar to the 3090 -> 4090 for me to think about buying a 5090.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein from 2001?

I love old Id shooter games, I recently played Quake 1 and 2 remaster last year and LOVED them. Now playing the "boomer shooter" Boltgun and it's better than most triple A game releases.

Boltgun isn't a boomer shooter. It's an arena shooter like Doom Eternal, just with pixelated graphics.

Read what I posted;

"So in 2023 you paid $1499 and got 60% to 70% of a performance upgrade.

But in 2025 you pay $2000+ and get a 30% "upgrade"

Not cool the way this is trending."


So your ok paying a higher price and get less of a performance upgrade? I'm not.

30% is people making assumptions based on the worst game example NVIDIA included in their graphs. You know that the 4090 was actually slower than the 3090 in Far Cry 6 at sub-4K resolution, and the uplift over the 3090 at 4K was only 40% when it was 70% or more in other games? That is why I call it an outlier.

 

[killroy67]

Cheaper? You were not able to run Doom at a locked 35 FPS with max windows size on a 486/66 DX2. You needed a Pentium to do that, and those cost more than $800 when they came out in 1993.

I don't know what the FPS was, but it was a 486/66 and Dimond Speedstar 2mb on a 19in CRT, it was run under DOS.

More than 14,000 games were released in 2024 alone. There were less than a thousand released in 1995, and only around 200 of those were released on PC.

I'm pretty much talking about first person shooters from 1995 up into the early 2000's, they seemed more plentiful back then. Now it seems like many more 3rd person shooters are being made.

 

[Armenius]

I don't know what the FPS was, but it was a 486/66 and Dimond Speedstar 2mb on a 19in CRT, it was run under DOS.

I'm pretty much talking about first person shooters from 1995 up into the early 2000's, they seemed more plentiful back then. Now it seems like many more 3rd person shooters are being made.

Well third-person wasn't really a thing until 3D. Fade to Black from 1995 is credited as the first third-person shooter as we know them today, and didn't get more until the late 1990s. I don't think there are necessarily fewer FPS games being made by comparison, just that the market is split more or less between them. They were definitely more of a console thing until the mid-2000s or thereabout.

 

[LukeTbk]

The difference back then was parts were a lot cheaper, gpu's didn't cost thousands of dollars. I remember playing Hellbender, Fury3, Doom, on my 486/66 and Win95, oh man don't get me started with all the great DOS games ! C:/Doom.exe

I feel this is quite the revisionist history, at least in Canada, IBM PS/1, 20mhz, 4MB of ram with the 14 inch CRT, Keyboard and mouse, MS-DOS-win 3.1, went for $3,300 Canadian dollars with the tax, that would be a $6000 dollars computer.

No gpu but, a sound blaster did cost a little fortune.

Even if you went the clone route:
http://www.thecatalogblog.com/2018/03/26/personal-computers-attack-of-the-clones/

33mhz 486DX very basic desktop started at $3,865 USD in today dollars, you can get a 2x2TB PCI 4 nvme + 7900xtx+9800x3d+64gb ddr5 much cheaper than that now.