Same here, games just aren’t as appealing as they used to be- is it the quality of games or me changing? I know micro-transactions and locked down content doesn’t appeal to me at all. Hard to know but there’s other hobbies that I enjoy more these days.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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
- Thread starter Epyon
- Start date
I've said this many times here, but I truly believe it's both games and myself changing. Games are geared more for online multiplayer than for single player anymore. I just don't find the appeal of newer games as much as I used to as I get older, so I won't be upgrading my 4090 anytime soon if at all.
Deadjasper
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,856
I just bought a used Nvidia Titan X off eBay for 100 bucks. Good enough for me.
Feels like 2023 and 2024 were fairly barren years for PC gaming with a few good titles, but not a massive amount. Personally I find myself playing more of my SP games on PS5 than my PC as there are quite a few interesting SP games that I haven't played through yet that I have in my PS5 library. I did upgrade my secondary with a 7900GRE (mostly for playing platformers, racing games and older games on my TV), but my main is still on a 3080 as it holds up OK due to lack of "must play" titles and the MP titles all run at several hundred FPS.
Only titles in the last few years that have been an issue on my 3080 is CyberPunk: Phantom Liberty and Alan Wake 2, but both are playable with some tuning of the settings. I will most likely get a 50 series card, but it will depend on pricing as there aren't any "must play" titles coming out for a long time for me. If I upgrade then it would most likely be a 5080, possibly a 5090 if the performance gap is massive and the 5090 makes path-tracing a reality at 4k without DLSS.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,431
The AAA studios Seem to have either forgotten or to be unwilling to make good games these days
Most AA or indie games do not require cards like 5080 or 5090 or even 4090. So for those of us who don't plan on buying triple-a studio games, there coesn't seem to be much reason to spend that kind of money on a video card.
Most AA or indie games do not require cards like 5080 or 5090 or even 4090. So for those of us who don't plan on buying triple-a studio games, there coesn't seem to be much reason to spend that kind of money on a video card.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 15,853
Then don't. No one is forcing you to pay that kind of money.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,877
There's still good stuff to be played that a 5090 can be put to work for. With Ray tracing, mods, maxed out Ultra settings, 1% lows that could beat the 144 minimums I'm looking for. Have a 240Hz monitor? You'd absolutely want that 5090.
Personally I'd start a new game with Cyberpunk 2077. Didn't get too far into that one but I liked it well enough and plan to go back. I'm playing Hogwarts Legacy right now, it could utilize something stronger. Sure DLSS Quality looks great with excellent performance but go native 4k and watch those frames drop into the 80s. Plenty of titles I'm sure people have in the backlog. I've got RDR2, God of War, a few others.
I will say, if it's $2500 I'm expecting 60%+ gains over the 4090. But my bet is on a $1999 MSRP and a more conservative boost. We'll see. It will be tough to resist for many of us come launch day.
If you've got the display for it, there will be a tangible use for it. PC gaming, uh, finds a way.
Personally I'd start a new game with Cyberpunk 2077. Didn't get too far into that one but I liked it well enough and plan to go back. I'm playing Hogwarts Legacy right now, it could utilize something stronger. Sure DLSS Quality looks great with excellent performance but go native 4k and watch those frames drop into the 80s. Plenty of titles I'm sure people have in the backlog. I've got RDR2, God of War, a few others.
I will say, if it's $2500 I'm expecting 60%+ gains over the 4090. But my bet is on a $1999 MSRP and a more conservative boost. We'll see. It will be tough to resist for many of us come launch day.
If you've got the display for it, there will be a tangible use for it. PC gaming, uh, finds a way.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 3,690
Honestly feeling like it might get a fair bit or rejection if it is $2000 or $2500 like the 4080 did. At least that's what I'm hoping for. Also the 4090 was way more desirable at the time because 4k desperately needed the 4090. I don't feel it's the same desperation with the 5090. It would be more of a luxurious purchase like going for a Lamborghini when a Corvette is more than fast enough for 95% of everyone. Sure faster and more power is better but one would ask themselves do I really need that 16 cylinder Bugatti Veyron? Or should I just chill in the Vette? Being reasonable seems the smarter choice and Nvidias new GPU prices are actually literally NOT reasonable lol.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 5,295
Which games apart from CP 2077 and Alan Wake II would make use of >~40% performance increase over a 4090 (what I'm guessing 5090 will provide)? As for Hogwarts dropping to 80s FPS when playing all cranked with no DLSS, I think your notion of what is "good" is higher than most, even among enthusiasts. And RDR2, GOW... you can get >80FPS on a 4080/7900xtx at 4k and highest IQ in those games. FS 2024...?
I'm normally a warhawk for performance in new gens, but I just don't see the need, less so than any gen over the past 30 years. Spending $2000-2500 on a new card considering performance available in current gen cards vs the current software requirements just doesn't add up -- that dog don't hunt. I presume this was the same equation AMD did that, in part, rationalized the cancellation of Navi 48 Big.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,877
I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. 3090 to 4090 was a giant leap for 4k/144hz gaming. I HAD to get one, I was obsessed. 5090? Not so much. I prefer TVs to monitors so I don’t even have a 240Hz option in OLED right now. I get the diminishing returns thing. And the fact most new games these days suck.
What's funny too about Hogwarts, is I actually think DLSS Quality with a bit of sharpening looks BETTER than native 4k. I could barely tell the difference, if at all. What I did see was the FPS counter go way down.
I guess all I'm sayin' is... my minimum framerate using DLSS would probably never dip below 144 using a 5090. Gameplay might be a little smoother. I could turn on RT and not notice the slowdown. There would be small, tangible differences I would notice. Now would that justify the upgrade and spending the money? Nope, probably not. Certainly not in the way that the 4090 was justified two years ago.
What's funny too about Hogwarts, is I actually think DLSS Quality with a bit of sharpening looks BETTER than native 4k. I could barely tell the difference, if at all. What I did see was the FPS counter go way down.
I guess all I'm sayin' is... my minimum framerate using DLSS would probably never dip below 144 using a 5090. Gameplay might be a little smoother. I could turn on RT and not notice the slowdown. There would be small, tangible differences I would notice. Now would that justify the upgrade and spending the money? Nope, probably not. Certainly not in the way that the 4090 was justified two years ago.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 2,266
I wont bother with any new big nvidia gpus unless they can beat the old titan v in double (fp64) math. AI and gaming don't need fp64 precision and it shows. Which is why avx512 is so exciting to me.
Love my PG32UQX. Even though there are newer monitors out there, this one is still amazing for the work I do. I will continue to use this monitor until it dies.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,662
I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. 3090 to 4090 was a giant leap for 4k/144hz gaming. I HAD to get one, I was obsessed. 5090? Not so much. I prefer TVs to monitors so I don’t even have a 240Hz option in OLED right now. I get the diminishing returns thing. And the fact most new games these days suck.
What's funny too about Hogwarts, is I actually think DLSS Quality with a bit of sharpening looks BETTER than native 4k. I could barely tell the difference, if at all. What I did see was the FPS counter go way down.
I guess all I'm sayin' is... my minimum framerate using DLSS would probably never dip below 144 using a 5090. Gameplay might be a little smoother. I could turn on RT and not notice the slowdown. There would be small, tangible differences I would notice. Now would that justify the upgrade and spending the money? Nope, probably not. Certainly not in the way that the 4090 was justified two years ago.
I continue to be amazed by DLSS. When v2.0 came out, only the Quality mode looked acceptable to me, and just barely. But now fast forward 4 years later with v3.7, even the Performance mode now looks fantastic to my eyes. I can only tell a difference vs native 4K if I'm actually pixel peeping the small details, in actual gameplay where I'm not focused on doing that then the image looks pretty much like a 4K image. Nvidia truly has some black magic with DLSS.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2019
- Messages
- 1,812
Honestly, it is amazing for gaming still as well. I also plan to keep using it as my main until it either dies, or there is something substantially better in terms of color, refresh rate and brightness to dethrone this thing. This monitor pretty much checked all the graphics whore gaming boxes for me when I got it... lol
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 966
Day 1 for me if it can play crysis. ez
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,180
Everyone saying ridiculous stuff like "When would you need more than a 4090?"
Bro, can you run Cyberpunk at 100% max settings at 8K Native 480FPS? No? Then there will always be a further target. Not to mention, the 4090 can't run TODAY's games at max 4K 480FPS, let alone tomorrow's games.
There was an era of gaming where 1600x1200 was considered absolutely LUXURIOUS and 45-60FPS was the target FPS. Nowadays 60FPS is my MINIMUM FPS at 3840x2160, any lower and I get angry. People used to aim for 60FPS in Counterstrike Source, but now pros don't settle for anything below 240Hz and several hundred FPS in CS2.
"Why would you ever want more performance than a 1080Ti?"
"What games won't run well on a 9800GT?"
"In what world is a Ti 4800 not good enough?"
Bro, can you run Cyberpunk at 100% max settings at 8K Native 480FPS? No? Then there will always be a further target. Not to mention, the 4090 can't run TODAY's games at max 4K 480FPS, let alone tomorrow's games.
There was an era of gaming where 1600x1200 was considered absolutely LUXURIOUS and 45-60FPS was the target FPS. Nowadays 60FPS is my MINIMUM FPS at 3840x2160, any lower and I get angry. People used to aim for 60FPS in Counterstrike Source, but now pros don't settle for anything below 240Hz and several hundred FPS in CS2.
"Why would you ever want more performance than a 1080Ti?"
"What games won't run well on a 9800GT?"
"In what world is a Ti 4800 not good enough?"
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,662
All of my friends said the 3090 is plenty of performance and they don't need anything faster. Every single one of them upgraded to a 4090. Despite all the bitching about prices, I bet the majority of people here who claim they are plenty happy with their 4090 will end up buying a 5090 and the excuse will be that they bought it because it isn't $2500 like this bullshit rumor pricing says it will be. I've already seen this scenario play out before, my buddies all thought the 4090 was gonna be $2500 because the 3090 Ti was $2000 so when it turned out the price was $1600, they all jumped on it.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,180
Good point with the pricing, except that the pressures that made the 3090 Ti cost $2000 were no longer present when the 4090 was released.
However, the pressures keeping the 4090 SOLD OUT at $1600 are still present, and don't look to be going anywhere until the AI bubble bursts.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,662
I don't expect the 5090 to be $1600. There will absolutely be a price increase for next gen no doubt about that. But $2500 is just silly. Not saying we won't get to $2500 eventually with future generations, just not for the 5090.
![Zarathustra[H]](/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1723407683){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,322
While, if this is true, it does indeed piss me off, it really is the only thing that makes sense.
Supply is seriously constrained at the latest node fab level, with the likes of TSMC not having enough manufacturing capacity to sell to everyone who wants it, and not able to expand fast enough to satiate demand (and also worried about expanding too fast, for fear of the bottom falling out of the market.
This leaves Nvidia locked in with whatever capacity they could get when bidding against the likes of AMD, Apple, Qualcomm and now Intel.
They have a limited number of manufactured wafers to use, and they can't get more no matter how hard they try, because world supply is world supply.
Every mm^2 of wafer capacity they use to manufacture enterprise/compute/AI products makes them 10x-20x more money than if that same mm^2 were used to manufacture consumer video cards, even at these elevated prices.
Honestly, we are lucky the likes of Nvidia, AMD and Intel are throwing us a bone at all considering how much more money they could all make if they just said "fuck gaming consumer graphics, we are only manufacturing enterprise AI solutions from now on".
The biggest mystery here is why they keep selling consumer products at all, considering the opportunity cost compared to Enterprise/AI.
My guess would be that they simply stay in the consumer market as a hedge against the bottom falling out of AI, so that if/when that happens they still have something to sell.
If the top end cards come out at this price level I will have to think long and hard about it. I don't play games as much as I used to, but I was an early adopter of large screen 4k, and going back from that superior experience would be difficult to impossible at this point.
Every time things get more expensive, I try to put it in perspective. I like my hobby, and having a boat or a project car would be way more expensive, so it's not that bad in the grand scheme of things, right?
Supply is seriously constrained at the latest node fab level, with the likes of TSMC not having enough manufacturing capacity to sell to everyone who wants it, and not able to expand fast enough to satiate demand (and also worried about expanding too fast, for fear of the bottom falling out of the market.
This leaves Nvidia locked in with whatever capacity they could get when bidding against the likes of AMD, Apple, Qualcomm and now Intel.
They have a limited number of manufactured wafers to use, and they can't get more no matter how hard they try, because world supply is world supply.
Every mm^2 of wafer capacity they use to manufacture enterprise/compute/AI products makes them 10x-20x more money than if that same mm^2 were used to manufacture consumer video cards, even at these elevated prices.
Honestly, we are lucky the likes of Nvidia, AMD and Intel are throwing us a bone at all considering how much more money they could all make if they just said "fuck gaming consumer graphics, we are only manufacturing enterprise AI solutions from now on".
The biggest mystery here is why they keep selling consumer products at all, considering the opportunity cost compared to Enterprise/AI.
My guess would be that they simply stay in the consumer market as a hedge against the bottom falling out of AI, so that if/when that happens they still have something to sell.
If the top end cards come out at this price level I will have to think long and hard about it. I don't play games as much as I used to, but I was an early adopter of large screen 4k, and going back from that superior experience would be difficult to impossible at this point.
Every time things get more expensive, I try to put it in perspective. I like my hobby, and having a boat or a project car would be way more expensive, so it's not that bad in the grand scheme of things, right?
Last edited:
Word is the 4090 was already discontinued. 4080/Super is next if it isn't already.
Wafer capacity isn't actually the limiting factor in production of NV's high end datacenter GPUs. They're limited by TSMC's CoWoS advanced packaging capacity, which simpler products like consumer video cards don't need. Intel isn't limited by TSMC CoWoS either. They have their own Foveros packaging technology, and assemble the packages themselves for Meteor Lake, Lunar Lake, Arrow Lake, and Xeons.
I don't see where this "they're going to quit consumer products" thinking is coming from. Sure they'll prioritize the datacenter stuff, but consumer volumes are just massive. 1.3 billion smartphones per year, 240 million PCs, lots of other gizmos, etc. Apple does a couple hundred million iPhones a year. Consumer gaming GPUs are a drop in the bucket compared to phones and PC cpus, but they're still a profitable business and likely a more profitable use of wafers than low end phones and computers.
Wafer capacity isn't actually the limiting factor in production of NV's high end datacenter GPUs. They're limited by TSMC's CoWoS advanced packaging capacity, which simpler products like consumer video cards don't need. Intel isn't limited by TSMC CoWoS either. They have their own Foveros packaging technology, and assemble the packages themselves for Meteor Lake, Lunar Lake, Arrow Lake, and Xeons.
I don't see where this "they're going to quit consumer products" thinking is coming from. Sure they'll prioritize the datacenter stuff, but consumer volumes are just massive. 1.3 billion smartphones per year, 240 million PCs, lots of other gizmos, etc. Apple does a couple hundred million iPhones a year. Consumer gaming GPUs are a drop in the bucket compared to phones and PC cpus, but they're still a profitable business and likely a more profitable use of wafers than low end phones and computers.
I am trying to target min 100fps right now at 4k. With 4k240 oleds coming I will be targeting 200fps+ at 4k soon.
arthur_tuxedo
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 842
I think you’re putting too much emphasis on the x90 designation, which is just a marketing name. 5090 is a bigger card than 4090. It’s not just a process/architecture upgrade like 4080 -> 5080. It’s basically +80-100% the 5080 instead of +50% like 4080->4090, so it has to be compared to a missing “4090 Ti” that NV was never forced to make due to lack of competition.
NV wants to ride the AI bubble as long as the market will allow, which means that until the bubble bursts, they have no incentive to sell gaming cards at prices most gamers will pay. They’re basically going to paper launch the 50x0 series at $1,200 for the 5080 and $2,500 for the 5090, IMO, knowing that sales quantity will be relatively low. Then they can bring prices down for gamers if the demand for GPU compute dries up, effectively hedging their bet on AI.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
They already are here
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,662
Guess we'll find out in 2 more months (CES 2025).
They are indeed. I'm just waiting for 2nd gen before I buy.They already are here
Still not sure how tariffs for video cards will be handled in 2025. From what I could find, if assembled in China, it will be hit and hit hard as in 25%+ if I am not mistaken. Will the manufacturers that use China for assembly find better cost savings elsewhere? Be ready to transition and already have? So pricing may be much higher than what people would want from top down with GPUs.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/us-to-resume-trump-era-tariffs-on-graphics-cards-assembled-in-china
If Nvidia remains dominant in AI, besides it is sticking and growing as time goes on, will need their hardware used and available for developers and users as well as profitable for developers to create that eco system. Plus like Apple of old putting Apple 2c's in virtually every classroom, getting kids, students, parents use to that era computing and Apple mindset - helped them to remain relevant even during hard times and now with a huge footprint. I see it smart for Nvidia to stay dominant in the consumer market to keep their hardware relevant over time. You don't give up your marketing lead and dominance without a good fight. Yes AI may make them way more money now but that AI has a base and a reason why Nvidia is where they are at. Also reminds me of Intel of last generations of pure dominance for decades, did not restrict themselves to a more lucrative server market only, X86 had to remain dominant for them to thrive. When most software was written for X86 and you virtually have a monopoly on it, not hard to sell tons of CPUs.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/us-to-resume-trump-era-tariffs-on-graphics-cards-assembled-in-china
If Nvidia remains dominant in AI, besides it is sticking and growing as time goes on, will need their hardware used and available for developers and users as well as profitable for developers to create that eco system. Plus like Apple of old putting Apple 2c's in virtually every classroom, getting kids, students, parents use to that era computing and Apple mindset - helped them to remain relevant even during hard times and now with a huge footprint. I see it smart for Nvidia to stay dominant in the consumer market to keep their hardware relevant over time. You don't give up your marketing lead and dominance without a good fight. Yes AI may make them way more money now but that AI has a base and a reason why Nvidia is where they are at. Also reminds me of Intel of last generations of pure dominance for decades, did not restrict themselves to a more lucrative server market only, X86 had to remain dominant for them to thrive. When most software was written for X86 and you virtually have a monopoly on it, not hard to sell tons of CPUs.
I can't help but not feel the need to be the guy who can run everything at max settings anymore. At 200+fps I'm not paying attention to the details anyway, things are sharp and fancy enough. I just don't see the draw for such highly priced hardware with such minimal overall gain. The devil is in the details, satisfaction is a personal decision that doesn't have to compare to others.
I agree. The older I get the less it becomes necessary, though my main rig will last a while I'm sure at some point it won't be able to handle things at ultra settings.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,697
I'm just enjoying the show. Seeing how well my 1080 Ti held up after all these years was nice, but seeing how a 3080 kicks ass, I can't imagine how crazy the 5090 is gonna be, besides the price, that is.
That is one good thing is while lower end card prices have gone up, so has their performance. While I love my 4090, it is 100% not needed to enjoy games. My laptop 3070 (which is more like a 3060-3060Ti level performance) does great for games. No, it can't turn up the details all the way but it turns out games still look great at more moderate settings. It is not the case that you need to get the highest end GPU to have a good time, and I'm sure that'll be even more the case with the next gen.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 1,388
I don't know, we reached a new level of lower level stagnation in the 40-series to be honest. 60-class cards have already kinda stagnated on raw performance. The 3060 was marginally better than the 2060, and the 4060 marginal on the 3060 with a cut down memory bus/capacity. Really the only thing advancing at that level still is perhaps the support for newer DLSS tech, and RT cores. The 4070 likewise was not even quite as good as a 3080, but features more vram, newer RT and DLSS.
It's not what it used to be when the 60-class card used to match the previous generation 80-class card on performance. We are not seeing that anymore.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,322
Maxwell (2015) or Pascal (2016)? (I hate when companies use the same product name for technically different products. It should be illegal)
I had a Pascal Titan X from launch in 2016 until 2021, at which point it was starting to feel seriously dated, but I was using it to try to power through 4k, At 1080p it could probably still work OK. As long as you don't need or want RT or DLSS.
They were both brilliant at launch, but time is not kind to GPU's.
A Titan X (Pascal) sits between a Radeon RX 6600 XT and an Intel Arc 750 in performance these days. OK for low-mid 1080p performance without RT or DLSS.
A Titan X (Maxwell) is going to sit between a 980ti and a 1660 Super. The same limitations regarding RT and DLSS will be there, but it will lag significantly behind in raw power, performing just over half as fast (wow, I forgot how much difference there was between those two generations)
Still, for a hundred bucks, it's tough to get a better bang for the buck than that. Though to be fair, if you consider total cost (including the rest of the system, and the power use over the period of use) maybe a new lower end card at a similar performance level would save some money.
You could get a brand new Radeon RX 7600 (non-XT) for $239 (probably less if you shop around). It will run cooler and quieter at a fraction of the power level (165W), require a cheaper lower power PSU, cost less in electricity over its use period, as well as being twice as fast as a Maxwell Titan X and maybe 10-15% faster than a Pascal Titan X.
Initial outlay is twice as much, but total cost considering everything might be lower over its life.
If you prefer Nvidia, the cost is a little bit higher (~$295), but a 4060 will be similar, and it uses even less power than the RX 7600 at only 120W.
That kind of improvement couldn't hold for long, new nodes just aren't good enough and we already are reaching the limits of power that people want to throw at their card. The big jumps were achieved by doing everything: Putting the chip on a smaller node to allow for more transistors in a given area AND by making the chip larger and more power hungry with even more transistors AND by making the rendering more efficient when possible.
There's limits to all those.
Nodes just aren't shrinking at the pace they used to. Yes I know TSMC and Intel keep using small numbers but the number of the node has long since been divorced from the reality of the size it actually is. So you don't get as much of an improvement moving to a new node as you used to. Likewise, there's just only so much you can scale the size and thus power. Bigger chips cost more, making them a problem particularly at the "60" level and there's just only so much power draw, big coolers that people are willing to accept. Ya a high end gamer might be ok with the obscene 3+ slot coolers you see on high end cards, not everyone has a system they can put that in. Finally, it isn't like you can just magically come up with optimizations to rendering. It takes work and creativity and every time you squeeze more out of it it gets harder to find more things to do. A good example there was tile based rendering. nVidia introduced that to GeForce cards with the 900 series and it did indeed make things faster and more efficient... but it isn't like they can introduce it again, it is there and new cards use it. That improvement has been applied.
The thing is, even with generational improvements slowing down, games already look pretty great. While they for sure can look even better on high end hardware, I'm a huge path tracing fan and you need a chonk to do that, they look good at lower settings on lower end cards. While I like playing at 4k DLAA, high frame rate, with all the details turned up, I actually find games still look good when I have to switch to my laptop and drop to 1440 DLSS quality (or lower), and details set to a more medium setting. That's my point is that it isn't a situation where you have to have the high end to enjoy things, or where it is completely different if you do.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,939
GeForce GTX Titan X = Maxwell
NVIDIA Titan X = Pascal
Also, keep in mind that the $2,000 - $2,500 is MSRP is really like $3,000 - $4,500.
After all, you have to pay taxes on the money you earn, don't you?
Say you make $50 an hour...$4,500 divided by $50 is 90 hours of work lol
Even if you make $100,000 a year it's hard to justify working 90 hours just for a GPU. The only people buying these GPUS are going to be bitcoin bros who made millions from it or guys still living in their parent's basement who don't have to pay rent or hell don't even own a car.
If people have enough disposable income and want it then what is the issue with them buying it and why would it be hard to justify?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 2,266
What about the people making 400k?
Deadjasper
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,856
The heart wants what the heart wants.