• 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

NukeDukem said:
I started Elden Ring and ray tracing just wrecks performance. This could be my excuse to sell 4090 and pay the difference for 5090. Stalker 2, Elden Ring with RT, Hogwarts with RT, Cyberpunk with RT. I need that smooth 120-144 fps. 80 doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...

Oh trust me you won't be the only one who will suddenly find "excuses" to upgrade once the 5090 lands ;)
 
15-20 years ago we were just younger, Crysis was not really that good of a game (how much better than Elden Ring, Ghost of Tsushima, etc... are we talking about), I can imagine us at the time being nostalgic of the Medal of Honors-Unreal-Quake 3 era.

harmattan said:
On the indie and AA front, I would say the upcoming year will be more exciting -- and those games aren't likely going to be employing RT and PT in any significant way.
Click to expand...
Could be both ways, giant AAA could be less likely to do so, needing giant sales numbers (thus low hardware requirement) and having the money and tech to do really impressive things without it, GTA 6 for example, Call of Duty, easy to imagine them staying relatively RT-PT free for a long time, while a lot of low-mid budget Unreal 5 games could decide to save time and not do the 2 path and not bake shadow and light map with no RT off option, Robocop, Immortals of Aveum type of title.
 
LukeTbk said:
15-20 years ago we were just younger, Crysis was not really that good of a game (how much better than Elden Ring, Ghost of Tsushima, etc... are we talking about), I can imagine us at the time being nostalgic of the Medal of Honors-Unreal-Quake 3 era.


Could be both ways, giant AAA could be less likely to do so, needing giant sales numbers (thus low hardware requirement) and having the money and tech to do really impressive things without it, GTA 6 for example, Call of Duty, easy to imagine them staying relatively RT-PT free for a long time, while a lot of low-mid budget Unreal 5 games could decide to save time and not do the 2 path and not bake shadow and light map with no RT off option, Robocop, Immortals of Aveum type of title.
Click to expand...
I will admit that age does play a factor in why I enjoy so few games nowadays. Yet, the fact that Gen X and our taste in games is no longer the target audience of game developers cannot be dismissed. BTW, Crysis was a decent game and it's on the list because it made all of us "WANT" a new gpu. It was a technical powerhouse and really showcased the pc platform.
 
gtrguy said:
True story. I’m into guitars and mountain biking and while $2500 will get you a “decent” guitar, it’s not going to get you shit when it comes to mountain biking.
Click to expand...

That isn't an equivalent comparison. Those expensive, state of the art pieces of gear for those other hobbies will give back at that level of performance or enjoyment generally much longer than a GPU (or heck, an entire PC) will. You can spend 3k-4k on a system today (or when the 5090 releases) and it will be top dog for approximately 1.5-2 years? How long will your guitar or bike last, and keep putting out performance at the level when you got it, comparatively speaking? I think a lot longer. Possibly your whole life (although I'm sure it will require maintenance).

As far as resale value, it's hard to gauge. I'm assuming guitars can resell for a decent amount of their price. Bikes maybe less so. Assuming you didn't just get both of them secondhand to begin with, and given proper maintenance. The 3090 is selling for about $740 vs its MSRP of about 1.5k (? not sure) on Ebay at the moment. That's from the last generation, so ~50% cost cut, and I reckon the only reason it's that high is because it has 24GB VRAM and people are using it for AI on a budget (iirc it's a little over half the speed of a 4090, and it's less than half the cost). Of course you could argue that on a price vs performance basis those were never worth that much, whereas a 4090 is actually worth its markup in performance over the 4080 (at least at MSRP). Because that's how Nvidia designed this year's (and presumably next year's) stack.

Of course, "performance at the level when you got it, comparatively speaking" is a loaded phrase. Technically the performance of a GPU never actually degrades (until it starts failing). But unlike the guitar or the bike, the games/programs that it operates on keep getting more and more demanding and complicated. I don't think that applies to mountains and music sheets, but who knows? I have plenty of older vintage audio pieces and generally they hold up just fine compared to more modern tech, too.
Hulk said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean... that's a little over two weeks of work, assuming a 40 hour work week. Obviously someone saving up for a house or something, or especially if you're currently renting (which renting is a total waste of money; it's basically pissing money away), it's a bad idea to just spend it on top end luxury items. For me, I have a mortgaged home and my mortgage rates are lower than most peoples' rental rates. I have substantial enough savings to where a random 2500 isn't really a big deal. Granted, I'm not making exactly what your number is, but I don't think it would be that huge of a difference.

Of course again I'm not really that wild about dropping 2.5k on these either way though. They would have to be close to twice as fast as the 4090 for both gaming AND Stable Diffusion, otherwise I just don't really care enough. With DLSS most games are quite playable even at 4k. Without DLSS, it'll just make a large difference in Native playability... but to what titles? Ones that will be outdated by the time it releases? It's just a loop.

This topic is a lot of weird financial copium. I kind of get it because I succumbed to a 4090 myself at the end of the day. Who knows what I'll do here? It's not like I'll have trouble paying for it, but I do think it's still a troubling trend to support these prices...
 
cesarioFL71 said:
I will admit that age does play a factor in why I enjoy so few games nowadays. Yet, the fact that Gen X and our taste in games is no longer the target audience of game developers cannot be dismissed. BTW, Crysis was a decent game and it's on the list because it made all of us "WANT" a new gpu. It was a technical powerhouse and really showcased the pc platform.
Click to expand...
It was a very nice showcase, but it was not a lot of the people did put 80+hours in it game because it was so great, it was a running benchmark and looking a foliage for many.

I am not sure GenX get under-served in game, gamer are older and older and the offer represent that, imo, looking at the best sellling games, Madden, Star wars, MLB the show, warhammer, dragon quest remake, Flight SImulator lot of stuff targeting people that were old enough to game in the 80s-early 90s.

A Baldurs Gates 3, people that were 16 when the first one release are now 42 years old (which mean the young 20 somethings would be getting really close to 50 here).

edit: from the below, I feel Far Cry was a better example than Crysis... solid game that was pushing things a lot, but still a strong game in itself, not a we want to sell our engine demo one.
 
Last edited:
cesarioFL71 said:
I will admit that age does play a factor in why I enjoy so few games nowadays. Yet, the fact that Gen X and our taste in games is no longer the target audience of game developers cannot be dismissed. BTW, Crysis was a decent game and it's on the list because it made all of us "WANT" a new gpu. It was a technical powerhouse and really showcased the pc platform.
Click to expand...
I thought the OG Far Cry was a good example too. It really pushed hardware at the time, was fun, and looked great.
 
cesarioFL71 said:
The one thing I think the "prosumers" here are forgetting when comparing pc gaming to other hobbies.........most hobbies continue to give back what you put into it. Either in tangible or intangible ways i/e; fun and enjoyment, fulfillment, the feeling of a job well done, sense of accomplishment, physical assets etc;. PC gaming has been on a downward spiral for years now and the quality of most AAA games is substandard. 15-20 years ago I could justify getting the latest GPU because I knew I'd be playing quality games for hundreds if not thousands of hours. Anyone here remember 2007? Crysis? Orange Box? Bioshock? COD 4 MW? Those games were far from the best of the bunch but they give you a sense of the high quality of gaming in those days. These days I have nothing beyond Stalker 2 to even think of purchasing another GPU; especially one that cost north of $1500.00 or more. Why would I want to spend thousands of dollars on a new pc just to run crappy "MODERN" games at max settings at 240hz? I can afford any gpu I want, but it simply makes no sense at this time in my mind to do so.
Click to expand...
A point you're missing is that games back then were made with future hardware in mind. The majority of people could not play a game like Crysis, Bioshock, or even Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 at the time of release with "max graphics" and nobody bitched about it. These days if somebody can't run the latest game on their 3060 Ti on higher than "medium" settings then the accuse the game of being "unoptimized trash." The value proposition isn't much different today than when it was back then, either, with the 8800 Ultra selling for $1,300 in 2024 money. The attitude has just shifted to people believing that if the purchase was significant to themselves then they're entitled to a perfect experience and get offended when you suggest turning down the setting or lowering the resolution/using upscaling.
LukeTbk said:
It was a very nice showcase, but it was not a lot of the people did put 80+hours in it game because it was so great, it was a running benchmark and looking a foliage for many.

I am not sure GenX get under-served in game, gamer are older and older and the offer represent that, imo, looking at the best sellling games, Madden, Star wars, MLB the show, warhammer, dragon quest remake, Flight SImulator lot of stuff targeting people that were old enough to game in the 80s-early 90s.

A Baldurs Gates 3, people that were 16 when the first one release are now 42 years old.

edit: from the below, I feel Far Cry was a better example than Crysis... solid game that was pushing things a lot, but still a strong game in itself, not a we want to sell our engine demo one.
Click to expand...
I enjoy Crysis far more than Far Cry. I'm 41 years old.

The annual ESA shows the average gamer age keeps shifting older, and it is actually following Millennials (born 1981-1995) who grew up with all the major developments in game design and technology. I believe the last one published for 2023 data showed the average age was 39.
zerogg said:
I thought the OG Far Cry was a good example too. It really pushed hardware at the time, was fun, and looked great.
Click to expand...
First major DirectX 9 game on the market, if I'm not mistaken. It beat Half-Life 2 by 8 months.
 
Armenius said:
A point you're missing is that games back then were made with future hardware in mind. The majority of people could not play a game like Crysis, Bioshock, or even Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 at the time of release with "max graphics" and nobody bitched about it. These days if somebody can't run the latest game on their 3060 Ti on higher than "medium" settings then the accuse the game of being "unoptimized trash." The value proposition isn't much different today than when it was back then, either, with the 8800 Ultra selling for $1,300 in 2024 money. The attitude has just shifted to people believing that if the purchase was significant to themselves then they're entitled to a perfect experience and get offended when you suggest turning down the setting or lowering the resolution/using upscaling.

I enjoy Crysis far more than Far Cry. I'm 41 years old.

The annual ESA shows the average gamer age keeps shifting older, and it is actually following Millennials (born 1981-1995) who grew up with all the major developments in game design and technology. I believe the last one published for 2023 data showed the average age was 39.

First major DirectX 9 game on the market, if I'm not mistaken. It beat Half-Life 2 by 8 months.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day the difference for "ME" is this. Back then I had a treasure trove of quality games to play in order to justify my purchase of a $1300.00 gpu. Today, in my personal opinion based on the games I like to play and my personal use case, the games I wish to play are almost nonexistent therefore I cannot personally justify spending that same 1300.00 or more on a new gpu! My feelings are based on my personal experience and current situation. If others are ok with spending 1500.00 or more in order to play games that's on them. Also, my original issue was speculation that gpu prices would head north of 2k to 2500.00 USD. That to me is just outlandish and makes no sense when I do a personal cost/benefit analysis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
harmattan said:
I wouldn't say it's the only AAA game worth buying in the near future, but it is the only game that will likely have a decent implementation of RT and PT. Even the new Indian Jones looks like its RT implementation is an afterthought.

On the indie and AA front, I would say the upcoming year will be more exciting -- and those games aren't likely going to be employing RT and PT in any significant way.
Click to expand...

I don't think Stalker 2 is getting RT, or at least a hardware version at launch. The devs mentioned in a interview they are using Unreal's Lumen and may implement hardware RT in the future. Indiana Jones looks pretty incredible, but it's Bethseda so we'll see how they implemented RT though given it's a Xbox Exclusive, RT may be an afterthought.
 
Leaks suggest the RTX-5090 will start @ $1,900 and up.

F this.

I'm not a console gamer, but for that price you can buy a brand new PS5 and a new OLED 4K TV.

I'm a big PC Gamer and my current RTX-4080 I got brand new for $999 runs all my games ultra max highest settings with ease.

This is a bad precedent to to have such outrageously expensive video cards. I guess fools are easily parted from their money.
 
Last edited:
Zorachus said:
Leaks suggest the RTX-5090 will start @ $1,900 and up.

F this.

I'm not a console gamer, but for that price you can buy a brand new PS5 and a new OLED 4K TV.
Click to expand...
Not like you have to buy it. Games nowdays are so kind to GPUs that you can keep an 80 class card for 3-4 years without too many issues. Back in the days a 80 class card would maybe last you 2 years before you were struggling with fps close to the medium settings and some of them where quite expensive. The difference between low and high were generally quite a bit larger as well when you go back 20 years.
 
as a bad precedent, not sure it would be one at $1900 if they are really at that level, the 3090TI and many 4090 sku were in that place (wonder how high the regular 3090 and 3080 ti went for....). The titan Turing era in 2018 was $2500....

As for being bad, not necessarily for the people that want and buy that level of card, if those price would be impossible, would any GB202 end up as gaming card or they would be datacenter only ? and a cheaper 5090 made on a full GB203 would be the offer (or no xx90 at all), maybe some that have some stomac fomo about not always having the biggest gpu and all setting set to max say good, that offer not existing is better than existing and me not buying it, but not sure if they should care at all.

The bad precedent are the 4060Ti to the 4080 sku pricing, the highest end can go as high as people buying them want it to be, why would it matter in the slightest ?
 
LukeTbk said:
as a bad precedent, not sure it would be one at $1900 if they are really at that level, the 3090TI and many 4090 sku were in that place (wonder how high the regular 3090 and 3080 ti went for....). The titan Turing era in 2018 was $2500....

As for being bad, not necessarily for the people that want and buy that level of card, if those price would be impossible, would any GB202 end up as gaming card or they would be datacenter only ? and a cheaper 5090 made on a full GB203 would be the offer (or no xx90 at all), maybe some that have some stomac fomo about not always having the biggest gpu and all setting set to max say good, that offer not existing is better than existing and me not buying it, but not sure if they should care at all.

The bad precedent are the 4060Ti to the 4080 sku pricing, the highest end can go as high as people buying them want it to be, why would it matter in the slightest ?
Click to expand...
The really bad precedent was scalpers teaching Nvidia during the pandemic what people were willing to pay for GPU's, and not just at the high end. 5060 Ti will probably be north of $800 and people will gobble them up.
 
evhvis said:
Not like you have to buy it. Games nowdays are so kind to GPUs that you can keep an 80 class card for 3-4 years without too many issues. Back in the days a 80 class card would maybe last you 2 years before you were struggling with fps close to the medium settings and some of them where quite expensive. The difference between low and high were generally quite a bit larger as well when you go back 20 years.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason is that with the exception of the 700-series and 30-series, the 80 class (non Ti) branded card was on the mid-range silicon. It just wasn't gonna last like a true flagship card would...say a 1080 Ti. As for farther back, 20 years ago...absolutely, stuff was advancing crazy fast in shorter increments.
 
If the near $2k price is correct for the RTX-5090 that card better be double the performance upgrade from a 4090.

None of this 60% faster BS only in certain modes or running AI resolutions crap. No, for $2,000.00 this card better straight up give DOUBLE the performance of a RTX-4090.
 
dave343 said:
The really bad precedent was scalpers teaching Nvidia during the pandemic what people were willing to pay for GPU's, and not just at the high end. 5060 Ti will probably be north of $800 and people will gobble them up.
Click to expand...
fomo and chasing epeen. if they could have just resisted we may not be looking at these insane prices...
 
Zorachus said:
If the near $2k price is correct for the RTX-5090 that card better be double the performance upgrade from a 4090.

None of this 60% faster BS only in certain modes or running AI resolutions crap. No, for $2,000.00 this card better straight up give DOUBLE the performance of a RTX-4090.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're spamming the exact same posts word for word in the two threads about this. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it, nothing anyone cares about in a bad way. Your FOMO is blinding you.

The 3090 was $1500, and the 75% faster $1600 4090 came to market after it. Given that Blackwell is looking to be absolutely crazy spec wise, I wouldn't be shocked if they bump the price more than last time. To be honest the RTX 5090 looks more like a prosumer card than anything else.

You can buy a 5080 if it isn't enough value for you. I might do the same as I haven't been playing as many AAA games lately. I'll decide once I see the actual performance and price of the RTX 5080 and rtx 5090. For now, panicking over complete speculation on price is just silly. Heck, even if it were official, I don't get spazzing about it this way.
 
Last edited:
If buying new I tend to purchase a few steps down from halo where the price performance is usually better. That or used cards. The only reason I care at all about the xx90 pricing is that it keeps dragging the rest of the stack up with it.
 
TheHig said:
If buying new I tend to purchase a few steps down from halo where the price performance is usually better. That or used cards. The only reason I care at all about the xx90 pricing is that it keeps dragging the rest of the stack up with it.
Click to expand...
I usually would buy two cards and sli them, but that went by the wayside. I almost bought a $1250 2080ti at its launch, but canceled it when it didn't ship on time. The most expensive one I've bought and kept is an RTX 3080 at sub msrp ($779 from evga for a ftw3 ultra hybrid aio cooled) a couple of months post launch.

The xx90 is intriguing to me as a longer purchase. I usually keep my cards 4 years, but since tech doesn't advance as quickly anymore and there aren't as many compelling, demanding AAA games I may keep a high vram 32gb 5090 for quite awhile. I also may use it for work use, which makes the price much more palatable.

I recently (March) bought an RTX 4080 laptop which performs around a 4070ti or so in full wattage mode and love it. I'd like to have frame generation on my desktop now for gaming too after experiencing it on there. I am looking forward to this launch and going to high refresh 4k instead of the 60hz 4k I've been using since 2014 and the 240hz 2560x1600 on the laptop!
 
pendragon1 said:
fomo and chasing epeen. if they could have just resisted we may not be looking at these insane prices...
Click to expand...
Absolutely. One thing I don't like when people only say "wafer costs" when having these cost discussions.

That is absolutely factor of course, but it's one of many. The general state of the graphics market is multi-faceted whether lack of meaningful competition at the top to force competitive pricing and pricing wars, consumer buying behavior that normalized scalper prices, the fact that one company has an almost monopolistic percentage of the market now, etc.
 
Sir Beregond said:
Absolutely. One thing I don't like when people only say "wafer costs" when having these cost discussions.

That is absolutely factor of course, but it's one of many. The general state of the graphics market is multi-faceted whether lack of meaningful competition at the top to force competitive pricing and pricing wars, consumer buying behavior that normalized scalper prices, etc.
Click to expand...
Don't forget good old r&d! It runs in the billions for these chips. Then you have increased wafer costs, inflation, consumer behavior, lack of serious competition, more complex pcb and power designs, etc and it's little wonder they've gone up some in end user pricing.

I still feel like I'm getting a good value for my money nonetheless. If that stops, so does my buying ;).
 
GoldenTiger said:
Don't forget good old r&d! It runs in the billions for these chips. Then you have increased wafer costs, inflation, consumer behavior, lack of serious competition, more complex pcb and power designs, etc and it's little wonder they've gone up some in end user pricing.

I still feel like I'm getting a good value for my money nonetheless. If that stops, so does my buying ;).
Click to expand...
Yep all factors as well, don't forget growing margins too! Gotta keep the investors happy.

Sure, value is subjective in many ways and is determined by many factors. For me, when 40-series first released, the increase in performance over the 30-series was almost 1 to 1 with the increase in cost representing very little to no "value" gained. It was really a case of if you want more than what you have with 30-series, you'll pay for it and gone were the days of generational price point replacements for the previous gen products in the traditional way.

Stagnation of lower in the stack products not really advancing its base performance (before upscaling and other tech comes in), doesn't strike me as much value either.

pendragon1 said:
thats has gotten simpler, look at how small the 4090 pcb is....
Click to expand...
That's probably counter-intuitive and needed a lot of engineering and design work to fit a powerful flagship in a compact pcb. Figuring out cooling, power delivery, etc. as well considering its a stock 450W card.
 
Debating on getting a 7900 XTX and selling my 4090 since I hardly use it to its full advantage. Plus I could pocket the differance.
 
Any word if Nvidia redesigned the power connector?

I recall a couple years ago all these scary issues of power supplies burning out the cards or the connection, and that always seemed like a loose wobbly connector not totally secure.

They've had 2 years to correct it. Hopefully it's a new setup.
 
Zorachus said:
Any word if Nvidia redesigned the power connector?

I recall a couple years ago all these scary issues of power supplies burning out the cards or the connection, and that always seemed like a loose wobbly connector not totally secure.

They've had 2 years to correct it. Hopefully it's a new setup.
Click to expand...
They revised it iirc. I'm using my older PSU with a custom cable so there's only 1 connector going into the card, works well.
 
Sir Beregond said:
Part of the reason is that with the exception of the 700-series and 30-series, the 80 class (non Ti) branded card was on the mid-range silicon. It just wasn't gonna last like a true flagship card would...say a 1080 Ti. As for farther back, 20 years ago...absolutely, stuff was advancing crazy fast in shorter increments.
Click to expand...
Actually around the 7000 series from AMD/ATI and 600 series from Nvidia was when cards actually started to be able to last more than 2 years, with the exception of the 8800 series cards. The GTX 1000 series from Nvidia did take it quite a bit further as well. Prior to that you were often struggling on low to medium settings after 1-2 years. E.g. my GF3 lasted just 1.5 years and would have cost almost $900 when inflation adjusted and similar with my 20% OCed GTX580. Both of them were the best single chip cards at the time by a good margin and they typicall did 30-50fps in SP games at high settings. Only card I had prior to the 7970 ghz edition that lasted more than 2 years was the 8800GT, other than that I had to upgrade every 12-18 months to stay above 30 fps.

Another reason cards last longer now is that most games are made with consoles in mind, and the consoles are PC hardware based, so very few really push the envelope. E.g. in the last 5-6 years only a few games like CP2077, Control, Alan Wake 2 etc. really pushed the envelope on graphics and hardware requirements, but most of it is tied to RT. The majority of games aim for good performance on mid-range cards at medium to high settings without RT. UE5 seems to start another push, but they will probably hold back a bit until the next gen of consoles arrives.
 
evhvis said:
Actually around the 7000 series from AMD/ATI and 600 series from Nvidia was when cards actually started to be able to last more than 2 years, with the exception of the 8800 series cards. The GTX 1000 series from Nvidia did take it quite a bit further as well. Prior to that you were often struggling on low to medium settings after 1-2 years. E.g. my GF3 lasted just 1.5 years and would have cost almost $900 when inflation adjusted and similar with my 20% OCed GTX580. Both of them were the best single chip cards at the time by a good margin and they typicall did 30-50fps in SP games at high settings. Only card I had prior to the 7970 ghz edition that lasted more than 2 years was the 8800GT, other than that I had to upgrade every 12-18 months to stay above 30 fps.

Another reason cards last longer now is that most games are made with consoles in mind, and the consoles are PC hardware based, so very few really push the envelope. E.g. in the last 5-6 years only a few games like CP2077, Control, Alan Wake 2 etc. really pushed the envelope on graphics and hardware requirements, but most of it is tied to RT. The majority of games aim for good performance on mid-range cards at medium to high settings without RT. UE5 seems to start another push, but they will probably hold back a bit until the next gen of consoles arrives.
Click to expand...
Fair point. 20 years ago, even every 6 months stuff was advancing very fast.
 
I love how if you're is willing to spend money on your hobby that you enjoy then that automatically makes you some fool chasing e peen. Like do you think we seriously care about what some dudes on an online forum think about our purchasing decisions? I will buy a 5090 because I want one to enjoy my games, e peen score means jack shit to me.
 
MistaSparkul said:
I love how if you're is willing to spend money on your hobby that you enjoy then that automatically makes you some fool chasing e peen. Like do you think we seriously care about what some dudes on an online forum think about our purchasing decisions? I will buy a 5090 because I want one to enjoy my games, e peen score means jack shit to me.
Click to expand...
Ditto. I just enjoy talking about the tech, and enjoying it.
 
We should also remember that because Nvidia is competing with itself, resale value of last gen will scale with the price of the new stuff. I am fine with a $1900 5090. If it’s $2.5k, my 4090 will command a higher price as well.

The situation is what it is. Blame AMD for dropping the ball, not Nvidia for producing superior products and capitalizing on it.
 
NukeDukem said:
We should also remember that because Nvidia is competing with itself, resale value of last gen will scale with the price of the new stuff. I am fine with a $1900 5090. If it’s $2.5k, my 4090 will command a higher price as well.

The situation is what it is. Blame AMD for dropping the ball, not Nvidia for producing superior products and capitalizing on it.
Click to expand...

Some are actually delusional enough to think the 4090 will drop to $800 or something once the 5090 comes out lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top