NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is ~10% faster than RTX 3080

This confirms that the insane price hike isn't going to be a good value. I know people are saying 'Its a Titan its not supposed to be a good value except for special pro-sumer business things", but we're already seeing information that this is NOT a Titan and the actual Titan branded item to come will be some $3000 monstrosity most likely. Thus, it makes it even more strange that it could be an attempt to normalize this as a high end consumer card price. If they only priced the 3090 a bit lower they could likely get a lot of people to buy one; make it $1100-ish and lots of enthusiast would easily pay a little more than the 3080 in order for the performance increase plus VRAM.

I'm nonplussed by Nvidia's attempt to create a vast gulf in VRAM usage between the 3090 and everything else, so I hope that AMD has an answer ready offering at least 3080 performance plus 16gb+ VRAM, ideally for an equal or lower price than the 3080. If they really have some mega version of it that takes on the 3090 in both performance and VRAM yet they can price it a bit lower, that would also be a winner. There is the possibility that Nvidia will come up with a high VRAM version of the 3080 (either 16gb or from what some have suggested 20gb) as a "Super" or "Ti" variant, but if and when this shows up it will depend on how threatened Nvidia feels. I don't want to see it take 6-12 months for the "Super / Ti" versions to show up when there's clearly such a gulf in VRAM between the 3080 and 3090, so hopefully AMD will really scare the hell out of them, even if it means quickly outmoding the 3090 for most use cases.

I am a bit curious on the 3090 however if it will be used by not just pro-sumer rendering/encoding/AI training kinda stuff, but does its tons of VRAM have a benefit in the crypto (mining, staking, farming etc) world at current?
 
RanceJustice said:
If they only priced the 3090 a bit lower they could likely get a lot of people to buy one; make it $1100-ish and lots of enthusiast would easily pay a little more than the 3080 in order for the performance increase plus VRAM.
Click to expand...
I am betting that it is priced high in order to reduce demand due to extremely low yields.
 
exlink said:
19% performance increase for a 100% cost increase compared to the 3080 (MSRP). Definitely not worth it solely for gaming.
Click to expand...

Always the case with their high end parts. The value for money just decreases as you go up the chain, and at the very high end there is a very small increase. This is more or less a "Titan" type card and those have always been lousy value for the money. It is for people who want the highest end, and aren't fussed about the cost.
 
Archaea said:
That some of that new math?

$1500 is 214% increase over $700

View attachment 280662
Click to expand...

64275474.jpg
 
sirsad said:
I am betting that it is priced high in order to reduce demand due to extremely low yields.
Click to expand...

Also VRAM costs, particularly when you are talking the newest, highest end tech like they are using here. You can argue about the wisdom of going with 24GB, but since they did that does legitimately push their cost up a fair bit.
 
odditory said:
And yet they'll have even higher demand than 3080.
Click to expand...
Not sure what that has anything to do with what I posted. The card has uses far beyond just gaming. It’ll appeal to many different types of users while the 3080 appealed mainly to gamers.

I only stated that the 3090 is not worth its massive price premium over the 3080 solely for gaming. Obviously that is my opinion, but I would guess it’ll be the common one.
 
exlink said:
Not sure what that has anything to do with what I posted. The card has uses far beyond just gaming. It’ll appeal to many different types of users while the 3080 appealed mainly to gamers.

I only stated that the 3090 is not worth its massive price premium over the 3080 solely for gaming. Obviously that is my opinion, but I would guess it’ll be the common one.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's a much more popular opinion, but there are still many thousands of gamers that will gladly spend an extra $800 for 20% performance in gaming and won't use the card for anything but gaming.
 
sharknice said:
I'm sure that's a much more popular opinion, but there are still many thousands of gamers that will gladly spend an extra $800 for 20% performance in gaming and won't use the card for anything but gaming.
Click to expand...
I’m not disputing that. There are a lot of people that want the very best regardless of how much of a hefty premium they’ll pay. Nothing wrong with that; it’s their money after all. I simply stated my opinion that (to me at least) a 19% performance increase isn’t worth a 100% increase in price.

Videocardz also released another article with ‘leaked’ benchmarks indicating only a ~10% improvement in gaming. If that’s the case then the value proposition just plummeted further. But it’s best to wait for actual benchmarks because the two articles posted by Videocardz have conflicting 3DMark improvement percentages.
 
stamsek said:
53% more cost for 19% improved graphics.
Click to expand...

That is literally the way it always goes.

The high end cards command more money than a linear projection of low end cards would suggest.

I'd argue for every performance increases of 2x, expect to pay 4x more :p

(I just made that up, but it is probably closer than the expectation of a linear model)
 
Last edited:
Almighty ODST said:
The marketing for 3090 has been "8k60". We're already seeing that a 3080 isn't that much faster than 2080ti at low resolutions. I wonder if 8k is the only use case that makes sense for a 3090, or if it really is only 19% faster than a 3080.
Click to expand...

Who gave you permission to think for yourself. NVIDIA marketing and influencers said this is the best performance boost in a decade :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Jensen needs more jackets...

It is a Titan, well as close as your going to get to one anyway. Theres not much left to give and that will be reserved for the Quadro’s
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That is literally the way it always go.

The high end cards command more money than a linear projection of low end cards would suggest.

I'd argue for every performance increases of 2x, expect to pay 4x more :p

(I just made that up, but it is probably closer than the expectation of a linear model)
Click to expand...

Usually there are some sharp knees. Like at the lower end of things it is often linear, or even below. HDDs are like that where you can pay only a few bucks more and double your capacity at the small numbers. However so you go up, you tend to hit sharp knee points where the cost increases a lot in relation to the value. Near the high end of most everything you pay a lot more for a little more.

So it goes with the 3090. Even the 3080. I bet when the 3070 launches that despite being 70% of the price, it is more than 70% of the performance. The 3090 is just a particularly bad value for money as it is essentially a titan and is a moonshot kind of card. It has a lot of expensive hardware (like the big fast VRAM) and is just generally priced for people who DGAF about value and want the highest end they can get.
 
exlink said:
I’m not disputing that. There are a lot of people that want the very best regardless of how much of a hefty premium they’ll pay. Nothing wrong with that; it’s their money after all. I simply stated my opinion that (to me at least) a 19% performance increase isn’t worth a 100% increase in price.

Videocardz also released another article with ‘leaked’ benchmarks indicating only a ~10% improvement in gaming. If that’s the case then the value proposition just plummeted further. But it’s best to wait for actual benchmarks because the two articles posted by Videocardz have conflicting 3DMark improvement percentages.
Click to expand...

Surely those benches can't be right.....who in their right mind is going to pay such a massive premium for that incremental improvement in performance?! Even if you want the additional memory, one might as well just wait until the 20gb variants of the 3080s start to become available.
 
10% for gaming.... meh. That NV-link though.... if it functions properly and gives two of them unified ram? Then you need a 3080 next to them to plug your monitors in. Its probably nerfed though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
Reality is, the 3080 couldn't maintain 100+ fps in the newest doom at 4k.

If you still are trying to game at 4k+, even at 10% increase you are likely going to go for it, because you clearly hate money and can afford it.

That said, I'm definitely getting a 3090 because I seriously hate money.

They are going to sell tons of these.
 
Shoganai said:
It’s 114% not 214% ... you’re the one doing new math.
Click to expand...
No

Let’s make this easy
If you have 100% of $100 how much do you have?
$100
If you have 114% of $100 how much do you have?
$114

With percentages you move the decimal over 2 places

$700 x ~2.14 = $1500.

2.14 = 214%
 
Archaea said:
No

Let’s make this easy
If you have 100% of $100 how much do you have?
$100
If you have 114% of $100 how much do you have?
$114

With percentages you move the decimal over 2 places

$700 x ~2.14 = $1500.

2.14 = 214%
Click to expand...
You're right, but you innitially claimed an increase of 214%, which would be $700 + 214% (1500) 😜
 
Archaea said:
No

Let’s make this easy
If you have 100% of $100 how much do you have?
$100
If you have 114% of $100 how much do you have?
$114

With percentages you move the decimal over 2 places

$700 x ~2.14 = $1500.

2.14 = 214%
Click to expand...
This may be true, but it's not what you said. You said increase of 214%.... So, if you had $100 and increased it by 100% (another $100) that's $200, which is 200% of the original value. You didn't increase it 200%. You increases the 100% by another 100%, giving you 200% total. You're now arguing a different point and saying it properly now, but not earlier. When you point out someone's wrong math, you should at least make sure you're is right, if it's not and you get called out, then argue even more using different math just makes it even worse. ;).
 
Ready4Dis said:
This may be true, but it's not what you said. You said increase of 214%.... So, if you had $100 and increased it by 100% (another $100) that's $200, which is 200% of the original value. You didn't increase it 200%. You increases the 100% by another 100%, giving you 200% total. You're now arguing a different point and saying it properly now, but not earlier. When you point out someone's wrong math, you should at least make sure you're is right, if it's not and you get called out, then argue even more using different math just makes it even worse. ;).
Click to expand...
I honesty have no idea what you’re talking about. I changed nothing. I even had a screenshot in my original post showing 214%. No edit.
 
Archaea said:
I honesty have no idea what you’re talking about. I changed nothing. I even had a screenshot in my original post showing 214%. No edit.
Click to expand...
if you have 700, 1500 would be 214% of 700.
if you have 700, and increase of 214% would be 2200.

In your post you had said it was an increase of 214% (which would be 314% of the base number). That's all.
 
I think you guys are forgetting that they are advertising this card at 8k 60fps. Or at least at 8k. Regardless it's way too expensive and so is 8k right now
 
DF-1 said:
200 is 200% of 100.
200 is an increase of 100% of 100.

that's all they're saying.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. He and everyone he quoted was talking about the increase in price. He got called out by several people for being wrong and is now talking about completely unrelated math as not to sound wrong. Admitting a mistake is far more admirable than trying to convince everyone that 2+2=5 ... or in this case ... that 100% more than 100 is somehow still 100.
 
5150Joker said:
Can we stop talking about percent calculations and move on? Like why is the 3090 only 10% faster than a 3080, wtf is going on.
Click to expand...
Shoganai said:
And massive.
Click to expand...
Hah

essentially NVIDIA got us. if it weren't for the scalpers a lot of us would really have been taken and made the purchase.


to me, the scalpers and revenge attacks gave the community enough buffer to catch up and understand the CRAZY hype train that happened. maybe now we can start to appreciate the truth of the performance matter and make more REASONABLE and informed decisions
 
Shoganai said:
No it isn’t. He and everyone he quoted was talking about the increase in price. He got called out by several people for being wrong and is now talking about completely unrelated math as not to sound wrong. Admitting a mistake is far more admirable than trying to convince everyone that 2+2=5 ... or in this case ... that 100% more than 100 is somehow still 100.
Click to expand...
no idea why this is a reply to me, but
K.
 
Honestly I believe the 3090 is the TI. They changed the name so they could justify the price increase. If they released it as a 3080ti at $1500 people would of flipped their shit. The Titan going to come out later. I don't think there will be a TI this gen. We might get a super early next year if AMD brings the heat.
 
vegeta535 said:
Honestly I believe the 3090 is the TI. They changed the name so they could justify the price increase. If they released it as a 3080ti at $1500 people would of flipped their shit. The Titan going to come out later. I don't think there will be a TI this gen. We might get a super early next year if AMD brings the heat.
Click to expand...

what about the 3080 Super? I bet they'll be a Ti and also a Super, possibly a Titan
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It may or may not be accurate, I have no idea, but I wouldn't base my evaluation of the cards solely off of Time Spy or any other canned benchmark. They generally mean nothing...

If all you are going to do is post 3DMark results, you might as well post nothing at all.
Click to expand...


Right, the 3090 has 25% higher cores than the 3080, and has 20% higher memory bandwidth .

Logic would tell us that the resulting performance increase will be 20-25% (the same as the 2080 Ti over 2080).

Even assuning the FE clock are limited bby the 350w TDP, it's still going to have overclock potential. Third-party cards will easily solve any FE power wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
defaultluser said:
Right, the 30900 has 25% higher cores than the 2080, and has 20% higher memory bandwidth .

Logic would tell us that the resulting performance increase will be 20-25% (the same as the 2080 Ti over 2080)
Click to expand...
:( that's not awesome
 
erek said:
what about the 3080 Super? I bet they'll be a Ti and also a Super, possibly a Titan
Click to expand...
I said we will probably get a super early next year. There will be no 3080ti this round. There are rumors for a 48gb Titan in the future and I believe it. No doubt that will be at least 3k.




Excited?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top