161–170 of 776 posts
32GB of GDDR7 at 1.8TB/sec for $2000, best of luck to the gamers trying to buy one of those while AI people are buying them by the truckload. Presumably the pro hardware based on the same silicon will have 64GB, they usually double whatever the gaming cards have.
At what point do we stop calling them graphics cards?
32GB of GDDR7 at 1.8TB/sec for $2000, best of luck to the gamers trying to buy one of those while AI people are buying them by the truckload. Presumably the pro hardware based on the same silicon will have 64GB, they usually double whatever the gaming cards have.
Why do you need one of those as a gamer? 1080ti was 120+ fps in heavy realistic looking games. 20xx RT slashed that back to 15 fps, but is RT really necessary to play games? Who cares about real-world reflections? And reviews showed that RT+DLSS introduced so many artefacts sometimes that the realism argument seemed absurd. Any modern card under $1000 is more than enough for graphics in virtually all games. The gamin…
I barely play video games but I definitely do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems kinda silly to make an 8K video card when ... nobody on the planet has an 8K screen
Perhaps you don't, but several of us do. They've been around a while, available in your local bestbuy/costco if you're rocking a 4:4:4 TV they're not even particularly pricey and great for computing (depending on the subpixel layout). On the planet? Many people. Maybe you're thinking 12K or 16K.
The value just wasn't there and probably won't ever be for most use cases. XR equipment might be an exception, video editing another.
Pretty interesting watching their tech explainers on YouTube about the changes in their AI solutions. Apparently they switched from CNNs to transformers for upscaling (with ray tracing support) if I understood correctly though for frame generation makes even more sense to me. 32 GB VRAM on the highest end GPU seems almost small after running LLMs with 128 GB RAM on the M3 Max, but the speed will most likely more than…
For more of the fast VRAM you would be in Quadro territory.
You also need to upgrade your air conditioner
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't necessarily count Intel out.
Intel hate making money even more than AMD.
It's not dissimilar to what happened to Boeing. I'm a capitalist, but the current accounting laws (in particular corporate taxation rules) mean that all companies are pushed to use money for stock buybacks than R&D (which Intel spent more on the former over the latter over the past decade and I'm watching Apple stagnate before my eyes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> modern games + modern cards can't even do 4k at high fps What "modern games" and "modern cards" are you specifically talking about here? There are plenty of AAA games released last years that you can do 4K at 60fps with a RTX 3090 for example.
> There are plenty of AAA games released last years that you can do 4K at 60fps with a RTX 3090 for example. Not when you turn on ray tracing. Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway
You can't get high frame rates with path tracing and 4K. It just doesn't happen. You need to enable DLSS and frame gen to get 100fps with more complete ray and path tracing implementations.
People might be getting upset because the 4090 is WAY more power than games need, but there are games that try and make use of that power and are actually limited by the 4090.
Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native resolution.
Now many might say that's just a ridiculous ask, but that's what GP was talking about here. There's no way you'd get more than 10-15fps (if that) with path tracing at 8K.
Let's see the new version of frame generation. I enabled DLSS frame generation on Diablo 4 using my 4060 and I was very disappointed with the results. Graphical glitches and partial flickering made the game a lot less enjoyable than good old 60fps with vsync.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NVidia's pricing isn't based on how much it takes to produce their cards, but since they have no competition, it's purely based on how much consumers are grudgingly willing to pay up. If AMD continues to sleep, they'll sale these cards for the same price, even if they could produce them for free.
AMD is not sleeping. They publicly admitted that they threw in the towel- they have exited the high end market.
If the only way to get better raw frames in modern GPUs is to basically keep shoveling power into them like an old Pentium 4, then that’s not exactly an enticing or profitable space to be in. Best leave that to nVidia and focus your efforts on a competitive segment where cost and efficiency are more important.