Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 776 posts

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#241

Post by ErneX »

martiuk wrote: post #146
Refusing23 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems kinda silly to make an 8K video card when ... nobody on the planet has an 8K screen

> Seems kinda silly to make a 4K video card when ... nobody on the planet has a 4K screen. Someone else probably said that years ago when everyone was rocking 1080/1440p screens.

If you look at the Steam hardware survey you’ll find the majority of gamers are still rocking 1080p/1440p displays.

What gamers look for is more framerate not particularly resolution. Most new gaming monitors are focusing on high refresh rates.

8K feels like a waste of compute for a very diminished return compared to 4K. I think 8K only makes sense when dealing with huge displays, I’m talking beyond 83 inches, we are still far from that.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#242

Post by berbec »

wruza wrote: post #151
jsheard wrote: post #4

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 get under 50fps in certain places in FF14. I run a 5900x with 32GB of ram and a 3090.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#243

Post by sigmoid10 »

themaninthedark wrote: post #236
sigmoid10 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nvidia also doesn't make the "core" (i.e. the actual chip). TSMC and Samsung make those. Nvidia designs the chip and (usually) creates a reference PCB to show how to make an actual working GPU using that chip you got from e.g. TSMC. Sometimes (especially in more recent years) they also sell that design as "founders" edition. But they don't sell most of their hardware directly to average consumers. Of course they also…

It seems that they have been tightening what they allow their partners to do, which caused EVGA to break away as they were not allowed to deviate too much from the reference design.

That was mostly about Nvidia's pricing. It's basically impossible to compete economically with the founders editions because Nvidia doesn't charge themselves a hefty markup on the chip. That's why their own cards always sell out instantly and then the aftermarket GPU builders can fight to pick up the scraps. The whole idea of the founders edition seems to be to make a quick buck immediately after release. Long term it's much more profitable to sell the chip itself at a price that they would usually sell their entire GPU for.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#244

Post by kllrnohj »

bee_rider wrote: post #200
mastax wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway I’m sure some will disagree with this but most PC gamers I talk to want to be at 90FPS minimum. I’d assume if you’re spending $1600+ on a GPU you’re pretty particular about your experience.

I’m so glad I grew up in the n64/xbox era. You save so much money if you are happy at 30fps. And the games look really nice.

You can also save tons of money by combining used GPUs from two generations ago with a patientgamer lifestyle without needing to resort to suffering 30fps

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#245

Post by necheffa »

kllrnohj wrote: post #150
diggan wrote: post #137

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

> Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps" anyway

Uhhhhhmmmmmm....what are you smoking?

Almost no one is playing competitive shooters and such at 4k. For those games you play at 1080p and turn off lots of eye candy so you can get super high frame rates because that does actually give you an edge.

People playing at 4k are doing immersive story driven games and consistent 60fps is perfectly fine for that, you don't really get a huge benefit going higher.

People that want to split the difference are going 1440p.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#246

Post by ErneX »

wruza wrote: post #151
jsheard wrote: post #4

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…

These are perfect for games featuring path tracing. Not many games though but those really flex the 4090.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#247

Post by some_random »

wruza wrote: post #151
jsheard wrote: post #4

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…

It's a leisure activity, "necessary" isn't the metric to be used here, people clearly care about RT/PT while DLSS seems to be getting better and better.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#248

Post by resource_waste »

blixt wrote: post #156

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…

> after running LLMs with 128 GB RAM on the M3 Max,

These are monumentally different. You cannot use your computer as an LLM. Its more novelty.

I'm not even sure why people mention these things. Its possible, but no one actually does this out of testing purposes.

It falsely equates Nivida GPUs with Apple CPUs. The winner is Apple.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#249

Post by jerf »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #144
codespin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point do we stop calling them graphics cards?

How long until a "PC" isn't CPU + GPU but just a GPU? I know CPUs are good for some things that GPUs aren't and vice versa but... it really kind of makes you wonder. Press the power button, boot the GPU? Surely a terrible idea, and I know system-on-a-chip makes this more confusing/complicated (like Apple Silicon, etc.)

Never. You can to a first approximation model a GPU as a whole bunch of slow CPUs harnessed together and ordered to run the same code at the same time, on different data. When you can feed all the slow CPUs different data and do real work, you get the big wins because the CPU count times the compute rate will thrash what CPUs can put up for that same number, due to sheer core count. However, if you are in an environment where you can only have one of those CPUs running at once, or even a small handful, you're transported back to the late 1990s in performance. And you can't speed them up without trashing their GPU performance because the optimizations you'd need are at direct odds with each other.

CPUs are not fast or slow. GPUs are not fast or slow. They are fast and slow for certain workloads. Contra popular belief, CPUs are actually really good at what they do, and the workloads they are fast at are more common than the workloads that GPUs are fast at. There's a lot to be said for being able to bring a lot of power to bear on a single point, and being able to switch that single point reasonably quickly (but not instantaneously). There's also a lot to be said for having a very broad capacity to run the same code on lots of things at once, but it definitely imposes a significant restriction on the shape of the problem that works for.

I'd say that broadly speaking, CPUs can make better GPUs than GPUs can make CPUs. But fortunately, we don't need to choose.

Re: Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs

#250

Post by nfriedly »

Meh. Feels like astronomical prices for the smallest upgrades they could get away with.

I miss when high-end GPUs were $300-400, and you could get something reasonable for $100-200. I guess that's just integrated graphics these days.

The most I've ever spent on a GPU is ~$300, and I don't really see that changing anytime soon, so it'll be a long time before I'll even consider one of these cards.

Post reply on HN