Any PC Builders Out There?

Can you even find 4080/4090 cards in stock or for less than the advertised price of the new 50 series?

 

Well, that’s why I said “trying” lol

but also… I’d bet my left nut those advertised release prices will not be *real world prices* post launch, as the last several generations have shown us.

 

I requested stock notifications for the new 50 series cards. We'll see if I can get my hands on one.

 

Godspeed F5 warrior lol

 

Whats odd is the hate for frame gen, its only needed when the game is over encumbering the card no?

So a 5080 with high core count, frequency and memory speed shouldn't need DLSS on performance and it can stay on quality.

I've only needed DLSS on performance for hogwarts on release and it was simply because my 3080 was overwhelmed.

The 5080 is going to be fast, but value wise is the issue.

 

Well in a pvp setting you don’t want any fake frames, at all.

I mean if you’re “casually” playing cod or battlefield or something w/e it’s just your KD and ego on the line, so long as you’re having fun that’s all that matters.

(not that you can’t turn that off, but like you said that would bring value into question)

 

Exactly a 5080 would still bulldoze the frames into oblivion. It's not like its weaker, it just has new frame gen tech.

I only play rocket league competitively and I cant stomach 1080, but I certainly would never turn on DLSS to get frames higher on that game.

Hogwarts was fine, but not ideal. And Indiana jones ran 90-110FPS no issue, I never actually checked any of the settings to see if DLSS was on.

Jedi Fallen order is bad, it needs DLSS and its un pleasant to have on. My buddy cant get it running nicely 1440 with his 3090 even.

 

It's not hate. For the 5080, it's fine. I doubt the card is going to be more than 20% faster than the 4080 though, which will be disappointing and covered up with DLSS numbers.

For the 5070 with 8 GB of VRAM, well, I wrote a big post about it a few pages back. 8 GB of VRAM is not enough for a 70 series card, and it's more than likely it'll need to lean on DLSS to post consistent improvements on AAA games that seem to need more VRAM every year. Launching a card that will be advertised as a 4K settings card that needs frame generation at launch to post decent frame rates is, well, not good.

Edit: I'll also add that nVidia is embargoing the 5080 until its launch day. People will have to line up to buy one with no reviews posted. That's not a good sign. Pretty much every nVidia release
that's been hohum has been when nVidia pulls BS like that. I think the 5090 is probably a decent beast, it's reviews drop a week earlier, and they're going to try to use those results to sell hope or cope to future 5080 owners.

 

Rocket League could run on a potato alarm clock jks. People forget that the game hasn't really changed, except for the servers turning to pooh after the acquisition, and the game was built to run 150 fps at 1080P on a 1050Ti almost a decade ago. My 7900XTX barely hits 30% use before maxing out my set framerate lol.

 

I remember the 4080 almost came out with 12gb lol

Nvidia doesnt want to future proof which is annoying. My 3080 would last many years longer if it had 16gb.

I'm seeing the 5070 has 12gb? It should be 16 and the 5080 should be 20

AMD is my next shot likely, as mentioned before I was really close to a 7900 xtx

Also RL I like to have settings very high on 1440 and above 100fps 1% lol we used to shoot for over 300 but I decided I liked quality.

 

2 weeks or so to go...

 

Shite. This was leaked from a reputable source. The 5080 is only faster in raster by about 11% than the 4080 in a couple of games. Small sample size, but not good. I hate it when I'm right. The 5090 has a good gain, 30%, which nVidia will advertise the hell out of but the rest of the known cards could be very mediocre without frame gen.



To clarify, the first column is without any DLSS features like AI frame gen or resolution upscaling. The second column is pre-release drivers comparing DLSS set to quality, DLSS 3 for the 40 series and DLSS 4 for the 50 series. It highlights that to get to the 20% gains that are normal generation on generation you will have to use DLSS, which I'm not thrilled with. I might be more okay with it if DLSS was open source and was often backwards compatible, but it's not. It's a generational software uplift while paying for hardware updates, which is meh.

 

Diminishing returns it seems. Makes me wonder if there are any new architectures in the works.

 

My personal spin, this is being caused by the rise of AI. AI is now 80% of nVidia's income, and they use the same core designs for GPU's and AI accelerators to save development costs. These new cards are probably an impressive 30-50% faster per CUDA core at AI tasks in the data center, but only slightly faster at traditional GPU rendering. It won't change until AI starts to plateau and nVidia loses it's cash cow. There is some hope. AMD won the recent data center contracts with Microsoft and Meta for their AI models with their MX300, which is supposedly now 20% more efficient than nVidia in certain models. If the AI market can hit parity, then nVidia and AMD will put more efforts into innovating hardware again without relying so hard on AI software.

Also Lisa Su recently toured Intel's 18A production line that's being built. There's lots of rumors than AMD will take UDNA 5, their rumored next architecture, directly to 18A. That would be a 100% transistor size shrink from the current node, and should offer some crazy performance and break the cycle where AMD and nVidia have been 1-2 generations behind Apple in terms of node size.

 

Good point. I'm still in the trough of disillusionment on AI, but it is going to be interesting. There's a balance to be had between density, power, performance, and hardware cost. I don't think the current growth rate is sustainable, mainly due to power consumption. I think we will find that there are limited use cases that warrant the cost of all the hardware and power. If performance can be maintained or improved while significantly decreasing power requirements, that would be our winner.

 

We need an Intel/AMD alliance, which is already forming. They formalized a permanent X86-64 development council, so they will be cooperation on new instruction sets for their CPUs, which has opened the door for AMD to look at using Intel as it's foundry instead of TSMC, if Intel can actually meet it's target to start full rate production of the 18A node sometime this year. As long as AMD, and nVidia, use TSMC they will be restrained to being one generation behind Apple on node and density, since TSMC offers Apple first dibs and favored pricing on their newest node.

 

Intel needs to do something, lol. My first job in tech was as a programmer for a small company that built wafer sorters for semiconductor fabs. Not the highest-tech piece of equipment, but it was robots and cameras for reading wafer IDs. The first project they put me on was an order from TSMC. Even back in the 90's, if you made TSMC happy, every other manufacturer in Taiwan would order your stuff. They were happy, and I spent a lot of time on airplanes and in Taiwan over following years. Usually in new fabs that haven't completed construction yet and no OSHA. Alarms not installed yet. Good times. Got tapped on the shoulder more than once to evacuate since I don't know Mandarin and didn't understand the announcement.

We never sold anything to Intel. They were too hard to work with. They wanted a guarantee that subsequent orders would be "copy same as" the original equipment. Makes sense for process tools, but not our simple sorters. Didn't make economic sense for us -- we'd have to forecast future orders and buy all the parts and store them. They couldn't be convinced that it wouldn't screw up their process, which was idiotic. They were the ONLY major manufacturer we didn't work with.

 

Probably not a lot to do to improve performance on that laptop. An SSD will make some noticable difference over HDD, but the CPU could still be the bottleneck. Fresh thermal paste can usually help a lot too if the CPU is running slow due to throttling. I wouldn't spend any more on it. The money would be better spent even on a newer used laptop.

 

Not to mention, it won't have any real power to handle anything modern.

It's a dual core, so it uses what DDR2 ram at best? Maybe DDR3 at best.

 

Eeek, as others have said, don't spend any more on it. I looked it up, and there was a CNET review from 2009 that said it was underpowered. In 2009. Original price was $499, so it was a budget laptop even then. You might be able to run a lightweight Linux build (is Mint still around?) and surf the web on it, but that's about it.