[HN Gopher] GeForce RTX 40 Series
___________________________________________________________________
GeForce RTX 40 Series
Author : capableweb
Score : 332 points
Date : 2022-09-20 15:21 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nvidia.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nvidia.com)
| shostack wrote:
| Will I be able to use this in a SFF Maingear Turbo chassis with a
| Corsair SF750 PSU and 240mm AIO cooling?
|
| Unclear wrt space, heat, and power.
| moneycantbuy wrote:
| Anyone know if/when a 48GB card (4090 ti?) will be released?
| pojzon wrote:
| IMHO My issue is not with the prices of GPU which will probably
| be higher than whats here.
|
| But the issue is that games industry derotated into current sore
| state.
|
| MTX everywhere and rarely you get a full version of a GOOD game.
|
| So yes. My current card will probably wait till gaming industry
| will reinvent itself.
| Filligree wrote:
| Nothing above 24GB? Not much point in upgrading, then. Memory
| size remains the biggest bottleneck.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| Is it though? I guess it is for machine learning. But do games
| require that much memory? Remember that GeForce is the consumer
| line. I would expect it to mainly target the gamer market.
| Filligree wrote:
| Realistically speaking, the 3090 targets enthusiasts and
| hobbyist ML work. There's not much need for a card of that
| size for gaming, but there's definitely room for a card that
| can do ML _and_ gaming.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Yeah, I have the same sentiment.
|
| I hope they come out with 4090TI with more memory though
| blagie wrote:
| Any clue about how well ML frameworks do with multiple cards?
|
| I'm completely bottlenecked on RAM, but for what I do, even a
| 3060 would be adequate performance.
| Filligree wrote:
| For training? The note cards the better, up to a couple
| hundred. Custom code may be required, but your bottleneck
| will be the GPU count.
|
| For inference? You can't generally shard an AI across
| multiple cards, but you can run multiple instances. Depends
| on what your trying to do.
|
| In no case will it be a simple linear speedup, and you
| certainly can't add the memory together.
| blagie wrote:
| I do much more inference than training, but a bit of both.
|
| Speed is generally not a serious issue:
|
| - I'm not trying to scale to millions of users on
| inference; it's a dev machine
|
| - Training is a bit of fine-tuning; I'm not building big
| models from scratch.
|
| - Worst-case speed has gone into "annoying" territory, but
| never into prohibitive. Worst case, I can grab a coffee
| while things run.
|
| - It's not a lot of coffee, since I'm trying to visualize
| some interesting things about some data. The majority of
| that is data cleaning, visualization, data engineering,
| UI/UX, meetings, and a million other things. My GPU is
| sitting idle >>95% of the time.
|
| I am constrained by RAM. In the era of GPT2 -> GPT3, Stable
| Diffusion, etc., RAM becomes a major bottleneck. There are
| cloud workflows, but they aren't a great fit, both due to
| data security / regulatory issues, to how we plan to do dev
| ops / deployment, as well as just to time for integration.
|
| Dropping $8k on 4x 24GB GPUs would be a no-brainer if it
| let me work with bigger models.
|
| I'm sure people can describe Better Ways to Do Things, but
| changing workflows, system architecture, etc. to those
| workflows would be obviously out-of-scope for what I'm
| trying to do. At that point, I'm better off working with
| smaller models. They're good enough.
| capableweb wrote:
| Seems they don't want to eat up market share of their
| "professional" cards with the consumer cards. Want above 24GB?
| Better put up money for the data center cards.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| Just spend $6k on a Quadro to get 4090 performance but with
| 48GB VRAM /s
| numlock86 wrote:
| Same here. 3090 Ti but memory is usually the bottleneck. And
| workstation GPUs like the A100 are just too expensive ...
| capableweb wrote:
| Guess A6000 is in the middle of those two options, comes with
| 48GB of memory. Not so cheap if you're just using it for
| gaming, but if you're using your GPU for professional work,
| could be worth the price.
| numlock86 wrote:
| EUR5500 compared to EUR1200 for just double the memory at
| the price of less performance is not really worth it in my
| opinion.
|
| > Not so cheap if you're just using it for gaming
|
| I am not even sure if there is any recent game that can
| utilize 24GB of a 3090.
| ShockedUnicorn wrote:
| Does VRChat count as a game? In a very populated instance
| with 50+ people it can take up to about 20gb of vram.
|
| Honestly everything VR takes up huge amounts of vram,
| it's not possible to run No Man's Sky at max settings
| with only 8gb vram, and you still might need to dial down
| some settings with 12gb vram.
|
| This is with a Quest 2, I'm guessing headsets with higher
| resolution will be even more demanding.
| capableweb wrote:
| > EUR5500 compared to EUR1200 for just double the memory
| at the price of less performance is not really worth it
| in my opinion.
|
| It's not just double the memory, is faster memory as
| well. Although, less CUDA cores and also doesn't include
| latest NVENC encoder/decoder, nor AV1 encoder, so...
| Tradeoffs I guess :) For some people it will be worth it,
| for others no.
| alkonaut wrote:
| If we disregard AI/ML applications for a second, are there
| really cards that are regularly limiting FPS in games between
| e.g. 12GB and 16GB?
| paulmd wrote:
| games nowadays won't drop FPS when they hit VRAM limits,
| they'll just swap in lower-quality assets.
|
| horizon zero dawn, notably, was already VRAM-limited by 10gb
| cards several years ago and would run lower-quality assets on
| a 3080.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Depends on the game. 4k ultra settings can definitively chew
| a lot of memory. If you're doing 1440p then 12g is more than
| enough.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| >Memory size remains the biggest bottleneck
|
| For what? AI shit? These are for games broski
| lake_vincent wrote:
| Well, yeah, _broski_. GPUs are just highly optimized matrix
| multipliers, so they 're _for_ any computation involving
| matrix multiplication...such computations arise in computer
| graphics, crypto mining, and machine learning (aka AI shit).
| And yes, memory size is important for some applications. Is
| that okay?
| rrss wrote:
| this simplification to "everything needs matrix multiply
| and GPUs are matrix multipliers" doesn't really match the
| actual architecture.
|
| the hardware for low-precision matrix multiplications in ML
| is mostly independent of the hardware that's typically
| utilized for vertex and fragment shaders in computer
| graphics. It really only gets used for graphics if using
| DLSS. It's not used at all for (integer) computations in
| cryptomining.
|
| Are they _for_ high-precision scientific simulations
| because it's possible to multiply matrices on them? These
| cards are probably quite shit at double-precision matrix
| multiplications.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| And these ones aren't optimized for machine learning, and
| that's OK, too.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| >And yes, memory size is important for some applications.
| Is that okay?
|
| Yes and they make Quadros for those :)
| Filligree wrote:
| A 24GB card is not for gaming. It can do games, which is
| convenient, but no game currently made needs that much.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| You dont buy a high end GPU for TODAYs games, you keep it
| for a while. Also texture sizes are big now.
| arecurrence wrote:
| Today is a gaming product announcement and I'm not sure that
| games have a need even beyond 12 GB today. I suspect that the
| 4090 price not budging much is telling as far as what ram
| amount demand has been focused on for games.
|
| I assume they will soon have a professional card announcement
| that includes 48GB+ cards. Assuming that the high ram cards
| have improvements similar to this generational leap in the
| gaming market, they will be in high demand.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| >today
|
| Sure, but you dont buy a high end GPU and then buy the best
| one next generation... I mean some do sure but a high end GPU
| like this you keep for a few years...
| arecurrence wrote:
| I believe part of the problem is they went with 24 GB
| gaming cards a couple years ago and the need for that
| didn't materialize. Hence, cold feet for launching with 48
| GB because there still isn't a need for more than 12 GB and
| 48 GB impinges on their high margin professional market.
| vanchor3 wrote:
| > I believe part of the problem is they went with 24 GB
| gaming cards a couple years ago and the need for that
| didn't materialize.
|
| To be fair the ability to easily purchase the cards
| didn't materialize either until recently. Why develop for
| what your consumer can't get?
| mdorazio wrote:
| 450 watt TDP? I feel like a crazy person every time a new
| generation of GPU comes out and raises the bar on power
| consumption and heat generation. How is this ok?
| thamer wrote:
| This is not a new development with the 40 series. The RTX 3090
| Ti already had a 450W TDP: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-
| specs/geforce-rtx-3090-ti.c3...
|
| What you describe is accurate, the 3090 Ti produces a
| tremendous amount of heat under load in my experience and I
| would expect the same with these new cards.
| anonporridge wrote:
| It's quite funny seeing this and the 2000 watt society on the
| HN frontpage at the same time.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32899656
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| When I first saw that headline I thought it was a society for
| people who have 2000 watt PSUs.
| jltsiren wrote:
| It's good to remember that you don't have to buy the most
| powerful GPU model just because you can afford it.
|
| Some people are probably in the target audience for the 4090.
| Others may prefer the 4080 models, which have a slightly lower
| TDP than the 3080 models but still get a nice performance boost
| from much higher clock rates.
| capableweb wrote:
| I'm not sure what else to expect? Is it so crazy that they make
| the card even faster and bigger than before, and it uses more
| power? What else is the next generation of cards supposed to
| do, have the same performance but make them more energy
| efficient? Not sure how many people would buy cards that have
| the same performance but less TDP.
| msk-lywenn wrote:
| It is. I remember when I bought my GTX 260. It was crazy how
| much power hungry it was at the time for a mid market card. I
| had to buy a _drumroll_ 450W PSU. Years later, I upgraded to
| a GTX 960. At first I thought "I probably need an even
| bigger PSU now...". I was shocked and then very happy to
| learn that the GTX 960 consumed _less_ than my 7 generations
| older GPU. They can do it right when they care.
| addaon wrote:
| The GTX 260 was build on a 65 nm process, the 960 on a 28
| nm process. This is one and a half full nodes apart, on
| similar planar processes with a full node really was a
| doubling of density. While the transistor count increased
| by more than that (1.4B to 5.2B), leading to a larger die
| size, it can't be overstated how much the improved process
| and decreased Vth helped power usage in this era. It would
| have been a challenge to use more power across those
| processes.
| disconcision wrote:
| i mean, the option is there depending on what your
| requirements are. i recently went from a 980ti to a 3070,
| doubling performance while decreasing TDP... as someone who
| has the card for casual use (only really make use of it a few
| times a month), i actually did just look for the fastest card
| that ran less hot than my current one (i've come to value
| quiet a bit more)
| tepmoc wrote:
| I actually did same just couple months ago, 980ti->3070.
| Though TDP claimed to be 220 but depend on vendor it seem
| it can peak to 250. Also one thing i liked after upgrade
| that 3070 have fan off when you aren't have load on it like
| desktop apps.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| Power is a non issue for most people buying these cards for
| gaming. I couldn't care less if my desktop draws 500W or
| 1000W while gaming. If I get 144 fps vs 100 fps, I'll gladly
| accept the extra power consumption.
| Retr0id wrote:
| I assume you live in a country where electricity is still
| cheap. This is not universally true.
| potatolicious wrote:
| Not "just" energy prices (which is important!) but even
| things like your home. Pulling >1KW through a single
| power socket (or 1.5-2 KW once you account for CPU,
| monitor, etc.) is non-trivial for a lot of people.
|
| At that level you're really in the territory where people
| will trip breakers in their home. This is "you have to
| hire an electrician and rewire part of your house" level
| of power consumption, which doesn't seem sustainable? Or
| at least "don't turn the stove on at the same time",
| which seems like an awfully disruptive way to ask people
| to live.
|
| Heck, at that level for homes/cities with older electric
| service at lower amperages, the computer is now a
| significant fraction of the _total service capacity_ of
| your connection to the city grid.
|
| What's the response then? "Sorry you're not living in a
| new build home, forget about gaming"?
|
| For me the wall-power isn't a huge issue but now you have
| to think about air conditioning. 1-2KW dissipating in a
| closed room heats the room up _fast_. This is already a
| problem with the RTX 2000-series that I 'm running now
| and it seems like it'll be even worse.
|
| "Glad you want to game, now please evaluate your home's
| electrical and HVAC systems to ensure they are compatible
| with a giant box pumping 2KW of power and converting it
| directly to heat"
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"Or at least "don't turn the stove on at the same time",
| which seems like an awfully disruptive way to ask people
| to live."
|
| While reading this I felt a tinge of nostalgia for back
| when I had to ask my mother to stay off of the phone
| while I was online.
| __david__ wrote:
| Perhaps, but you're probably not buying a >$1000 graphics
| card if you can't afford your electricity bill.
| robin_reala wrote:
| I'm in southern Sweden, which is seeing stupid
| electricity prices at the moment. My current daily
| electricity price tops out at 6.62 SEK per kW/h, so a
| 450W card would cost me a US dollar for a four hour
| gaming session.
| bslqn wrote:
| robin_reala wrote:
| It's reasonable to do both?
|
| (although in this case I'm not blaming my government too
| much, beyond failing to anticipate Germany's need for our
| excess energy, and for not setting a country-wide pricing
| model for electricity. With Putin's current stupidity, a
| lot of the previous energy planning goes out of the
| window, and all we can do is hold on for the ride.)
| eitland wrote:
| Southern Norway crossed the 10NOK/kWh threshold earlier
| this year.
|
| It is kind of mind boggling how this can happen for a
| country with almost infinite supply of hydro power, but
| here we are.
|
| Of course, Norway being Norway, since the start of
| September we now get a 90% refund for everything above
| 0.7NOK (based on the average price of each 24 hours) so
| for most of us will survive.
|
| Oh, and since most power plants are owned by the public
| this doesn't affect budgets as badly as it could have
| done.
|
| (It is even more complicated but I don't have more time
| now. Someone please fill in if I got something really
| wrong. Also, yes, this is a wild tangent but thinking I
| know HN I guess it will the day a little less boring for
| someone : )
| not_the_fda wrote:
| The most expensive electricity is Germany at $0.40 / kwh
| vs the average of $0.15 / kwh. A 40 hour game will cost
| $10 extra.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > The most expensive electricity is Germany at $0.40 /
| kwh
|
| That's not true, my contract is for 0.41 (EUR, but that's
| kinda the same right now) and I've seen far higher
| prices. Unless you are talking wholesale, which might be
| true but is useless for a consumer comparison.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| >The most expensive electricity is Germany
|
| In California with PGE we pay $0.49/Kwh on peak if you're
| using above "baseline"
|
| https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-
| plans/how-ra...
|
| Our power bill for a <2000sqft single-family home is
| about $800 per month right now, and CA + PGE keep trying
| to do things like this to prevent solar from being worth
| it: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/08/cpuc-
| proposed-...
| swid wrote:
| Even if power is expensive, it only uses that power when
| you are using it. The whole card is 450W, so maybe 3
| hours of intense could be a dollar? The card isn't going
| to be running 100% for any game I know. Compared to a
| slower 250W card, the premium is 1/2 that. With that it's
| like you agree to pay an extra dollar for 6 hours of
| gaming. With expensive electricity. I feel like this is
| conservative and doesn't seem to bad for people
| considering the most expensive consumer card on the
| market.
| TuxSH wrote:
| Most countries in Europe don't have AC in homes. Power
| consumption absolutely is an issue because of heat
| dissipation.
| nicolaslem wrote:
| Assuming you don't care about energy prices, climate change
| and fan noise, there is still thermal throttling that can
| lead to cycles of boost-throttle-boost-throttle that can
| result in uneven frame pacing.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| Of course my assumption is that the system will be cooled
| adequately, avoiding any thermal throttling at sustained
| maximum load. That's true for the current hardware
| generation too.
| guhidalg wrote:
| I'm sure that for gaming, power is not an issue, but I will
| continue to lament that Intel and Nvidia do not give a shit
| about making power-efficient designs. They push the
| increased cost and headaches to consumers and OEMs who need
| to spend time and money cooling their computers.
|
| Maybe that's the genius of their plan? The chip designers
| continue to put out better & hotter processors and expect
| someone else to figure out cooling. Thermal design failures
| are not attributed to Intel and Nvidia, instead to OEMs and
| consumers.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| I don't understand. If you are unable to cool it
| properly, you can under-clock it, or run less intensive
| programs on it, or just get a last gen card.
|
| _Offering_ a more powerful GPU /CPU for people and use-
| cases that demand it is not a problem. Most games these
| days run well even on mid-tier cards of the 20 series,
| that's two generations ago. So people have all the choice
| in the world.
|
| Just because a 1000 bhp LaFerrari exists in the market,
| doesn't mean you cannot buy a ~100 bhp Corolla. People
| who buy the Ferrari will need to take special care of
| their car to get the most out of it. That's a pleasure in
| itself for some.
| guhidalg wrote:
| Your car analogy is missing the fuel aspect. If I can get
| 1000HP with 50MPG, instead of 1000HP at 5MPG, I would buy
| a Ferrari.
|
| At the high-end, Nvidia is making more powerful cards
| (HP) with the same fuel efficiency as before. Maybe they
| are making more efficient cards at the lower end but
| those don't get attention on HN it seems.
| paulmd wrote:
| > At the high-end, Nvidia is making more powerful cards
| (HP) with the same fuel efficiency as before.
|
| No, perf/w is still climbing every generation. It'll
| climb hugely this generation too.
|
| NVIDIA's marketing number is 2x perf at the same wattage
| as last gen, obviously needs to be validated by third
| party testing but they're shrinking two nodes at once
| here, it's a bigger node jump than Pascal was.
|
| People have been primed to react negatively by a couple
| of twitter rumormongers like kopite7kimi. Yeah 4090 has a
| high TGP, but it's more like 400W TGP (450W TBP) and not
| the 800W TGP / 900W TBP that he was shouting from the
| rooftops about. There is still a huge gain in efficiency
| here, it's just also a very large (and expensive) chip on
| top of the higher efficiency.
|
| But people don't discard their incorrect mental frames
| when the information used to build them is falsified.
| Actually they just tend to retrench and dig deeper ("450W
| is still too much even if it is 2x perf/w!"). Ada is a
| power hog, "everybody knows it".
|
| https://videocardz.com/newz/flagship-nvidia-ada-sku-
| might-fe...
|
| People said they wanted a balls-out big chip on a
| competitive node, that's exactly what the 4090 is, it's
| highly efficient and very large, this is much closer to
| the cutting edge of what the tech can deliver than
| Samsung 8nm junk or little baby 450mm2 dies. Now people
| are complaining about the TDP and the cost, even if it's
| more efficient that's not good enough. Unfortunately the
| TDP is a matter of physics, thermal density is going up
| every generation and a big chip on a modern node pulls a
| lot of power.
|
| There are lower models in the stack too and those will
| maintain that efficiency benefit. It's a larger-than-
| pascal node shrink, efficiency is going up _a lot_ here.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Their lower more efficient tiers of hardware haven't just
| disappeared because the halo product emphasizes
| performance over efficiency.
| bentcorner wrote:
| In a generation or two we're going to start bumping up
| against regular US outlet limits. Gamers might start setting
| up their rigs in the kitchen to use the 20A outlets.
| hbn wrote:
| I've already started moving my desk into the laundry room
| so I can unhook the washer from the 240V outlet whenever I
| want to play Stardew Valley
| glitchc wrote:
| Hilarious!
| ollien wrote:
| > What else is the next generation of cards supposed to do,
| have the same performance but make them more energy
| efficient? Not sure how many people would buy cards that have
| the same performance but less TDP.
|
| This is what Intel did for a while with their "tick tock"
| strategy
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model
| malfist wrote:
| They still do, basically, it's just tick tock tock, with
| the finally one specifically focused on efficiency.
| caycep wrote:
| unless you're Apple and have your cake and eat it
| too...sometimes I wonder if maybe the design goals at NVIDIA
| and AMD are misplaced a bit
| capableweb wrote:
| Most cards that come out seems to sell relatively well, so
| seems they are doing what consumers want: better
| performance in favor of everything else.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Except Apple doesn't really have their cake and eat it too.
| Their most powerful GPUs can be more than 10x slower than
| similarly priced Nvidia cards, particularly for ML and
| rendering workloads. At least in Nvidia's case, I think
| they've got their ducks in a row. Their 7nm GPUs get better
| performance-per-watt than Apple's 5nm ones. 'Nuff said.
| tepmoc wrote:
| Nowadays i found that watt per fps is better metric. And
| nvida is just milking performance by power draw more current
| (less efficient)
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Not NVidia, Intel. Intel has been unable to do a die shrink
| for years because they own their own fabs instead of using
| TSMC, GlobalFoundries, or Samsung to actually produce their
| chips. The new 4090s are supposed to be about 2x
| performance of a 3090 with the same power draw because of
| the smaller process (5nm TSMC vs 8nm Samsung).
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > And nvida is just milking performance by power draw more
| current (less efficient)
|
| You'll be hard pressed to find a generation where power
| efficiency actually decreased. That didn't happen with the
| RTX 30xx series, for example. Even though power
| skyrocketed, performance increased by more than power did.
| Meaning efficiency still increased. That's been true for
| every generation I can think of, certainly all the more
| recent ones anyway. Maybe AMD had a few like that where
| they just re-rev'd the same architecture multiple times in
| a row.
| izacus wrote:
| As a gamer... Should I care?
| rimunroe wrote:
| I have bigger things to worry about personally as far as my
| energy consumption is concerned, but the main way this
| impacts me is that my wife and I probably need to get some
| electrical work done in order to support our devices being in
| the same room. Our two gaming computer towers theoretically
| have a maximum combined power draw of 1800 Watts, which is
| well above the 1450 W which I think is the maximum sustained
| (not burst) load for a 15 A residential circuit in the US.
| This is ignoring the few hundred extra watts for monitors,
| speakers, laptops, and a couple lamps.
| snarfy wrote:
| Your 15A circuit will support 15A * 125V = 1875W
| rimunroe wrote:
| My understanding is that the maximum should only be used
| for short periods of time, like for microwaves and hair
| dryers, rather than for sustained loads like a heater or
| computer. I think sustained loads are supposed to be 80%
| of the maximum load the breaker can handle.
| TylerE wrote:
| Depends, do you like your PC sounding like an airplane from
| all the fans spinning up?
| izacus wrote:
| Nope, the triple fan setup in a big case is fine - if
| anything, the 3xxx gen cards are quieter than previous
| ones.
| [deleted]
| ghosty141 wrote:
| Running games that put my GPU (rtx 3080) usage at 90-100%
| doesn't even make my PC audible when having (open back)
| headphones on with ingame sound a normal levels. If you
| invest in good components and focus on quietness you can
| get great performance without much noise. In my case,
| without any watercooling.
|
| With watercooling and a big rad, it can get even quieter.
| aordano wrote:
| If you're on 110V you should care about the current limits
| jaimehrubiks wrote:
| Some people might need to upgrade the PSU
| leetcrew wrote:
| imo people get a bit too worked up over the peak power draw
| of parts that are going to be fully loaded only a couple
| hours per day.
|
| the bigger issue is where all that additional heat is going
| and how. I'll be paying close attention to the SPL metrics
| for this generation.
| danuker wrote:
| What is SPL? "Sound Pressure Level"? Of the cooling fan?
| leetcrew wrote:
| yes, there are limits to how much heat can be removed by
| a dual-slot blower without making it extremely loud. open
| coolers can do a bit better, with the trade-off that they
| dump most of the heat inside your chassis rather than out
| the back.
| aseipp wrote:
| The 3090 Ti series was already pushing 450W so this isn't
| new.[1] And it's because they clock these things incredibly
| high, well beyond the efficiency curve where it makes sense.
| Because that's what gaming customers expect, basically. On the
| datacenter cards they quadruple or octuple the memory bus
| width, and they drop the clocks substantially and hit iso-perf
| with way, way better power. But those high-bandwidth memory
| interfaces are expensive and gaming workloads often can't
| saturate them, leaving the compute cores starved. So they
| instead ramp the hell out of the clocks and power delivery to
| make up for that and pump data into the cores as fast as
| possible on a narrow bus. That takes a lot of power and power
| usage isn't linear. It's just the nature of the market these
| things target. High compute needs, but low-ish memory/bus
| needs.
|
| This isn't necessarily a bad or losing strategy, BTW, it just
| is what it is. Data paths are often very hot and don't scale
| linearly in many dimensions, just like power usage doesn't.
| Using smaller bus widths and improving bus clock in return is a
| very legitimate strategy to improve overall performance, it's
| just one of those tough tradeoffs.
|
| Rule of thumb: take any flagship GPU and undervolt it by 30%,
| saving 30% power/heat dissipation, and you'll retain +90% of
| the performance in practice. My 3080 is nominally 320/350W but
| in practice I just cliff it to about 280W and it's perfectly OK
| in everything.
|
| [1] Some people might even be positively surprised, since a lot
| of the "leaks" (bullshit rumors) were posting astronomically
| ridiculous numbers like 800W+ for the 4090 Ti, etc.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Yeah, I thought those leaks were pretty insane, like are we
| really going to all need 1KW+ PSUs to run flagship GPUs? I
| picked up an 850W Seasonic Prime a few upgrades ago and even
| running benchmarks on an OC 12900KS + 3090 with 8 case fans
| it's totally fine. I was hoping to not have to upgrade PSUs
| for another few years.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The 3090 Ti series was already pushing 450W so this isn't
| new.[1]
|
| Every time this comes up, people forget that:
|
| 1) Flagship cards like the 3090 Ti and 4090 consume
| significantly more power than typical cards. You should not
| buy a flagship card if power is a concern.
|
| 2) You don't have to buy the flagship card. Product lineups
| extend all the way down to tiny single-fan cards that fit
| inside of small cases and silent HTPCs. It's a range of
| products and they all have different power consumption.
|
| 3) You don't have to run any card at full power. It's trivial
| to turn the power limit down to a much lower number if you
| want. You can drop 1/3 of the power and lose only ~10-15% of
| the performance in many cases due to non-linear scaling.
|
| 4) The industry has already been shipping 450W TDP cards and
| it's fine.
|
| If power is an issue, buy a lower power card. The high TDP
| cards are an _option_ but that doesn 't mean that _every_
| card consumes 450W
| nfRfqX5n wrote:
| Market doesn't seem to care yet
| ftufek wrote:
| For what it's worth, you can power limit them and I'd highly
| recommend it if you plan on running a few of these. In the past
| we've power limited RTX 3090s to 250W (100W lower than
| original) while losing negligible amount of performance.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Do you just limit using something like MSI Afterburner?
|
| I was undervolting and underclocking my Titan XP for a long
| time (with a separate curve for gaming) but lost the config
| and have been lazy to go back. I mainly did this because it
| has a mediocre cooler (blower design that is not nearly as
| good as the current ones but also not terrible) and even at
| low usage it was producing a lot of heat and making some
| noise (the rest of my system I specifically designed to have
| super low noise).
| ftufek wrote:
| I just used `nvidia-smi -pl 250` on linux, it's built into
| the driver itself, I'm sure there's equivalent tools (or
| maybe even nvidia-smi itself) for Windows as well.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Interesting - going to look into this - do you set custom
| fan curves at all? Wondering basically if I can use a
| command like this to set a ceiling on wattage and then a
| second command to set an increased lower limit on fan
| speed.
| ftufek wrote:
| Nope, I don't touch anything else. This is essentially
| telling the GPU, don't use more than this power at all,
| it'll automagically figure out the best configuration and
| all that. I've ran those power-limited rigs for 24/7 for
| many weeks, no issues at all and reduced heat is a nice
| side effect.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I'll also add that Nvidia's drivers are fairly good at
| keeping wattages relatively low, at least for desktop
| cards. My 3070 will idle ~10 watts when decoding video or
| just accelerating my desktop environment. You only see
| that 300-watt TDP take effect when doing consecutive
| renders or local ML like Stable Diffusion, and you'll
| definitely want the extra power.
| Melatonic wrote:
| The fan curves though kinda suck for the default nvidia
| drivers - especially on the blower it will run them super
| low to try to make it silent (which is not very efficient
| heat wise) and then not start spinning it up until it is
| really under load. Whereas there is a level that is
| barely an increase in perceptible noise that cools the
| GPU significantly more and for many mid range loads will
| not end up with with the GPU temp (and the fan) going
| through lots of highs and lows.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| There's literally a power slider now. So yeah just fire up
| Afterburner, take the power slider, and lower it as much as
| you want until performance falls off too much for you. I
| think you can drop all the way to 50% or something somewhat
| asburdly low (at which point you should probably have just
| bought a cheaper, lower-power card in the first place)
| amelius wrote:
| Hardware designers produce more Watts where software developers
| create more bloat.
| paulmd wrote:
| Dennard Scaling/MOSFET Scaling is over and it's starting to
| really bite. Power-per-transistor still goes down, but density
| is going up faster. Meaning an equal-sized chip on an old node
| vs a new node... the power goes up on the newer chip.
|
| Physics is telling you that you need to let the chip "shrink"
| when you shrink. If you keep piling on more transistors (by
| keeping the chip the same size) then the power goes up. That's
| how it works now. If you make the chip even bigger... it goes
| up a lot. And NVIDIA is increasing transistor count by 2.6x
| here.
|
| Efficiency (perf/w) is still going up significantly, but the
| chip also pulls more power on top of being more efficient. If
| that's not acceptable for your use-case, then you'll have to
| accept smaller chips and slower generational progress. The 4070
| and 4060 will still exist if you absolutely don't want to go
| above 200W. Or you can buy the bigger chips and underclock them
| (setting a power limit is like two clicks) and run them in the
| efficiency sweet spot.
|
| But, everyone always complains about "NVIDIA won't make big
| chips, why are they selling small chips at a big-chip price"
| and now they've finally gone and done a big chip on a modern
| node, and people are still finding reasons to complain about
| it. This is what a high-density 600mm2 chip on TSMC N5P running
| at competitive clockrates looks like, it's a property of the
| node and not anything in particular that NVIDIA has done here.
|
| AMD's chips are on the same node and will be pretty spicy too -
| rumors are around 400W, for a slightly smaller chip. Again, TDP
| being more or less a property of the chip size and the node[0],
| that's what you'd expect. For a given library and frequency and
| assuming "average" transistor activity: transistor count
| determines die size, and die size determines TDP. You need to
| improve performance-per-transistor and that's no longer easy.
|
| [0] an oversimplification ofc but still
|
| That's the whole point of DLSS/XeSS/Streamline/potentially a
| DirectX API, get more performance-per-transistor by adding an
| accelerator unit which "punches above its weight" in some
| applicable task and pushes the perf/t curve upwards. But,
| people have whined nonstop about that since day 1 because using
| inference is a conspiracy from Big GPU to sell more tensor
| cores, or something, I guess. Surely there is some obvious
| solution to TAAU sample weighting that doesn't need inference,
| and it's just that every academic and programmer in the field
| has agreed not to talk about it for the last 20 years, right?
| jackmott42 wrote:
| People want to render more triangles. What are you gonna do?
| behnamoh wrote:
| Apple M1 showed us that it's possible to increase performance
| while keeping the power consumption low--laptop level low.
| cma wrote:
| They bought out exclusive access to the most efficient node,
| making it impossible for others rather than showing it is
| possible for them (though it presumably would have been
| possible if they outbid Apple at the time).
| [deleted]
| haunter wrote:
| I'm on an 1070 right now and feels like it's time for upgrading
| but then I need a new CPU too so a new mobo as well etc. Oh well
| but always exciting to get a new PC!
| rejectfinite wrote:
| Same. 1070ti gang
|
| Still works great at 1440p
| jessfyi wrote:
| These prices are beyond insulting and frankly I'm glad they're
| going to take a hit competing with the flood of miner cards
| entering the market.
|
| Also note that nothing is preventing Optical Flow Acceleration
| [0] (and subsequently the DLSS 3.0 models that they claim are
| exclusive to the 40 series) from running on either 2/3 RTX cards.
| Just like RTX Voice and other gimmick "exclusives" I expect it to
| be available to older cards the moment they realize their backlog
| of 30 series cards aren't clearing as quickly as they thought.
|
| They're competing against an over-bloated secondhand market, AMD,
| Intel, much better integrated GPUs, and comparatively cheaper
| consoles that maintain sky-high demand with subsidized games via
| new subscription programs. They're vastly overestimating their
| brand loyalty (think Microsoft v Sony after the 360) and EVGA's
| exit makes more sense now than ever.
|
| [0] https://developer.nvidia.com/opticalflow-sdk
| ftufek wrote:
| While I do wish they priced lower, I think when you put things
| into perspective, it blows my mind that I can buy a card with
| 76 billion transistors(!) for just 1600$. I suspect the demand
| for top of the line RTXs will come from enthusiast gamers and
| ML researchers/startups. Most gamers would be more than fine
| with 3090 which handles almost anything. The market will be
| very interesting to watch.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| > handles almost anything
|
| What is something it can't handle?
| ftufek wrote:
| Gaming-wise, I think the 3090 struggles at 8k and 4k 144hz
| gaming, which is very high end gaming experience and people
| that spend the money on those monitors will spend the money
| on the 4090.
|
| For other purposes (like scientific computing/ml), while
| 3090 can do a lot of things that 4090 does, it's half the
| speed (or even slower) and a lot less energy efficient, say
| 1x4090 = 2x3090, 4090 uses 450W, dual 3090 uses 700W, of
| course you can power limit both of them further, but you
| still get best bang for your buck out of the 4090.
| paulmd wrote:
| Also VR. I know VR people with a 3090 who grumble about
| it not really being fast enough for them.
| edude03 wrote:
| What games are they running?! While I know not top of the
| line - I can run the HTC VIVE pro 2 at 5k@120hz at max
| visual settings in beatsaber on a 2060 based gaming
| laptop.
| ahoho wrote:
| For ML, the bottleneck is often memory, which is the same
| between those cards.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| I think it's great the high end keeps getting bigger and
| faster.
|
| Nvidia has primarily been associated with gaming. With Machine
| Learning that's starting to change. With tools like Stable
| Diffusion every single artist is going to want a $1600 GPU and
| honestly that's a bargain for them!
|
| I think it'd be sweet if you could spend $100 to $10,000 and
| get a linear increases in cores, ram, and performance. That's
| not how it works. But philosophically I have no problem with
| it.
|
| Hopefully AMD steps up and brings some real competition.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> With tools like Stable Diffusion every single artist is
| going to want a $1600 GPU and honestly that's a bargain for
| them!_
|
| Most artists who are not tech savvy to spin up their local
| Stable diffusion instances are probably going to pay and use
| one of the online services like DALL-E 2 or something.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| It's already been turned into single-click installers and
| Photoshop plugins.
|
| Packaging Python is a dumpster fire of local environment
| complexity. But this is an extraordinarily solvable
| problem. I won't call it solved today. But we have Proof of
| Life of solutions.
| int_19h wrote:
| If by "packaging" Python you mean vendoring it, it's very
| easy on any platform that I can think of.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Plus if there's enough demand for running it locally,
| someone will make a shiny GUI to bundle with AMD cards.
| novok wrote:
| If they already have an m1 pro or max macbook pro it works
| well enough.
| jnwatson wrote:
| There are already nice GUIs and plugins. It really is plug
| and play now.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > They're competing against [..] Intel
|
| No they aren't. All signs point to ARC's first outing being a
| swing & a miss, and Intel themselves didn't even have any plans
| to come anywhere close to competing at the top end. Intel's
| highest end ARC card, the A770, was positioned against the RTX
| 3060. And Intel is both missing any semblance of a release date
| it set for itself, but the drivers are also a disaster and
| rumors are Intel is going to shutter the entire division,
| focusing only on data center compute cards only.
|
| So used cards yes are a factor, yes, but if this really is a 2x
| performance jump then those aren't going to be a factor here.
| None of the $1000+ GPU buying market is going to care about
| saving $100-300 to get half the performance after all.
|
| That just lives AMD as competition, and only if RDNA 3 comes
| out a winner. Which the rumor mill is saying it will be, but
| AMD's graphics track record is spotty to put it mildly. I'm
| sure Nvidia's internal plan is to just cut prices if RDNA 3
| surprisingly competes at the top end instead of just the
| midrange, but in the meantime is happy to take those fat fat
| margins.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| > That just lives AMD as competition, and only if RDNA 3
| comes out a winner.
|
| The RX 6650 XT is in the same price bracket as the RTX 3050.
| I'm not sure they would be considered competition even if RX
| 77whatever were in the same price bracket as the RTX 3050.
| Nvidia just seems to push just the right buttons on the
| software features which AMD just cannot seem to get.
|
| Don't get me wrong. I would love AMD to be competition. They
| should frankly team up with Intel. AMD has the hardware and
| Intel can provide the software. Don't see that happening
| considering AMD went alone on their FP8 proposal and everyone
| else joined up on a separate paper.
| tehsauce wrote:
| Hard to blame them for pricing when they can sell the exact
| same chip to a datacenter for $30k.
| belval wrote:
| Bingo, Nvidia isn't making enough A100, A10G to fill demand
| from GCP/Azure/AWS. The idea that they are worried about
| their position in the gaming industry is off mark.
|
| What's happening is that with mining dying they know the
| gaming market won't magically expand, there will be a few
| years of reduced interest. The only way they can make it look
| good on their balance sheet is if the entreprise segment
| grows and that means reassigning their capacity towards it
| even if it means reducing volume on the consumer side.
|
| From a business point of view this makes perfect sense.
| dageshi wrote:
| My guess is, the problem is the lower end. I'm guessing
| they bought a lot of fab capacity for the 40 series given
| fab capacity was highly constrained over the recent years
| and they couldn't produce graphics cards fast enough.
|
| Now masses of 30 series are being dumped onto the used
| market from a combination of ex-mining card and ex-gaming
| cards being sold in preparation for the 40 series. Gamers
| who were looking for 3060/3060ti/3070's can probably pickup
| a used 3080 for comparable money on ebay.
|
| So what does the demand for the 4060 look like? I'm
| assuming a 4060 is a binned down part that didn't make the
| cut for higher models? You wonder if nvidia is left with a
| lot of chips that would've gone to the 4060 which they
| can't sell.
| bitL wrote:
| In that case AMD should blow them out of the water in gaming
| as they have the RDNA for gamers and CDNA for datacenters.
| TomVDB wrote:
| AMD's decision to have different architectures for gaming
| and datacenter is still a major mystery. It's clear from
| Nvidia's product line that there's no reason to do so.
| (And, yes, Hopper and Ada are different names, but there
| was nothing in today's announcement that makes me believe
| that Ada and Hopper are a bifurcation in core
| architecture.)
| adrian_b wrote:
| Moreover, CDNA is not a new architecture, but just a
| rebranding of GCN.
|
| CDNA 1 had little changes over the previous GCN variant,
| except for the addition of matrix operations, which have
| double throughput compared to the vector operations, like
| NVIDIA did before (the so-called "tensor" cores of NVIDIA
| GPUs).
|
| CDNA 2 had more important changes, with the double-
| precision operations becoming the main operations around
| which the compute units are structured, but the overall
| structure of the compute units has remained the same as
| in the first GCN GPUs from 2012.
|
| The changes made in RDNA vs. GCN/CDNA would have been as
| useful in scientific computing applications as they are
| in the gaming GPUs and RDNA is also defined to
| potentially have fast double-precision operations, even
| if no such RDNA GPU has been designed yet.
|
| I suppose that the reason why AMD has continued with GCN
| for the datacenter GPUs was their weakness in software
| development. Until today ROCm and the other AMD libraries
| and software tools for GPU computational applications
| have good support only for GCN/CDNA GPUs, while the
| support for RDNA GPUs was non-existent in the beginning
| and very feeble now.
|
| So I assume that they have kept GCN rebranded as CDNA for
| datacenter applications because they were not ready to
| develop appropriate software tools for RDNA.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Some guy on Reddit claiming to be an AMD engineer was
| telling me a year or so ago that RDNA took up 30% more
| area per FLOP than GCN / CDNA.
|
| That's basically the reason for the split. Video game
| shaders need the latency improvements from RDNA
| (particularly the cache, but also the pipeline level
| latency improvements, each clock an instruction completed
| rather than once every 4 clocks like GCN).
|
| But supercomputers care more about bandwidth. The once
| every 4 clocks on GCN/CDNA is far denser and more power
| efficient.
| terafo wrote:
| Nvidia have been making different architecture for gaming
| and datacenter for few generations now. Volta and Turing,
| Ampere and Ampere(called the same, different
| architectures on different node). And Hopper with
| Lovelace are different architectures. SMs are built
| differently, different cache amounts, different amount of
| shading units per SM, different rate between FP16/FP32,
| no RT cores in Hopper and I can go on and on. They are
| different architectures where some elements are the same.
| Melatonic wrote:
| AMD as well. The main difference being that Nvidia kills
| you big time with the damn licensing (often more
| expensive than the very pricy card itself) while AMD does
| not. Quite unfortunate we do not have more budget options
| for these types of cards as it would be pretty cool to
| have a bunch of VM's or containers with access to
| "discrete" graphics
| skuhn wrote:
| Nvidia's datacenter product licensing costs are beyond
| onerous, but even worse to me is that their license
| server (both its on-premise and cloud version) is fiddly
| and sometimes just plain broken. Losing your license
| lease makes the card go into super low performance
| hibernation mode, which means that dealing with the
| licensing server is not just about maintaining compliance
| -- it's about keeping your service up.
|
| It's a bit of a mystery to me how anyone can run a high
| availability service that relies on Nvidia datacenter
| GPUs. Even if you somehow get it all sorted out, if there
| was ANY other option I would take it.
| TomVDB wrote:
| I don't agree.
|
| Turing is an evolution of Volta. In fact, in the CUDA
| slides of Turing, they mention explicitly that Turing
| shaders are binary compatible with Volta, and that's very
| clear from the whitepapers as well.
|
| Ampere A100 and Ampere GeForce have the same core
| architecture as well.
|
| The only differences are in HPC features (MIG, ECC),
| FP64, the beefiness of the tensor cores, and the lack of
| RTX cores on HPC units.
|
| The jury is still out on Hopper vs Lovelace. Today's
| presentation definitely points to a similar difference as
| between A100 and Ampere GeForce.
|
| It's more: the architectures are the same with some minor
| differences.
|
| You can also see this with the SM feature levels:
|
| Volta: SM 70, Turing SM 75
|
| Ampere: SM 80 (A100) and SM 86 (GeForce)
| terafo wrote:
| Turing is an evolution of Volta, but they are different
| architectures.
|
| A100 and GA102 DO NOT have same core architecture. 192KB
| of L1 cache in A100 SM, 128KB in GA102 SM. That already
| means that it is not the same SM. And there are other
| differences. For example Volta started featuring second
| datapath that could process one INT32 instruction in
| addition to floating point instructions. This datapath
| was upgraded in GA102 so now it can handle FP32
| instructions as well(not FP16, only first datapath can
| process them). A100 doesn't have this improvement, that's
| why we see such drastic(basically 2x) difference in FP32
| flops between A100 and GA102. It is not a "minor
| difference" and neither is a huge difference in L2
| cache(40MB vs 6MB). It's a different architecture on a
| different node designed by a different team.
| dragontamer wrote:
| GCN/CDNA is denser with more FLOPS.
|
| RDNA has more cache and runs with far less latency. Like
| 1/4th the latency of CDNA/Vega. This makes it faster for
| video game shaders in practice.
| TomVDB wrote:
| Density, I can accept.
|
| But what kind of latency are we talking about here?
|
| CDNA has 16-wide SIMD units that retires 1 64-wide warp
| instruction every 4 clock cycles.
|
| RDNA has a 32-wide SIMD unit that retires 1 32-wide warp
| every clock cycle. (It's uncanny how similar it to to
| Nvidia's Maxwell and Pascal architecture.)
|
| Your 1/4 number makes me think that you're talking about
| a latency that has nothing to do with reads from memory,
| but with the rate at which instructions are retired? Or
| does it have to with the depth of the instruction
| pipeline? As long as there's sufficient occupancy, a
| latency difference of a few clock cycles shouldn't mean
| anything in the context of a thousand clock cycle latency
| for accessing DRAM?
| dragontamer wrote:
| > thousand clock cycle latency for accessing DRAM?
|
| That's what's faster.
|
| Vega64 accesses HBM in like 500 nanoseconds. (https://www
| .reddit.com/r/ROCm/comments/iy2rfw/752_clock_tick...)
|
| RDNA2 accesses GDDR6 in like 200 nanoseconds.
| (https://www.techpowerup.com/281178/gpu-memory-latency-
| tested...)
|
| EDIT: So it looks like my memory was bad. I could have
| sworn RDNA2 was faster (Maybe I was thinking of the
| faster L1/L2 caches of RDNA?) Either way, its clear that
| Vega/GCN has much, much worse memory latency. I've
| updated the numbers above and also edited this post a few
| times as I looked stuff up.
| TomVDB wrote:
| Thanks for that.
|
| The weird part is that this latency difference has to be
| due to a terrible MC design by AMD, because there's not a
| huge difference in latency between any of the current
| DRAM technologies: the interface between HBM and GDDR
| (and regular DDR) is different, but the underlying method
| of accessing the data is similar enough for the access
| latency to be very similar as well.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Or... supercomputer users don't care about latency in
| GCN/CDNA applications.
|
| 500ns to access main memory, and lol 120 nanoseconds to
| access L1 cache is pretty awful. CPUs can access RAM in
| less latency than Vega/GCN can access L1 cache. Indeed,
| RDNA's main-memory access is approaching Vega/GCN's L2
| latency.
|
| ----------
|
| This has to be an explicit design decision on behalf of
| AMD's team to push GFLOPS higher and higher. But as I
| stated earlier: video game programmers want faster
| latency on their shaders. "More like NVidia", as you put
| it.
|
| Seemingly, the supercomputer market is willing to put up
| with these bad latency scores.
| bfgoodrich wrote:
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Where do you work? Does your company set prices to be nice, or
| do you set them to maximize profit?
| bornfreddy wrote:
| Sarcasm?
| fsn4dN69ey wrote:
| I think it's fine honestly - remember we have inflation,
| semiconductor shortage, and 3090s retailed at the same price
| like two years ago. Nobody honestly needs this level of
| hardware for "gaming", like honestly 12-24gb vram? I'm not
| saying you shouldn't buy it if you want it but it's definitely
| a luxury product or for non-partnered AI work.
| dudeinhawaii wrote:
| This is not true unfortunately. For high-end 4k gaming you
| can easily become memory throttled on 8 or 10GB of VRAM. This
| is the performance cliff you see on cards like the RTX 3070
| 8GB card. Granted, it's not for everyone, but it's certainly
| something 4k gamers would want.
| vanviegen wrote:
| So.. you're confirming it's a luxury product? One doesn't
| need 4k to enjoy a game.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| One doesn't need to game.
| njdvndsjkv wrote:
| I think this hits the nail its head. Nobody "deserves" a top
| of the line gaming GPU. And if most gamers can't afford it,
| game developers will not develop for it as a minimum.
| Especially for multiplayer games where the total number of
| players in integral to the game being played at all (which is
| why many are free to play).
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > These prices are beyond insulting
|
| ? There are no prices.
| neogodless wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/20/23362653/nvidia-
| rtx-4080-...
|
| RTX 4090 $1,599
|
| RTX 4080 16GB $1,199
|
| RTX 4080 12GB $899
| capableweb wrote:
| 4080 12GB: $900
|
| 4080 16GB: $1200
|
| 4090: $1600
|
| When you click on "Learn more" at the bottom.
| [deleted]
| liquidise wrote:
| Prices are on the individual card pages[1][2].
| 4090 - $1600 4080 (16GB) - $1200 4080 (12GB) -
| $900
|
| 1. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-
| cards/40-serie...
|
| 2. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-
| cards/40-serie...
| tibbon wrote:
| The 3090s were more than the 4090s, and there's been a
| great deal of inflation in that time. I won't call them
| cheap, but it seems like a reasonable price trajectory?
| anotherman554 wrote:
| For what it's worth on October 2 2020 I was lucky enough
| to get a 3080 for a retail price of 699.99. (This was
| only possible due to using a bot for personal use since
| Covid may everything nuts). Adjusted for inflation this
| would be around $800 today. There's two more months until
| launch so the 4080 card is maybe 80 to 90 dollars above
| inflation.
| ct520 wrote:
| my thoughts too. As someone that has been buying
| generations of video cards from matrox, riva tnt and
| onward. This doesn't exactly seem off to me, I hope AMD
| brings some competition with RDNA3 this time around.
| Nursie wrote:
| 3090 launch price in the uk was 1399, US $1499
| cma wrote:
| Inflarion adjusted launch price $1750 or so for the US.
| bitL wrote:
| Europe:
|
| 4090 - 1949EUR
|
| 4080 16GB - 1469EUR
|
| 4080 12GB - 1099EUR
|
| LOL
|
| I think NVidia decided to write off European market
| completely.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Maybe I'm just poor, but I'm really starting to think
| that prices for top end electronics have reached stupid
| levels. Be it phones or GPUs and CPUs...
| bitL wrote:
| Yeah, a 4090 is still cheaper than a full-spec iPhone 14
| Pro Max ;-)
| CrazyStat wrote:
| > I think NVidia decided to write off European market
| completely.
|
| Those prices are basically US price + VAT (US prices
| don't include sales tax).
|
| $1600 + 21% VAT (Median EU VAT) gives $1936.
| bitL wrote:
| It used to be the same price in EUR as in USD, i.e. 3090
| was $1499 and 1499EUR. So they decided to forfeit the
| market I guess.
| chao- wrote:
| For most of that time, the Euro was worth more than USD.
| The exchange has been dancing around the parity line
| since June. It may still be roughly the same price in
| USD->EUR.
| bitL wrote:
| Sure, but the salaries in the EU didn't go up 20% in the
| same time so Nvidia is clearly not targeting the same
| segment of the population anymore, but a 20% richer
| segment now. Companies adjust pricing to different
| markets all the time, but for some reason Nvidia didn't
| do it this time and EU consumers are much more price
| sensitive than US ones, so EU will likely turn red or
| blue in the near future and green will lose its hold.
| Also with crypto gone and cost of living increasing
| sharply I think this is a huge miscalculation on Nvidia's
| side and this will burn them.
| paulmd wrote:
| NVIDIA not giving you a 20% discount on their hardware to
| adjust for currency exchange rates isn't really the
| scandal you think it is. I really really wish during the
| last 20 years when the euro was higher that I would have
| gotten a "USD discount" on all my purchases from the EU,
| but that's not how it works.
| bitL wrote:
| Nvidia's manufacturing is in Taiwan. US has traditionally
| much lower prices on electronics than the EU, now with
| this change EU is completely priced out. SWengs don't
| earn 800k there, but typically plateau at around 100k at
| late stages of their careers. This will have a major
| impact on Nvidia's ability to service EU market. If you
| tried to buy something from EU in the past, you probably
| had to pay large import duties which likely skewed your
| perception.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| People buying expensive GPUs never really struggled with
| increased cost of living. For the budget sector the
| difference between a 300 Euro card and a 500 Euro card is
| significant but for the enthusiasts or business owners it
| doesn't matter if it's 1800 euros instead of 1500 Euros,
| they'll still buy it.
|
| Nvidia wants to be the Porsche of cards, not the VW, so
| they're pricing themselves accordingly.
| bitL wrote:
| I am in their "Porsche buyer" category as I bought 1x RTX
| A6000, 1x Titan RTX and 4x RTX 3090 for Deep Learning,
| but I am staying away from 4090 until they get some sense
| with pricing.
|
| From my point of view, 2x NVLinked 3090s give me the same
| benefit as one 4090 at 150W higher power consumption and
| nothing is super appealing about 4090 until drivers on
| Linux and PyTorch/TensorFlow implementation get stable
| enough for production use which took like 6 months last
| time, so there is no pressure in buying it.
| riversflow wrote:
| Yes, and Salaries in the US didn't go down 20%.
|
| _Software_ companies adjust prices all the time.
| Manufacturers don't have the luxury of 0 marginal cost.
| [deleted]
| nivenkos wrote:
| More than my mortgage payment, utter insanity.
|
| And to think you can get an Xbox Series X for around 500
| EUR now.
|
| PC Gaming is dead.
| andybak wrote:
| Why do you need a 4xxx for PC gaming? A 1070/1080 is
| still a very decent card. There's no game released that
| won't run at reasonable res/fps on 1xxx series cards.
| bitL wrote:
| 10x0 are old, they are starting to break down due to wear
| already.
| [deleted]
| quacker wrote:
| _These prices are beyond insulting_
|
| The 3080 released for $800 USD in Jan 2021 which one
| calculator[1] says is $905 USD with inflation. So a 4080 is
| $900. At least they are consistent.
|
| edit: 3080 12 GB, that is. The original 3080 was $700 USD in
| Sep 2020 which is $800 in 2022. So the base 4080 is priced
| above that.
|
| _They 're competing against an over-bloated secondhand market,
| AMD, Intel, much better integrated GPUs_
|
| For the 4080/4090 pricing, the only competition is AMD.
|
| Just glancing at some benchmarks, the Intel ARC A380 is worse
| than a GTX 1650[2] and the best integrated graphics I know of
| is the Ryzen 7 5700G which is worse than a 1050[3]. I don't see
| why these would affect 4080/4090 pricing at all.
|
| 1. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
|
| 2. https://www.pcgamer.com/official-intel-arc-380-benchmarks/
|
| 3. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-
| ryzen-7-5700g-revie...
| enlyth wrote:
| The $900 one is the 12GB version, which is basically a 4070
| compared to the 16GB version, because the memory is not the
| only difference, but also a different core count, memory bus
| size and clock speed, which is frankly even more insulting.
|
| The "actual" 4080 16GB is $1200.
| quacker wrote:
| The 3080 (10GB) and 3080 (12GB) also had a core count
| difference, although they did not release simultaneously.
|
| But I realized I did give the price for the 3080 (12 GB)
| model, which I corrected in an edit. So I think you're sort
| of right in the sense that the 4080 (12GB) is priced above
| the 3080 (10GB) in real terms, and that the 4080 (16GB) is
| priced way above the 3080 (12 GB) in real terms.
| thefz wrote:
| > competing with the flood of miner cards entering the market.
|
| Remember: don't buy miner cards and let them rot. They
| artificially generated scarcity thus raising the prices for
| everybody during the pandemic. And don't believe that a card
| that has been on 24/7 is safe to use. "but it was undervolted!"
| means nothing.
| Melatonic wrote:
| This is a horrible take and I will definitely be buying a
| card at rock bottom prices once miners start dumping them big
| time.
| zokier wrote:
| > They artificially generated scarcity
|
| I don't think there was anything artificial about the
| scarcity generated by miners; the demand was genuine.
| Scalpers are a different matter....
|
| > And don't believe that a card that has been on 24/7 is safe
| to use
|
| Are you claiming that it is somehow _unsafe_ to use?
| thefz wrote:
| > Are you claiming that it is somehow unsafe to use?
|
| For your wallet, yes. Do you have any information about the
| environment in which a card was used? Temperature, dust,
| air moisture were like in a home or there operated in an
| industrial warehouse? Fan bearing status after all these
| hours? Voltage applied? Stock BIOS? were they in an
| enclosure or in a sort of a case? Thermal paste has been
| changed? Ever been disassembled?
|
| I would not trust a miner's card even if it was a gift.
|
| Miners screwed the market over and now they want you to
| think that their used crap is such a bargain. Let them deal
| with their waste, don't help them.
| TomVDB wrote:
| I'd be more than happy to by a 3080 (or similar) for a
| bargain price, knowing that it has been run at lower
| voltages and power levels.
|
| As for waste: I very much hope it will not become waste.
| Why would you be advocating for that?
| drunkendog wrote:
| > Do you have any information about the environment in
| which a card was used?
|
| That would be even more true for cards owned by non-
| miners; most miners will operate at a large enough scale
| to use some best practices, which definitely isn't true
| about most people who buy GPUs for personal use.
| belthesar wrote:
| This is but one test, but Linus Media Group did some testing
| and found that mining GPUs worked just fine. Fan time and
| thermal pad degradation are about the only real detractors
| from buying a used GPU.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKqVvXTanzI
|
| Of course, if a card's running at thermal throttle for long
| periods of time, that has a chance to damage the card, but
| given that most cards are running underclocked, the
| likelihood that you'll run into that problem is low.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| Just let them become e-waste and buy something new. Turn on
| the stove and open all Windows when not at home while you're
| at it. SMH.
|
| And that "not safe to use"? You think it's gonna explode?
| Worst case it doesn't work, but even that's probably pretty
| low risk. Hardware doesn't "wear" that way that quickly.
| thefz wrote:
| The environmental argument crumbles a bit when defending
| miners, don't you think?
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| He is not defending miners.
| TomVDB wrote:
| They're defending taking advantage of a miner's forced
| fire sale. Less waste, lower price for a good GPU. What's
| not to like?
| effie wrote:
| His argument is that by buying a miner card, you're
| validating strategy of miners, which are considered "bad
| actors" by gamers and environmentalists. If you
| intentionally decline buying a miner card, you're helping
| to make miner activity less profitable, thus doing the
| "right thing".
| thefz wrote:
| Why don't you go to a beach and scoop up some oil from
| the BP spill? It's good oil after all.
|
| Let them clean up their environmental disaster.
| njdvndsjkv wrote:
| >Why don't you go to a beach and scoop up some oil from
| the BP spill? If it was trivial, why not? If you told him
| "don't buy any GPUs" then it would make sense. But either
| way he will be using _some_ "oil" (GPU) in this case so I
| don't see why he should waste perfectly good "oil." I
| suppose you would rather leave the oil in the ocean?
| jdhendrickson wrote:
| I have never understood this argument. How much
| environmental damage is done by the mere creation of all
| television shows cumulatively, the creation of plastic
| tat given away at conventions, plastic wrapping at
| grocery stores?
|
| But graphics cards are what we REALLY need to focus on
| and you better believe you are tuning in for the next big
| show. It's almost manufactured.
| TomVDB wrote:
| Holy false equivalence, batman!
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Look up "sunk cost".
|
| GPU mining is poised to be permanently done. There is no
| "lesson" to teach miners, because there is no expected
| repeat of such a run on GPU mining again.
|
| Meanwhile, the implication from your post is that it is
| better that the tens or hundreds of thousands of GPUs
| miners currently own and may offload would be better in a
| dump, just for retribution.
| effie wrote:
| Nicely said. Actually there is a point - vengeance and
| moralizing. But you're right this probably wouldn't have
| much effect on GPU availability and reduction of
| pollution in the near future.
| super256 wrote:
| Exactly. The thing that stresses silicon the most is
| extreme change of temperature. Guess what doesn't change
| during mining: Temperature. When mining, you want a steady
| rate and will most likely downclock and undervolt it in
| order to get maximum efficiency out of your card.
|
| The only thing I could imagine to break are capacitors, but
| I still have to run into anyone who has issues like that.
| mckirk wrote:
| I would actually be quite interested in seeing some numbers
| to back that up, but I'm not sure if there have been studies
| on the damage of mining yet.
|
| In some ways, letting a GPU run at a constant load (and thus
| constant temperature) is less damaging than a typical gaming
| workload I imagine, where the temperature fluctuates often.
| In other ways it probably isn't (e.g. atoms of the chip
| 'migrating' over time with the constant electron flow, though
| I have no idea how much of an issue that is with modern
| chips).
| thefz wrote:
| Do you have any idea about where these were kept? Not all
| mining operations are commercial-like white rooms with
| people going around in sealed suits. Maybe someone had half
| a dozen cards in his chicken coop, exposed to dust and
| moisture and energy fluctuations. You will never know.
| Would you happily buy that at say, 50% MSRP?
| phil21 wrote:
| > Would you happily buy that at say, 50% MSRP?
|
| Yup, assuming it works and checks out the first 24 hours
| I have it.
|
| Solid state electronics are pretty robust. If they
| survive whatever torture you put them through plus being
| shipped to my door, chances are it will work just fine.
| In my experience there are some problematic GPU models
| that are more prone to early failure under heavy use
| (HD6990 I'm looking at you!), but they are more rare than
| legend may lead folks to believe.
|
| At an appropriate discount it's far cheaper to just buy
| these at pennies on the dollar and just be alright with
| self-insuring for a rather rare early failure. When you
| can buy 2 or 3 for the price of new, it starts to get
| rather compelling.
| sanguy wrote:
| Yes.
| 0x0f_4 wrote:
| same
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| As long as there isn't any corrosion that will lead to
| premature failure, I don't care. Dust is easy to clean
| off and I would expect anyone trying to sell a $500+ GPU
| to at least try to clean it up a bit. Even if not, I have
| an air compressor and a blow gun. "Energy
| fluctuations"...what? Power supplies and VRMs are built
| to deal with this. Check your home with a power analyzer
| with a high sampling rate and see what happens when your
| AC kicks on. At the same time, measure the 12v rail going
| into your GPU when that's happening.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| How do you tell there's no corrosion though? You need to
| at the very least take off any coolers on the card and
| look at the PCB itself to have some level of confidence
| that there's no damage, and even then I've seen corrosion
| sneak under components where you need to pay really close
| attention to notice it.
|
| If I can inspect a card in person, I would be plenty
| happy to buy an ex-mining card, but most of these are
| going to be sold online sight-unseen. This isn't a
| problem exclusive to mining cards though; people have
| been selling damaged GPUs as 'working' for years.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > I would actually be quite interested in seeing some
| numbers to back that up, but I'm not sure if there have
| been studies on the damage of mining yet.
|
| The few investigations have generally found mining cards
| are perfectly fine and if anything above-average in used
| quality. Because yes the primary damage is from thermal
| cycles, not just being on. And since mining is a constant
| load & constant environment, it has very few thermal
| cycles. And miners primarily care about efficiency, so
| they're power-limiting them[1] which further reduces strain
| on the cards.
|
| Fans might be closer to death than a typical used card
| would be, but on pretty much any GPU those are cheap & easy
| to replace. That's really the only "risk"
|
| 1: And before someone inevitable scoffs at this, it's
| common enough that this is built into tools like nicehash.
| It's literally "click 1 button" territory, not exactly
| something a miner wouldn't attempt.
| saati wrote:
| So, generate artificial scarcity?
| Ekaros wrote:
| I don't think there was anything artificial with demand...
| Just somewhat combining demand from limited other spending
| and mining.
|
| For Nvidia it made no sense not to produce as many ships as
| they could.
| foobarian wrote:
| Say, where might one be able to get one of these cheap miner
| cards? Asking for a friend.
| tonightstoast wrote:
| eBay. Make sure the seller has a long history of good reviews
| and is in your country/region. There are some sellers with
| over 100 cards they're trying to offload.
| rndmize wrote:
| IMO they still have too many 3xxx cards and don't want to
| cannibalize sales, hence adding them to the top of the stack
| instead of replacing the 3080/ti (and renaming their 4070 as
| 4080 12gb).
|
| The feeling I get from the whole thing is NV doesn't care that
| much about consumer graphics anymore, and doesn't care about
| providing competitive value. More of their revenue is coming
| from business applications, all of which is growing, and gaming
| looks like its down to 1/3 and shrinking.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> gaming looks like its down to 1/3 and shrinking_
|
| Me and most of my PC gaming friends gave up on this hobby in
| the past two-three years due to the insane GPU prices. I
| moved to the Oculus Quest 2 and they moved to PS5 and
| Steamdeck since the price of a modern GPU alone buys you a
| whole stand-alone gaming console today. Crazy stuff.
|
| I assume the 4000 series is basically a paper launch designed
| to make the existing 3000 inventory look attractive and make
| the people who were waiting on the 4000 series being good
| value rethink and just buy a 3000 instead.
| 7speter wrote:
| Even at 300 dollars, a 350w 3080 still looks pretty bad.
| I'd much rather watch prices of the 6800xt, at least until
| AMD makes their RDNA3 announcement. It also runs (well) on
| linux too :).
| pizza234 wrote:
| > Me and most of my PC gaming friends gave up on this hobby
| in the past two-three years due to the insane GPU prices.
|
| Why give up? Modern games are perfectly playable at 720p/no
| AA, reaching 60+ FPS also on pre-GTX 2000 cards.
|
| I've moved to 1080p just because I bought my latest card
| before the price hike, but I still don't mind playing at
| 720p/no AA.
| refulgentis wrote:
| As presented, the choices then are:
|
| - buy a $800 GPU, keep PC gaming and all the fun
| maintenance associated with that
|
| - buy a cool new toy like a Xbox Series X/PS5/Steam Deck
|
| - don't do anything, game at 720P with no AA (this sounds
| sort of like when I had lunchables for dinner yesterday)
|
| Your alternative isn't wrong but they weren't looking to
| optimize for staying on a PC, but rather, for gaming, and
| were already thinking in terms of "how much of my
| disposable income do I want to spend on my hobby?" rather
| than "should I spend my disposable income on my hobby?"
| cercatrova wrote:
| I had a PS5. I sold it after playing a few exclusives
| because there was just nothing else to play. Games are
| more expensive on consoles than PC, no mods, have to pay
| to play online, and so on.
|
| Plus, the very fact that it's a general purpose computer
| I can use for work, programming, and cool GPU stuff like
| Stable Diffusion are what made me get a PC over a
| console. In other words, I'm gonna need a computer
| anyway, why not get one that can play games over getting
| a computer or laptop and also a games console that
| doesn't do everything as well as a gaming PC?
|
| I'm sure in the long term one would actually spend less
| on a PC than a console, given all these constraints.
| novok wrote:
| Couch experience is overall much nicer. Dual classing one
| pc as a tv and desk thing is just plain annoying.
|
| PC -> TV experiences are also not great in general.
|
| Also many will not buy a desktop computer, their compute
| device is a phone at most.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| Dual classing a pc as a tv and desk PC can be pretty nice
| once you get it set up. Something like Nvidia Shield,
| Moonlight Gamestream software (if you have an Nvidia
| card), and Playnight launcher can work great if you can
| hook it all together with ethernet or MOCA over COAX.
| jakebasile wrote:
| This is my story. I've been a PC-first gamer since I was a
| kid. Diablo was my first "big" game. The pricing of PC
| components and GPUs in particular have forced me to take a
| step back and move to console first with a Steam Deck
| supplementing.
|
| For the price of one mid level 40 series card I can buy two
| consoles (Xbox Series X + Digital PS5). I know that the
| games themselves end up costing more, but I don't really
| care about the majority of new games coming out and the
| ones I do are often on game pass.
| msikora wrote:
| "I know that the games themselves end up costing more"
|
| Just got PS5 and the PS Extra membership whose library
| has almost every game I wanted. Maxed out my SSD storage
| on day 1. And I think the XBox subscription is even
| better. I mean PC is still cheaper but the difference is
| not that big anymore.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I occasionally play games, including some recent AAA
| releases. Everything plays fine at 1k/medium-high settings
| or 4k/medium-low settings on my GTX 1060. No AA, but I
| don't care that much. The age of needing a new graphics
| card to play the new games is basically over. IIRC the GTX
| 1060 is still the most popular GPU on steam. I just
| "upgraded" to a Radeon Pro VII (for RoCM), with basically
| equivalent graphics performance, and everything still plays
| very well.
| dcow wrote:
| Tom at MLID pretty much confirmed as much in his recent two
| broken silicon podcasts. Nvidia is pricing this way so they
| can run the 4k and 3k lines concurrently.
| nomel wrote:
| Jensen layed this out in the Q2 earnings call:
| https://youtu.be/15FX4pez1dw
| zokier wrote:
| Is market bearing pricing really beyond insulting?
| varelse wrote:
| tyjen wrote:
| Seems like it's higher than it "should" be with GPU mining
| winding down due to difficulty maintaining profitability.
| Then again, companies will generally behave with an
| asymmetric pass-through if they figure it will not impact
| sales enough by pricing out consumers--prices increase like a
| rocket, fall like a feather type deal.
|
| Let's see though:
|
| - 1080 TI (2017) = $699 = $845 (22' price counting inflation)
|
| - 2080 TI (2018) = $999 = $1,178 (22' price counting
| inflation)
|
| - 3080 TI (2021) = $1199 = $1,311 (22' price counting
| inflation)
|
| - 4080 16GB (2022) = $1199
|
| I don't know when GPU mining really started to popularize,
| but there was a significant leap in pricing from the 1080 TI
| and the 2080 TI. When you roughly account for inflation, it's
| about on par with current pricing.
|
| Looks like they could trim prices to 1080 TI levels, but I
| don't see that happening unless sales slow a bit.
|
| Also, I'd like to add, I used general Consumer Price Index to
| figure this out, so it could vary if inflation did not impact
| the GPU supply, manufacturing, transport, and other
| influencing factors similarly.
| ksec wrote:
| Both 3080TI and 4080 are roughly 600mm2+ Die Size. 2080 has
| a 700mm2+ on a mature node.
|
| 1080TI, the only outliner in your example has less than
| 500mm2 of die size.
|
| And all of that are before taking account of GDDR memory
| costing, the board, higher TDP requirement and heatsink
| differences.
|
| While I dont think 4080 pricing is good value or cheap by
| any standard. I also dont think it is ridiculously
| expensive. From a transistor stand point, you are getting
| 2.7x the transistor between 3080Ti and 4090. With 4090 You
| are buying 76 billion transistor, with 24GB of GDDRX for
| only $1600.
| kalupa wrote:
| My experience buying my last GPU (1080ti) leads me to fill
| in the blanks. GPU mining became popular shortly after the
| 10xx was released. I know this because I couldn't find one
| in stock and even when I did, it was much more expensive
| than the launch price.
| jsmith45 wrote:
| Is it actually reasonable to be comparing the TI pricing
| rather than original version pricing? Are they skipping a
| TI release this series or something? If not then the launch
| version table looks like this:
|
| - 1080 (2016) = $599
|
| - 2080 (2018) = $699
|
| - 3080 (2020) = $699
|
| - 4080 12GB (2022) = $899
|
| - 4080 16GB (2022) = $1199
|
| Doubling the price of the flagship version of the launch
| product over just 6 years is well, a pretty large jump.
| jsmith45 wrote:
| Is it actually reasonable to be comparing the TI pricing
| rather than original version pricing? Are they skipping a
| TI release this series or something? If not then the launch
| version table looks like this:
|
| - 1080 (2016) = $599 - 2080 (2018) = $699 - 3080 (2020) =
| $699
|
| - 4080 12GB (2022) = $899 - 4080 16GB (2022) = $1199
|
| Doubling the price of the ?080 version of the launch
| product over just 6 years is well, a pretty large jump.
| neogodless wrote:
| Cannot wait to see if the market _bears_ these prices without
| ETH mining!
| jackmott42 wrote:
| It may not, then the price will come down. The invisible
| hand of the free market isn't perfect but in the world of
| GPUs it works fine.
| glitchc wrote:
| Sorry, what are the prices exactly? When I attempt to buy I
| just get an option to be notified. Do I need to sign up just to
| see the price?
| babel_ wrote:
| $1599 for 4090, $1199 for 4080 16GB, $899 for 4080 12GB (aka
| 4070). See Nvidia's News page for the announcement.
|
| Edit: Apologies, got the 4080 numbers wrong, accidentally
| used GBP, corrected above. For the curious, the 4080 16GB is
| PS1269, the 4080 12GB is PS949. Meanwhile, the 4090 is
| PS1679.
| UberFly wrote:
| I suspect there will be a lot of voting with your wallet
| this time around.
| highwaylights wrote:
| RDNA 3 it is then I guess.
| cbg0 wrote:
| Why do you assume those will be cheap?
| 7speter wrote:
| Not the person you responded to, but rumors, and also,
| none of AMD's board partners have come out and said they
| are gonna stop making AMD boards, especially none of the
| AMD exclusive board partners like EVGA did last week.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| Because the demand for AMD graphics cards has never been
| all that great. AMD cards languished on the shelves when
| there was no RTX card to be found. I mean the RX 6650 XT
| can be found for the price of an RTX 3050. They have been
| that price for a bit now. If price to performance were a
| thought to the majority of people buying cards, there
| would be no way that would be the case. Obviously, gaming
| performance is not the only consideration. I've been
| wanting a new graphics card for some time now. I won't
| pay the Nvidia/miner tax and AMD does not provide one
| with easy machine learning access.
| COGlory wrote:
| Well for starters, they can't run CUDA which hugely
| limits their enterprise market
| belthesar wrote:
| During the shortage, AMD kept their reference units at
| MSRP (I was able to pick up a 6800 XT at $649 through
| sheer luck when others I knew were spending upwards of
| $1200 on GPUs). With supply loosening up, I expect AMD
| will continue to play the good guy to steal market share
| and keep prices sane in comparison to Nvidia's play.
| paulmd wrote:
| NVIDIA kept founders edition cards at MSRP too.
|
| what implication are you trying to draw from that as far
| as whether MSRP is good or not?
| spookie wrote:
| You could buy GPUs directly from AMD, which also had
| measures in place to ensure no scalpers had the upper
| hand. This would happen at a certain time of a certain
| day almost every week, so you could get one if you were
| patient enough.
|
| Meanwhile NVIDIA stopped production pre-holiday season
| last year in an attempt to bolster their company value to
| 1 trillion dollars. Quite a risky play that didn't pay
| off [1].
|
| [1] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-allegedly-
| halting-RTX-3...
| paulmd wrote:
| AMD outsources it to DigitalRiver, NVIDIA has done that
| in the past but this time they outsourced to BestBuy
| (with contractual requirements to sell at MSRP). Both
| BestBuy and AMD take some nominal measures against bots
| but it's always been a problem for both sites.
|
| > Meanwhile NVIDIA stopped production pre-holiday season
| last year in an attempt to bolster their company value to
| 1 trillion dollars. Quite a risky play that didn't pay
| off [1].
|
| The source for that article MLID and wasn't borne out by
| actual production numbers. Actually there was a nominal
| rise in shipments in holiday '21.
|
| https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/q421-sees-a-
| nominal...
|
| Also, we're currently in a huge glut so obviously there
| was no availability problem in early Q1 '22 or Q2 '22
| either - like, why is pulling back production for 2022 a
| bad thing, when you're already sitting on a huge
| stockpile of chips? Were they supposed to keep cranking
| and make the glut even worse?
|
| People take these techtubers as gospel and a lot of what
| they say just ends up somewhere between slanted
| perspective and factually incorrect. But people are
| willing to believe literally anything as long as it
| paints NVIDIA in a bad light - just like people went from
| being absolutely sure that partners were scalping gpus
| and selling right into mining farms, but then the EVGA
| CEO says he didn't make any money at all during the
| mining boom and NVIDIA was capping prices and forcing him
| to sell at a loss suddenly everyone forgets about the
| board partners selling $2,000 3080s in their first-party
| stores. Or the "800-900w TGP" rumors for 4080 that ended
| up being off by double.
|
| https://videocardz.com/newz/flagship-nvidia-ada-sku-
| might-fe...
|
| There is just a ton of anti-nvidia sentiment in general
| and it completely distorts everyone's perception of
| reality. People will believe any random thing, even if it
| disagrees with common sense, or their own personal
| observations, as long as it scratches that "green man
| bad" itch. And there is a whole little cottage industry
| of people like MLID and kopite7kimi who thrive on
| catering to it for clicks. Once those negative frames get
| started, they don't go away, even if the information used
| to construct them later turns out to be false.
|
| But people rushing to the defense of poor board partners
| who say they didn't make _any money at all during the
| crypto boom, heck we actually lost money_ really takes
| the cake imo, like that 's either actual goldfish-tier
| memory or massive "green man bad" brain, take your pick.
| They're the ones who handle sales of all the mining cards
| too - NVIDIA doesn't run that directly either, it's all
| partners.
|
| https://videocardz.com/newz/first-nvidia-cmp-crypto-
| mining-p...
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| > ...green man bad...
|
| That is indeed the most succinct way of putting it.
| Timshel wrote:
| And those are the Founder edition prices ...
|
| Partner prices were like 200$ more I believe last time.
| brendaninnis wrote:
| I am just hopeful that I will be able to buy my first new video
| card in over 10 years.
|
| Last year I was bored in the hospital with little to do, so I
| decided it was time to build a new PC after upgrading my last
| build from 2009 for many years. I was completely out of touch
| with the parts buying experience and the shortages/price-hikes. I
| was genuinely baffled when I found out I could not buy a video
| card from any PC part store. I managed to snag a 2070 super
| secondhand for a not ridiculous price, and I was lucky for it.
|
| I've waited a long time and I'm just excited that I might be able
| to get a 4070 some time in the new year.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| DLSS 3 is their main "achievement"? Pathetic. Posting "2-4x times
| faster WITH DLSS" is just cheap cheating.
|
| "Good enough to improve Portal and Skyrim" - exciting news in
| 2022.
|
| Also, games demos in 1080p stream... 4k is just must-have for it.
| Apple can do it, so can you, Nvidia.
| lostmsu wrote:
| > "Good enough to improve Portal and Skyrim" - exciting news in
| 2022.
|
| When you mentioned Skyrim, you got me going.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Maybe Bethesda will release RTX edition of Skyrim for these
| cards...
| Arrath wrote:
| Looking forward to seeing some realistic benchmarks against
| hardware people might actually have, not just the 3080/3090Ti
|
| My 2070 Super is still getting me along pretty well, we'll see if
| an upgrade is worth it.
|
| E: At those MSRP's posted by other commenters....not likely,
| goddamn.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| I have had a hard time feeling like it would have been worthwhile
| to upgrade through all these generations from my current 1080. Am
| I just no longer an enthusiast? Am I getting old?
| phaistra wrote:
| Mining boom prices without the mining boom.
| oblak wrote:
| I am going to sit this one out, though very much looking forward
| to RDNA3.
|
| Absolutely hate how 4080 16GB and 4080 12GB are completely
| different products under the same name. That's good old nvidia
| for you.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| 'Access Denied
|
| You don't have permission to access "http://www.nvidia.com/en-
| us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series..." on this server.
|
| Reference #18.3df06e68.1663689222.96a3b41'
| capableweb wrote:
| https://archive.ph/XQlQU
| ianbutler wrote:
| Disappointed that VRAM isn't going up. May have to pick up server
| cards and rent colo for some of the things I'd like to do. Or I
| guess the 4090 TI is rumored to have 48GB so I'll wait and see.
| jiwidi wrote:
| Nvidia needs a GPU generation where they focus only on power
| consumption. These power increases aren't sustainable
| dougmwne wrote:
| It's actually a 2x performance per watt increase. The 450w
| power consumption of the top card is the same as the previous
| generation's top card, 3090ti.
|
| Why decrease overall power consumption of the top of the line
| cards? PSUs and cooling can handle it and it's for the customer
| that wants top performance. There are plenty of other cards in
| the line at lower total wattage with a good performance per
| watt.
| kuschku wrote:
| Aaaand the page has disappeared again, did someone manage to
| screenshot or archive it?
|
| EDIT: Ah, archive.org has it:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20220920152158/https://www.nvidia...
| placatedmayhem wrote:
| Looks like it's back, at least for me. Wayback Machine has a
| copy, just in case:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220920152158/https://www.nvidi...
| kuschku wrote:
| The German version still says
|
| > Ab XXX,XX $ > Verfugbar ab Monat XX.
|
| So I believe it'll get removed soon again.
| causi wrote:
| _NVIDIA has unleashed its next-gen GeForce RTX 4080 series
| graphics cards that come in 16 GB & 12 GB flavors at $1199 & $899
| US pricing._
|
| Welp it looks like I'm buying a Series X because _fuck that
| noise_. PC gamers get put through hell for the last two years
| because Nvidia preferred selling to Chinese crypto miners and
| _this_ is our reward?
| izacus wrote:
| I'd you want 3050 level performance, you can get that cheap as
| well?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| NB: 4080 12GiB has 9720 cuda cores and 2.21/2.51 base/boost
| clock (in GHz), whereas the 8GiB version has 7680 and 2.31/2.61
| (in GHz).
|
| In other words, the name is utter bollocks because the 12GiB
| model has approximately 1.26 times the cuda cores of the 8GiB
| version for approx 0.96 times the core clock. Assuming no other
| bottleneck exists, the 12GiB version should be 1.21 times
| faster. This is supposed to be the xx70 and xx80 difference.
| nvllsvm wrote:
| Why not just buy a less powerful GPU? The 4080 is likely far,
| far more powerful than the series X.
| groovybits wrote:
| As a PC gamer who's slowly losing interest in favor of
| console gaming...
|
| I don't mean to sound ignorant, but how is any GPU comparable
| to a console.
|
| For $500, I can get: a Series X and a controller, ready to
| play out of the box. With GamePass (currently $1 first
| month), I get instant access to a large library of games.
|
| A current GPU (20, 30, or 40 -series) costs more than that,
| and I also need to purchase the additional components to put
| it all together.
|
| I built a PC in college because it used to be the most cost
| effective option. But that doesn't seem to be the case
| anymore. These 40-series prices will define the cost for the
| next generation of cards, and IMO its too much to justify for
| casual gaming.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > A current GPU (20, 30, or 40 -series) costs more than
| that, and I also need to purchase the additional components
| to put it all together.
|
| No it doesn't. An RTX 3060 brand new is under $500. So is a
| 6700 XT. If we're talking used, RTX 2060's are $200.
|
| Now, are consoles cheaper if all you care about is playing
| games and nothing else? Sure. But that's always been true.
| Usually the pro-PC argument is either because you want the
| flexiblity of PC gaming (that is, your games last longer,
| you've got things like steam sales, mod support, you want
| better-than-console quality & performance, etc...), or you
| already were going to have a PC at which point take the
| money you would have spent on a console and just add it to
| the PC in the form of a GPU. In a world of increasingly
| fewer PCs as a household item, being replaced with laptops
| & phones, that's less true than it used to be. But ymmv.
|
| > With GamePass (currently $1 first month), I get instant
| access to a large library of games.
|
| You get that on PC, too https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-
| game-pass/pc-game-pass
| izacus wrote:
| Not sure what you're asking here? Consoles these days use
| midrange AMD GPUs. Getting a comparable rig is price wise
| perhaps a 100-200$ of price difference for (arguably) more
| flexibility.
|
| What's not computing for you?
| groovybits wrote:
| Can you show me a build that you can make from off-the-
| shelf parts today for $700 that is comparable to the
| 6700XT in the Series X, without carrying over existing
| parts?
|
| PC Part Picker doesn't seem to think so:
| https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#X=0,70000&sort=price
| causi wrote:
| Don't forget console optimization, at least for triple-A
| games, makes the hardware punch well above its weight
| class compared to the PC version. Halo 5 on the Xbox One
| looks about as good as anything I run on my GTX 1070
| despite it having the hardware equivalent of a GTX 750.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Kinda mostly not a thing anymore. DX12 / Vulkan closed up
| the last remaining notable gap here. Particularly as
| consoles became more PC-like in OS-level restrictions to
| combat piracy, and PCs added more low-level interfaces to
| improve performance.
|
| Console optimizations these days is mostly just dialing
| in the settings & using liberal amounts of up-scaling
| (which the PC versions also often support, but is
| disabled by default)
| quacker wrote:
| _how is any GPU comparable to a console._
|
| For perspective, a PS5 is about the performance of a GTX
| 1070, give or take. So a 3080/4080 are far far better
| performance than that.
|
| If you already have PC parts, you could potentially upgrade
| to a 3060Ti for $400 (minus whatever you can sell your
| current GPU for) and get better perf than a console.
|
| Otherwise, you're right. Starting from scratch, consoles
| are a better value, unless you really really want the best
| performance.
| __david__ wrote:
| The PC is for high end gaming. It's not cost effective
| (contrary to what you said I'm not sure it's _ever_ been
| cost effective[1]) compared to consoles. It typically only
| gets close to consoles at the end of a console cycle
| because they have such a step-function and the pc has a far
| more granular cost /performance curve over time.
|
| PC is really the only place where you get super high end
| framerates+resolution+graphics-fidelity combinations. It's
| only really cost effective if you upgrade slowly--a new cpu
| here, a new GPU there, amortizing the costs over the years.
| And the nvidia xx80/xx90 models are never the ones you'd
| buy if you are trying to be cost-effective. They are high
| end damn-the-money-just-give-me-all-the-graphics cards.
|
| [1] maybe back in the era where the PS3 was $600, but even
| then a xbox 360 was cheaper and mostly just as good
| fidelity-wise.
| causi wrote:
| Sure, but with console optimization the series x is roughly
| equivalent to a 3070 in real-world performance and I get the
| value-add of a controller, a UHD blu-ray drive, and
| compatibility with my library of 360 games. My GTX 1070
| already plays 90% of my game library at the highest details
| and framerate on my 60fps TV. Also, never having to deal with
| Steam's screwed-up gamepad framework again is probably worth
| two hundred bucks in frustration alone.
| raydev wrote:
| The Series X performance is roughly equivalent to an Nvidia
| RTX2080. Why would you compare it to a 4080?
| balls187 wrote:
| Try Xbox Cloud Gaming on your PC over your browser.
| Arrath wrote:
| I briefly flirted with the idea of going back to console town,
| but I just love modding my games too much.
| Jackson__ wrote:
| 900$ for a card rumored to be a rebranded 4070 is a pretty steep
| ask.
|
| Note that the 3070 had a launch MSRP of 500$.
| izacus wrote:
| Hmm... what happened to memory bus width on 4080s?
|
| It seems like they went from 384/320 bit width (on 3080) down to
| 256/190? Anyone know the story behind it?
| jlouis wrote:
| Much larger L2 cache on the GPU.
|
| The 30xx cards needs a wide bus to feed it, but with the L2
| cache on the GPU, you can get away with a smaller bus width
| (and faster memory on top, things shifted in the last couple of
| years and DDR6(X) memory is even faster now than it was).
|
| Some of this also has to do with what kind of memory
| configurations you want to offer, as they are tied to the bus
| width. So if you widen the bus, you are looking at using more
| memory chips and having more memory. This pushes the price
| point upward, and you want it to tier somewhere in the middle
| of it all.
|
| One "mistake" on the 30xx (Ampere) series were that the 3080
| was much too powerful for its price point, and you couldn't
| really cram too much more power out above it due to its memory
| config. With this change, you can introduce a 4080Ti in between
| the 4080 16Gb and the 4090 as a mid-seasonal upgrade, and widen
| the bus a bit to satisfy it.
| packetlost wrote:
| Hiding performance compromises for the sake of cost savings in
| the most difficult to determine/understand way for laymen.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| They greatly increased cache sizes, and cut down the bus width.
| Same what AMD did on RDNA2.
| ihuman wrote:
| The 4080/4090 pages have the prices.
|
| 4080 12GB: $900
|
| 4080 16GB: $1200
|
| 4090: $1600
| Beermotor wrote:
| Yeah I'm going to call this a hard pass until I see third-party
| benchmarks, power draw numbers, and what AMD has with RDNA3.
|
| This is starting to look like a repeat of Geforce FX vs Radeon
| 9700 Pro all over again.
| blagie wrote:
| That specs make it seem like these wouldn't be quite worth it
| at launch.
|
| Ampere specs: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-
| cards/compare/
|
| This looks like a smaller bump than Ampere. 3090 seems cheaper
| and better than 4080. As people have pointed out, what I'd
| really like is more / upgradeable RAM. NVidia is trying to not
| compete with their higher-end cards, but ML tools are
| increasingly consumer.
| omegalulw wrote:
| I would like to see independent benchmarks for 4090 before
| making judgements. "2-4x" as claimed over 3090 Ti is not a
| small bump.
| Jackson__ wrote:
| 2-4X in video games, when using DLSS with their new frame
| interpolation technique.
|
| It kinda feels like cheating.
| noahtallen wrote:
| If it's not visually distinguishable, it won't matter. I
| hear recent versions of DLSS are very good at 4k despite
| earlier versions having some bad artifacts. I guess we'll
| have to wait for the reviews :)
| [deleted]
| julienchastang wrote:
| I've been working with NVIDIA GPU VMs of late with the intention
| of running GPU enabled TensorFlow and PyTorch. I find working
| with NVIDIA software incredibly frustrating. In particular,
| installation instructions for CUDA / cuDNN simply do not work.
| The biggest culprit is missing or incorrectly versioned shared
| object libraries. Forums are loaded with developers having
| similar problems never with any viable solution. I've had better
| luck with NVIDIA distributed docker containers. There at least I
| can make it as far as running GPU enabled TensorFlow sample code.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| My guess is SR-IOV will still be locked to Quadro cards this
| gen, which is necessary for effectively sharing GPU resources
| across MULTIPLE VMs.
| ftufek wrote:
| I'd recommend using docker or conda environments. Much easier
| to setup and to replicate.
| aemoron wrote:
| The European prices are ridiculous. 4090 starting 1999EUR. I
| guess I'll be skipping another generation of cards...
| dougmwne wrote:
| You do realize that it's about 350 euro in added 22% VAT,
| right? That makes it about $/EUR50 different. You expecting a
| massive discount or something? I'm not saying euro pricing
| isn't usual higher, but everyone always forgets the tax.
| aemoron wrote:
| Yes, I do realize the tax. The price is ridiculous
| nevertheless. I do not expect anything else but reasonable
| pricing.
|
| Stop being a corporate apologist. Nvidia is known for anti
| consumer behaviour since forever. This is just another
| Turingesque launch. i.e. bad.
|
| I swear you "but the tax" people always crawl out the
| woodwork whenever someone is discontent with pricing.
| dougmwne wrote:
| The tax is literally the problem with quoting the price in
| Euros.
|
| As far as the price, the equivalent card from the 3 series
| was the 3090 RTX, which released at $1499 msrp 2 years ago.
| Given the inflation over past few years, $100 increase is
| not an increase in constant dollars. This new top of the
| line card has twice the performance for effectively the
| same price.
|
| Yes these top of the line cards are crazy expensive, but it
| doesn't seem like this is actually worse than the 3 series
| pricing. You are talking about more than 6 Xbox's worth of
| compute here for an ultra enthusiast market.
| unixhero wrote:
| It seems that they are not catering to what the consumer
| marketing wants anylonger.
| colpabar wrote:
| Ask HN: I am still using a 980. What should I get? I do not care
| at all about having the latest/greatest, I just want an upgrade.
| clawlor wrote:
| I upgraded from a 970 to a 2080 a while back and have been very
| happy with it. Still plays modern games at good frame rates,
| though not with max settings.
|
| Obviously your choice depends greatly on budget + availability
| of hardware, as well as your desired resolution, but I'd
| suggest the 2070 or 2080 (maybe 2080ti?) as a good starting
| point.
| not1ofU wrote:
| Whats your use case?
| npteljes wrote:
| I think your local prices matter the most. Here in Hungary,
| right at the moment, looking at one specific large retailer,
| the 2060 makes the most sense, if we look at price/value.
| Compared to the 980, it offers <50% extra speed. It really
| depends on your circumstances, to judge whether that works for
| you or not.
| pornel wrote:
| Go down this list until you reach performance level you'd like:
|
| https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html
| kuschku wrote:
| Alternatively look at https://www.logicalincrements.com/
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Get the 4090 and forget about upgrading for a long while.
|
| Or even 3090
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I would not get a 3090 for gaming. It's only 10-20% faster
| than a 3080, yet is significantly more expensive. Games won't
| use the extra VRAM.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| Parent didn't mention gaming, so I assumed general use,
| hobbyist ML etc.
|
| Even for gaming though wouldn't 3090 be more future-proof?
| 4K is really the way to experience games in 2021 and beyond
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| 10-20% faster isn't a lot of future proofing. Certainly
| not worth paying double.
|
| You certainly don't need a 3090 for gaming in 4K.
| nVidia's claim of the 3090 being a "4K" card is marketing
| bullshit. If a game can't be run in 4K on a 3080, then
| the 10-20% performance increase of a 3090 isn't likely to
| change that.
| terafo wrote:
| I think you should wait until late November for dust to
| settle(budget segment won't change that much because of it if
| you don't consider buying used). By then both Nvidia and AMD
| will release their cards(it is likely that Intel too, but
| Alchemist is a joke), mining cards will hit the market in large
| quantities and pricing for everything will change drastically.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| It depends on your resolution. If you have a 1080p monitor,
| look for a great 1080p card. same for 1440p, etc.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
| danielodievich wrote:
| I upgraded my wife's 2015 workstation from 980ti to 2080sc of
| some sorts. The limit is pci bandwidth of the MB, anything
| later made no sense. My kids use that as gaming PC and the
| happiness index on the latest titles (valorant, halo) went way
| up. It cand compare to the 3080 that I have in the latest
| gaming PC, but it does great. Bonus is that I sold the 980 to
| someone for 70 dollars, I was going to trash it but apparently
| it is still worth something
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| IMO, get the best 3000-series card you can afford.
|
| You might be able to pick up a card that was used for mining
| super cheap.
| skunkworker wrote:
| A week or so ago 3090s were going for < $1000, which is a
| steal if you need the memory for ML or other intensive apps.
| colpabar wrote:
| I've considered this, but I'm not sure. Is there any concern
| about cards used for mining being too "beat up"? They say you
| shouldn't buy a used car from someone you know was using it
| for racing. Does that apply to graphics cards used for
| mining?
| bongobingo1 wrote:
| _Apparently_ mining cards are ok because they suffer a
| constant load, sometimes run at a capped peak performance
| (?), vs games which can be very spikey.
|
| Whether this is just misdirection thrown around by crypto
| miners looking at a hole of sunk assets or not, I could not
| say. Personally I'd just buy new, but I have also probably
| never spent over 300usd on a card.
| tpxl wrote:
| My previous card (Radeon 7970HD) was used for BTC mining
| in a gaming PC and lasted until about 2018 (So about 6
| years). My current GPU is a 1080Ti that used to be in a
| mining rig and shows no signs of damage at about 4 years
| of age.
|
| I'm looking forward to buying a used crypto mining card
| when the current one dies.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The major concerns would be the thermal paste degrading or
| the fan dying. Both are easy and cheap to remedy, and are
| probably worth preventively fixing when you buy the card.
| Meekro wrote:
| I have a 980, too, and it's great. It plays most stuff on Steam
| without any problems. I'm only considering an upgrade because I
| want to play Flight Simulator and Cyberpunk on max graphics.
| I'll be getting a 3080-- they're fairly mainstream and a great
| value. I love ultra-quiet hardware so I'll be getting the Asus
| 3080 Noctua, which is the quietest version by a huge margin.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Depending on how much you want to spend, a 1080ti, 2080ti and
| 3080ti are all good upgrades (roughly doubling in price with
| each step). All of them come with 11GB or more memory, making
| them very usable for not only gaming but also "average" ML
| (e.g. stable diffusion runs great on my 2080ti, and it's very
| usable for developing tensorflow models).
| behnamoh wrote:
| M1 runs SD in a few seconds. Is 2080ti faster than that?
| cageface wrote:
| I've seen 30-60 seconds for M1 / M1 Pro. Is that what you
| mean by a few seconds?
| terafo wrote:
| It is hard to tell since you don't provide exact numbers.
| I've seen SD generating 50 samples 512x512 image on 2080 Ti
| in 8 seconds, but it is almost certain that there is a
| faster version out there.
| jeffbee wrote:
| A 2080 Ti, which requires a supporting platform, seems
| like a really bad deal compared to a 16GB M1, which you
| can get factory refurbished for $1000.
| wongarsu wrote:
| A used 2080TI goes for around $500, with the remaining
| $500 I can get a computer with a 6x3.6GHz Ryzen 5 and
| 16GB RAM. Which is something completely different than a
| Macbook Air, so that's kind of an apples to oranges
| comparison, but I don't see the big price advantage. And
| presumably GP already has the "supporting platform",
| since they are upgrading, making the 2080TI upgrade half
| the price of a switch to an m1?
| lostmsu wrote:
| Stable Diffusion is but 1 project. M1 gonna be a huge
| bottleneck for anything that takes time. That "Ultra" for
| $4k is about 5 times slower than a single 3090. It will
| be nearly 10 times slower than 4090.
| terafo wrote:
| It is VASTLY slower than 2080Ti. There is no competition
| at all. I don't know exact performance numbers, but I
| would estimate that M1 takes more than a minute to
| generate one image.
|
| UPD: asked a friend to generate image on m1 with
| diffusion bee. It took 4 minutes 30 seconds to generate
| one 25 sample image. It is not even close and much worse
| than I thought.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Must have been an 8GB model. On my 16GB it takes a few
| seconds.
| capableweb wrote:
| Could you provide the exact settings you use for
| generating the image? Settings matter a lot in terms of
| it/s. Also please share the exact it/s you're getting :)
| terafo wrote:
| It was on 16GB model. Can you provide details how do you
| run them and how fast it can run.
| wongarsu wrote:
| I just tried it, on my 2080ti I get a 50 sample 512x512
| image in 7.0 to 7.5 seconds (using PLMS, DDIM or k_lms).
| Or at 256x256 with 8-image batches about 1.15 seconds per
| image.
| lostmsu wrote:
| For ML you need a card that supports bfloat16, which rules
| out 1080Ti, and probably 2080ti.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The 2080ti supports bfloat16 in the sense that it (mostly)
| runs, but to get any speedup over fp32 you need a
| RTX3000-series GPU.
| eis wrote:
| The Portal 2 image comparison seems pretty dishonest to me.
|
| You can clearly see the graphics details have been reduced in the
| RTX off version. Check how the outline of the portal or the gun
| look like for example, completely different textures.
| madamelic wrote:
| They also added a texture pack. Notice how the walls went from
| concrete to shiny white metal.
|
| The window above also changed textures. It's _very_ dishonest.
| balls187 wrote:
| After moving to the Steam deck, I'm not sure I care about my PC
| GPU anymore.
|
| The combination of the Steam Deck w/ Xbox Cloud Gaming, has
| changed how I will move forward with PC gaming.
|
| I think in the future, I'd want to use steam deck w/ an external
| GPU when driving my large monitor, and then cloud streaming, SoC
| gpu for handheld mode.
| int_19h wrote:
| If I remember correctly, Valve said that external GPU is not a
| supported scenario for Deck.
| bullen wrote:
| The problem with cloud streaming are 2 fold:
|
| 1) The latency will always be a problem, and for me low latency
| gameplay IS the reason I play games.
|
| 2) When the cloud providers electricity contract runs out the
| cloud service will cost 10x.
| selectodude wrote:
| > When the cloud providers electricity contract runs out the
| cloud service will cost 10x.
|
| Location matters greatly here. There are tons of data centers
| in my area due to stable electricity prices due to a high
| nuclear base generation capacity. I paid the same ten years
| ago as I do now.
| bullen wrote:
| Ok, interesting in what country are you if you don't mind
| the question? I'm guessing US?
|
| I think marginal prices are going to shuffle the board
| pretty harshly from now on though!
|
| Energy does not create itself out of thin air. (except from
| the sun, and that takes millions of years to get stored as
| coal, oil and gas) so it's just a matter of time before the
| nuclear plants margins are going to break too.
|
| I was for nuclear after I discovered uranium has
| 1.000.000.000x the energy contents per weight of batteries
| but now I realize without cheap marginal coal, oil and gas
| nuclear is too risky.
|
| As I see it now the only solution is to reduce consumption,
| yeasterday voluntarily or tomorrow (today in EU) dragged by
| our hair.
| MikusR wrote:
| The funny thing is that GeforceNow 3080 tier can have lower
| latency than local console + TV
| bullen wrote:
| No, you need to look at motion-to-photon latency.
|
| Press button -> see the light coming out of the TV.
|
| No benchmark crap.
| drummer wrote:
| Judging by the prices, nvidia's ceo is smoking something highly
| illegal and unhealthy.
| shaggie76 wrote:
| As a streamer AV1 encode support is really exciting to me; when I
| can enable in OBS and stream to Twitch etc getting an Ada GPU
| would be high on my list of upgrades.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Does AV1 have much better compression than HEVC? I use NVENC
| for my entire desktop with virtual resolution of about 6k x
| 2.5k in real time and barely feel anything.
| pornel wrote:
| They are in the same ballpark.
| shaggie76 wrote:
| I suspect licensing requirements have prevented HEVC from
| being adopted by streaming platforms; AV1 is an open and free
| codec in contrast.
| syntaxing wrote:
| This might sound crazy but would it make more sense for me to buy
| a Mac Studio instead of the new GTX40 series if I just want to
| dabble in some fun ML like stable diffusion? I don't plan on
| training anything crazy on my own, even if I do, it'll be fine
| tuning rather than scratch.
| dougmwne wrote:
| For ML work you can rent a cloud GPU easily enough. Most people
| use Google Colab and get a bucket of free credits that last
| then awhile.
| aseipp wrote:
| No, go pick up a 3090 Ti from Best Buy instead. It's $999 right
| now -- over half off, maybe more with this announcement -- and
| has 24GB of VRAM, and can chew through Stable Diffusion
| requests in seconds versus dozens of seconds or minutes for
| alternatives. And because it's an nvidia card, you'll be in a
| much better position to troubleshoot problems or whatever if
| you want to retune/retrain models or get your feet wet. Or, you
| know. Shove it into another PC and play a video game.
|
| That said the Mac Studio is a pretty badass machine. Don't let
| me dissuade you from one if you just want it. But it's a worse
| choice if you just want to dabble in ML stuff, IMO. Staying
| with the well trodden road will help you more when you're new
| to it all.
| syntaxing wrote:
| Does regular RAM matter if I want to run stable diffusion? I
| only have 16GB RAM (but obviously upgradable). If I load the
| weights onto the VRAM, does it work SSD > RAM > VRAM or does
| it bypass the RAM?
| moandcompany wrote:
| The model checkpoint file (i.e. weights) being used is read
| from disk, rather than from system memory afaik. 16GB of
| system RAM is more than sufficient.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| It is fairly RAM heavy, but 16 should be plenty
| aseipp wrote:
| Yes, Stable Diffusion performance will improve the more
| VRAM you give it. This is generally true of almost every ML
| model, because ML models are often limited by bandwidth.
| There is a constant need to shove more data into the
| accelerator, but PCIe is very slow compared to data in
| VRAM. If you constantly had to push data over PCIe, your
| GPU would run at 5% of its max performance, and spend 95%
| of its time waiting on PCIe transfers. Instead, you load a
| bunch of data over PCIE at once into VRAM, as much as
| possible, and _then_ you begin working. So the more VRAM
| you have, the more data you have "in hand" -- so you can
| have a bigger batch size for your training iterations, for
| example. So one of the things various releases of Stable
| Diffusion have tried to optimize, for example, is VRAM
| usage, because that's the #1 limiting factor for most
| people.
|
| Modern GPUs use virtual memory so they can see very large
| amounts of data and the GPU and OS will work together to
| page data in and out, like normal RAM. But if you want good
| performance, you need to work out of VRAM, so you need as
| much of it as possible, so you aren't paging data in and
| out. (More specifically to answer your question, yes it
| will page data from SSD into RAM and then into VRAM; this
| is because the data must pass through the memory controller
| in practice on most designs to go over PCIe, but if you are
| using fancier Tesla/Quadro cards, they can actually do P2P
| DMA transfers and go directly from SSD -> GPU, but this
| requires special care and support from all pieces of
| hardware inbetween.)
|
| Note that in a funny twist of fate, the M1 series from
| Apple kind of has an advantage here. They use very high-
| bandwidth LPDDR5X for their designs, and the GPU and CPU
| share that. Which means that in theory, the Mac Studio for
| example could have astronomically large amounts of VRAM
| dedicated to a task like ML. So why not use a Mac? Because
| the hardware is only good as the software you run it on,
| and training/tuning ML software on Macs is simply nowhere
| near as well polished as Linux/Nvidia. That's all it comes
| down to. And I say "well polished" very liberally; in
| practice it's all a bit of a hodge-podge nightmare because
| the job is very hodge-podge...
| lostmsu wrote:
| You don't need to care about this.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Link in English for those abroad: https://www.nvidia.com/en-
| gb/geforce/graphics-cards/40-serie...
| laverya wrote:
| Yeah, this was remarkably irritating for me here in Austria -
| if you're going to change the language based on location,
| _please let the user override it_.
|
| Luckily 'en-gb' is less likely to be overridden than 'en-us'.
| LoveMortuus wrote:
| I hope Intel won't give up and will make something notable with
| their Intel Ark dGPUs!
| Entinel wrote:
| Nvidia realized they can charge whatever they want and are taking
| full advantage of that. Hopefully Intel, AMD and used cards are
| able to bring them down a peg.
| meragrin_ wrote:
| > Hopefully Intel, AMD and used cards are able to bring them
| down a peg.
|
| Really? RX 6650 XTs are already in the same price range as RTX
| 3050s. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change in the short
| term unless AMD does something really bad for their business.
| neogodless wrote:
| I'll be on the sidelines waiting to see how this turns out.
|
| When there was a monthly income from mining and selling ETH,
| with payback that could be counted in a few months, insane GPU
| prices made sense for miners (or combo gamer/miners.)
|
| Without that, it's down to gamers with high discretionary
| income, and how well alternatives are priced. For example, if
| you can get an RTX 3080 or 3090 for less than $600, you might
| not consider the RTX 4080 or higher. If AMD releases
| competitive parts and undercuts their prices (I'd bet on this),
| these parts will likely take longer to sell, and drop in price.
|
| Almost certainly, with Nvidia's overstock of RTX 3000 cards,
| they simply want the RTX 3000 to look good in comparison, and
| get sold, while they control the supply of RTX 4000 cards
| (perhaps only producing a relative trickle until the RTX 3000
| are gone.) Then they could adjust prices to meet the market,
| and again the RTX 4000 "lower" prices will seem better (if only
| in comparison to the previous prices.)
|
| (Disclaimer: I paid $800 for an AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB, and
| mined enough ETH to pay it off, and then stopped mining. I
| wanted it for gaming, but I did not think the price was
| reasonable.)
| DotaFan wrote:
| Looking forward to this series, gonna replace my old 1060 G1.
| rexf wrote:
| > They're powered by the ultra-efficient NVIDIA Ada Lovelace
| architecture
|
| Why is this megacorp using this famous person's name for
| marketing? Does the 40XX series have _anything_ to do with Ada
| Lovelace at all?
|
| (Yes I know Ada Lovelace passed away a long time ago so the name
| is probably free to use without paying her estate.)
| btown wrote:
| Ironically Intel's Haswell architecture was randomly named
| after a small town for legal reasons:
|
| https://www.denverpost.com/2013/06/01/intels-newest-processo...
|
| > Until the mid-1990s, Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel
| internally named its processors after cartoons, dead musicians
| and other well-known monikers. Attorneys for the late rocker
| Frank Zappa helped put an end to that practice after reaching
| out to the company about a potential trademark violation, said
| Intel spokesman Bill Calder. The legal team for the world's
| largest computer-chip maker subsequently ordered that any new
| product code names be based on "existing, non-trademarked
| places in North America that can be found on a map," Calder
| said.
|
| > After struggling to find a suitable or available name in
| Oregon, where much of the chip design team is based, he
| stumbled upon Haswell in his ZIP code database.
|
| > "I didn't know anything about Haswell other than that it's a
| good name," Hampsten said. "Another reason I liked it, it had a
| suffix -- well -- which I could use for various other names."
| jrockway wrote:
| Never forget the "Butt Head Astronomer" line of Macs.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_7100
| btown wrote:
| That story is glorious!
| LegitShady wrote:
| ada lovelace is a historical figure, not a 'famous person'.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I love how the name is wrong part and not the insane statement
| of ultra-efficiency when talking about multi-hundred watt power
| consumption.
| capableweb wrote:
| Because that's the way they have named their architectures
| since... For as long as I can remember. Previous generations
| include: Ampere, Volta, Turing, Kepler, Fermi and more.
| mgdlbp wrote:
| To be pedantic, it was units of temperature at first, with a
| well-chosen segue of Curie to the superset of other names.
|
| This does mark a departure from a convention of only single
| surnames, and one could surmise as to why that decision was
| made. Though one might also consult a _Falsehoods_ list,
| since 'Ada Lovelace' was never $first_name $last_name to
| begin with, having been derived from something like /(Augusta
| Ada|Ada Augusta) King \\(nee Byron\\), Countess of Lovelace/
| rexf wrote:
| ah ok. Thanks, I didn't realize they used (deceased) famous
| people for all their architectures
| thesandlord wrote:
| Nvidia has been using famous Mathematicians and Scientists for
| their card architecture for a long time (Kepler, Pascal, etc)
|
| Even whole companies are named after famous people that have
| nothing to do with the company (Tesla, Faraday Future, etc)
| paulmd wrote:
| Actually since the beginning... they just didn't get popular
| traction at the time and stayed as internal codenames.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_(microarchitecture)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius_(microarchitecture)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_(microarchitecture)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_(microarchitecture)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(microarchitecture)
| Ekaros wrote:
| I wait for inevitable price drop when first adopters have gotten
| theirs and miners don't prop up demand anymore... I just don't
| believe these price levels stay.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Compared to the 3090, the 4090 has about 60% more CUDA cores (16k
| vs 10k), runs at ~2.2GHz (up from 1.4GHz) and eats about an extra
| 100W of power.
|
| Over the last couple weeks, it's been possible to get 3090's on
| sale for juuuust under $1k (I picked one up after watching the
| prices come down from like $3k over the last couple years). The
| 4090 is priced at $1500... (and for me at least would require a
| new power supply.)
| xbar wrote:
| RTX 3090 was $1500 at launch, and was a 50% boost over the
| previous gen at best. RTX 4090 is $1700 an is asserted to be
| ~1.9x performance, when taken with salt grain.
|
| You can buy a 3090 for $999 today at Best Buy. That's not a bad
| price per frame. $1700 for the 4090, if 1.9x speed for raster,
| is not a bad price per frame either.
|
| Both are stupid. Anyone spending $2k for video games graphics
| cards is wasting money in a stupid way: they are big, hot,
| shipped from far away, and turn into toxic landfill garbage in
| a matter of years. They mark the worst form of destructive
| consumerism that late-stage capitalism has produced, on par
| with leasing a new vehicle every 2 years: both are bad as
| products that turn into needless waste and both consume energy
| and produce unnecessary heat.
|
| I am definitely going to buy a 4090 on October 12.
| enlyth wrote:
| >They mark the worst form of destructive consumerism that
| late-stage capitalism has produced
|
| Wait till you hear about disposable vapes with perfectly
| rechargeable lithium-ion batteries
| svnt wrote:
| Your comment is a perfect superposition.
| badwolf wrote:
| Ahh nice! I'm in need of a new spaceheater.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I mean it's getting there. Add this to a best in class desktop
| processor at 300W and add in all the other power consumption
| and you are close to the wattage of a hot plate, kettle or
| small space heater.
| badwolf wrote:
| When I plopped a 3090 in my pc, I had to rename it on my
| network to "SPACEHEATER" it can make my office almost
| unbearable at times
| cevn wrote:
| I lost the ability to use my PC with the case closed. My
| Cat loves it though.
| Avlin67 wrote:
| display port 1.4 and pcie 4.0 only...
|
| bandwith limited, you pay for the dlss licence, not the hardware
| sfmike wrote:
| so we see it's: 4090 - $1600 4080 (16GB) - $1200 4080 (12GB) -
| $900
|
| But realisitcally it hits amazon, best buy, what's the real price
| going to be? these rates or another 30 to 50%?
| galkk wrote:
| I didn't buy 3090, and speedwise it seems to be good idea
| capableweb wrote:
| Same here. Bought the 2080ti when it launched, skipped 30xx and
| seems like a good time to upgrade now :)
| jrimbault wrote:
| I got a GTX1080 in december 2016. It's still going strong.
| skunkworker wrote:
| I'm running a 1080Ti I picked up used in early 2020 and
| threw on a kraken g12 with an AIO, it dropped temps down to
| a max of 61c and increased FPS on most games by 30%.
| kosma wrote:
| xeromal wrote:
| izacus wrote:
| Reply with Linus showing middle finger to nVidia.
| zaroth wrote:
| Am I supposed to run these thru GPT and stable diffusion
| locally for the full effect?
|
| It's bad enough the comments are computer generated. When
| they are client-side computer generated we've truly crossed
| over.
| bullen wrote:
| I downgraded my GPUs to passively cooled 1030 with DDR5 memory.
|
| There is ZERO point to playing games that need more power.
| redblacktree wrote:
| How well does it run MS Flight Simulator?
| bullen wrote:
| I would guess with all settings at lowest 60 FPS. Edit: 20
| FPS apparently sad...
|
| As all games for eternity. If you release a game that doesn't
| it will end up in historys waste basket together with 2077.
|
| The games I did try on it are: PUBG (~55 FPS), Fortnite (60),
| Java Minecraft with bad mods (60), Scrap Mechanic (60), Sable
| (40-50).
|
| Make sure you get a DDR5 version though, DDR4 is 30% less
| performant for Unity/Unreal games.
|
| Which means Fortnite is still playable because that probably
| gets 90 FPS without vsync. And so are Java Minecraft and
| Scrap Mechanic.
|
| PUBG and Sable would be annoying to play on a DDR4 card.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Looks like 20fps at 1080p with all settings at lowest or
| disabled.
| bullen wrote:
| Ah, too bad.
|
| Not for me, but for Microsoft and all those that would want
| to play that game now and specially in the future when a
| KWh becomes more expensive than $1.
| lordleft wrote:
| It's been a while since I've updated my GPU (I have an RTX 2060
| XC Black), so I'm out of the loop: what's the gpu market like
| now? I'm assuming we're seeing less fewer GPUs being purchased
| for crypto. Are prices normal now?
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| 30 series on sale, over supply. Still more pricey than I care
| for though.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| What is even "normal"? Even excluding the crypto craze MSRP has
| increased dramatically over the last few generations.
| izacus wrote:
| No, the prices are still pretty high (although not insane
| anymore). They're probably not going down.
|
| On the other hand, these GPUs are very very good for gaming -
| with DLSS, most of modern games will run at high details at 4K
| and look like something that scifi shows dreamed of just 10
| years back.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| With DLSS they will look like a blurry mess. DLSS is just
| pathetic upscaling.
| izacus wrote:
| That does not really match my experience.
| louhike wrote:
| It's not quite normal yet but it is far lower.
| stu2010 wrote:
| MSRPs for a given market segment seem to have permanently
| increased significantly. This generation is expected to be
| available at this higher MSRP, however.
| Karsteski wrote:
| Portal with RTX is gonna be so damn fun. Almost wanna buy a new
| card card but I already have a 3070 and that'd be a bit of a
| waste
| oblak wrote:
| At least one guy at AMD is working on a ray traced RTCW, too.
| napolux wrote:
| Maybe we'll be able to buy them at a reasonable price soon.
| maeln wrote:
| Probably not. Even without the crypto market, the official MSRP
| of GPU has ballooned over the past few years.
| Victerius wrote:
| With Ethereum's transition to PoS and the crypto crash, the
| only demand bottlenecks I can foresee are scalpers and hungry
| gamers. Indeed, we may see a repeat of what happened with the
| PS5, when finding a product from a store was impossible because
| scalpers had bought them all.
| napolux wrote:
| Could be. Here in Italy is still hard to buy a PS5. I was
| smart enough to pre-order mine and score other 2 consoles
| (for friends, not scalping), but after 2 years that's
| ridiculous. They're not even on display in shops.
| [deleted]
| jeffbee wrote:
| That they are advertising this thing with screenshots from a
| 15-year-old game tells you everything about the GPU and game
| market.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| I found this weird. Atleast do Cyberpunk 2077 or something.
| andreime wrote:
| RT was added to Quake and (I think) DOOM. With RT those don't
| run on my machine. That's 30 yo games ...
|
| Your comment is kinda weird.
| lvl102 wrote:
| Sadly, people will upgrade even at this price point. Nvidia is in
| the business of selling the shovels in this age of AI/ML arms
| race.
| zzixp wrote:
| 4080 -> $900/1200, 4090 -> $1600
|
| What the hell Nvidia. Post EVGA breakup, this is a bad look.
| Seems like they're setting MSRP ridiculously high in order to
| undercut board partners down the line.
| mnd999 wrote:
| I'll pass. Needs to be 1/4 of that to be worth considering. You
| can have a whole PC for less.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| >You can have a whole PC for less.
|
| Not with even 50% of the FLOPS. The 4090 won't be the best
| perf/$, but considering how much perf/$ and perf/watt you can
| get these days, I think it's pretty hard to complain that
| these are available. If you don't play games, get a Ryzen 5
| 7600X for $300 with an iGPU more than capable of high-quality
| desktop computing.
|
| You can also get a brand new laptop for $130 right now
| https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-14-0-laptop-intel-
| celeron-... , which is $57.37 in 1990 dollars. (according to
| https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ ). The high-end is
| more expensive than ever, and the low-end is cheaper than
| ever. The Apple Lisa was $10k in 1983, which is about $30k
| today. You can get a Boxx Apex with multiple $10k Quadro
| GV100 GPUs and 8TB SSDs for that money today, or roughly a
| dozen high-end (but not TOTL) gaming PCs.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| That pricing is absolutely insane.
|
| Reminder that the 780ti was $700. The top spec SKU.
|
| Nvidia has took the GPU shortage and now set that pricing as
| the norm. And people will eat it up like suckers.
| behnamoh wrote:
| I honestly hope nvidia's monopoly crashes and burns to
| ashes...
| bslqn wrote:
| That's like talking about apple's monopoly. Neither have a
| monopoly, what they have is competitors that fucking suck.
| Take it up with them.
| behnamoh wrote:
| With ML stuff, nvidia does have a monopoly.
| malfist wrote:
| I wish there was a more open adoption of CUDA like
| functionality. I use an astrophography imaging tool
| called PixInsight and it's very parallel math heavy. It
| supports CUDA, and you can offload some tasks to the GPU
| and it makes a world of difference (computing a mask of
| stars takes seconds instead of 5-15 minutes). It's
| certainly got me locked into NVIDIA.
| postalrat wrote:
| Is $1600 that insane when people are paying $1100+ for a
| phone?
| groovybits wrote:
| In the US, at least, its common to simply pay that $1k
| phone over time on a plan - or simply never stop paying off
| a phone through an upgrade program, either through their
| carrier or direct (e.g. iPhone Upgrade Program).
|
| $30/mo doesn't hit as hard as $1100 up front. For some
| consumers, its a fundamentally different way of thinking.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I would argue that both are insane.
|
| Specially 1600 for a component that need probably at least
| half that much more just to be fully utilized.
| bradlys wrote:
| For many people out there - that is their singular
| computer. I know many people who don't own laptops or
| desktops anymore - just a phone.
| postalrat wrote:
| And they are free to overpay as much as they want.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| When it's not a phone, but an always-on 6.5" tablet
| computer with an excellent camera, persistent wireless
| high-speed internet, amazing screen, thousands of
| incredibly useful apps that obviate the need for dozens of
| other electronic devices, and near-desktop performance for
| web browsing anywhere, I don't mind paying mid-range laptop
| prices every few years when I use it literally 4-6 hours
| per day, every day.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| It's funny, I just had to have 40 feet of wood fence replaced
| and paid ~4K for parts and 1 day of labor. They also took
| away the old fence. My point, electronics are cheap. I know
| this point will not be received well though.
| tpxl wrote:
| I paid 1600EUR for my last full PC (kept the old chasis and
| GPU) and 1700EUR for my current work laptop. No, 1600$
| (1900EUR in Europe) is not cheap by any stretch of
| imagination.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I had a similar sentiment when I had to purchase a set of
| new tires for my car. It is amazing how an assembly of
| rubber and steel can cost roughly as much as a device that
| has billions of transistors on it.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Just wait until you find out about the true incremental
| cost of a gallon of gasoline
| quacker wrote:
| _Reminder that the 780ti was $700. The top spec SKU._
|
| $700 USD in 2013 is worth $900 USD in 2022. Almost a decade
| of inflation.
|
| Also, the GTX Titan was $1000 USD msrp, which was essentially
| the 780Ti with double the memory.
| pojzon wrote:
| Wasnt like half of all US dollars printed in last 3 years ?
|
| It feels more like 700$ in 2013 would be worth now 1400$??
| tromp wrote:
| > And people will eat it up like suckers.
|
| Pricing can't be insane and causing huge demand at the same
| time...
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| It absolutely can. There's only 2 players in this business,
| 3 if you count Intel but their GPU future doesn't sound
| promising.
|
| Nvidia sets the bar and AMD follows. AMDs prices have
| slowly crept up as well. So no matter what, you're paying
| much more for a top spec GPU today than you ever have
| before.
|
| It's in the best interests of both Nvidia and AMD to keep
| these prices high, and it's a detriment to the consumer.
|
| AMD did it with their CPUs as well. They undercut Intel
| with some great price/performance deals. Grabbed their
| market share back and are now bumping those prices back up
| to parity with Intel. Now neither company has to cut their
| prices.
|
| Nvidia will use artificial scarcity to push these prices.
| We know they can produce a shit tonne of GPUs, they did it
| for years.
| adrian_b wrote:
| While what you say is correct, the recent Ryzen 7000
| announcement has shown that AMD remains much less greedy
| than NVIDIA, because with the top Ryzen 9 7950X at $700,
| the price per core has remained less than $50, about the
| same as it has been since the first Ryzen, even if the
| cores are now much faster.
|
| Before the first Ryzen, only Intel Atom CPUs had a price
| around $50/core, while the better Intel Core CPUs had
| prices around $100/core. Then Intel had to also follow
| AMD and drop the prices for the top models to around
| $50/core (the "efficiency" cores in Alder Lake and Raptor
| Lake count as a half core).
|
| So there is still hope that the RDNA 3 GPUs will have a
| more decent performance/price ratio, even if it is
| unlikely that they will be faster than the RTX 40 Series.
| anonporridge wrote:
| That's not quite true.
|
| When it comes to certain luxury products, price increases
| actually do increase demand.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
|
| It's why people pay thousands of dollars for a handbag cost
| maybe tens of dollars to produce. People like playing
| status games.
|
| This effect is why third richest person on the planet is
| Bernard Arnault of Louis Vuitton, someone you've likely
| never heard of. He's currently wealthier than Bezos. He
| didn't actually improve our lives or revolutionize
| industry. He just latched into our primitive status seeking
| behavior.
| capableweb wrote:
| To be fair to Arnault, he isn't just CEO of Louis Vuitton
| but LVMH which owns something like ~100 brands, ranging
| from clocks, wines, fashion, cosmetics, boats, jewelry
| and other retailing. Although to be fair to you, most of
| what they sell could go into the "luxury" category.
|
| It's likely he wouldn't be the third richest person with
| just Louis Vuitton and it's probably mostly because of
| LVMH.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Graphics cards are not some idiotic luxury good. They are
| a tool, used for work or leisure, whose price points seem
| to be set at luxury level for essentially arbitrary
| business reasons.
| sylens wrote:
| I might be priced out of the market when my current rig goes.
| For the price of a 4080 you could have both consoles or a
| console and a Steam Deck
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| You can get a 3060ti that performs better than both consoles
| combined. Don't need to go to 40 series if you care about vfm
| at all.
| adrian_b wrote:
| While I expected about $1600 for 4090, for the other two, whose
| GPU sizes are 9.5/16 and 7.5/16 of the top model, I expected
| prices proportional to their sizes, i.e. about $1000 and $700.
|
| However, NVIDIA added $200 for both smaller models making them
| $1200 and $900.
|
| It is debatable whether 4090 is worth $1600, but in comparison
| with it the two 4080 models are grossly overpriced, taking into
| account their GPU sizes and their 2/3 and 1/2 memory sizes.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| They will price the 4080 at $1200 to push people over the
| line for the 4090. After all, the performance difference for
| "just" $400 is quite significant.
| omegalulw wrote:
| They are probably working towards cleaning out the 30 series
| stock given that crypto demand is dying off. It takes a lot to
| put 3060 prices on a marketing slide for 40 series.
| sheepybloke wrote:
| That sort of make sense... I was thinking of upgrading when
| the 40 series came out, but looking at these prices, it makes
| the 30 series look a lot more affordable for what I need,
| even if it's less performant.
| leetcrew wrote:
| meh. after the last couple years, I'd rather have something
| expensive on the shelf than something "reasonably priced" but
| perpetually unavailable.
| datalopers wrote:
| They must think there's still gpu crypto miners out there.
| Nokinside wrote:
| Low yield with new process at beginning and 4090 Ti might be
| delayed. By setting price high, you manage demand, avoid empty
| shelves and scalpers.
|
| 3090 is still just fine and generates profits.
|
| The price is right if you sell all you produce. Empty shelves
| means you charge too little.
| sheepybloke wrote:
| Especially when they've been have lower than expected revenue
| because of the crypto crash. You'd think that they would drop
| the price a bit to entice the people who've been waiting for
| GPU prices to drop to buy the new version.
| ls612 wrote:
| The Titan in 2013 was $1000, when you have had 25% inflation
| since then and the 25% tariff that is almost exactly $1600.
| terafo wrote:
| But 4090 isn't the Titan. It doesn't have Titan drivers and
| everything.
| ls612 wrote:
| The titan used the standard Geforce Game Ready drivers.
| Melatonic wrote:
| For awhile some of the Titan lines though got major
| features unlocked from their workstation graphic cards. I
| specifically bought a Titan XP used after the last crypto
| crash in 2018 for 350$ because I needed 10 bit colour
| output to a special 10 bit capable monitor for video
| editing and colour correction. I probably would have
| bought a 1080 ti instead with a much nicer cooler (for
| overclocking) which is a pretty similar card but that
| card was locked out of these features.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Titan V even had HBM instead of the power hungry GDDR. But
| it also used to cost $3k MSRP. The new cards are an
| improvement over that.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| The 780ti was effectively the Titan and was $700
| ls612 wrote:
| And came out 8 months later.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| Every mid-high end 7 series GPU came months later than
| the Titan.
| izacus wrote:
| Didn't partners demand raising of prices for them to capitalize
| on high GPU demand?
| segadreamcast wrote:
| For comparison you can buy 3x Xbox Series S (which will play
| almost all current gen AAA games) for the price of 1x 4080.
| Absolutely preposterous.
| capableweb wrote:
| For comparison, a 4080 has a lot more uses than a Xbox Series
| S, which I think you can only realistically use for gaming.
| segadreamcast wrote:
| These GPUs don't have enough memory for serious AI work.
| Now that ETH is on proof of stake, high end GPUs are back
| to being gaming PC components.
| capableweb wrote:
| 24GB is enough for some serious AI work. 48GB would be
| better, of course. But high end GPUs are still used for
| other things than gaming, from ML/AI stuff to creative
| work like video editing, animation renders and more.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| And people want to game on PC dude.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Uses which 95% of mainstream consumer customers will never
| utilize.
| xbar wrote:
| So they shouldn't buy it. Maybe they'd like a nice 4070
| or 4060 someday.
| partomniscient wrote:
| As a side-note, the X-Box series S was the cheapest and most
| effective way for me to buy a 4K-UHD blu-ray player.
|
| I did try to do some CUDA based AI rendering stuff on my
| 2080S but 8GB didn't seem to be enough.
|
| Its weird to comprehend the 'stretching' of technology
| advance over time as I age, especially on the value side.
| There hasn't ever been the same 'feel' for me from the first
| leap of moving from software rendered Quake to a 3D-card -
| despite the various advances since, although I remember bump-
| mapping as another massive leap.
|
| It's totally unfair in some ways. As an example the control
| you have over lighting a scene (either in a game or something
| you're rendering) is way beyond what multi-million dollar
| studios were using in my younger years.
|
| What happens to society/reality when technology capable of
| producing video content indistinguishable from reality is
| affordable to many? Its already happening. Its going to
| become more commonplace.
|
| The problem of 'truth' becomes massive - is the thing
| presented to you something that actually happened or was it
| fabricated?
| vanchor3 wrote:
| >As a side-note, the X-Box series S was the cheapest and
| most effective way for me to buy a 4K-UHD blu-ray player.
|
| I assume you mean the Xbox One S, because the Series S
| doesn't have a disc drive.
| partomniscient wrote:
| Correct. My mistake.
|
| Thanks for catching it. Unfortunately I missed the edit
| window for the post.
|
| It does show you how poor naming conventions can screw
| you over. Then again naming things is one of the two*
| hardest problems in computing.
|
| * (Zero based two).
| honkycat wrote:
| I can't do music production and game development on an xbox
| series s though.
| cma wrote:
| Subsidized by a hidden cost multiplayer subscription and
| store lock-in cut on all games played on it.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| I can't train ML models on the Xbox.
| icu wrote:
| I completely agree. In the past I dropped a ton of money on
| gaming rig hardware that aged like milk. With a console you
| get the advantage of exclusives, majority of PC game
| releases, and a longer upgrade cycle versus a gaming rig. If
| you own a PS5, you got the PS VR2 coming out soon at a decent
| price point. If you own an Xbox, add in the amazing value of
| the Xbox Games Pass and I just don't see the need to be
| subsidising Hardware Manufacturers' bottom lines anymore.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Consoles are subsidized and benefit from quantity. PC
| gaming has always been more expensive and benefitted from
| more cutting-edge technology. I love that consoles make
| gaming more accessible to more people, especially now with
| online multiplayer, which was once reserved for PC gamers.
| Even phones can do VR now, but PC is still the highest
| resolution, best texture quality, most detail, etc. Driving
| games in particular, with a Fanatec wheel, IEMs, Index or
| Vive Pro 2, and TOTL GPU + CPU are pretty damn spectacular,
| but the fact that you can get something 50-70% as good for
| ~1/5th the cost with a console is impressive.
| paulmd wrote:
| https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/325504-sony-finally-
| turns...
|
| ps5 hardware is sold at a profit (they hit profitability
| within 6-9 months of launch) and while microsoft claimed
| to a court that their hardware was subsidized as a
| justification for refusing to open the platform to
| alternate stores (so, somewhat self-interested of
| course), if you believe the production costs are
| fundamentally similar to PS5 then this is most likely
| "hollywood accounting".
|
| It's real easy to have the xbox division license their
| branding from a parent company and if we set that at $100
| a console then oops, there went all the profit.
|
| It's not the PS3 days anymore where sony is losing 30% of
| the value of the console on the initial sale (and
| actually that wasn't the case for the other vendors even
| back in the PS3 days). Consoles are sold at a slight
| profit these days.
|
| That said, having a "big APU" where everything shares a
| single bank of RAM and a single cooler/etc is a massive
| cost advantage. There is a lot of redundant cooling and
| memory in an ATX/PCIe spec PC and it all adds up. A
| console is one product with one assembly/testing line and
| one cooling/fan system and one set of memory. Clearly
| there is a market for "console-style PCs" which apply
| similar cost-optimizations, with a similar model to Steam
| Deck. Just so far there's nobody who's been willing to do
| the up-front cost and yet will choose not to lock down
| the resulting platform - Valve is somewhat unique on that
| front.
| capableweb wrote:
| I have a desktop PC that I sometimes use for gaming,
| everything from demanding simulators (like Flight Simulator
| and X-Plane) to grand strategy games and other more
| mainstream games. Last GPU I bought was a 2080ti that still
| is my GPU, and I bought that something like 3 years ago. I
| can still game mainstream games on very high settings
| without issues. So not sure why your setup aged like milk
| but mine didn't...
| izacus wrote:
| Yeah, it's kinda bizarre - I've been running GTX970 for 5
| years and it still runs things acceptably today (although
| I've replaced it with 3080 at launch).
|
| It really didn't last any less time than PS4 or any other
| console.
| Loughla wrote:
| On my home machine, I'm running SLI'd GTX480's. They
| still do 99.9% of the gaming I want to do. I have only
| found ray tracing (which I don't like anyway) and for
| some reason water reflections to cause problems. But I
| can still run most games on high or better settings.
|
| I don't know why OP's setup would age like milk. As long
| as you keep them clean, games haven't really advanced
| that much in the last few years, in terms of graphics
| requirements.
|
| Also, if anyone has advice on building a new machine, I'm
| listening. I've been out of the game so long that I don't
| even know where to start, and have children that want
| towers built.
| jgtrosh wrote:
| Even though these GPUs are severely overpriced, you can't
| compare them with the console sold at the largest loss
| apazzolini wrote:
| You forgot to mention "at 60 FPS".
| Aissen wrote:
| I think them meant xbox series X, not S.
| segadreamcast wrote:
| An Xbox Series X costs almost half of this 1 PC component
| and will run everything at 4K 144hz.
|
| correction: 120hz not 144hz.
| nulld3v wrote:
| No, it will run everything at lower quality settings and
| at lower resolutions. The "4K" is usually just
| 1440p/1080p upscaled.
| segadreamcast wrote:
| Series X is true 4K according to website[0]. Series S
| plays 1440p, upscaled to 4K.
|
| 0: https://www.xbox.com/en-CA/consoles/xbox-
| series-x?xr=shellna...
| ac29 wrote:
| The notes on the site say "4K at up to 120FPS: Requires
| supported content and display. Use on Xbox Series X as
| content becomes available".
|
| That certainly implies many games dont support it.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And since when marketing material is to be trusted? My
| understanding is that they do quite a lot of scaling
| tricks with consoles.
| nerdix wrote:
| A Series X will not render very many AAA games at
| 4k/120fps (if any at all). And it definitely won't do at
| Ultra level settings.
|
| PC gaming at the high end has always been about spending
| a lot of money to get the best graphics possible.
| Consoles always have much better bang for the buck early
| in a new console generation.
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| The 4K 144hz you get on the Xbox Series X is almost
| certainly lower graphics settings than you could run at
| 4K 144hz on the RTX 4080. I don't think the difference is
| enough to justify the price difference but comparing
| resolution and framerates isn't apples to apples.
| segadreamcast wrote:
| And you'll still be playing the same game. If you want to
| spend almost a thousand dollars so your game renders more
| eyelashes that's your choice. My point is that NVidia's
| pricing is making PC gaming inaccessible to people who
| don't have wads of disposable cash to spend on
| diminishing returns. I would strongly recommend anybody
| who's looking into getting into current gen gaming to
| steer clear of playing on PC as the pricing of PC
| components is completely out of control and console
| pricing is looking increasingly more reasonable.
| int_19h wrote:
| How is it making PC gaming inaccessible? You don't need
| top of the line hardware to play even the most recent PC
| games. You need top of the line hardware for "more
| eyelashes", but that's very much a choice (that you get
| with PCs but not with consoles).
| Melatonic wrote:
| Yea this is insane. Screw Nvidia and wait for the second hand
| market to hit rock bottom (I would estimate this will start to
| happen in 1 to 3 months) and buy a used card for dirt cheap.
| paulmd wrote:
| they're setting prices high (and delaying the launch of the
| mainstream and lower-tier cards) because they have huge
| stockpiles of Ampere chips they need to burn through. Launch
| the stuff at the top to get the sales from the whales (VR,
| enthusiast gaming, etc) who are willing to pay for performance
| and delay the lower cards that would compete with your ampere
| inventory.
|
| It's the Turing strategy all over again - when you have a
| stockpile of older cards, you don't make your new cards _too_
| attractive. And yes, they also have a big TSMC allocation too -
| but they gotta get rid of the Ampere stuff first, the longer it
| sits the more it will have to be marked down, launching new
| cards that obsolete the inventory they 're trying to sell would
| just make things worse.
|
| AMD is going to be doing the same thing - they pushed back the
| midrange Navi 33 and will be launching only the high-end Navi
| 31 until that miner inventory burns through a bit. Similarly to
| NVIDIA, that likely implies they'll be launching at a high
| price, they'll undercut NVIDIA by $100 or $200 or something and
| take the margins but they're not gonna be the heroes of the
| $700 market either.
|
| ---
|
| The EVGA thing is a tempest in a teapot though, the losses he's
| talking about are something that's happened in the last month
| (he supposedly decided to quit back at the start of the year)
| and not representative of the (large, 10x normal) margins that
| board partners have been making in recent years. I personally
| didn't see much evidence of "price caps" with partner's first-
| party storefronts selling 3080s at 2.50-3x FE MSRP either.
|
| And yes, jensen is an asshole and being a partner is a low-
| margin business, everyone already knows that.
|
| EVGA is losing money because of some of it's CEO's ridiculous
| prestige side-projects (custom motherboards, enthusiast
| monitors, video capture cards that turned out to be falsely
| advertised, pcie sound cards, etc) and generous warranty
| support (long and transferable with absurdly cheap extended
| warranties) coupled with a higher-than-average failure rate
| (because they contract out assembly) and a generally lower-
| than-industry margin (because they contract out assembly) and
| they're just being drama queens on the way out.
|
| Someone else with a personal axe to grind (EVGA tried to
| blacklist him for a critical review), but relaying some
| commentary from the other board partners:
| https://www.igorslab.de/en/evga-pulls-the-plug-with-loud-ban...
| LegitShady wrote:
| Raising MSRP doesn't undercut board partners, it allows board
| partners to charge more which is what they want.
|
| Personally I think what they're doing is maximizing launch
| profit without totally crashing the 30x0 market which has a
| supply glut, something else board partners are worried about.
|
| I'm really not sure why you think this is bad for board
| partners - you haven't really explained your reasoning and what
| you did say doesn't make much sense. This is all positive for
| board partners. It's the cheap founders edition cards that
| undercut board partners.
| madamelic wrote:
| > Raising MSRP doesn't undercut board partners, it allows
| board partners to charge more which is what they want.
|
| My understanding regarding the EVGA debacle is that Nvidia
| sets really high MSRP along with charging for the chips &
| giving themselves a headstart and the partners can't go above
| the MSRP then Nvidia comes in and slashes prices that only
| Nvidia can compete at (since they can give themselves
| discounts on the chips along with all of the other advantages
| they have).
|
| What board partners likely want is either: Nvidia is time-
| limited to a few months with Founder Cards or Nvidia allows
| them to sell cards for more money and Nvidia can't make any
| card except Founder.
| Aunche wrote:
| GPU prices will trend towards market prices either way. I'd
| rather them somewhat overshoot MSRP rather than undershoot,
| which is what happened with the 30-series GPU. It's not fair
| that scalpers were getting rich while EVGA was operating at a
| loss.
| coolspot wrote:
| I am pretty sure EVGA sold directly to miners, likely at a
| good margin: my day-one EVGA queue was never fullfilled,
| while miners showed warehouses full of EVGA cards.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > my day-one EVGA queue was never fullfilled
|
| Mine was, something like 9 months later. But I got my queue
| email & had 24 hours to buy. Maybe dig through your emails
| to see if you just missed it? Or maybe the model you
| waitlisted on was basically cancelled.
| paulmd wrote:
| wonder if he's one of the people who clicked the "I don't
| want to convert my queue to the LHR model, and I'm aware
| EVGA expects all future production to be LHR so this
| queue probably will never be fulfilled" button.
| dartdartdart wrote:
| Still displayport 1.4
|
| Intel has already moved to 2.0, and AMD is rumored to be
| supporting displayport 2.0
|
| Would have liked to see this for 40 series, but I guess I will
| wait to build my first PC
| adrian_b wrote:
| Intel has moved to DisplayPort 2.0, but their current product
| specifications, e.g. for NUC12SNK, say: "DisplayPort 2.0 (1.4
| certified)".
|
| But I assume that they will get a certification in the future.
|
| For Thunderbolt, where it was Intel who did the certifications,
| many companies have sold motherboards or computers for months
| or years with non-certified Thunderbolt ports which worked OK,
| while waiting for the certification.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| This announcement just shows the need for Intel to offer
| something competitive in terms of price to performance. These
| cards are absurdly expensive.
| capableweb wrote:
| Intel?! Maybe AMD, but Intel? Besides enterprise (because of
| other factors than actually good hardware), Intel is pretty
| much out of this battle.
| scrlk wrote:
| IMO AMD and Nvidia have abandoned the sub-$200/budget GPU
| market, Intel can certainly carve out a price/performance
| niche here.
| Bilal_io wrote:
| That audience is not the one enraged by Nvidia's pricing
| from today's announcement. So a better comparison in
| relation to today's event would be AMD.
| avereveard wrote:
| Oh ffs another site using my location instead of my goddamn
| accept language header to serve content
|
| Where are all the good web developer at
| clircle wrote:
| What's the point in upgrading? Maybe I'm just getting old, but
| todays games dont look much better or than what i played 5 years
| ago. And they have these kooky monetization strategies now. Looks
| like gamers are paying a premium to enjoy derivative or scummy
| games.
| kuang_eleven wrote:
| I am mystified at _how_ many comments here are shocked at the
| price; the 4090 _exactly_ in line with recent NVIDIA pricing. The
| 4080s do seem a little strangely overpriced, but not by huge
| margins.
|
| For comparison, the 3090 launched at $1500.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| We're not shocked that the prices are in line with their recent
| pricing strategy. We are shocked that they haven't decided to
| change course to make up for the past lack of availability,
| crazy power consumption, and card prices soaring through the
| roof.
| mountainb wrote:
| It seems like they're really emphasizing the difference in RT
| performance from the previous generation, but I think the gaming
| market at least will care more about the difference in raw frames
| and memory size from the previous generation and AMD's offerings.
|
| Personally, I like using RT for some single player showpiece
| games with a 3080 Ti, RT was useless on my 2080, but the games
| that I play the most do not use RT at all. DLSS is always great
| on any title that offers it, but again the real issue is that
| most of the games that people put real time into are the types of
| games for which RT is irrelevant. Graphical showpiece stuff is
| just a lot less relevant to the contemporary gaming market than
| it used to be.
| pornel wrote:
| Not everyone is a pro CS:Go player. I really like RTX shadow
| improvements and wish more games supported it. I've bought
| games for their "showpiece stuff".
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| I wish Valve would put a bit of investment into TF2, as it's
| still a very popular title with ~100k players on average[1],
| yet it's 32-bit ONLY and stuck on DirectX 9. The Mac version
| doesn't even work anymore because it was never updated to be
| 64-bit. The dedicated server, SRCDS, is also 32-bit only and
| struggles with 32 players and some fairly light admin mods.
| It's also mostly single-threaded, so it tends to run better
| on Intel CPUs with high clock speed.
|
| 1. https://steamcharts.com/app/440
| jeffcox wrote:
| While RT is a single player gimmick I mostly turn off, it won't
| take many more increases like this to make it a very real
| feature. What will we see when developers start targeting these
| cards, or their successors?
| izacus wrote:
| What does "single player gimmick" in your sentences here
| mean?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > What does "single player gimmick" in your sentences here
| mean?
|
| When I've seen this written it's often explained as to do
| with the fact that single-player is a much more curated
| experience, where the developers can stage-manage where you
| go and even where you look, and discard resources they know
| you won't see again.
|
| That's why single-player often looks way better than
| multiplayer, where a) the experience isn't that curated and
| b) fps matters much more.
| helf wrote:
| The same thing people who say this always mean:
|
| "In /my opinion/, this doesn't add enough to the game
| experience to justify the performance penalty. Also, my
| hardware isn't strong enough to use it. Therefor it's a
| gimmick! Herpa derpa!"
|
| That may actually be giving too much credit. It's probably
| more like "I don't like it so it's a gimmick that no one
| else should enjoy"
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Divining people's real motivations is a skill wasted on
| HN news comments. If you're as good at it as you think
| you are, you should be brokering multi-billion dollar
| deals.
| helf wrote:
| Oooh quite the burn. Props.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I interpret it to mean that the graphical enhancements that
| RT can give you are only really appreciable if you're
| playing a single-player game that allows you to stop and
| check out how beautiful it is, while in a competitive
| multiplayer game, you're moving around too fast to really
| appreciate (or even notice) the difference RT gives you
| over fake reflections.
| izacus wrote:
| I see, but most players are single-player gamers so how
| is that a.. gimmick?
| mountainb wrote:
| For PC, at least judging from Steam charts, single player
| gamers are a substantial minority, but still a minority
| in terms of what games are popular. CP2077 is the only
| single player game currently in the top 10, and there are
| only a couple other primarily SP games in the top 20.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I don't think that is a good metric. There are far more
| single player games available on Steam than multiplayer.
|
| A multiplayer lives and dies by its community, so it
| makes sense that multiplayer gamers would coalesce around
| a relatively smaller number of games.
|
| Multiplayer games are also designed far more around
| player retention. The unpredictability of human
| opponents, combined with various design decisions meant
| to keep players engaged, means that a multiplayer gamer
| may primarily play the same game for years. A solo player
| reaches the end of their game, maybe they even exhaust
| all the side content and achievements, but then they move
| on to the next single player game.
| izacus wrote:
| At no point of history have multiplayer gamers
| outnumbered singleplayer gamers. Even for MP focused
| titles like StarCraft 2, the majority (iirc the number
| was around 54%) of customers never clicked on the
| multiplayer button once.
|
| You're looking at number people logged into an online
| service and thinking it represents anything about gamers
| that by definition aren't online. A typical sampling
| bias.
| paulmd wrote:
| > You're looking at number people logged into an online
| service and thinking it represents anything about gamers
| that by definition aren't online. A typical sampling
| bias.
|
| steam, ubisoft connect, origin, blizzard launcher, and
| rockstar are all online today, even for single-player
| games. I'm not sure where a significant number of non-
| platform-delivered games would even exist in 2022, I
| haven't bought a single game that didn't use steam or
| another platform from a vendor in ages.
|
| The exception being GOG I guess, and to be fair there's a
| decent number of new-ish titles on that (horizon zero
| dawn) and I always make an effort to buy titles there
| when possible, but even still GOG's marketshare is
| minuscule in comparison to steam.
|
| so no, actually, I disagree that there's some large
| repository of single-player games that are not showing up
| on steam or another equivalent.
|
| (do PSN/XBL keep public player count stats?)
| ac29 wrote:
| More single player gamers maybe, but far more multiplayer
| hours.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Sounds like you haven't paid attention to the gaming
| industry since eSports took off.
|
| Overwatch and Valorant alone may have increased female
| participation in video games by double digit percentages.
| Also, the TV show for League, which was obviously aimed
| at women.
|
| All multiplayer only
| whatshisface wrote:
| By that logic, shooters could still have Quake graphics,
| and given how people still play it, I guess that's right.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| Most Pro-level CS:GO players still play at 1024x768 or
| 1280x960 and graphics set to the lowest setting.
|
| (Best sources I could quickly find on my phone. Annoying
| ads warning)
|
| https://www.prosettings.com/zywoo-csgo/
|
| https://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/csgo-best-
| resolution-s...
| chupasaurus wrote:
| The reason behind the 4:3 low resolution is outside of
| scope for ray tracing or performance overall: most of pro
| players found out that widened picture and thus player
| models are easier to target precisely in motion (AFAIK
| the phenomenon hasn't being studied properly) and you're
| limited by vertical resolution of the screen thus 960 is
| the upper bound for a common 16:9 1080p panel.
|
| As for lowest settings, the CS:GO don't have options to
| put the game into flat panel mess that is professional
| Q3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3ui0hz6sm0
| pdpi wrote:
| We're past Quake-level graphics, but competitive eSports
| games, by and large, have deliberately simple graphics
| optimised for readability over flare.
|
| If you look at LoL, Fortnite, Valorant, Overwatch,
| they're all kind of the same -- fairly flat light, bright
| colourful characters against a backdrop of pastels and
| otherwise muted background colours. Texture detailing is
| discrete and everything almost looks like block colours
| if you squint. Rainbow 6 Siege, CSGO, PUBG are the same,
| minus the colourful characters.
|
| Even if those games didn't optimise their engines for
| performance over visual fidelity, their visual design
| would make them fairly light weight anyhow.
| madamelic wrote:
| > you're moving around too fast to really appreciate (or
| even notice) the difference RT gives you over fake
| reflections.
|
| You're also at a disadvantage running the graphics on
| High.
|
| In any game that I want to play at a "competitive" level,
| I always put the settings to the absolute lowest settings
| so the computer always gets 100+ FPS.
|
| No reason to even try to optimize. The point is winning,
| not it looking good. In fact, in some games, the
| developers have had to go back and make it more fair for
| higher settings because of low settings hiding tall
| grass.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA
| int_19h wrote:
| It's a spectrum, not an either-or. Many people play
| competitive multiplayer for the sake of overall
| enjoyment, not solely to compete. For that, you want the
| graphics to be as good as possible, to the limit of what
| you can notice while playing the game normally.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| If it's actually another 2x performance improvement, we're
| really only another generation away at most. On my 3080 RT
| caused a performance drop but I was able to decide the trade-
| off for myself, often it was still playable, I just needed to
| decide whether I wanted high refresh rates or not. Another
| doubling or two and it'll barely be a thought at all. The
| caveat with this still is it requires DLSS for best effect,
| which is barely a trade off in my experience.
| hoffs wrote:
| Not even close to a gimmick...
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| You're right, it really isn't.
|
| Gamers don't see it that way though because often, faked
| reflections are "good enough".
|
| In some cases though, the faked reflections are noticeable
| and immersion breaking. I notice it in MS Flight Simulator.
| I'm flying over water and approaching a large city, and I
| can see the reflection of buildings in the water. But when
| I push the nose down, as the image of the buildings goes
| off the top of my screen, the reflections go away too. In
| reality, this wouldn't happen. But in the sim, it does
| because the reflections are generated by just inverting the
| rendered image of the buildings.
|
| There's a map in Apex Legends where a section has a shiny
| floor. It fakes a reflection by rendering an environment-
| mapped texture. It does a decent job at making the floor
| look like it's reflective, but as you move around and
| compare what's being rendered to the actual geometry, you
| notice how it falls apart. But in a competitive FPS, you're
| not looking at the environment long and hard enough to
| notice.
|
| Duke Nukem 3D had proper reflections, but it did it by
| actually mirroring all the geometry, a technique that only
| really works well if the geometry is simple.
|
| RT makes reflections Just Work and work properly.
| arecurrence wrote:
| I suspect they also highlight RT performance (and AI
| acceleration which is more-so focused on a different market
| than these gaming cards) because it is their key differentiator
| with competitors.
|
| Most upper market cards can already run most games well at
| 1440p or 4k.
| [deleted]
| trafficante wrote:
| I'd be interested in better RT performance for the purposes of
| VR gaming but, unfortunately, the high fidelity PCVR gaming
| market died with the Quest 2.
| nomel wrote:
| PSVR2 will be our savior.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It died because people who build $5000 gaming computers
| aren't numerous enough to actually base a business on.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I've yet to see a game that my laptop 2080 can't handle on max
| settings. The only games I've done that asked for raytracing I
| did was Control and Resident Evil 8.
|
| The pool of games that ask for extremely high performance is
| very small and pretty easy to ignore by accident.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > but I think the gaming market at least will care more about
| the difference in raw frames and memory size
|
| I'm not sure I understand why memory is important for gaming?
| For most games, with every settings maxed up, it'll be a
| stretch if it uses 6GB of VRAM.
|
| For other applications than gaming, 100% agree, but for gaming
| I can't imagine it's important.
| capableweb wrote:
| > I'm not sure I understand why memory is important for
| gaming? For most games, with every settings maxed up, it'll
| be a stretch if it uses 6GB of VRAM.
|
| Depends on what kind of gaming you do, not all games consume
| the same type of resources from the GPU. Simulation games
| will usually be limited by RAM size/speed, VRAM size/speed
| and CPU, rather than actual clock speed of GPUs. Action games
| would require better latency and not so much about VRAM/RAM
| size and so on.
| mountainb wrote:
| For the majority of games, no it doesn't matter at all. For a
| small number of games, it's not hard to eat up all the VRAM
| with certain settings and especially with 4K gaming. I use a
| 1440p monitor so it doesn't really matter that much to me,
| but it does matter more to people who spend a lot on good 4K
| displays.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| > DLSS is always great on any title that offers it
|
| It is very subjective. DLSS for me is always a blurry mess. I'm
| turning it off in every game - I'll better will turn off some
| RTX features than suffer that blurriness torture.
| [deleted]
| aseipp wrote:
| Eh, the current 3080 can already do 60FPS @ 4k HDR on every AAA
| title I've thrown at it, and that's with an mITX undervolt
| build (cliffing the voltage at a point). "60FPS @ 4k is readily
| achievable" has been sort of the gold standard we've been
| careening towards for years since displays outpaced GPUs, and
| we're just about there now. The raw frame difference and memory
| size is nice especially if you're doing compute on these cards,
| but these weren't holding the gaming market back, at least. So
| for those segments, you need some juice to go on top of things.
| I can see why they advertise it this way.
|
| Personally, people say RT is a gimmick but I find it incredible
| on my 3080 for games that support it. In a game like Control
| the lighting is absolutely stunning, and even in a game like
| Minecraft RTX, the soft lighting and shadows are simply
| fantastic. (Minecraft IMO is a perfect example of how better
| soft shadows and realistic bounce lighting aren't just for
| "ultra realism" simulators.) It's already very convincing when
| implemented well. So I'm very happy to see continued interest
| here.
| nullify88 wrote:
| Control was a great looking game (even on my 1080 Ti), and
| its art direction very unique. Another top release by Remedy.
| shostack wrote:
| Try MSFS in VR on ultra settings. With mostly high and ultra
| I'm sometimes able to get 30fps on my quest 2. Nevermind
| something like the Pimax 8k or upcoming 12k.
|
| That sim eats graphics cards for breakfast.
| aseipp wrote:
| Yeah that's fair, VR titles are still a place where GPUs
| need more performance. I personally have no interest in
| them but yes the compute needs are in general way higher.
| Not to mention Flight Sim is a particularly intense case...
| avrionov wrote:
| The games are going to adapt to the new cards and 3080
| performance will go down with the latest and the greatest. It
| always happen.
| TwoNineA wrote:
| > the current 3080 can already do 4k @ 60FPS HDR on every AAA
| title I've thrown at it
|
| Have you tried CyberPunk 2077?
| dekhn wrote:
| I have- I upgraded to a 3080 Ti (from a 2080 Ti). 4k @
| 60FPS with pretty much every whizz-bang feature turned on.
| 60fps during the benchmark.
| aeyes wrote:
| So whats your DLSS settings? With a 3080 I don't get
| anywhere close to 60 FPS at 2k.
| dekhn wrote:
| I don't enable DLSS IIRC.
| deadbunny wrote:
| Yet you're claiming better frame rates than a 3090
|
| https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/10049/cyberpunk-2077-b
| enc...
| archagon wrote:
| Do you have raytracing on?
| aeyes wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Op claimed to get 60 FPS at 4K with "pretty much"
| everything at max - I hope that wasn't implying
| "everything but raytracing". I got the card for
| raytracing, without raytracing even my 5 year old card
| worked ok and looked good enough.
| archagon wrote:
| Fair enough, then I concur with your assessment.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I set DLSS to Quality and was able to max out the game at
| 1440p on my 3080. There are still dips below 60 but VRR
| smooths that over just fine.
| MikusR wrote:
| 2k is 1080p.
| ianbutler wrote:
| How about in the actual game? I have a 3090 at 1440p and
| swing 60 a lot at maxed everything and with dlss at
| quality, but more often than not it sits in the 45-50
| range, that said I suspect I may be CPU bottlenecked atm.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Have you tried 2 chrome windows at the same time? ;-)
| aseipp wrote:
| No, but not for lack of interest. I simply upgraded from 2k
| res + 2080 Super to 4k res + 3080 at one point in the last
| year or so, but I had already beat the game by then and
| haven't returned to it.
| binarymax wrote:
| Was seriously considering buying a used A100, just because it had
| >16GB RAM and was built for model training. Considering this new
| 4090 has 24GB RAM and is probably faster and cheaper than a used
| V100, I'll be picking one up for sure.
| svnt wrote:
| Is there any way to link the 4090s though? Even if there was a
| way to do it in software with a big performance hit I'd be open
| to it.
|
| Need the equivalent of multiple linked A40s.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I find the fact that they have two 4080's with very different
| specs but with only a difference in memory size indicated very
| frustrating.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Sounds like Intel SKUs, I think I could get some part time
| contract work just explaining the difference between two SKUs
| to folks.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| The 12GB is the 3070 replacement, they've just changed the
| label to try to hide the price hike.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| But then they'll also create a 4070 here. And then a 4070 ti,
| and 4080 ti, and then.... But that's another complaint. The
| 4080 is a different problem entirely - not enough names.
| Somehow they have too many names but also not enough so they
| can only differentiate via GB.
| kuschku wrote:
| 4080 vs 4085? or maybe 4075?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| You can take your pick - it can be another multiple of
| 10, or it can be "ti", or "super".
| crthpl wrote:
| Their Performance section shows that the 12GB is 50%-150%
| faster than the 3080 Ti (so better than 3090 Ti!), and it
| also has more cuda cores and memory than the 3070.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Their performance numbers at these events have also been
| highly cherry picked for years. Real world is never nearly
| as good as they claim.
| kcb wrote:
| Yea but that's how new tech works. If the price of every
| new generation of hardware scaled linearily with the
| increase in performance we'd be needing mortgages for a new
| PC/GPU.
| paulmd wrote:
| That's how new tech _worked in the Moore 's Law era._
| Times are changing and you're observing the evidence of
| that.
|
| And yes moore's law notionally died a long time ago, but
| it's been able to be hidden in various ways... and things
| are getting past the point where it can be hidden
| anymore.
|
| Node costs are way way up these days, TSMC is expensive
| as hell and everyone else is at least 1 node behind.
| Samsung 5nm is worse than TSMC N7 for instance, and TSMC
| N7 is 5+ years old at this point.
|
| Samsung 8nm (a 10+ node) used for Ampere was cheap as
| hell, that's why they did it, same for Turing, 12FFN is a
| rebranded 16nm non-plus with a larger reticle. People
| booed the low-cost offering and wanted something on a
| competitive, performant, efficient node... and now NVIDIA
| hopped to a very advanced customized N5P node (4N - not
| to be confused with TSMC N4, it is not N4, it is N5P with
| a small additional optical shrink etc) and people are
| back to whining about the cost. If they keep cost and
| power down by making the die size smaller... people whine
| they're stonewalling progress / selling small chips at
| big chip prices.
|
| Finally we get a big chip on a competitive node, this is
| much closer to the edge of what the tech can deliver,
| and... people whine about the TDP and the cost.
|
| Sadly, you don't get the competitive node, giant chip,
| and low prices all at the same time, that's not how the
| world works. Pick any two.
|
| AMD is making some progress at shuffling the memory
| controller off to separate dies, which helps, but
| generally they're probably going to be fairly expensive
| too... they're launching the top of the stack first which
| is a similar Turing-style "capture the whales while the
| inventory of last-gen cards and miner inventory sells
| through" strategy. That likely implies decently high
| prices too.
|
| There's nothing that can really be done about TDP either
| - thermal density is creeping up on these newer nodes
| too, and when you make a big chip at reasonable clocks
| the power gets high these days. AMD is expected to come
| in at >400W TBP on their products too.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I think typically the XX70 has been in line with the xx90
| TI of the last generation, so this is in fact a better
| improvement over that. It's still dumb though to have two
| xx80's.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| For a while I was looking ahead to getting a used card from a
| miner but I am stuck on the horns of this dilemma: NVIDIA is very
| quick to roll out new features. It's been a while since I've done
| AI work but there is software out there that won't run on the two
| 10-series cards I used and I'm worried a 30-series might have
| trouble running models that come out a year from now.
| Kerbonut wrote:
| You could always get a used 30-series card now and get a new
| 40-series card next year if there are features you need or
| performance needs.
| mkaic wrote:
| Hooray, can't wait to buy a 3090 once the prices fall even
| further than they already have and completely ignore these new,
| overpriced cards that draw half a kilowatt!
|
| I'm more excited about the Hopper server-class cards -- not
| because _I 'll_ be using them, but because now Stability can swap
| their A100s for H100s and train more Stable Diffusion models for
| me to mess around with!
| mrb wrote:
| So the 4090 is 38% faster (in FP32 FLOPS) than the current top
| server GPU (H100) and 105% faster than the current top desktop
| GPU (3090 Ti). And it's also more than twice as efficient (in
| FLOPS per watt) as all current top GPUs, even compared to the
| H100 which is manufactured on the same TSMC 4N process. This is
| impressive.
|
| The computing power of these new GPUs (in FP32 TFLOPS) is as
| below: Nvidia RTX 4090: 82.6 TFLOPS (450
| watts1) Nvidia RTX 4080-16GB: 48.8 TFLOPS (320 watts1)
| Nvidia RTX 4080-12GB: 40.1 TFLOPS (285 watts1)
|
| Compared to Nvidia's current top server and top desktop GPUs:
| Nvidia H100 (SXM card): 60.1 TFLOPS (700 watts) Nvidia RTX
| 3090 Ti: 40.0 TFLOPS (450 watts)
|
| Compared to AMD's current top server and top desktop GPUs:
| AMD Instinct MI250X: 47.9 TFLOPS (560 watts) AMD Radeon
| RX 6950 XT: 23.7 TFLOPS (335 watts)
|
| 1 I didn't see the wattage listed in this page by Nvidia; my
| source is https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-
| rtx-4090-rtx-...
| adrian_b wrote:
| The FP32 comparisons show only a very incomplete image about
| the RTX 40 series vs. server GPUs.
|
| Both the NVIDIA and the AMD server GPUs are about 30 times
| faster at FP64 operations. At equal FP32 Tflops, the server
| GPUs would be 32 times faster at FP64 operations.
|
| A 16 factor comes from having an 1:2 FP64/FP32 speed ratio
| instead of an 1:32 ratio, and an additional factor of 2 comes
| because the server GPUs have FP64 matrix operations, which do
| not exist in consumer GPUs.
|
| So the difference in FP64 speed is really huge. Moreover, the
| server GPUs have ECC memory. When you have a computation that
| takes a week, you would not want it to provide wrong results,
| forcing you to redo it.
| immmmmm wrote:
| are they still using the same chip in server and gaming
| ranges and crippling f64 by a fuse or software?
| terafo wrote:
| No, they aren't even on the same architectures now.
| mrb wrote:
| Of course, server GPUs remain kings of the hill on FP64
| workloads, as they have extra FP64 units. I focus on FP32
| performance because it is representative of general compute
| performance on all other workloads, such as FP32, FP16, FP8,
| or integer.
| xbar wrote:
| It's there: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-
| cards/compare/
| throwabro1000 wrote:
| noncoml wrote:
| I hope mining comes back because NVIDIA has destroyed all good
| faith they had from the gaming community.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-20 23:02 UTC)