[HN Gopher] Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs
___________________________________________________________________
Nvidia announces next-gen RTX 5090 and RTX 5080 GPUs
Author : somebee
Score : 400 points
Date : 2025-01-07 03:12 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Official release: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-
| blackwell-geforce-...
|
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42618849)
| ryao wrote:
| This thread was posted first.
| jsheard wrote:
| 32GB of GDDR7 at 1.8TB/sec for $2000, best of luck to the gamers
| trying to buy one of those while AI people are buying them by the
| truckload.
|
| Presumably the pro hardware based on the same silicon will have
| 64GB, they usually double whatever the gaming cards have.
| codespin wrote:
| At what point do we stop calling them graphics cards?
| avaer wrote:
| At what point did we stop calling them phones?
| Whatarethese wrote:
| Compute cards, AI Cards, or Business Cards.
|
| I like business cards, I'm going to stick with that one.
| Dibs.
| stackghost wrote:
| Let's see Paul Allen's GPU.
| benreesman wrote:
| Oh my god.
|
| It even has a low mantissa FMA.
| blitzar wrote:
| The tasteful thickness of it.
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| Nice.
| Yizahi wrote:
| Business Cards is an awesome naming :)
| paxys wrote:
| Nvidia literally markets H100 as a "GPU"
| (https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/h100/) even though
| it wasn't built for graphics and I doubt there's a single
| person or company using one to render any kind of graphics.
| GPU is just a recognizable term for the product category, and
| will keep being used.
| philistine wrote:
| General Purpose Unit.
| taskforcegemini wrote:
| General Processing Unit?
| Y-bar wrote:
| General Contact Unit (Very Little Gravitas Indeed).
| ryao wrote:
| Someone looked into running graphics on the A100, which is
| the H100's predecessor. He found that it supports OpenGL:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBAxiQi2nPc
|
| I assume someone is doing rendering on them given the
| OpenGL support. In theory, you could do rendering in CUDA,
| although it would be missing access to some of the hardware
| that those who work with graphics APIs claim is needed for
| performance purposes.
| robotnikman wrote:
| The Amazon reviews for the H100 are amusing
| https://www.amazon.com/NVIDIA-Hopper-Graphics-5120-Bit-
| Learn...
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| It's a good question. I'll note that, even in the GPGPU days
| (eg BrookGPU), they were architecturally designed for
| graphics applications (eg shaders). The graphics hardware was
| being re-purposed to do something else. It was quite a
| stretch to do the other things compared to massively-
| parallel, general-purpose designs. They started adding more
| functionality to them, like physics. Now, tensors.
|
| While they've come a long way, I'd imagine they're still
| highly specialized compared to general-purpose hardware and
| maybe still graphics-oriented in many ways. One could test
| this by comparing them to SGI-style NUMA machines, Tilera's
| tile-based systems, or Adapteva's 1024-core design. Maybe
| Ambric given it aimed for generality but Am2045's were DSP-
| style. They might still be GPU's if they still looked more
| like GPU's side by side with such architectures.
| ryao wrote:
| GPUs have been processing "tensors" for decades. What they
| added that is new is explicit "tensor" instructions.
|
| A tensor operation is a generalization of a matrix
| operation to include higher order dimensions. Tensors as
| used in transformers do not use any of those higher order
| dimensions. They are just simple matrix operations (either
| GEMV or GEMM, although GEMV can be done by GEMM).
| Similarly, vectors are matrices, which are tensors. We can
| take this a step further by saying scalars are vectors,
| which are matrices, which are tensors. A scalar is just a
| length 1 vector, which is a 1x1 matrix, which is a tensor
| with all dimensions set to 1.
|
| As for the "tensor" instructions, they compute tiles for
| GEMM if I recall my read of them correctly. They are just
| doing matrix multiplications, which GPUs have done for
| decades. The main differences are that you do not need need
| to write code to process the GEMM tile anymore as doing
| that is a higher level operation and this applies only to
| certain types introduced for AI while the hardware
| designers expect code using FP32 or FP64 to process the
| GEMM tile the old way.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| Thanks for the correction and insights!
| msteffen wrote:
| I mean HPC people already call them accelerators
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| How long until a "PC" isn't CPU + GPU but just a GPU? I know
| CPUs are good for some things that GPUs aren't and vice versa
| but... it really kind of makes you wonder.
|
| Press the power button, boot the GPU?
|
| Surely a terrible idea, and I know system-on-a-chip makes
| this more confusing/complicated (like Apple Silicon, etc.)
| robin_reala wrote:
| "Press the power button, boot the GPU" describes the
| Raspberry Pi.
| jampekka wrote:
| Probably never if the GPU architecture resembles anything
| like they currently are.
| jerf wrote:
| Never. You can to a first approximation model a GPU as a
| whole bunch of slow CPUs harnessed together and ordered to
| run the same code at the same time, on different data. When
| you can feed all the slow CPUs different data and do real
| work, you get the big wins because the CPU count times the
| compute rate will thrash what CPUs can put up for that same
| number, due to sheer core count. However, if you are in an
| environment where you can only have one of those CPUs
| running at once, or even a small handful, you're
| transported back to the late 1990s in performance. And you
| can't speed them up without trashing their GPU performance
| because the optimizations you'd need are at direct odds
| with each other.
|
| CPUs are not fast or slow. GPUs are not fast or slow. They
| are fast and slow _for certain workloads_. Contra popular
| belief, CPUs are actually _really good_ at what they do,
| and the workloads they are fast at are more common than the
| workloads that GPUs are fast at. There 's a lot to be said
| for being able to bring a lot of power to bear on a single
| point, and being able to switch that single point
| reasonably quickly (but not instantaneously). There's also
| a lot to be said for having a very broad capacity to run
| the same code on lots of things at once, but it definitely
| imposes a significant restriction on the shape of the
| problem that works for.
|
| I'd say that broadly speaking, CPUs can make better GPUs
| than GPUs can make CPUs. But fortunately, we don't need to
| choose.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| We've looped back to the "math coprocessor" days.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprocessor
| ryao wrote:
| Do they double it via dual rank or clamshell mode? It is not
| clear which approach they use.
| wruza wrote:
| Why do you need one of those as a gamer? 1080ti was 120+ fps in
| heavy realistic looking games. 20xx RT slashed that back to 15
| fps, but is RT really necessary to play games? Who cares about
| real-world reflections? And reviews showed that RT+DLSS
| introduced so many artefacts sometimes that the realism
| argument seemed absurd.
|
| Any modern card under $1000 is more than enough for graphics in
| virtually all games. The gaming crisis is not in a graphics
| card market at all.
| bowsamic wrote:
| > is RT really necessary to play games? Who cares about real-
| world reflections?
|
| I barely play video games but I definitely do
| Vampiero wrote:
| Indeed you're not a gamer, but you're the target audience
| for gaming advertisements and $2000 GPUs.
|
| I still play traditional roguelikes from the 80s (and their
| modern counterparts) and I'm a passionate gamer. I don't
| need a fancy GPU to enjoy the masterpieces. Because at the
| end of the day nowhere in the definition of "game" is there
| a requirement for realistic graphics -- and what passes off
| as realistic changes from decade to decade anyway. A game
| is about gameplay, and you can have great gameplay with
| barely any graphics at all.
|
| I'd leave raytracing to those who like messing with GLSL on
| shadertoy; now people like me have 0 options if they want a
| good budget card that just has good raster performance and
| no AI/RTX bullshit.
|
| And ON TOP OF THAT, every game engine has turned to utter
| shit in the last 5-10 years. Awful performance, awful
| graphics, forced sub-100% resolution... And in order to get
| anything that doesn't look like shit and runs at a passable
| framerate, you need to enable DLSS. Great
| bowsamic wrote:
| I play roguelikes too
| williamDafoe wrote:
| 1. Because you shoot at puddles? 2. Because you play at
| night after a rainstorm?
|
| Really, these are the only 2 situations where ray tracing
| makes much of a difference. We already have simulated
| shadowing in many games and it works pretty well, actually.
| bowsamic wrote:
| I just find screen space effects a bit jarring
| t-writescode wrote:
| Yes, actually. A lot of games use water, a lot, in their
| scenes (70% of the planet is covered in it, after all),
| and that does improve immersion and feels nice to look
| at.
|
| Silent Hill 2 Remake and Black Myth: Wukong both have a
| meaningful amount of water in them and are improved
| visually with raytracing for those exact reasons.
| nullandvoid wrote:
| Many people are running 4k resolution now, and a 4080
| struggles to to break 100 frames in many current games maxed
| (never-mind future titles) - therefore there's plenty of a
| market with gamers and the 5x series (myself included) who
| are looking for closer to 4090 performance at a non obscene
| price.
| williamDafoe wrote:
| This is just absolutely false, Steam says that 4.21% of
| users play at 4K. The number of users that play at higher
| than 1440p is only 10.61%. So you are wrong, simply wrong.
| nullandvoid wrote:
| Did I say all the people, or did I say many people?..
|
| Why are you so hostile? I'm not justifying the cost, I'm
| simply in the 4k market and replying to OP's statement
| "Any modern card under $1000 is more than enough for
| graphics in virtually all games" which is objectively
| false if you're a 4k user.
| int_19h wrote:
| This is a chicken and egg thing, though - people don't
| play at 4K because it requires spending a lot of $$$ on
| top-of-the-line GPU, not because they don't want to.
| me551ah wrote:
| > Any modern card under $1000 is more than enough for
| graphics in virtually all games
|
| I disagree. I run a 4070 Super, Ryzen 7700 with DDR5 and I
| still cant run Asseto Corsa Competizione in VR at 90fps. MSFS
| 2024 runs at 30 something fps at medium settings. VR gaming
| is a different beast
| Vampiero wrote:
| Spending $2 quadrillion on a GPU won't fix poor raster
| performance which is what you need when you're rendering
| two frames side by side. Transistors only get so small
| before AI slop is sold as an improvement.
| rane wrote:
| 1080ti is most definitely not powerful enough to play modern
| games at 4k 120hz.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| A bunch of new games are RT-only. Nvidia has aggressively
| marketed on the idea that RT, FG, and DLSS are "must haves"
| in game engines and that 'raster is the past'. Resolution is
| also a big jump. 4K 120Hz in HDR is rapidly becoming common
| and the displays are almost affordable (esp. so for TV-based
| gaming). In fact, as of today, Even the very fastest RTX 4090
| cannot run CP2077 at max non-RT settings and 4K at 120fps.
|
| Now, I do agree that $1000 is plenty for 95% of gamers, but
| for those who want the best, Nvidia is pretty clearly holding
| out intentionally. The gap between a 4080TI and a 4090 is
| GIANT. Check this great comparison from Tom's Hardware: https
| ://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/BAGV2GBMHHE4gkb7ZzTxwK-120...
|
| The biggest next-up offering leap on the chart is 4090.
| wruza wrote:
| I'm an ex-gamer, pretty recent ex-, and I own 4070Ti
| currently (just to show I'm not a grumpy GTX guy). Max
| settings are nonsensical. You never want to spend 50% of
| frame budget on ASDFAA x64. Lowering AA alone to barely
| noticeable levels makes a game run 30-50% faster*. Anyone
| who chooses a graphics card may watch benchmarks and
| basically multiply FPS by 1.5-2 because that's what
| playable settings will be. And 4K is a matter of taste
| really, especially in "TV" segment where it's a snakeoil
| resolution more than anything else.
|
| * also you want to ensure your CPU doesn't C1E-power-cycle
| every frame and your frametimes don't look like EKG.
| There's much more to performance tuning than just buying a
| $$$$$ card. It's like installing a V12 engine into a rusted
| fiat. If you want performance, you want RTSS, AB, driver
| settings, bios settings, _then_ 4090.
| berbec wrote:
| I get under 50fps in certain places in FF14. I run a 5900x
| with 32GB of ram and a 3090.
| williamDafoe wrote:
| The 3090 + 5900x is a mistake. The 5900x is 2 x 5600x CPUs.
| So therefore, when the games asks for 8 cores, it will get
| 6 good cores and 2 very slow cores across the infinity
| switching fabric. What's more, NVidia GPUs take MUCH MORE
| CPU than AMD GPUs. You should either buy an AMD GPU or
| upgrade/downgrade to ANYTHING OTHER THAN 5900x with 8+
| cores (5800x, 5800, 5700, 5700x3d, 5950x, 5900xt, anything
| really ...)
| ErneX wrote:
| These are perfect for games featuring path tracing. Not many
| games though but those really flex the 4090.
| some_random wrote:
| It's a leisure activity, "necessary" isn't the metric to be
| used here, people clearly care about RT/PT while DLSS seems
| to be getting better and better.
| pknomad wrote:
| You need as much FPS as possible for certain games for
| competitive play like Counter Strike.
|
| I went from 80 FPS (highest settings) to 365 FPS (capped to
| my alienware 360hz monitor) when I upgraded from my old rig
| (i7-8700K and 1070GTX) to a new one ( 7800X3D and 3090 RTX)
| ryao wrote:
| > Any modern card under $1000 is more than enough for
| graphics in virtually all games. The gaming crisis is not in
| a graphics card market at all.
|
| You will love the RTX 5080 then. It is priced at $999.
| t-writescode wrote:
| > Who cares about real-world reflections?
|
| Me. I do. I *love* raytracing; and, as has been said and seen
| for several of the newest AAA games, raytracing is no longer
| optional for the newest games. It's required, now. Those
| 1080s, wonderful as long as they have been (and they have
| been truly great cards) are definitely in need of an upgrade
| now.
| Hilift wrote:
| 100% you will be able to buy them. And receive a rock in the
| package from Amazon.
| malnourish wrote:
| I will be astonished if I'll be able to get a 5090 due to
| availability. The 5080's comparative lack of memory is a buzzkill
| -- 16 GB seems like it's going to be a limiting factor for 4k
| gaming.
|
| Does anyone know what these might cost in the US after the
| rumored tariffs?
| ericfrederich wrote:
| 4k gaming is dumb. I watched a LTT video that came out today
| where Linus said he primarily uses gaming monitors and doesn't
| mess with 4k.
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| There are good 4K gaming monitors, but they start at over
| $1200 and if you don't also have a 4090 tier rig, you won't
| be able to get full FPS out of AAA games at 4k.
| archagon wrote:
| I still have a 3080 and game at 4K/120Hz. Most AAA games
| that I try can pull 60-90Hz at ~4K if DLSS is available.
| out_of_protocol wrote:
| Also, ultrawide monitors. They exist, provide more
| immersion. And typical resolution is 3440x1440 which is
| high and and the same time have low ppi (basically regular
| 27" 1440p monitor with extra width). Doubling that is way
| outside modern GPU capabilities
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| A coworker who is really into flight sims runs 6
| ultrawide curved monitors to get over 180 degrees around
| his head.
|
| I have to admit with the display wrapping around into
| peripheral vision, it is very immersive.
| kcb wrote:
| No it's not. 2560x1440 has terrible PPI on larger screens.
| Either way with a 4k monitor you don't technically need to
| game at 4k as most intensive games offer DLSS anyway.
| snvzz wrote:
| And FSR, which is cross gpu vendor.
| SirMaster wrote:
| Not anymore. FSR4 is AMD only, and only the new RDNA4
| GPUs.
| perching_aix wrote:
| What matters is the PPD, not the PPI, otherwise it's an
| unsound comparison.
| kcb wrote:
| Too much personal preference with PPD. When I upgraded to
| a 32" monitor from a 27" one i didn't push my display
| through my wall, it sat in the same position.
| perching_aix wrote:
| Not entirely clear on what you mean, but if you refuse to
| reposition your display or yourself after hopping between
| diagonal sizes and resolutions, I'd say it's a bit
| disingenuous to blame or praise either afterwards.
| Considering you seem to know what PPD is, I think you
| should be able to appreciate the how and why.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| Yep. I have both 4k and 1440p monitors and I can't tell the
| difference in quality so I always use the latter for better
| frames. I use the 4k for reading text though, it's noticeably
| better.
| munchbunny wrote:
| That's why I also finally went from 1920x1200 to 4k about
| half a year ago. It was mostly for reading text and
| programming, not gaming.
|
| I can tell the difference in games if I go looking for it,
| but in the middle of a tense shootout I honestly don't
| notice that I have double the DPI.
| ggregoire wrote:
| I watched the same video you talking about [1], where he's
| trying the PG27UCDM (new 27" 4K 240Hz OLED "gaming monitor"
| [2]) and his first impressions are "it's so clean and sharp",
| then he starts Doom Eternal and after a few seconds he says
| "It's insane [...] It looks perfect".
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ404RCyqhk
|
| [2] https://rog.asus.com/monitors/27-to-31-5-inches/rog-
| swift-ol...
| akimbostrawman wrote:
| Taking anything Linus or LTT says seriously is even
| dumber....
| Yeul wrote:
| Nonsense 4k gaming was inevitable as soon as 4k TVs got
| mainstream.
| stego-tech wrote:
| Honestly, with how fast memory is being consumed nowadays and
| the increased focus on frame generation/interpolation vs "full
| frames", I'll keep my 3090 a little longer instead of upgrading
| to a 5080 or 5090. It's not the fastest, but it's a solid card
| even in 2025 for 1440p RT gaming on a VRR display, and the
| memory lets me tinker with LLMs without breaking a sweat.
|
| If DLSS4 and "MOAR POWAH" are the only things on offer versus
| my 3090, it's a hard pass. I need efficiency, not a bigger TDP.
| DimmieMan wrote:
| I use my 3090 on a 4K TV and still don't see a need, although
| a lot of that is being bored with most big budget games so I
| don't have many carrots to push me to upgrade.
|
| Turn down a few showcase features and games still look great
| and run well with none or light DLSS. UE5 Lumen/ray tracing
| are the only things I feel limited on and until consoles can
| run them they'll be optional.
|
| It seems all the gains are brute forcing these features with
| upscaling & frame generation which I'm not a fan of anyway.
|
| Maybe a 7090 at this rate for me.
| ziml77 wrote:
| Efficiency is why I switched from a 3090 to a 4080. The
| amount of heat generated by my PC was massively reduced with
| that change. Even if the xx90 weren't jumping up in price
| each generation, I wouldn't be tempted to buy one again (I
| didn't even really want the 3090, but that was during the
| supply shortages and it was all I could get my hands on).
| ryao wrote:
| Pricing for the next generation might be somewhat better if
| Nvidia switches to Samsung for 2nm like the rumors suggest:
|
| https://wccftech.com/nvidia-is-rumored-to-switch-towards-
| sam...
|
| Coincidentally, the 3090 was made using Samsung's 8nm
| process. You would be going from one Samsung fabricated GPU
| to another.
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| NVidia's pricing isn't based on how much it takes to
| produce their cards, but since they have no competition,
| it's purely based on how much consumers are grudgingly
| willing to pay up. If AMD continues to sleep, they'll sale
| these cards for the same price, even if they could produce
| them for free.
| ryao wrote:
| Nvidia's Titan series cards always were outrageously
| priced for the consumer market. The 5090 is a Titan
| series card in all but name.
|
| I suspect there is a correlation to the price that it
| costs Nvidia to produce these. In particular, the price
| is likely 3 times higher than the production and
| distribution costs. The computer industry has always had
| significant margins on processors.
| Yeul wrote:
| AMD is not sleeping. They publicly admitted that they
| threw in the towel- they have exited the high end market.
| stego-tech wrote:
| And if these 50-series specs are anything to go by, they
| made a good call in doing so. All the big improvements
| are coming in mid-range cards, where AMD, nVidia, and
| Intel(!) are trading blows.
|
| If the only way to get better raw frames in modern GPUs
| is to basically keep shoveling power into them like an
| old Pentium 4, then that's not exactly an enticing or
| profitable space to be in. Best leave that to nVidia and
| focus your efforts on a competitive segment where cost
| and efficiency are more important.
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| DLSS4 is coming to other RTX cards, eventually.
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss4-multi-
| frame-...
| glimshe wrote:
| Let's see the new version of frame generation. I enabled DLSS
| frame generation on Diablo 4 using my 4060 and I was very
| disappointed with the results. Graphical glitches and partial
| flickering made the game a lot less enjoyable than good old 60fps
| with vsync.
| ziml77 wrote:
| The new DLSS 4 framegen really needs to be much better than
| what's there in DLSS 3. Otherwise the 5070 = 4090 comparison
| won't just be very misleading but flatly a lie.
| sliken wrote:
| Seems like pretty heavily stretched truth. Looks like the
| actual performance uplift is more like 30%. The 5070=4090
| comes from generating multiple fake frames per actual frame
| and using different versions of DLSS on the cards. Multiple
| frame generation (required for 5070=4090) increases latency
| between user input and updated pixels and can also cause
| artifacts when predictions don't match what the game engine
| would display.
|
| As always wait for fairer 3rd party reviews that will compare
| new gen cards to old gen with the same settings.
| jakemoshenko wrote:
| > Multiple frame generation (required for 5070=4090)
| increases latency between user input and updated pixels
|
| Not necessarily. Look at the reprojection trick that lots
| of VR uses to double framerates with the express purpose of
| decreasing latency between user movements and updated
| perspective. Caveat: this only works for movements and
| wouldn't work for actions.
| evantbyrne wrote:
| The main edge Nvidia has in gaming is ray tracing performance.
| I'm not playing any RT heavy titles and frame gen being a mixed
| bag is why I saved my coin and got a 7900 XTX.
| roskelld wrote:
| There's some very early coverage on Digital Foundry where they
| got to look at the 5080 and Cyberpunk.
|
| https://youtu.be/xpzufsxtZpA
| lostmsu wrote:
| Did they discontinue Titan series for good?
| greenknight wrote:
| Last titan was released 2018.... 7 years ago.
|
| They may resurrect it at some stage, but at this stage yes.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Yes the xx90 is the new Titan
| ryao wrote:
| The 3090, 3090 Ti, 4090 and 5090 are Titan series cards. They
| are just no longer labelled Titan.
| smcleod wrote:
| It's a shame to see they max out at just 32GB, for that price in
| 2025 you'd be hoping for a lot more, especially with Apple
| Silicon - while not nearly as fast - being very usable with
| 128GB+ for LLMs for $6-7k USD (comes with a free laptop too ;))
| ryao wrote:
| Presumably the workstation version will have 64GB of VRAM.
|
| By the way, this is even better as far as memory size is
| concerned:
|
| https://www.asrockrack.com/minisite/AmpereAltraFamily/
|
| However, memory bandwidth is what matters for token generation.
| The memory bandwidth of this is only 204.8GB/sec if I
| understand correctly. Apple's top level hardware reportedly
| does 800GB/sec.
| lostmsu wrote:
| All of this is true only while no software is utilizing
| parallel inference of multiple LLM queries. The Macs will hit
| the wall.
| ryao wrote:
| People interested in running multiple LLM queries in
| parallel are not people who would consider buying Apple
| Silicon.
| int_19h wrote:
| There are other ways to parallelize even a single query
| for faster output, e.g. speculative decoding with small
| draft models.
| sliken wrote:
| AMD Strix Halo is 256GB/sec or so. Similarly AMD's Epyc
| Sienna family is similar. The EPYC turin family (zen 5) has
| 576GB/sec or so per socket. Not sure how well any of them do
| on LLMs. Bandwidth helps, but so does hardware support for
| FP8 or FP4.
| ryao wrote:
| Memory bandwidth is the most important thing for token
| generation. Hardware support for FP8 or FP4 probably does
| not matter much for token generation. You should be able to
| run the operations on the CPU in FP32 while reading/writing
| them from/to memory as FP4/FP8 by doing conversions in the
| CPU's registers (although to be honest, I have not looked
| into how those conversions would work). That is how
| llama.cpp supports BF16 on CPUs that have no BF16 support.
| Prompt processing would benefit from hardware FP4/FP8
| support, since prompt processing is compute bound, not
| memory bandwidth bound.
|
| As for how well those CPUs do with LLMs. The token
| generation will be close to model size / memory bandwidth.
| At least, that is what I have learned from local
| experiments:
|
| https://github.com/ryao/llama3.c
|
| Note that prompt processing is the phase where the LLM is
| reading the conversation history and token generation is
| the phase where the LLM is writing a response.
|
| By the way, you can get an ampere altra motherboard + CPU
| for $1,434.99:
|
| https://www.newegg.com/asrock-rack-
| altrad8ud-1l2t-q64-22-amp...
|
| I would be shocked if you can get any EYPC CPU with
| similar/better memory bandwidth for anything close to that
| price. As for Strix Halo, anyone doing local inference
| would love it if it is priced like a gaming part. 4 of them
| could run llama 3.1 405B on paper. I look forward to seeing
| its pricing.
| sliken wrote:
| Hmm, seems pretty close. Not sure how the memory channels
| related to the performance. But the ampere board above
| has 8 64 bit channels @ 3200 MHz, the AMD Turins have 24
| 32 bit channels @ 6400 Mhz. So the AMD memory system is
| 50% wider, 2x the clock, and 3x the channels.
|
| As for price the AMD Epyc Turin 9115 is $726 and a common
| supermicro motherboard is $750. Both the Ampere and AMD
| motherboards have 2x10G. No idea if the AMD's 16 cores
| with Zen 5 will be able to saturate the memory bus
| compared to 64 cores of the Amphere Altra.
|
| I do hope the AMD Strix Halo is reasonably priced (256
| bits wide @ 8533 MHz), but if not the Nvidia Digit (GB10)
| looks promising. 128GB ram, likely a wider memory system,
| and 1 Pflop of FP4 sparse. It's going to be $3k, but with
| 128GB ram that is approaching reasonable. Seems like it's
| likely has around 500GB/sec of memory bandwidth, but that
| is speculation.
|
| Interesting Ampere board, thanks for the link.
| jsheard wrote:
| Apple Silicons architecture is better for running huge AI
| models but much worse for just about anything else that you'd
| want to run on a GPU, bandwidth is _far_ more important in most
| other applications.
|
| That's not even close, the M4 Max 12C has less than a third of
| the 5090s memory throughput and the 10C version has less than a
| quarter. The M4 Ultra should trade blows with the 4090 but
| it'll still fall well short of the 5090.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Just isn't comparable speed wise for anything apart from LLM
| and in the long run you can double up and swap out Nvidia cards
| while Mac you need to rebuy the whole machine.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Guess you missed the Project Digits announcement... desktop
| supercomputer for AI at $3k (128 GB ram)
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/project-digits/
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| Looks like most of the improvement is only going to come when
| DLSS4 is in use and its generating most of the frame for Ray
| Tracing and then also generating 3 predicted frames. When you use
| all that AI hardware then its maybe 2x, but I do wonder how much
| fundamental rasterisation + shaders performance gain there is in
| this generation in practice on the majority of actual games.
| DimmieMan wrote:
| Yeah I'm not holding my breath if they aren't advertising it.
|
| I'm expecting a minor bump that will look less impressive if
| you compare it to watts, these things are hungry.
|
| It's hard to get excited when most of the gains will be limited
| to a few new showcase AAA releases and maybe an update to a
| couple of your favourites if your lucky.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| It feels like GPUs are now well beyond what game studios can
| put out. Consoles are stuck at something like RTX 2070 levels
| for some years still. I hope Nvidia puts out some budget
| cards for 50 series
| DimmieMan wrote:
| At the same time they're still behind demand as most of the
| pretty advertising screenshots and frame rate bragging have
| been behind increasingly aggressive upscaling.
|
| On pc you can turn down the fancy settings at least but For
| consoles I wonder if we're now in the smudgy upscale era
| like overdone bloom or everything being brown.
| jroesch wrote:
| There was some solid commentary on the Ps5Pro tech talk stating
| core rendering is so well optimized much of the gains in the
| future will come from hardware process technology improvements
| not from radical architecture changes. It seems clear the
| future of rendering is likely to be a world where the gains
| come from things like dlss and less and free lunch savings due
| to easy optimizations.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Nanite style rendering still seems fairly green. That could
| take off and they decide to re-implement the software
| rasterization in hardware.
| jms55 wrote:
| Raster is believe it or not, not quite the bottleneck.
| Raster speed definitely _matters_, but it's pretty fast
| even in software, and the bigger bottleneck is just overall
| complexity. Nanite is a big pipeline with a lot of
| different passes, which means lots of dispatches and memory
| accesses. Same with material shading/resolve after the
| visbuffer is rendered.
|
| EDIT: The _other_ huge issue with Nanite is overdraw with
| thin/aggregate geo that 2pass occlusion culling fails to
| handle well. That's why trees and such perform poorly in
| Nanite (compared to how good Nanite is for solid opaque
| geo). There's exciting recent research in this area though!
| https://mangosister.github.io/scene_agn_site.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| Like with how you cannot distinguish reality from CGI in movies
| DLSS will also become perfected over the years.
| yakaccount4 wrote:
| 3 Generated frames sounds like a lot of lag, probably a
| sickening amount for many games. The magic of "blackwell flip
| metering" isn't quite described yet.
| dagmx wrote:
| It's 3 extrapolated frames not interpolated. So would be
| reduced lag at the expense of greater pop-in.
|
| There's also the new reflex 2 which uses reprojection based
| on mouse motion to generate frames that should also help, but
| likely has the same drawback.
| perching_aix wrote:
| > It's 3 extrapolated frames not interpolated.
|
| Do you have a source for this? Doesn't sound like a very
| good idea. Nor do I think there's additional latency mind
| you, but not because it's not interpolation.
| dagmx wrote:
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss4-multi-
| frame-...
| perching_aix wrote:
| Could you please point out where on that page does it say
| anything about "extrapolation"? Searched for the
| (beginning of the) word directly and even gave all the
| text a skim, didn't catch anything of the sort.
| vel0city wrote:
| Interpolation means you have frame 1 and frame 2, now
| compute the interstitial steps between these two.
|
| Extrapolation means you have frame 1, and sometime in the
| future you'll get a frame 2. But until then, take the
| training data and the current frame and "guess" what the
| next few frames will be.
|
| Interpolation requires you to have the final state
| between the added frames, extrapolation means you don't
| yet know what the final state will be but you'll keep
| drawing until you get there.
|
| You shouldn't get additional latency from generating,
| assuming it's not slowing down the traditional render
| generation pipeline.
| perching_aix wrote:
| I understand this - doesn't address anything of what I
| said.
| gruez wrote:
| https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-
| zz/Solutions/geforce/n...
| ryao wrote:
| Jensen Huang said during his keynote that you get 3 AI
| generated frames when rendering a native frame.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > It's 3 extrapolated frames not interpolated. So would be
| reduced lag at the expense of greater pop-in.
|
| it's certainly not reduced lag relative to native
| rendering. It might be reduced relative to dlss3 frame gen
| though.
| ryao wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42623153
| kllrnohj wrote:
| This isn't relevant to what I said?
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Digital Foundry just covered this. 3x and 4x both add
| additional latency on top of 2x.
|
| https://youtu.be/xpzufsxtZpA?si=hZZlX-g_nueAd7-Q
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > but I do wonder how much fundamental rasterisation + shaders
| performance gain there is in this generation in practice on the
| majority of actual games.
|
| likely 10-30% going off of both the cuda core specs (nearly
| unchanged gen/gen for everything but the 5090) as well as the 2
| benchmarks Nvidia published that didn't use dlss4 multi frame
| gen - Far Cry 6 & A Plague Tale
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/50-serie...
| williamDafoe wrote:
| Given that Jensen completely omitted ANY MENTION of
| rasterization performance, I think we can safely assume it's
| probably WORSE in the 5000 series than the 4000 series, given
| the large price cuts applied to every card below then 5090
| (NVidia was never happy charging $1000 for the 4080 super - AMD
| forced them to do it with the 7900xtx).
| paxys wrote:
| Even though they are all marketed as gaming cards, Nvidia is now
| very clearly differentiating between 5070/5070 Ti/5080 for mid-
| high end gaming and 5090 for consumer/entry-level AI. The gap
| between xx80 and xx90 is going to be too wide for regular gamers
| to cross this generation.
| kcb wrote:
| Yup, the days of the value high end card are dead it seems
| like. I thought we would see a cut down 4090 at some point last
| generation but it never happened. Surely there's a market gap
| somewhere between 5090 and 5080.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Yes, but Nvidia thinks enough of them get pushed up to the
| 5090 to make the gap worthwhile.
|
| Only way to fix this is for AMD to decide it likes money. I'm
| not holding my breath.
| kaibee wrote:
| Don't necessarily count Intel out.
| romon wrote:
| Intel is halting its construction of new factories and
| mulling over whether to break up the company...
| User23 wrote:
| Intel's Board is going full Kodak.
| 63 wrote:
| I wouldn't count Intel out in the long term, but it'll
| take quite a few generations for them to catch up and who
| knows what the market will be like by then
| blitzar wrote:
| Intel hate making money even more than AMD.
| hylaride wrote:
| Starting around 2000, Intel tried to make money via
| attempts at everything but making a better product
| (pushing RAMBUS RAM, itanium, cripling low-end chips more
| than they needed to be, focusing more on keeping chip
| manufacturing in-house thereby losing out on economy of
| scale). The result was engineers were (not always, but
| too often) nowhere near the forefront of technology. Now
| AMD, NVIDIA, ARM are all chipping away (pun intended).
|
| It's not dissimilar to what happened to Boeing. I'm a
| capitalist, but the current accounting laws (in
| particular corporate taxation rules) mean that all
| companies are pushed to use money for stock buybacks than
| R&D (which Intel spent more on the former over the latter
| over the past decade and I'm watching Apple stagnate
| before my eyes).
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Intel's Arc B580 budget card is selling like hotcakes...
| https://www.pcworld.com/article/2553897/intel-
| arc-b580-revie...
| blitzar wrote:
| They fired the CEO for daring to make a product such as
| this. The 25mil they paid to get rid of him might even
| wipe out their profits on this product.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| AMD announced they aren't making a top tier card for the
| next generation and is focusing on mid-tier.
|
| Next generation, the are finally reversing course and
| unifying their AI and GPU architectures (just like nVidia).
|
| 2026 is the big year for AMD.
| officeplant wrote:
| AMD's GPU marketing during CES has been such a shit show.
| No numbers, just adjectives and vibes. They're either
| hiding their hand, or they continue to have nothing to
| bring to the table.
|
| Meanwhile their CPU marketing has numbers and graphs
| because their at the top of their game and have nothing
| to hide.
|
| I'm glad they exist because we need the competition, but
| the GPU market continues to look dreary. At least we have
| a low/mid range battle going on between the three
| companies to look forward to for people with sensible
| gaming budgets.
| ryao wrote:
| The xx90 cards are really Titan cards. The 3090 was the
| successor to the Titan RTX, while the 3080 Ti was the
| successor to the 2080 Ti, which succeeded the 1080 Ti. This
| succession continued into the 40 series and now the 50
| series. If you consider the 2080 Ti to be the "value high end
| card" of its day, then it would follow that the 5080 is the
| value high end card today, not the 5090.
| kcb wrote:
| In all those historical cases the second tier card was a
| cut down version of the top tier one. Now the 4080 and 5080
| are a different chip and there's a gulf of a performance
| gap between them and the top tier. That's the issue I am
| highlighting, the 5080 is half a 5090, in the past a 3080
| was only 10% off a 3090 performance wise.
| ziml77 wrote:
| The 4090 already seemed positioned as a card for consumer AI
| enthusiast workloads. But this $1000 price gap between the 5080
| and 5090 seems to finally cement that. Though we're probably
| still going to see tons of tech YouTubers making videos
| specifically about how the 5090 isn't a good value for gaming
| as if it even matters. The people who want to spend $2000 on a
| GPU for gaming don't care about the value and everyone else
| already could see it wasn't worth it.
| dijit wrote:
| From all the communication I've had with Nvidia, the
| prevailing sentiment was that the 4090 was an 8K card, that
| _happened_ to be good for AI due to vram requirements from 8K
| gaming.
|
| However, I'm a AAA gamedev CTO and they might have been
| telling me what the card means _to me_.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I do recall an 8K push but I thought that was on the 3090
| (and was conditional on DLSS doing the heavy lifting). I
| don't remember any general marketing about the 4090 being
| an 8K card but I could very well have missed it or be
| mixing things up! I mean it does make sense to market it
| for 8K since anyone who is trying to drive that many pixels
| when gaming probably has deep pockets.
| ryao wrote:
| I recall the 3090 8K marketing too. However, I also
| recall Nvidia talking about 8K in reference to the 4090:
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/technologies/8k/
|
| That said, I recall that the media was more enthusiastic
| about christening the 4090 as an 8K card than Nvidia was:
|
| https://wccftech.com/rtx-4090-is-the-first-
| true-8k-gaming-gp...
| ryao wrote:
| I recall them making the same claims about the 3090:
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/geforce-
| rtx-3090-8...
| Refusing23 wrote:
| Seems kinda silly to make an 8K video card when ... nobody
| on the planet has an 8K screen
| dijit wrote:
| 2018 (6 years ago):
| https://www.techradar.com/reviews/dell-ultrasharp-up3218k
|
| It's uncommon, sure, but as mentioned it was sold to me
| as being a development board for future resolutions.
| gnabgib wrote:
| Perhaps you don't, but several of us do. They've been
| around a while, available in your local bestbuy/costco if
| you're rocking a 4:4:4 TV they're not even particularly
| pricey and great for computing (depending on the subpixel
| layout).
|
| On the planet? Many people. Maybe you're thinking 12K or
| 16K.
| jkolio wrote:
| It's been a few years since I worked at [big tech
| retailer], but 8K TVs basically didn't sell at the time.
| There was basically no native content - even the demos
| were upscaled 4K - and it was very hard to tell the
| difference between the two unless you were so close to
| the screen that you couldn't see the whole thing. For the
| content that was available, either you were dealing with
| heavy compression or setting up a high-capacity server,
| since file sizes basically necessitated most of the space
| on what people would consider a normal-sized hard drive
| to store just a few movies.
|
| The value just wasn't there and probably won't ever be
| for most use cases. XR equipment might be an exception,
| video editing another.
| duffyjp wrote:
| I got 4K TVs for both of my kids, they're dirt cheap--
| sub $200. I'm surprised the Steam hardware survey doesn't
| show more. A lot of my friends also set their kids up on
| TVs, and you can't hardly buy a 1080P TV anymore.
| martiuk wrote:
| > Seems kinda silly to make a 4K video card when ...
| nobody on the planet has a 4K screen.
|
| Someone else probably said that years ago when everyone
| was rocking 1080/1440p screens.
| close04 wrote:
| First consumer 4K monitors came out more than a decade
| ago. I think the Asus PQ321 in 2013. That's close to
| where we are now with 8K.
|
| How many of the cards of that time would you call "4K
| cards"? Even the Titan X that came a couple of years
| later doesn't really cut it.
|
| There's such a thing as being _too_ early to the game.
| Eloso wrote:
| Gaming isn't the only use-case, but Steam hardware survey
| says ~4% of users are using 4k screens. So the market is
| still small.
| ErneX wrote:
| If you look at the Steam hardware survey you'll find the
| majority of gamers are still rocking 1080p/1440p
| displays.
|
| What gamers look for is more framerate not particularly
| resolution. Most new gaming monitors are focusing on high
| refresh rates.
|
| 8K feels like a waste of compute for a very diminished
| return compared to 4K. I think 8K only makes sense when
| dealing with huge displays, I'm talking beyond 83 inches,
| we are still far from that.
| int_19h wrote:
| Gaming aside, 4K is desirable even on <30" displays, and
| honestly I wouldn't mind a little bit more pixel density
| there to get it to true "retina" resolution. 6K might be
| a sweet spot?
|
| Which would then imply that you don't need a display as
| big as 83" to see the benefits from 8K. Still, we're
| talking about very large panels here, of the kind that
| wouldn't even fit many computer desks, so yeah...
| out_of_protocol wrote:
| Well, modern games + modern cards can't even do 4k at high
| fps and no dlss. 8k story is totally fairy tale. Maybe
| "render at 540p, display at 8k"-kind of thing?
|
| P.S. Also, VR. For VR you need 2x4k at 90+ stable fps.
| There's (almost) no vr games though
| diggan wrote:
| > modern games + modern cards can't even do 4k at high
| fps
|
| What "modern games" and "modern cards" are you
| specifically talking about here? There are plenty of AAA
| games released last years that you can do 4K at 60fps
| with a RTX 3090 for example.
| philjohn wrote:
| This - latest Call of Duty game on my (albeit water
| cooled) 3080TI founders edition saw frame rates in the
| 90-100fps running natively at 4k (no DLSS).
| bavell wrote:
| Can't CoD do 60+ fps @1080p on a potato nowadays?... not
| exactly a good reference point.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| 4k90 is about 6 times that, and he probably has the
| options turned up.
|
| I'd say the comparison is what's faulty, not the example.
| sfmike wrote:
| new cod is really unoptimized. on a few years old 3080
| still getting 100 fps on 4k that's pretty great. if he
| uses some frame gen such as lossless he can get 120-150.
| Say what you will about nvidia prices but you do get
| years of great gaming out of them.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Honestly my water cooled 3080TI FE has been great. Wish
| it had more VRAM for VR (DCS, MSFS) but otherwise it's
| been great.
| philjohn wrote:
| Which block did you go with? I went with the EK Vector
| special edition which has been great, but need to look
| for something else if I upgrade to 5080 with their recent
| woes.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| I just have the Alphacool AIO with a second 360 radiator.
|
| I've done tons of custom stuff but was at a point where I
| didn't have the time for a custom loop. Just wanted plug
| and play.
|
| Seen some people talking down the block, but honestly I
| run 50c under saturated load at 400 watts, +225 core,
| +600 memory with a hot spot of 60c and VRAM of 62c. Not
| amazing but it's not holding the card back. That's with
| the Phanteks T30's at about 1200RPM.
|
| Stock cooler I could never get the card stable despite
| new pads and paste. I was running 280 watts, barely able
| to run -50 on the core and no offset on memory. That
| would STILL hit 85c core, 95c hotspot and memory.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > There are plenty of AAA games released last years that
| you can do 4K at 60fps with a RTX 3090 for example.
|
| Not when you turn on ray tracing.
|
| Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps"
| anyway
| robertfall wrote:
| This.
|
| You can't get high frame rates with path tracing and 4K.
| It just doesn't happen. You need to enable DLSS and frame
| gen to get 100fps with more complete ray and path tracing
| implementations.
|
| People might be getting upset because the 4090 is WAY
| more power than games need, but there are games that try
| and make use of that power and are actually limited by
| the 4090.
|
| Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path
| tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native
| resolution.
|
| Now many might say that's just a ridiculous ask, but
| that's what GP was talking about here. There's no way
| you'd get more than 10-15fps (if that) with path tracing
| at 8K.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > Case in point Cyberpunk and Indiana Jones with path
| tracing don't get anywhere near 100FPS with native
| resolution.
|
| Cyberpunk native 4k + path tracing gets sub-20fps on a
| 4090 for anyone unfamiliar with how demanding this is.
| Nvidia's own 5090 announcement video showcased this as
| getting a whopping... 28 fps: https://www.reddit.com/medi
| a?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff...
| mastax wrote:
| > Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps"
| anyway
|
| I'm sure some will disagree with this but most PC gamers
| I talk to want to be at 90FPS minimum. I'd assume if
| you're spending $1600+ on a GPU you're pretty particular
| about your experience.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm so glad I grew up in the n64/xbox era. You save so
| much money if you are happy at 30fps. And the games look
| really nice.
| marxisttemp wrote:
| I wish more games had an option for N64/Xbox-level
| graphics to maximize frame rate. No eye candy tastes as
| good as 120Hz feels.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I'm sure you could do N64 style graphics at 120Hz on an
| iGPU with modern hardware, hahaha. I wonder if that would
| be a good option for competitive shooters.
|
| I don't really mind low frame rates, but latency is often
| noticeable and annoying. I often wonder if high frame
| rates are papering over some latency problems in modern
| engines. Buffering frames or something like that.
| nfriedly wrote:
| Doom 2016 at 1080p with a 50% resolution scale (so,
| really, 540p) can hit 120 FPS on an AMD 8840U. That's
| what I've been doing on my GPD Win Mini, except that I
| usually cut the TDP down to 11-13W, where it's hitting
| more like 90-100 FPS. It looks and feels great!
| kllrnohj wrote:
| You can also save tons of money by combining used GPUs
| from two generations ago with a patientgamer lifestyle
| without needing to resort to suffering 30fps
| necheffa wrote:
| > Also 60fps is pretty low, certainly isn't "high fps"
| anyway
|
| Uhhhhhmmmmmm....what are you smoking?
|
| Almost no one is playing competitive shooters and such at
| 4k. For those games you play at 1080p and turn off lots
| of eye candy so you can get super high frame rates
| because that does actually give you an edge.
|
| People playing at 4k are doing immersive story driven
| games and consistent 60fps is perfectly fine for that,
| you don't really get a huge benefit going higher.
|
| People that want to split the difference are going 1440p.
| lifeformed wrote:
| Anyone playing games would benefit from higher frame rate
| no matter their case. Of course it's most critical for
| competitive gamers, but someone playing a story driven
| FPS at 4k would still benefit a lot from framerates
| higher than 60.
|
| For me, I'd rather play a story based shooter at 1440p @
| 144Hz than 4k @ 60Hz.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Games other than esports shooters and slow paced story
| games exist, you know. In fact, most games are in this
| category you completely ignored for some reason.
|
| Also nobody is buying a 4090/5090 for a "fine"
| experience. Yes 60fps is fine. But better than that is
| expected/desired at this price point.
| int_19h wrote:
| You seem to be assuming that the only two buckets are
| "story-driven single player" and "PvP multiplayer", but
| online co-op is also pretty big these days. FWIW I play
| online co-op shooters at 4K 60fps myself, but I can see
| why people might prefer higher frame rates.
| causi wrote:
| Personally I've yet to see a ray tracing implementation
| that I would sacrifice 10% of my framerate for, let alone
| 30%+. Most of the time, to my tastes, it doesn't even
| look _better_ , it just looks _different_.
| marxisttemp wrote:
| Yep. Few AAA games can run at 4K60 at max graphics
| without upscaling or frame gen on a 4090 without at least
| occasionally dipping below 60. Also, most monitors sold
| with VRR (which I would argue is table stakes now) are
| >60FPS.
| pier25 wrote:
| The 4080 struggles to play high end games at 4k and there
| aren't that many 8k tvs/monitors in the market... Doesn't
| make much sense that anyone would think about the 4090 as
| an 8k GPU to be honest.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| Why does 8K gaming require more VRAM?
|
| I think the textures and geometry would have the same
| resolution (or is that not the case? but in 4K if you walk
| closer to the wall you'd want higher texture resolution as
| well anyway, if the graphics artists have made the assets
| at that resolution anyway)
|
| 8K screen resolution requires 132 megabytes of memory to
| store the pixels (for 32-bit color), that doesn't explain
| gigabytes of extra VRAM
|
| I'd be curious to know what information I'm missing
| Macha wrote:
| My understand is between double buffering and multiple
| sets of intermediate info for shaders, you usually have a
| bunch of screen size buffers hanging around in VRAM,
| though you are probably right that these aren't the
| biggest contributor to VRAM usage in the end.
| dijit wrote:
| You're only thinking of the final raster framebuffer,
| there are multiple raster and shader stages. Increasing
| the native output has an nearly exponential increase in
| memory requirements.
| atq2119 wrote:
| When you render a higher resolution natively, you
| typically also want higher resolution textures and more
| detailed model geometry.
| angled wrote:
| I wonder if these will be region-locked (eg, not for HK SAR).
| ryao wrote:
| If I recall correctly, the 3090, 3090 Ti and 4090 were
| supposed to replace the Titan cards that had been Nvidia's
| top gaming cards, but were never meant for gaming.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| Someone very clever at Nvidia realized that if they rename
| their professional card (Titan) to be part of their
| "gaming" line, you can convince adults with too much
| disposable income that they need it to play Elden Ring.
|
| I didn't know of anyone who used the Titan cards (which
| were actually priced cheaper than their respective xx90
| cards at release) for gaming, but somehow people were happy
| spending >$2000 when the 3090 came out.
| Cumpiler69 wrote:
| _> but somehow people were happy spending >$2000 when the
| 3090 came out_
|
| Of course they did, the 3090 came out at the height of
| the pandemic and crypto boom in 2020, when people were
| locked indoors with plenty of free time and money to
| spare, what else where they gonna spend it on?
| cptcobalt wrote:
| As an adult with too much disposable income and a 3090,
| it just becomes a local LLM server w/ agents when I'm not
| playing games on it. Didn't even see the potential for it
| back then, but now I'm convinced that the xx90 series
| offers me value outside of just gaming uses.
| simondotau wrote:
| Nvidia is also clearly differentiating the 5090 as the gaming
| card for people who want the best and an extra thousand dollars
| is a rounding error. They could have sold it for $1500 and
| still made big coin, but no doubt the extra $500 is pure wealth
| tax.
|
| It probably serves to make the 4070 look reasonably priced,
| even though it isn't.
| ryao wrote:
| Leaks indicate that the PCB has 14 layers with a 512-bit
| memory bus. It also has 32GB of GDDR7 memory and the die size
| is expected to be huge. This is all expensive. Would you
| prefer that they had not made the card and instead made a
| lesser card that was cheaper to make to avoid the higher
| price? That is the AMD strategy and they have lower prices.
| simondotau wrote:
| That PCB is probably a few dollars per unit. The die is
| probably the same as the one in the 5070. I've no doubt
| it's an expensive product to build, but that doesn't mean
| the price is cost plus markup.
| ryao wrote:
| Currently, the 5070 is expected to use the GB205 die
| while the 5090 is expected to use the GB202 die:
|
| https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-
| rtx-5070.c4218
|
| https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-
| rtx-5090.c4216
|
| It is unlikely that the 5070 and 5090 share the same die
| when the 4090 and 4080 did not share same die.
|
| Also, could an electrical engineer estimate how much this
| costs to manufacture:
|
| https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-5090-pcb-
| leak...
| positr0n wrote:
| Is the last link wrong? It doesn't mention cost.
| ryao wrote:
| The PCB cost did not leak. We need an electrical engineer
| to estimate the cost based on what did leak.
| shadowpho wrote:
| >That PCB is probably a few dollars per unit.
|
| It's not. 14L PCB are expensive. When I looked at Apple
| cost for their PCB it was probably closer to $50, and
| they have smaller area
| sliken wrote:
| Double the bandwidth, double the ram, double the pins, and
| double the power isn't cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if the
| profit on the 4090 was less than the 4080, especially since
| any R&D costs will be spread over significantly less units.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| There have been numerous reports over the years that the
| 4090 actually outsold the 4080.
| BigJ1211 wrote:
| The 4080 was also quite the bad value compared to the
| much better 4090. That remains to be seen for the 5000
| series.
| williamDafoe wrote:
| The 4080 was designed as a strawman card expressly to
| drive sales towards the 4090. So this is by design.
| epolanski wrote:
| Gaming enthusiasts didn't beat an eye at 4090 price and won't
| beat one there either.
|
| 4090 was already priced for high income (in first world
| countries) people. Nvidia saw 4090s were being sold on second
| hand market way beyond 2k. They merely milking the cow.
| ryao wrote:
| The 3090 and 3090 Ti both support software ECC. I assume that
| the 4090 has it too. That alone positions the xx90 as a pseudo-
| professional card.
| gregoryl wrote:
| The 4090 indeed does have ecc support
| sliken wrote:
| Yes, but ECC is inline, so it costs bandwidth and memory
| capacity.
| fulafel wrote:
| Doesn't it always. (Except sometimes on some hw you can't
| turn it off)
| sliken wrote:
| I believe the cards that are intended for compute instead
| of GPU default to ECC being on and report memory
| performance with the overheads included.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Anything with DDR5 or above has built in limited ECC...
| it's required by the spec.
| https://www.corsair.com/us/en/explorer/diy-
| builder/memory/is...
| sliken wrote:
| Sure, but it's very limited. It doesn't detect or fix
| errors in the dimm (outside the chips), motherboard
| traces, CPU socket, or CPU.
| lz400 wrote:
| How will a 5090 compare against project digits? now that
| they're both in the front page :)
| ryao wrote:
| We will not really know until memory bandwidth and compute
| numbers are published. However, Project Digits seems like a
| successor to the NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin 64GB Developer Kit,
| which was based on the Ampere architecture and has
| 204.8GB/sec memory bandwidth:
|
| https://www.okdo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/jetson-
| agx-o...
|
| The 3090 Ti had about 5 times the memory bandwidth and 5
| times the compute capability. If that ratio holds for
| blackwell, the 5090 will run circles around it when it has
| enough VRAM (or you have enough 5090 cards to fit everything
| into VRAM).
| lz400 wrote:
| Very interesting, thanks!
|
| 32gb for the 5090 vs 128gb for digits might put a nasty cap
| on unleashing all that power for interesting models.
|
| Several 5090s together would work but then we're talking
| about multiple times the cost (4x$2000+PC VS $3000)
| ryao wrote:
| Inference presumably will run faster on a 5090. If the 5x
| memory bandwidth figure holds, then token generation
| would run 5 times faster. That said, people in the digits
| discussion predict that the memory bandwidth will be
| closer to 546GB/sec, which is closer to 1/3 the memory
| bandwidth of the 5090, so a bunch of 5090 cards would
| only run 3 times faster at token generation.
| whalesalad wrote:
| It's the same pricing from last year. This already happened.
| oliwarner wrote:
| The only difference is scalar. That isn't differentiating,
| that's segregation.
|
| It won't stop crypto and LLM peeps from buying everything (one
| assumes TDP is proportional too). Gamers not being able to find
| an affordable option is still a problem.
| officeplant wrote:
| >Gamers not being able to find an affordable option is still
| a problem.
|
| Used to think about this often because I had a side hobby of
| building and selling computers for friends and coworkers that
| wanted to get into gaming, but otherwise had no use for a
| powerful computer.
|
| For the longest time I could still put together $800-$1000
| PC's that could blow consoles away and provide great value
| for the money.
|
| Now days I almost want to recommend they go back to console
| gaming. Seeing older ps5's on store shelves hit $349.99
| during the holidays really cemented that idea. Its so
| astronomically expensive for a PC build at the moment unless
| you can be convinced to buy a gaming laptop on a deep sale.
| dolni wrote:
| One edge that PCs have is massive catalog.
|
| Consoles have historically not done so well with backwards
| compatibility (at most one generation). I don't do much
| console gaming but _I think_ that is changing.
|
| There is also something to be said about catalog
| portability via something like a Steam Deck.
| officeplant wrote:
| Cheaper options like the Steam Deck are definitely a boon
| to the industry. Especially the idea of "good enough"
| gaming at lower resolutions on smaller screens.
|
| Personally, I just don't like that its attached to steam.
| Which is why I can be hesitant to suggest consoles as
| well now that they have soft killed their physical game
| options. Unless you go out of your way to get the add-on
| drive for PS5, etc
|
| Its been nice to see backwards compatibility coming back
| in modern consoles to some extent with Xbox especially if
| you have a Series-X with the disc drive.
|
| I killed my steam account with 300+ games just because I
| didn't see a future where steam would actually let me own
| the games. Repurchased everything I could on GoG and gave
| up on games locked to Windows/Mac AppStores, Epic, and
| Steam. So I'm not exactly fond of hardware attached to
| that platform, but that doesn't stop someone from just
| loading it up with games from a service like GoG and
| running them thru steam or Heroic Launcher.
|
| 2024 took some massive leaps forward with getting a
| proton-like experience without steam and that gives me a
| lot of hope for future progress on Linux gaming.
| foobarian wrote:
| Are crypto use cases still there? I thought that went away
| after eth switched their proof model.
| oliwarner wrote:
| Bitcoin is still proof of work.
| foobarian wrote:
| Yeah but BTC is not profitable on GPU I thought (needs
| ASIC farms)
| ffsm8 wrote:
| The price of a 4090 already was ~1800-2400EUR where I live (not
| scalper prices, the normal online Shops)
|
| We'll have to see how much they'll charge for these cards this
| time, but I feel like the price bump has been massively
| exaggerated by people on HN
| BigJ1211 wrote:
| MSRP went from 1959,- to 2369,-. That's quite the increase.
| epolanski wrote:
| You underestimate how many gamers got a 4090.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| You also need to upgrade your air conditioner
| lingonland wrote:
| Or just open a window, depending on where you live
| polski-g wrote:
| Yeah I'm not really sure what the solution is at this point.
| Put it in my basement and run 50foot HDMI cables through my
| house or something...
| nullc wrote:
| Way too little memory. :(
| ksec wrote:
| Anyone has any info on Node? Can't find anything online. Seems to
| be 4nm but performance suggest otherwise. Hopefully someone do a
| deep dive soon.
| kcb wrote:
| Good bet it's 4nm. The 5090 doesn't seem that much greater than
| the 4090 in terms of raw performance. And it has a big TDP bump
| to provide that performance.
| wmf wrote:
| I'm guessing it's N4 and the performance is coming from larger
| dies and higher power.
| biglost wrote:
| Mmm i think my wallet Is safe since i only play SNES and old dos
| games.
| jmyeet wrote:
| The interesting part to me was that Nvidia claim the new 5070
| will have 4090 level performance for a much lower price ($549).
| Less memory however.
|
| If that holds up in the benchmarks, this is a nice jump for a
| generation. I agree with others that more memory would've been
| nice, but it's clear Nvidia are trying to segment their SKUs into
| AI and non-AI models and using RAM to do it.
|
| That might not be such a bad outcome if it means gamers can
| actually buy GPUs without them being instantly bought by robots
| like the peak crypto mining era.
| dagmx wrote:
| That claim is with a heavy asterisk of using DLSS4. Without
| DLSS4, it's looking to be a 1.2-1.3x jump over the 4070.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Do games need to implement something on their side to get
| DLSS4?
| Vampiero wrote:
| On the contrary, they need to be optimized so badly that
| they run like shit on 2025 graphics cards despite looking
| the exact same as games from years ago
| Macha wrote:
| The asterisk is DLSS4 is using AI to generate extra frames,
| rather than rendering extra frames, which hurts image
| stability and leads to annoying fuzziness/flickering. So
| it's not comparing like with like.
|
| Also since they're not coming from the game engine, they
| don't actually react as the game would, so they don't have
| advantages in terms of response times that actual frame
| rate does.
| popcalc wrote:
| Was surprised to relearn the GTX 980 premiered at $549 a decade
| ago.
| izacus wrote:
| Which is 750$ in 2024 adjusted for inflation and you got a
| card that's providing 1/3 of performance of a 4070Ti at equal
| price range. 1/4 with 5070Ti probably.
|
| 3x the FPS at same cost (ignoring AI cores, encoders,
| resolutions, etc.) is a decent performance track record. With
| DLSS enabled the difference is significantly bigger.
| nottorp wrote:
| Do they come with a mini nuclear reactor to power them?
| romon wrote:
| The future is SMRs next to everyone's home
| wmf wrote:
| No, you get that from Enron.
| jms55 wrote:
| * MegaGeometry (APIs to allow Nanite-like systems for raytracing)
| - super awesome, I'm super super excited to add this to my
| existing Nanite-like system, finally allows RT lighting with high
| density geometry
|
| * Neural texture stuff - also super exciting, big advancement in
| rendering, I see this being used a lot (and helps to make up for
| the meh vram blackwell has)
|
| * Neural material stuff - might be neat, Unreal strata materials
| will like this, but going to be a while until it gets a good
| amount of adoption
|
| * Neural shader stuff in general - who knows, we'll see how it
| pans out
|
| * DLSS upscaling/denoising improvements (all GPUs) - Great! More
| stable upscaling and denoising is very much welcome
|
| * DLSS framegen and reflex improvements - bleh, ok I guess,
| reflex especially is going to be very niche
|
| * Hardware itself - lower end a lot cheaper than I expected!
| Memory bandwidth and VRAM is meh, but the perf itself seems good,
| newer cores, better SER, good stuff for the most part!
|
| Note that the material/texture/BVH/denoising stuff is all
| research papers nvidia and others have put out over the last few
| years, just finally getting production-ized. Neural textures and
| nanite-like RT is stuff I've been hyped for the past ~2 years.
|
| I'm very tempted to upgrade my 3080 (that I bought used for $600
| ~2 years ago) to a 5070 ti.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| For gaming I'm also looking forward to the improved AI workload
| sharing mentioned, where, IIUC, AI and graphics workloads could
| operate at the same time.
|
| I'm hoping generative AI models can be used to generate more
| immersive NPCs.
| friedtofu wrote:
| As a lifelong nvidia consumer, I think it's a safe bet to ride
| out the first wave of 5xxx series GPUs and wait for the
| inevitable 5080/5070 (GT/Ti/Super/whatever) that should release a
| few months after with similar specs and better performance based
| on whatever the complaints surrounding the initial GPUs lacked.
|
| I would expect something like the 5080 super will have something
| like 20/24Gb of VRAM. 16Gb just seems wrong for their "target"
| consumer GPU.
| ryao wrote:
| They could have used 32Gbps GDDR7 to push memory bandwidth on
| the 5090 to 2.0TB/sec. Instead, they left some performance on
| the table. I wonder if they have some compute cores disabled
| too. They are likely leaving room for a 5090 Ti follow-up.
| nsteel wrote:
| Maybe they wanted some thermal/power headroom. It's already
| pretty mad.
| arvinsim wrote:
| I made the mistake of not waiting befpre.
|
| This time around, I will save for the 5090 or just wait for the
| Ti/Super refreshes.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Or you wait out the 5000 Super too and get the 6000 series that
| fixes all the first-gen 5000-Super problems...
| ryao wrote:
| The most interesting news is that the 5090 Founders' Edition is a
| 2-slot card according to Nvidia's website:
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/50-serie...
|
| When was the last time Nvidia made a high end GeForce card use
| only 2 slots?
| archagon wrote:
| Fantastic news for the SFF community.
|
| (Looks like Nvidia even advertises an "SFF-Ready" label for
| cards that are small enough: https://www.nvidia.com/en-
| us/geforce/news/small-form-factor-...)
| sliken wrote:
| Not really, 575 watts for the GPU is going to make it tough
| to cool or provide power for.
| archagon wrote:
| There are 1000W SFX-L (and probably SFX) PSUs out there,
| and console-style cases provide basically perfect cooling
| through the sides. The limiting factor really is slot
| width.
|
| (But I'm more eyeing the 5080, since 360W is pretty easy to
| power and cool for most SFF setups.)
| kllrnohj wrote:
| It's a dual flow-through design, so some SFF cases will work
| OK but the typical sandwich style ones probably won't even
| though it'll physically fit
| _boffin_ wrote:
| Donno why I feel this, but probably going to end up being 2.5
| slots
| matja wrote:
| The integrator decides the form factor, not NVIDIA, and there
| were a few 2-slot 3080's with blower coolers. Technically
| water-cooled 40xx's can be 2-slot also but that's cheating.
| favorited wrote:
| 40-series water blocks can even be single slot:
| https://shop.alphacool.com/en/shop/gpu-water-
| cooling/nvidia/...
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Smaller cards with higher power consumption - will GPU water-
| cooling be cool again?
| sub7 wrote:
| Would have been nice to get double the memory on the 5090 to run
| those giant models locally. Would've probably upgraded at 64gb
| but the jump from 24 to 32gb isn't big enough
|
| Gaming performance has been plateaued for some time now, maybe an
| 8k monitor wave can revive things
| lxdlam wrote:
| I have a serious question about the term "AI TOPS". I find many
| conflicting definitions while others say nothing. A meaningful
| metric should at least be well defined on its own term, like in
| "TOPS" or expanded "Tera Operations Per Second", what operation
| it will measure?
|
| Seemingly NVIDIA is just playing number games, like wow 3352 is a
| huge leap compared to 1321 right? But how does it really help us
| in LLMs, diffusion models and so on?
| diggan wrote:
| It would be cool if something like vast.ai's "DLPerf" would
| become popular enough for the hardware producers to start using
| it too.
|
| > DLPerf (Deep Learning Performance) - is our own scoring
| function. It is an approximate estimate of performance for
| typical deep learning tasks. Currently, DLPerf predicts
| performance well in terms of iters/second for a few common
| tasks such as training ResNet50 CNNs. For example, on these
| tasks, a V100 instance with a DLPerf score of 21 is roughly ~2x
| faster than a 1080Ti with a DLPerf of 10. [...] Although far
| from perfect, DLPerf is more useful for predicting performance
| than TFLops for most tasks.
|
| https://vast.ai/faq#dlperf
| thefz wrote:
| > GeForce RTX 5070 Ti: 2X Faster Than The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
|
| 2x faster _in DLSS_. If we look at the 1:1 resolution
| performance, the increase is likely 1.2x.
| alkonaut wrote:
| That's what I'm wondering. What's the actual raw render/compute
| difference in performance, if we take a game that predates
| DLSS?
| thefz wrote:
| We shall wait for real world benchmarks to address the raster
| performance increase.
|
| The bold claim "5070 is like a 4090 at 549$" is quite
| different if we factor in that it's basically in DLSS only.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| it's actually a lot worse than it sounds even. The 5070 is
| like a 4090 is when the 5070 has multi frame generation on
| and the 4090 doesn't. So it's not even comparable levels of
| DLSS, the 5070 is hallucinating 2x+ more frames than the
| 4090 is in that claim
| izacus wrote:
| Based on non-DLSS tests, it seems like a respectable ~25%.
| vizzier wrote:
| Respectable outright, but 450W -> 575W TDP takes the edge
| off a bit. We'll have to see how that translates to at the
| wall. My room already gets far too hot with a 320W 3080.
| christkv wrote:
| 575W TDP for the 5090. A buddy has 3x 4090 in a machine with a 32
| core AMD cpu must be putting out close to 2000W of heat at peak
| if he switched to 5090. Uff
| aurbano wrote:
| 2kW is literally the output of my patio heater haha
| buildbot wrote:
| They work as effective heaters! I haven't used my (electric)
| heat all winter, I just use my training computer's waste heat
| instead.
| buildbot wrote:
| I have a very similar setup, 3x4090s. Depending on the model
| I'm training, the GPUs use anywhere from 100-400 watts, but
| don't get much slower when power limited to say, 250w. So they
| could power limit the 5090s if they want and get pretty decent
| performance most likely.
|
| The cat loves laying/basking on it when it's putting out 1400w
| in 400w mode though, so I leave it turned up most of the time!
| (200w for the cpu)
| jiggawatts wrote:
| May I ask what you're training? And why not just rent GPUs in
| some cloud?
| blixt wrote:
| Pretty interesting watching their tech explainers on YouTube
| about the changes in their AI solutions. Apparently they switched
| from CNNs to transformers for upscaling (with ray tracing
| support) if I understood correctly though for frame generation
| makes even more sense to me.
|
| 32 GB VRAM on the highest end GPU seems almost small after
| running LLMs with 128 GB RAM on the M3 Max, but the speed will
| most likely more than make up for it. I do wonder when we'll see
| bigger jumps in VRAM though, now that the need for running
| multiple AI models at once seems like a realistic use case (their
| tech explainers also mentions they already do this for games).
| bick_nyers wrote:
| Check out their project digits announcement, 128GB unified
| memory with infiniband capabilities for $3k.
|
| For more of the fast VRAM you would be in Quadro territory.
| terhechte wrote:
| If you have 128gb ram, try running MoE models, they're a far
| better fit for Apple's hardware because they trade memory for
| inference performance. using something like Wizard2 8x22b
| requires a huge amount of memory to host the 176b model, but
| only one 22b slice has to be active at a time so you get the
| token speed of a 22b model.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Project Digits... https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/project-
| digits/
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I guess they're tired of people buying macs for AI.
| cma wrote:
| You can also run the experts on separate machines with low
| bandwidth networking or even the internet (token rate limited
| by RTT)
| logankeenan wrote:
| Do you have any recommendations on models to try?
| stkdump wrote:
| Mixtral and Deepseek use MOE. Most others don't.
| Terretta wrote:
| Mixtral 8x22b https://mistral.ai/news/mixtral-8x22b/
| terhechte wrote:
| In addition to the ones listed by others, WizardLM2 8x22b
| (was never officially released by Microsoft but is
| available).
| memhole wrote:
| I planted garlic this year. Thanks for documenting! I can't
| wait to see what I get harvest time.
|
| I like the Llama models personally. Meta aside. Qwen is
| fairly popular too. There's a number of flavors you can try
| out. Ollama is a good starting point to try things quickly.
| You're def going to have to tolerate things crashing or not
| working imo before you understand what your hardware can
| handle.
| memhole wrote:
| I haven't had great luck with the wizard as a counter point.
| The token generation is unbearably slow. I might have been
| using too large of a context window, though. It's an
| interesting model for sure. I remember the output being
| decent. I think it's already surpassed by other models like
| Qwen.
| terhechte wrote:
| Long context windows are a problem. I gave Qwen 2.5 70b a
| ~115k context and it took ~20min for the answer to finish.
| The upside of MoE models vs 70b+ models is that they have
| much more world knowledge.
| ActionHank wrote:
| They are intentionally keeping the VRAM small on these cards to
| force people to buy their larger, more expensive offerings.
| Havoc wrote:
| Saw someone else point out that potentially the culprit here
| isn't nvidia but memory makers. It's still 2gb per chip and
| has been since forever
| tharmas wrote:
| GDDR7 apparently has the capability of 3gb per chip. As it
| becomes more available their could be more VRAM
| configurations. Some speculate maybe an RTX 5080 Super 24gb
| release next year. Wishful thinking perhaps.
| tbolt wrote:
| Maybe, but if they strapped these with 64gb+ wouldn't that be
| wasted on folks buying it for its intended purpose? Gaming.
| Though the "intended use" is changing and has been for a bit
| now.
| knowitnone wrote:
| hmmm, maybe they can had different offerings like 16GB,
| 32GB, 64GB, etc. Maybe we can even have 4 wheels on a car.
| mox1 wrote:
| Not really, the more textures you can put into memory the
| faster they can do their thing.
|
| PC gamers would say that a modern mid-range card (1440p
| card) should really have 16GB of vram. So a 5060 or even a
| 5070 with less than that amount is kind of silly.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| XX90 is only half a gaming card it's also the one the
| entire creative professional 3D CGI, AI, game dev industry
| runs on.
| Aerroon wrote:
| The only reason gaming doesn't use all the VRAM is because
| typically GPUs don't have all the VRAM. If they did then
| games would somehow find a way to use it.
| jajko wrote:
| Game engines are optimized for lowest common denominator,
| being in this case consoles. PC games are rarely
| exclusivities, so same engine has to make it running with
| least ram available and differences between versions are
| normally small.
|
| One normally uses some ultra texture pack to utilize
| current gen card's memory fully on many games.
| tharmas wrote:
| Totally agree. I call this the "Apple Model". Just like the
| Apple Mac base configurations with skimpy RAM and Drive
| capacities to make the price look "reasonable". However, just
| like Apple, NVIDIA does make really good hardware.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Makes sense. The games industry doesn't want another crypto
| mining-style GPU shortage.
| hibikir wrote:
| If the VRAM wasn't small, the cards would all get routed to
| non gaming uses. Remember the state of the market when the
| 3000 series was new?
| ginko wrote:
| Then they should sell more of them.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| Why sell more when you can sell less for more
| wkat4242 wrote:
| They can only make so many, that's part of the problem
| bornfreddy wrote:
| They should contact Intel.
| SideQuark wrote:
| So you're saying more VRAM costs more money? What a novel
| idea!
|
| Conversely, this means you can pay less if you need less.
|
| Seems like a win all around.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| No gamers need such high VRAM, if you're buying Gaming cards
| for ML work you're doing it wrong.
| riskable wrote:
| It's Nvidia that considers them, "gaming cards". The
| _market_ decides their use in reality though.
|
| Their strategy is to sell lower-VRAM cards to consumers
| with the understanding that they can make more money on
| their more expensive cards for professionals/business. By
| doing this, though they're creating a gap in the market
| that their competitors could fill (in theory).
|
| Of course, this assumes their competitors have half a brain
| cell (I'm looking at YOU, Intel! For fuck's sake give us a
| 64GB ARC card already!).
| epolanski wrote:
| Games already exceed 16 GBs at 4k from years.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| I exceed 16GB in Chrome.
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| > Gaming cards for ML work you're doing it wrong
|
| lol okay. "doing it wrong" for a tenth of the cost.
| moogly wrote:
| And screwing gamers over by raising the prices by 2x.
| Fuck that.
| muchosandwich wrote:
| It seems like the 90-series cards are going to be targeting
| prosumers again. People who play games but may use their
| desktop for work as well. Some people are doing AI training
| on some multiple of 3090/4090 today but historically the
| Titan cards that preceded the 90s cards were used by game
| developers, video editors and other content developers. I
| think NVIDIA is going to try to move the AI folks onto
| Digits and return the 90-series back to its roots but also
| add in some GenAI workloads.
| sfmike wrote:
| forget the post but some dude had a startup piping his 3090
| to use via cloudflare tunnels for his ai saas making 5
| figures a month off of his 1k gpu that handled the work
| load, I'd say he was doing it more then right.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Is there actually less VRAM on the cards or is it just
| disabled?
| deaddodo wrote:
| GPU manufacturers have no reason to include additional
| memory chips of no use on a card.
|
| This isn't like a cutdown die, which is a single piece with
| disabled functionality...the memory chips are all
| independent (expensive) pieces soldered on board (the black
| squares surrounding the GPU core):
|
| https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vLHed8sBw8dX2BKs5QsdJ5-12
| 0...
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Well, they _are_ gaming cards. 32GB is plenty for that.
| resource_waste wrote:
| > after running LLMs with 128 GB RAM on the M3 Max,
|
| These are monumentally different. You cannot use your computer
| as an LLM. Its more novelty.
|
| I'm not even sure why people mention these things. Its
| possible, but no one actually does this out of testing
| purposes.
|
| It falsely equates Nivida GPUs with Apple CPUs. The winner is
| Apple.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| If you want to run LLMs buy their H100/GB100/etc grade cards.
| There should be no expectation that consumer grade gaming cards
| will be optimal for ML use.
| nahnahno wrote:
| Yes there should be. We don't want to pay literal 10x markup
| because the card is suddenly "enterprise".
| quadrature wrote:
| Why are transformers a better fit for frame generation. Is it
| because they can better utilize context from the previous
| history of frames ?
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| I have a feeling regular consumers will have trouble buying
| 5090s.
|
| RTX 5090: 32 GB GDDR7, ~1.8 TB/s bandwidth. H100 (SXM5): 80 GB
| HBM3, ~3+ TB/s bandwidth.
|
| RTX 5090: ~318 TFLOPS in ray tracing, ~3,352 AI TOPS. H100:
| Optimized for matrix and tensor computations, with ~1,000 TFLOPS
| for AI workloads (using Tensor Cores).
|
| RTX 5090: 575W, higher for enthusiast-class performance. H100
| (PCIe): 350W, efficient for data centers.
|
| RTX 5090: Expected MSRP ~$2,000 (consumer pricing). H100: Pricing
| starts at ~$15,000-$30,000+ per unit.
| topherjaynes wrote:
| That's my worry too, I'd like one or two, but 1) will either
| never be in line for them 2) or can only find via secondary
| market at 3 or 4x the price...
| boroboro4 wrote:
| H100 has 3958 TFLOPS sparse fp8 compute. I'm pretty sure listed
| tflops for 5090 are sparse (and probably) fp4/int4.
| rfoo wrote:
| Yes, that's the case. Check the (partial) spec of 5090 D,
| which is the nerfed version for export to China. It is
| marketed as having 2375 "AI TOPS".
|
| BIS demands it to be less than $4800 TOPS \times Bit-Width$,
| and the most plausible explanation for the number is - 2375
| sparse fp4/int4 TOPS, which means 1187.5 dense TOPS for 4
| bit, or $4750 TOPS \times Bit-Width$.
| bee_rider wrote:
| How well do these models do at parallelizing across multiple
| GPUs? Is spending $4k on the 5090 a good idea for training,
| slightly better performance for much cheaper? Or a bad idea, 0x
| as good performance because you can't fit your 60GB model on
| the thing?
| Havoc wrote:
| > regular consumers will have trouble buying 5090s.
|
| They're not really supposed to either judging by how they
| priced this. For non AI uses the 5080 is infinitely better
| positioned
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > For non AI uses the 5080 is infinitely better positioned
|
| ...and also slower than a 4090. Only the 5090 got a gen/gen
| upgrade in shader counts. Will have to wait for benchmarks of
| course, but the rest of the 5xxx lineup looks like a dud
| geertj wrote:
| Any advice on how to buy the founders edition when it launches,
| possibly from folks who bought the 4090 FE last time around? I
| have a feeling there will be a lot of demand.
| logicalfails wrote:
| Getting a 3080 FE (I also had the option to get the 3090 FE) at
| the height of pandemic demand required me sleeping outside a
| Best Buy with 50 other random souls on a wednesday night.
| steelframe wrote:
| At that time I ended up just buying a gaming PC packaged with
| the card. I find it's generally worth it to upgrade all the
| components of the system along with the GPU every 3 years or
| so.
| Wololooo wrote:
| This goes at a significant premium for on average OEM parts
| that are subpar. Buying individually yields much better
| results and these days it's less of a hassle than it used
| to.
| rtkwe wrote:
| It was likely from an integrator not a huge OEM that's
| spinning their own proprietary motherboard designs like
| Dell. In that case they only really paid the integrator's
| margin and lost the choice of their own parts.
| jmuguy wrote:
| Do you live somewhat near a Microcenter? They'll likely have
| these as in-store pick up only, no online reservations, 1 per
| customer. Recently got a 9800X3D CPU from them, its nice
| they're trying to prevent scalping.
| geertj wrote:
| I do! Great advice. Going off on a tangent, when I recently
| visited my Microcenter after a few years of not going there,
| it totally gave me 80s vibes and I loved it. Staff fit the
| "computer nerd" stereotype accurately, including jeans shirts
| and ponytails. And best of all they actually wanted to talk
| to me and help me find stuff, and were knowledgeable.
| jmuguy wrote:
| Ours just opened in 2024 and I've tried to give them as
| much business as possible. Ordering everything for a new PC
| build, sans the AMD CPU, and then doing pick up was a
| breeze. Feels great that the place is completely packed
| every time I go in there. I feel like Bestbuy made me sort
| of hate electronics retail and Microcenter is reminding of
| what it used to be like going to Radio Shack and Compusa
| back in their hayday.
| ryao wrote:
| I had a similar feeling when going to microcenter for the
| first time in years a few years ago, but in my case, it was
| a 90s vibe since I had first visited a computer store in
| the 90s.
| mjevans wrote:
| As someone living (near) Seattle, this is a major issue for
| me every product launch and I don't have a solution.
|
| The area's geography just isn't conducive to allowing a
| single brick and mortar store to survive and compete with
| online retail for costs vs volume; but without a B&M store
| there's no good way to do physical presence anti-scalper
| tactics.
|
| I can't even get in a purchase opportunity lottery since AMD
| / Nvidia don't do that sort of thing for allocating restock
| quota tickets that could be used as tokens to restock product
| if a purchase is to the correct shipping address.
| ks2048 wrote:
| This is maybe a dumb question, but why is it so hard to buy
| Nvidia GPUs?
|
| I can understand lack of supply, but why can't I go on nvidia.com
| and buy something the same way I go on apple.com and buy
| hardware?
|
| I'm looking for GPUs and navigating all these different resellers
| with wildly different prices and confusing names (on top of the
| already confusing set of available cards).
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Nvidia uses resellers as distributors. Helps build out a locked
| in ecosystem.
| ks2048 wrote:
| How does that help "build out a locked in ecosystem"? Again,
| comparing to Apple: they have a very locked-in ecosystem.
| MoreMoore wrote:
| I don't think lock-in is the reason. The reason is more
| that companies like Asus and MSI have a global presence and
| their products are available on store shelves everywhere.
| NVIDIA avoids having to deal with building up all the
| required relationships and distribution, they also save on
| things like technical support staff and dealing with
| warranty claims directly with customers across the globe.
| The handful of people who get an FE card aside.
| santoshalper wrote:
| Nvidia probably could sell cards directly now, given the
| strength of their reputation (and the reality backing it
| up) for graphics, crypto, and AI. However, they grew up as
| a company that sold through manufacturing and channel
| partners and that's pretty deeply engrained in their
| culture. Apple is unusually obsessed with integration, most
| companies are more like Nvidia.
| pragmar wrote:
| Apple locks users in with software/services. nVidia locks
| in add-in board manufacturers with exclusive arrangements
| and partner programs that tie access to chips to contracts
| that prioritize nVidia. It happens upstream of the
| consumer. It's always a matter of degree with this stuff as
| to where it becomes anti-trust, but in this case it's overt
| enough for governments to take notice.
| doix wrote:
| Nvidia (and AMD) make the "core", but they don't make a "full"
| graphics card. Or at least they don't mass produce them, I
| think Nvidia tried it with their "founders edition".
|
| It's just not their main business model, it's been that way for
| many many years at this point. I'm guessing business people
| have decided that it's not worth it.
|
| Saying that they are "resellers" isn't technically accurate.
| The 5080 you buy from ASUS will be different than the one you
| buy from MSI.
| SirMaster wrote:
| They still make reference founders editions. They sell them
| at Best Buy though, not directly.
| infecto wrote:
| Reference cards make up the vast minority of cards for a
| specific generation though. I looked for numbers and could
| not find them but they tend to be the Goldilocks of cards
| if you can grab one because they sell at msrp IIRC.
| devmor wrote:
| Yep, I scored a 3070 Founder's at launch and was very
| lucky, watching other people pay up to the MSRP of the
| 3090 to get one from elsewhere.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| Nvidia also doesn't make the "core" (i.e. the actual chip).
| TSMC and Samsung make those. Nvidia _designs_ the chip and
| (usually) creates a reference PCB to show how to make an
| actual working GPU using that chip you got from e.g. TSMC.
| Sometimes (especially in more recent years) they also sell
| that design as "founders" edition. But they don't sell most
| of their hardware directly to average consumers. Of course
| they also provide drivers to interface with their chips and
| tons of libraries for parallel computing that makes the most
| of their design.
|
| Most people don't realize that Nvidia is much more of a
| software company than a hardware company. CUDA in particular
| is like 90% of the reason why they are where they are while
| AMD and Intel struggle to keep up.
| doix wrote:
| Yeah I should have said design, embarrassingly I used to
| work in a (fabless) semiconductor company.
|
| Totally agree with the software part. AMD usually designs
| something in the same ball park as Nvidia, and usually has
| a better price:performance ratio at many price points. But
| the software is just too far behind.
| automatic6131 wrote:
| AMDs driver software is more featureful and better than
| NVidia's offerings. GeForce Experience + the settings app
| combo was awful, the Nvidia App is just copying some
| homework, and integrating MSI Afterburner's freeware.
|
| But the business software stack was, yes, best in class.
| But it's not so for the consumer!
| knowitnone wrote:
| I think they mean CUDA
| nightski wrote:
| I've bought multiple founders editions cards from the
| nvidia store directly. Did they stop doing that recently?
| themaninthedark wrote:
| It seems that they have been tightening what they allow
| their partners to do, which caused EVGA to break away as
| they were not allowed to deviate too much from the
| reference design.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| That was mostly about Nvidia's pricing. It's basically
| impossible to compete economically with the founders
| editions because Nvidia doesn't charge themselves a hefty
| markup on the chip. That's why their own cards always
| sell out instantly and then the aftermarket GPU builders
| can fight to pick up the scraps. The whole idea of the
| founders edition seems to be to make a quick buck
| immediately after release. Long term it's much more
| profitable to sell the chip itself at a price that they
| would usually sell their entire GPU for.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| This years founders edition is what I really want from a
| GPU. Stop wasting my 2nd PCIe slot because you've made it
| 3.5/4 slots BIG! It is insane that they are now cooling
| 575W with two slots in height.
| simoncion wrote:
| I would suggest getting a case that has a set of inbuilt
| (typically vertically-oriented) expansion card slots
| positioned a distance away from the regular expansion
| card slots, mount your graphics card there, and connect
| it to the motherboard with a PCI-E riser cable. It's what
| I did and I kicked myself for not doing it years prior.
|
| I have no experience with PCI-E 5 cables, but I've a
| PCI-E 4 riser cable from Athena Power that works just
| fine (and that you can buy right now on Newegg). It
| doesn't have any special locking mechanism, so I was
| concerned that it would work its way off of the card or
| out of the mobo slot... but it has been in place for
| years now with no problem.
| MisoRamen wrote:
| It is an ever uphill battle to compete with Nvidia as a
| AIB partner.
|
| Nvidia has internal access to the new card way ahead of
| time, has aerodynamic and thermodynamic simulators,
| custom engineered boards full of sensors, plus a team of
| very talented and well paid engineers for months in order
| to optimize cooler design.
|
| Meanwhile AIB partners is pretty much kept in the blind
| until a few months in advance. It is basically impossible
| for a company like EVGA to exist as they pride themselves
| in their customer support - the finances just does not
| make sense.
| mbreese wrote:
| Which is why EVGA stopped working with Nvidia a few years
| ago... (probably mentioned elsewhere too).
|
| https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded/ar
| tic...
| mrweasel wrote:
| Didn't Nvidia piss of some of their board partners at some
| point. I think EVGA stopped making Nvidia based graphics
| cards because of poor behavior on Nvidia part?
|
| Also aren't most of the business cards made by Nvidia
| directly... or at least Nvidia branded?
| grogenaut wrote:
| The founders edition ones that I had were not great gpus.
| They were both under cooled and over cooled. They had one
| squirrel cage style blower that was quite loud and powerful
| and ran bascially at no speed or full blast. But being that
| it only had the one airpath and one fan it got overwhelmed by
| dust or if that blower fan had issues the gpu over heated.
| The consumer / 3rd party made ones usually have multiple fans
| at lower speeds larger diameter, multiple flow paths, and
| more control. TL;DR they were better designed, nvidia took
| the data center ram as much air as you can in there approach
| which isn't great for your home pc.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| Founders cards being worse than board partner models hasn't
| been true in like 8 years. They switched to dual axial
| rather than a single blower fan with the 20 series, which
| made the value of board partner models hard to justify.
|
| Since then, Nvidia is locked in a very strange card war
| with their board partners, because Nvidia has all the juicy
| inside details on their own chips which they can just not
| give the same treatment to their partners, stacking the
| deck for themselves.
|
| Also, the reason why blowers are bad is because the design
| can't really take advantage of a whole lot of surface area
| offered by the fins. There's often zero heat pipes
| spreading the heat evenly in all directions, allowing a hot
| spot to form.
| orphea wrote:
| it's not worth it.
|
| I wonder how much "it's not worth it". Surely it should have
| been _at all_ profitable? (a honest question)
| CivBase wrote:
| I've always assumed their add-in board (AIB) partners (like
| MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte, etc) are able to produce PCBs and other
| components at higher volumes and lower costs than NVIDIA.
| xnyan wrote:
| Not just the production of the finished boards, but also
| marketing, distribution to vendors and support/RMA for
| defective products.
|
| There is profit in this, but it's also a whole set of skills
| that doesn't really make sense for Nvidia.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| This is supply and demand at work. NVIDIA has to choose to
| either sell consumer or high end and they can reserve so much
| resources from TSMC. Also, Apple has outsold hardware before or
| it has high demand when it releases but for NVIDIA they have
| nearly constant purchases throughout the year from enterprise
| and also during consumer product launches.
| ggregoire wrote:
| I read your question and thought to myself "why is it so hard
| to buy a Steamdeck"? Available only in like 10 countries. Seems
| like the opposite problem, Valve doesn't use resellers but they
| can't handle international manufacturing/shipping themselves?
| At least I can get a Nvidia GPU anytime I want from Amazon,
| BestBuy or whatever.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| GPUs are in demand.
|
| So scalpers want to make a buck on that.
|
| All there is to it. Whenever demand surpasses supply, someone
| will try to make money off that difference. Unfortunately for
| consumers, that means scalpers use bots to clean out retail
| stores, and then flip them to consumers.
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| Without thinking about it too deeply I'm wondering if GPU
| demand is that much higher than let's say iPhone demand. I
| don't think I've ever heard of iPhones being scarce and rare
| and out of stock.
| pas wrote:
| Apple _very_ tightly controls their whole value chain. It
| 's their whole thing. Nvidia "dgaf" they are raking in more
| cash than ever and they are busy trying to figure out
| what's at the end of the semi-rainbow. (Apparently it's a
| B2C AI box gimmick.)
| chis wrote:
| One way to look at is that the third party GPU packagers have a
| different set of expertise. They generally build motherboards,
| GPU holder boards, RAM, and often monitors and mice as well.
| All of these product PCBs are cheaply made and don't depend on
| the performance of the latest TSMC node the way the GPU chips
| do, more about ticking feature boxes at the lowest cost.
|
| So nvidia wouldn't have the connections or skillset to do
| budget manufacturing of low-cost holder boards the way ASUS or
| EVGA does. Plus with so many competitors angling to use the
| same nvidia GPU chips, nvidia collects all the margin
| regardless.
| brigade wrote:
| Yet the FE versions end up cheaper than third party cards (at
| least by MSRP), and with fewer issues caused by the third
| parties cheaping out on engineering...
| blackoil wrote:
| Maybe, it is simply a legacy business model. Nvidia wasn't
| always a behemoth. In olden days they must be happy for someone
| else to manage the global distribution, marketing, service etc.
| Also, this gives an illusion of choice. You get graphic cards
| in different color, shape, RGB, water cooling combinations.
| diob wrote:
| It is frustrating speaking as someone who grew up poor and
| couldn't afford anything, and now I finally can and nothing is
| ever in stock. Such a funny twist of events, but also makes me
| sad.
| michaelt wrote:
| OK so there are a handful of effects at work at the same time.
|
| 1. Many people knew the new series of nvidia cards was about to
| be announced, and nobody wanted to get stuck with a big stock
| of previous-generation cards. So most reputable retailers are
| just sold out.
|
| 2. With lots of places sold out, some scalpers have realised
| they can charge big markups. Places like Amazon and Ebay don't
| mind if marketplace sellers charge $3000 for a $1500-list-price
| GPU.
|
| 3. For various reasons, although nvidia makes and sells some
| "founder edition" the vast majority of cards are made by other
| companies. Sometimes they'll do 'added value' things like
| adding RGB LEDs and factory overclocking, leading to a 10%
| price spread for cards with the same chip.
|
| 4. nvidia's product lineup is just very confusing. Several
| product lines (consumer, workstation, data centre) times
| several product generations (Turing, Ampere, Ada Lovelace)
| times several vram/performance mixes (24GB, 16GB, 12GB, 8GB)
| plus variants (Super, Ti) times desktop and laptop versions.
| That's a lot of different models!
|
| nvidia also don't particularly _want_ it to be easy for you to
| compare performance across product classes or generations.
| Workstation and server cards don 't even have a list price, you
| can only get them by buying a workstation or server from an
| approved vendor.
|
| Also nvidia don't tend to update their marketing material when
| products are surpassed, so if you look up their flagship from
| three generations ago it'll still say it offers unsurpassed
| performance for the most demanding, cutting-edge applications.
| ryao wrote:
| The workstation cards have MSRPs. The RTX 6000 Ada's MSRP is
| $6799:
|
| https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/rtx-6000-ada-
| generatio...
| the__alchemist wrote:
| It depends on the timing. I lucked out about a year ago on the
| 4080; I happened to be shopping in what turned out to be the ~1
| month long window where you could just go to the nvidia site,
| and order one.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| Ooo, that means its probably time for me to get a used 2080, or
| maybe even a 3080 if I'm feeling special
| Kelteseth wrote:
| Why not go for AMD? I just got a 7900XTX for 850 euros, it runs
| ollama or comfyUI via WSl2 quite nicely.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Pointless putting yourself through the support headaches or
| having to wait for support to arrive to save a few dollars
| because the rest of the community is running Nvidia
| Kelteseth wrote:
| Nah it's quite easy these days. Ollama runs perfectly fine
| on Windows, comfyUI still has some not ported requirements,
| so you have to do stuff through WSL2.
| viraj_shah wrote:
| Do you have a good resource for learning what kinds of
| hardware can run what kinds of models locally? Benchmarks,
| etc?
|
| I'm also trying to tie together different hardware specs to
| model performance, whether that's training or inference. Like
| how does memory, VRAM, memory bandwidth, GPU cores, etc. all
| play into this. Know of any good resources? Oddly enough I
| might be best off asking an LLM.
| holoduke wrote:
| To prevent custom implementations is recommended to get a
| Nvidia card. Minimum 3080 to get some results. But if you
| want video you should go for either 4090 or 5090. ComfUI is
| a popular interface which you can use for graphical stuff.
| Images and videos. Local text models I would recommend to
| use the Misty app. Basically a wrapper and downloader for
| various models. Tons of youtube videos on how to achieve
| stuff.
| Kelteseth wrote:
| I tested ollama with 7600XT at work and the mentioned
| 7900XTX. Both run fine with their VRAM limitations. So you
| can just switch between different quantization of llama 3.1
| or the vast amount of different models at
| https://ollama.com/search
| orphea wrote:
| AMD driver quality is crap. I upgraded from GTX 1080 to RX
| 6950 XT because I found a good deal and I didn't want to
| support nvidia's scammy bullshit of launching inferior GPUs
| under the same names. Decided to go with AMD this time, and I
| had everything: black screens, resolution drops to 1024x768,
| total freezes, severe lags in some games (BG3) unless I
| downgrade the driver to a very specific version.
| mldbk wrote:
| It is an outdated claim.
|
| I have both 4090 (workstation) and 7900XT (to play some
| games) and I would say that 7900XT was rock solid for me
| for the last year (I purchased it in Dec 2023).
| williamDafoe wrote:
| AMD is an excellent choice. NVidia UI has been horrible and
| AMD adrenaline has been better than NVidia for several years
| now. With NVidia, you are paying A LOT of extra money for
| trickery and fake pixels, fake frames, fake (ai) rendeering.
| All fakeness. All hype. When you get down to the raw
| performance of these new cards, it must be a huge
| disappointment, otherwise, why would Jensen completely forget
| to mention anything REAL about the performance of these
| cards? These are cut-down cards designed to sell at cut-down
| prices with lots of fluff and whipped cream added on top ...
| satvikpendem wrote:
| DLSS is good and keeps improving, as with DLSS 4 where most
| of the features are compatible with even the 2000 series
| cards. AMD does not have the same software feature set to
| justify a purchase.
| Macha wrote:
| The 2080 was a particularly poor value card, especially when
| considering the small performance uplift and the absolute glut
| of 1080 Tis that were available. A quick look on my local ebay
| also indicates they're both around the EUR200-250 range for
| used buy it now, so it seems to make way more sense to go to a
| 3080.
| qingcharles wrote:
| 2080 TI though is a really good sweet spot for
| price/performance.
| vonneumannstan wrote:
| a 4070 has much better performance for much cheaper than a
| 3080...
| rtkwe wrote:
| Any the 4070 Super is relatively available too. I just bought
| one with only a small amount of hunting. Bought it right off
| of Best Buy, originally tried going to the Microcenter near
| my parent's house while I was down there but should have
| bought the card online for pickup. In the 2 days between my
| first check and arriving at the store ~20 cards sold.
| alkonaut wrote:
| What was the drop in 3070 pricing when the 4070 was
| released? We should expect a similar drop now I suppose?
| rtkwe wrote:
| It took a while according to the first price chart I
| found. The initial release of the 4070 Ti/FE in Jan 2023
| didn't move the price much but the later release did
| start dropping the price. Nvidia cards are pretty scarce
| early in the generation so the price effect takes a
| minute to really kick into full force.
|
| I just upgraded from a 2080 Ti I had gotten just a few
| weeks into the earliest COVID lockdowns because I was
| tired of waiting constantly for the next generation.
|
| https://howmuch.one/product/average-nvidia-geforce-
| rtx-3070-...
| pier25 wrote:
| AI is going to push the price closer to $3000. See what happened
| with crypto a couple of years back.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| The ~2017 crypto rush told Nvidia how much people were willing
| to spend on GPUs, so they priced their next series (RTX 2000)
| much higher. 2020 came around, wash, rinse, repeat.
| Macha wrote:
| Note the 20 series bombed, largely because of the price hikes
| coupled with meager performance gains, so the initial plan
| was for the 30 series to be much cheaper. But then the 30
| series scalping happened and they got a second go at re-
| anchoring what people thought of as reasonable GPU prices.
| Also they have diversified other options if gamers won't pay
| up, compared to just hoping that GPU-minable coins won over
| those that needed ASICs and the crypto market stayed hot. I
| can see nVidia being more willing to hurt their gaming market
| for AI than they ever were for crypto.
|
| Also also, AMD has pretty much thrown in the towel at
| competing for high end gaming GPUs already.
| nfriedly wrote:
| Meh. Feels like astronomical prices for the smallest upgrades
| they could get away with.
|
| I miss when high-end GPUs were $300-400, and you could get
| something reasonable for $100-200. I guess that's just integrated
| graphics these days.
|
| The most I've ever spent on a GPU is ~$300, and I don't really
| see that changing anytime soon, so it'll be a long time before
| I'll even consider one of these cards.
| garbageman wrote:
| Intel ARC B580 is $249 MSRP and right up your alley in that
| case.
| nfriedly wrote:
| Yep. If I needed a new GPU, that's what I'd go for. I'm
| pretty happy with what I have for the moment, though.
| frognumber wrote:
| I'd go for the A770 over the B580. 16GB > 12GB, and that
| makes a difference for a lot of AI workloads.
|
| An older 3060 12GB is also a better option than the B580.
| It runs around $280, and has much better compatibility
| (and, likely, better performance).
|
| What I'd love to see on all of these are specs on idle
| power. I don't mind the 5090 approaching a gigawatt peak,
| but I want to know what it's doing the rest of the time
| sitting under my desk when I just have a few windows open
| and am typing a document.
| dcuthbertson wrote:
| A gigawatt?! Just a little more power and I won't need a
| DeLorean for time travel!
| yourusername wrote:
| >I miss when high-end GPUs were $300-400, and you could get
| something reasonable for $100-200.
|
| That time is 25 years ago though, i think the Geforce DDR is
| the last high end card to fit this price bracket. While cards
| have gotten a lot more expensive those $300 high end cards
| should be around $600 now. And $200-400 for low end still
| exists.
| oynqr wrote:
| 2008 is 25 years ago?
| Insanity wrote:
| Somewhat related, any recommendations for 'pc builders' where you
| can configure a PC with the hardware you want, but have it
| assembled and shipped to you instead of having to build it
| yourself? With shipping to Canada ideally.
|
| I'm planning to upgrade (prob to a mid-end) as my 5 year old
| computer is starting to show it's age, and with the new GPUs
| releasing this might be a good time.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I don't know of any such service, but I'm curious what the
| value is for you? IMO picking the parts is a lot harder than
| putting them together.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > will be two times faster [...] thanks to DLSS 4
|
| Translation: No significant actual upgrade.
|
| Sounds like we're continuing the trend of newer generations being
| beaten on fps/$ by the previous generations while hardly pushing
| the envelope at the top end.
|
| A 3090 is $1000 right now.
| intellix wrote:
| Why is that a problem though? Newer and more GPU intensive
| games get to benefit from DLSS 4 and older games already run
| fine. What games without DLSS support could have done with a
| boost?
|
| I've heard this twice today so curious why it's being mentioned
| so often.
| epolanski wrote:
| We all know DLSS4 could be compatible with previous gens.
|
| Nvidia has done that in the past already (see PhysX).
| Diti wrote:
| > What games without DLSS support could have done with a
| boost?
|
| DCS World?
| bni wrote:
| Has DLSS now
| chmod775 wrote:
| I for one don't like the DLSS/TAA look at all. Between the
| lack of sharpness, motion blur and ghosting, I don't
| understand how people can look at that and consider it an
| upgrade. Let's not even get into the horror that is frame
| generation. They're a graphics downgrade that gives me a
| headache and I turn the likes of TAA and DLSS off in every
| game I can. I'm far from alone in this.
|
| So why should we consider to buy a GPU at twice the price
| when it has barely improved rasterization performance? An
| artificially generation-locked feature anyone with good
| vision/perception despises isn't going to win us over.
| solardev wrote:
| Do you find DLSS unacceptable even on "quality" mode
| without frame generation?
|
| I've found it an amazing balance between quality and
| performance (ultra everything with quality DLSS looks and
| run way better than, say, medium without DLSS). But I also
| don't have great vision, lol.
| Yizahi wrote:
| I also like DLSS, but the OP is correct that it is a problem.
| Specifically it's a problem with understanding what are these
| cards capable of. Theoretically we would like to see
| separately performance with no upscaling at all, then
| separately with different levels of upscaling. Then we would
| be able to see easier what is the real performance boost of
| the hardware, and of the upscaler separately.
|
| It's like BMW comparing new M5 model to the previous gen M5
| model, while previous gen is on the regular 95 octane, and
| new gen is on some nitromethane boosted custom fuel. With no
| information how fast the new car is on a regular fuel.
| jajko wrote:
| How situation actually looks like will be revealed soon via
| independent tests. I'm betting its bit of both, no way they
| can't progress in 2 years raw performance at all, other
| segments still manage to achieve this. Even 10%, combined
| with say 25% boost with DLSS, nets nice FPS increase. I
| wish it could be more but we don't have a choice right now.
|
| Does normal gamers actually notice any difference on some
| normal 4k low latency monitors/tvs? I mean any form of
| extra lag, screen tearing etc.
| williamDafoe wrote:
| It looks like the new cards are NO FASTER than the old cards.
| So they are hyping the fake frames, fake pixels, fake AI
| rendering. Anything fake = good, anything real = bad.
|
| Jensen thinks that "Moore's Law is Dead" and it's just time to
| rest and vest with regards to GPUs. This is the same attitude
| that Intel adopted 2013-2024.
| piyh wrote:
| Why are you upset how a frame is generated? We're not talking
| about free range versus factory farming. Here, a frame is a
| frame and if your eye can't tell the difference then it's as
| good as any other.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Latency and visual artifacts.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| the main point of more fps is lower latency. if you're
| getting 1000 fps but they are all ai generated from a
| single real frame per second, your latency will be 500ms
| and the experience will suck
| edm0nd wrote:
| >A 3090 is $1000 right now.
|
| Not really worth it if you can get a 5090 for $1,999
| alekratz wrote:
| If you can get a 5090 for that price, I'll eat my hat.
| scalpers with their armies of bots will buy them all before
| you get a chance.
| ryao wrote:
| Do you have a recipe in mind for preparing your hat for
| human consumption or is your plan to eat it raw?
| ewild wrote:
| it is absurdly easy to get a 5090 on launch. ive gotten
| their flagship from their website FE every single launch
| without fail. from 2080 to 3090 to 4090
| richwater wrote:
| i absolutely do not believe you
| chmod775 wrote:
| Saving $1000 for only a ~25-30% hit in rasterization perf is
| going to be worth it for a lot of people.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| 5090 has 2x the core, higher frequencies, 3x flops. You got to
| do some dd before talking
| jbarrow wrote:
| The increasing TDP trend is going crazy for the top-tier consumer
| cards:
|
| 3090 - 350W
|
| 3090 Ti - 450W
|
| 4090 - 450W
|
| 5090 - 575W
|
| 3x3090 (1050W) is less than 2x5090 (1150W), plus you get 72GB of
| VRAM instead of 64GB, if you can find a motherboard that supports
| 3 massive cards or good enough risers (apparently near
| impossible?).
| holoduke wrote:
| Can you actually use multiple videocards easily with existing
| AI model tools?
| jbarrow wrote:
| Yes, though how you do it depends on what you're doing.
|
| I do a lot of training of encoders, multimodal, and vision
| models, which are typically small enough to fit on a single
| GPU; multiple GPUs enables data parallelism, where the data
| is spread to an independent copy of each model.
|
| Occasionally fine-tuning large models and need to use model-
| parallelism, where the model is split across GPUs. This is
| also necessary for inference of the _really_ big models, as
| well.
|
| But most tooling for training/inference of all kinds of
| models supports using multiple cards pretty easily.
| benob wrote:
| Yes, multi-GPU on the same machine is pretty straightforward.
| For example ollama uses all GPUs out of the box. If you are
| into training, the huggingface ecosystem supports it and you
| can always go the manual route to put tensors on their own
| GPUs with toolkits like pytorch.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Yes. Depends what software you're using. Some will use more
| than one (e.g. llama.cpp), some commercial software won't
| bother.
| iandanforth wrote:
| Sounds like you might be more the target for the $3k 128GB
| DIGITS machine.
| jbarrow wrote:
| I'm really curious what training is going to be like on it,
| though. If it's good, then absolutely! :)
|
| But it seems more aimed at inference from what I've read?
| bmenrigh wrote:
| I was wondering the same thing. Training is much more
| memory-intensive so the usual low memory of consumer GPUs
| is a big issue. But with 128GB of unified memory the Digits
| machine seems promising. I bet there are some other
| limitations that make training not viable on it.
| tpm wrote:
| It will only have 1/40 performance of BH200, so really
| not enough for training.
| jbarrow wrote:
| Primarily concerned about the memory bandwidth for
| training.
|
| Though I think I've been able to max out my M2 when using
| the MacBook's integrated memory with MLX, so maybe that
| won't be an issue.
| ryao wrote:
| Training is compute bound, not memory bandwidth bound.
| That is how Cerebras is able to do training with external
| DRAM that only has 150GB/sec memory bandwidth.
| jdietrich wrote:
| The architectures really aren't comparable. The Cerebras
| WSE has fairly low DRAM bandwidth, but it has a huge
| amount of on-die SRAM.
|
| https://www.hc34.hotchips.org/assets/program/conference/d
| ay2...
| gpm wrote:
| Weirdly they're advertising "1 petaflop of AI performance at
| FP4 precision" [1] when they're advertising the 5090 [2] as
| having 3352 "AI TOPS" (presumably equivalent to "3 petaflops
| at FP4 precision"). The closest graphics card they're selling
| is the 5070 with a GPU performing at 988 "AI TOPS" [2]....
|
| [1] https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-puts-grace-
| blackwe...
|
| [2] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-
| cards/50-serie...
| cogman10 wrote:
| What I really don't like about it is low power GPUs appear to
| be a thing of the past essentially. An APU is the closest
| you'll come to that which is really somewhat unfortunate as the
| thermal budget for an APU is much tighter than it has to be for
| a GPU. There is no 75W modern GPU on the market.
| justincormack wrote:
| the closest is the L4 https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-
| center/l4/ but its a bit weird.
| moondev wrote:
| RTX A4000 has an actual display output
| moondev wrote:
| Innodisk EGPV-1101
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| I heavily power limited my 4090. Works great.
| winwang wrote:
| Yep. I use ~80% and barely see any perf degradation. I use
| 270W for my 3090 (out of 350W+).
| mikae1 wrote:
| Performance per watt[1] makes more sense than raw power for
| most consumer computation tasks today. Would really like to see
| more focus on energy efficiency going forward.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_per_watt
| epolanski wrote:
| That's s blind way to look at that imho. Doesn't work on me
| for sure.
|
| More energy means more power consumption, more heat in my
| room, you can't escape thermodynamics. I have a small home
| office, it's 6 square meters, during summer energy draw in my
| room makes a gigantic difference in temperature.
|
| I have no intention of drawing more than a total 400w top
| while gaming and I prefer compromising on lowering settings.
|
| Energy consumption can't keep increasing over and over
| forever.
|
| I can even understand it on flagships, they meant for
| enthusiasts, but all the tiers have been ballooning in energy
| consumption.
| bb88 wrote:
| Increasing performance per watt means that you can get more
| performance using the same power. It also means you can
| budget more power for even better performance if you need
| it.
|
| In the US the limiting factor is the 15A/20A circuits which
| will give you at most 2000W. So if the performance is
| double but it uses only 30% more power, that seems like a
| worthwhile tradeoff.
|
| But at some point, that ends when you hit a max power that
| prevents people from running a 200W CPU and other
| appliances on the same circuit without tripping a breaker.
| marricks wrote:
| I got into desktop gaming at the 970 and the common wisdom (to
| me at least, maybe I was silly) was I could get away with a
| lower wattage power supply and use it in future generations
| cause everything would keep getting more efficient. Hah...
| epolanski wrote:
| Yeah, do like me, I lower settings from "ultra hardcore" to
| "high" and keep living fine on a 3060 at 1440p for another
| few gens.
|
| I'm not buying GPUs that expensive nor energy consuming, no
| chance.
|
| In any case I think Maxwell/Pascal efficiency won't be seen
| anymore, with those RT cores you get more energy draw, can't
| get around that.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I feel similarly; I just picked up a second hand 6600 XT
| (similar performance to 3060) and I feel like it would be a
| while before I'd be tempted to upgrade, and certainly not
| for $500+, much less thousands.
| alyandon wrote:
| I'm generally a 1080p@60hz gamer and my 3060 Ti is
| overpowered for a lot of the games I play. However, there
| are an increasing number of titles being released over the
| past couple of years where even on medium settings the card
| struggles to keep a consistent 60 fps frame rate.
|
| I've wanted to upgrade but overall I'm more concerned about
| power consumption than raw total performance and each
| successive generation of GPUs from nVidia seems to be going
| the wrong direction.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| I've actually reversed my GPU buying logic from the old
| days. I used to buy the most powerful bleeding edge GPU I
| could afford. Now I buy the minimum viable one for the
| games I play, and only bother to upgrade if a new game
| requires a higher minimum viable GPU spec. Also I generally
| favor gameplay over graphics, which makes this strategy
| viable.
| omikun wrote:
| I went from 970 to 3070 and it now draws less power on
| average. I can even lower the max power to 50% and not notice
| a difference for most games that I play.
| elorant wrote:
| You don't need to run them in x16 mode though. For inference
| even half that is good enough.
| ashleyn wrote:
| most household circuits can only support 15-20 amps at the
| plug. there will be an upper limit to this and i suspect this
| is nvidia compromising on TDP in the short term to move faster
| on compute
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| I wonder if they will start putting lithium batteries in
| desktops so they can draw higher peak power.
| jbarrow wrote:
| There's a company doing that for stovetops, which I found
| really interesting (https://www.impulselabs.com)!
|
| Unfortunately, when training on a desktop it's _relatively_
| continuous power draw, and can go on for days. :/
| Yizahi wrote:
| So you are saying that Nvidia will finally force USA to the
| 220V standard? :)
| Reason077 wrote:
| Many American homes already have 240V sockets (eg: NEMA
| 14-30) for running clothes dryers, car chargers, etc. These
| can provide over 7200W continuous power!
|
| I guess PC power supplies need to start adopting this
| standard.
| saltminer wrote:
| You can't use a NEMA 14-30 to power a PC because 14-30
| outlets are dual-phase (that's why they have 4 prongs - 2
| hot legs, shared neutral, shared ground). To my
| knowledge, the closest you'll get to dual-phase in
| computing is connecting the redundant unit in a server to
| a separate phase or a DC distribution system connected to
| a multi-phase rectifier, but those are both relegated to
| the datacenter.
|
| You could get an electrician to install a different
| outlet like a NEMA 6-20 (I actually know someone who did
| this) or a European outlet, but it's not as simple as
| installing more appliance circuits, and you'll be paying
| extra for power cables either way.
|
| If you have a spare 14-30 and don't want to pay an
| electrician, you could DIY a single-phase 240v circuit
| with another center tap transformer, though I wouldn't be
| brave enough to even attempt this, much less connect a
| $2k GPU to it.
| saomcomrad56 wrote:
| It's good to know can all heat our bedrooms while mining
| shitcoins.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| Nvidia wants you to buy their datacenter or professional cards
| for AI. Those often come with better perf/W targets, more VRAM,
| and better form factors allowing for a higher compute density.
|
| For consumers, they do not care.
|
| PCIe Gen 4 dictates a tighter tolerance on signalling to
| achieve a faster bus speed, and it took quite a good amount of
| time for good quality Gen 4 risers to come to market. I have
| zero doubt in my mind that Gen 5 steps that up even further
| making the product design just that much harder.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| In the server space there is gen 5 cabling but not gen 5
| risers.
| dabinat wrote:
| This is the #1 reason why I haven't upgraded my 2080 Ti. Using
| my laser printer while my computer is on (even if it's idle)
| already makes my UPS freak out.
|
| But NVIDIA is claiming that the 5070 is equivalent to the 4090,
| so maybe they're expecting you to wait a generation and get the
| lower card if you care about TDP? Although I suspect that
| equivalence only applies to gaming; probably for ML you'd still
| need the higher-tier card.
| iwontberude wrote:
| That's because you have a Brother laser printer which charges
| its capacitors in the least graceful way possible.
| throwaway81348 wrote:
| Please expand, I am intrigued!
| lukevp wrote:
| This happens with my Samsung laser printer too, is it not
| all laser printers?
| bob1029 wrote:
| It's mostly the fuser that is sucking down all the power.
| In some models, it will flip on and off very quickly to
| provide a fast warm up (low thermal mass). You can often
| observe the impact of this in the lights flickering.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Does a laser printer need to be connected to a UPS?
| iwontberude wrote:
| It's not connected to the UPS directly, it's causing
| voltage dip on the circuit tripping the UPS.
| grujicd wrote:
| Faulty iron in another room fried my LaserJet. UPS isn't
| just for loss of power, it should also protect from power
| spikes. Btw. printer was connected to a (cheap) surge
| protector strip which didn't help. On positive side nothing
| else was fried and laser was fixed for 40 euros.
| UltraSane wrote:
| no
| bob1029 wrote:
| I would be careful connecting laser printers to consumer
| UPS products. On paper all the numbers may line up, but I
| don't know why you'd want to if you could otherwise avoid
| it.
|
| If the printer causes your UPS to trip when merely sharing
| the circuit, imagine the impact to the semiconductors and
| other active elements when connected as a protected load.
| jandrese wrote:
| The big grain of salt with that "the 5070 performs like a
| 4090" is that it is talking about having the card fake in 3
| extra frames for each one it properly generates. In terms of
| actual performance boost a 5070 is about 10% faster than a
| 4070.
| p1esk wrote:
| Source for your 10% number?
| brokenmachine wrote:
| I heard them say that in the Hardware Unboxed youtube
| video yesterday.
|
| I think it's this one https://youtu.be/olfgrLqtXEo
| buran77 wrote:
| According to Nvidia [0], DLSS4 with Multi Frame Generation
| means "15 out of 16 pixels are generated by AI". Even that
| "original" first out of four frames is rendered in 1080p
| and AI upscaled. So it's not just 3 extra frames, it's also
| 75% of the original one.
|
| [0] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss4-multi-
| frame-...
| UltraSane wrote:
| Why would you have your laser printer connected to your UPS?
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Instead of risers just use pcie ender cords and you can get 4x
| 3090's working with a creator motherboard (google one that you
| know can handle 4). You could also use a mining case to do the
| same.
|
| But, the advantage is that you can load a much more complex
| model easily (24GB vs 32GB is much easier since 24GB is just
| barely around 70B parameters).
| Geee wrote:
| Yeah, that's bullshit. I have a 3090 and I never want to use it
| at max power when gaming, because it becomes a loud space
| heater. I don't know what to do with 575W of heat.
| ryao wrote:
| I wonder how many generations it will take until Nvidia
| launches a graphics card that needs 1kW.
| faebi wrote:
| I wish mining was still a thing, it was awesome to have free
| heating in the cold winter.
| Arkhadia wrote:
| Is it not? (Serious question)
| abrookewood wrote:
| Probably not on GPUs - think it all moved to ASICs years
| ago.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yes but the memory bandwidth of the 5090 is insanely high
| porphyra wrote:
| soon you'll need to plug your PC into the 240 V dryer outlet
| lmao
|
| (with the suggested 1000 W PSU for the current gen, it's quite
| conceivable that at this rate of increase soon we'll run into
| the maximum of around 1600 W from a typical 110 V outlet on a
| 15 A circuit)
| jmward01 wrote:
| Yeah. I've been looking at changing out my home lab GPU but I
| want low power and high ram. NVIDIA hasn't been catering to
| that at all. The new AMD APUs, if they can get their software
| stack to work right, would be perfect. 55w TDP and access to
| nearly 128GB, admittedly at 1/5 the mem bandwidth (which likely
| means 1/5 the real performance for tasks I am looking at but at
| 55w and being able to load 128g....)
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| In theory yes, but it also depends on the workload. RTX 4090 is
| ranking quite well on the power/performance scale. I'd rather
| have my card take 400W for 10 minutes to finish the job than
| take only 200W for 30 minutes.
| abrookewood wrote:
| Sooo much heat .... I'm running a 3080 and playing anything
| demanding warms my room noticeably.
| holoduke wrote:
| Some of the better video generators with pretty good quality can
| run on the 32gb version. Expect lots of AI generated videos with
| this generation of videocards. Price is steep and we need another
| 9700 ati successtory for some serious nvidia competition. Not
| going to happen anytime soon I am afraid.
| snarfy wrote:
| I'm really disappointed in all the advancement in frame
| generation. Game devs will end up relying on it for any decent
| performance in lieu of actually optimizing anything, which means
| games will look great and play terribly. It will be 300 fake fps
| and 30 real fps. Throw latency out the window.
| williamDafoe wrote:
| It looks like the new cards are NO FASTER than the old cards. So
| they are hyping the fake frames, fake pixels, fake AI rendering.
| Anything fake = good, anything real = bad.
|
| This is the same thing they did with the RTX 4000 series. More
| fake frames, less GPU horsepower, "Moore's Law is Dead", Jensen
| wrings his hands, "Nothing I can do! Moore's Law is Dead!" which
| is how Intel has been slacking since 2013.
| vinyl7 wrote:
| Everything is fake these days. We have mass
| psychosis...everyone is living in a collective schizophrenic
| delusion
| holoduke wrote:
| Its more like the 20 series. Definitely faster and for me worth
| the upgrade. I just count the transistors for a reference. 92
| and 77 billion. So yeah not that much.
| numpy-thagoras wrote:
| Similar CUDA core counts for most SKUs compared to last gen
| (except in the 5090 vs. 4090 comparison). Similar clock speeds
| compared to the 40-series.
|
| The 5090 just has way more CUDA cores and uses proportionally
| more power compared to the 4090, when going by CUDA core
| comparisons and clock speed alone.
|
| All of the "massive gains" were comparing DLSS and other
| optimization strategies to standard hardware rendering.
|
| Something tells me Nvidia made next to no gains for this
| generation.
| danudey wrote:
| > All of the "massive gains" were comparing DLSS and other
| optimization strategies to standard hardware rendering.
|
| > Something tells me Nvidia made next to no gains for this
| generation.
|
| Sounds to me like they made "massive gains". In the end, what
| matters to gamers is
|
| 1. Do my games look good? 2. Do my games run well?
|
| If I can go from 45 FPS to 120 FPS and the quality is still
| there, I don't care if it's because of frame generation and
| neural upscaling and so on. I'm not going to be upset that it's
| not lovingly rasterized pixel by pixel if I'm getting the same
| results (or better, in some cases) from DLSS.
|
| To say that Nvidia made no gains this generation makes no sense
| when they've apparently figured out how to deliver better
| results to users for less money.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Fake frames, fake gains
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| The human eye can't see more than 60 fps anyway
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Can definitely see more than 60, but it varies how much
| more you can see. For me it seems like diminishing
| returns beyond 144Hz.
|
| Though some CRT emulation techniques require more than
| that to scale realistic 'flickering' effects.
| UltraSane wrote:
| i can tell up to about 144Hz but struggle to really
| notice going from 144 to 240Hz. Even if you don't
| consciously notice the higher refresh rate it could still
| help for really fast paced games like competitive FPS if
| you can actually generate that many frames per second by
| reducing input latency and if you can actually respond
| fast enough.
| Salgat wrote:
| The human eyes are analog low pass filters, so beyond
| 60Hz is when things start to blur together, which is
| still desirable since that's what we see in real life.
| But there is a cutoff where even the blurring itself can
| no longer help increase fidelity. Also keep in mind that
| this benefit helps visuals even when the frame rate is
| beyond human response time.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Are DLSS frames any more fake than the computed P or B
| frames?
| mdre wrote:
| Yes.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| The fps gains are directly because of the AI compute cores,
| I'd say that's a net gain but not a the traditional sense
| preAI.
| CSDude wrote:
| I have 2070 Super. Latest Call of Duty runs on 4k with good
| quality using DLSS with 60 fps and I can't notice at all
| (unless I look very closely, even with my 6k ProDisplay XDR)
| so yeah I was thinking of building a 5090 based computer and
| it will probably last many more years than my 2070 super with
| latest AI developments.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Because if two frames are fake and only one frame is based
| off of real movements, then you've actually lost a fair bit
| of latency and will have noticably laggier controls.
|
| Making better looking individual frames and benchmarks for
| worse gameplay experiences is an old tradition for these GPU
| makers.
| lovich wrote:
| If anyone thinks they are having laggier controls or losing
| latency off of single frames I have a bridge to sell them.
|
| A game running at 60 fps averages around ~16 ms and good
| human reaction times don't go much below 200ms.
|
| Users who "notice" individual frames are usually noticing
| when a single frame is lagging for the length of several
| frames at the average rate. They aren't noticing anything
| within the span of an average frame lifetime
| foxhill wrote:
| you're conflating reaction times and latency perception.
| these are not the same. humans can tell the difference
| down to 10ms, perhaps lower.
|
| if you added 200ms latency to your mouse inputs, you'd
| throw your computer out the of the window pretty quickly.
| heyda wrote:
| You think normal people can't tell? Go turn your monitor
| to 60hz in your video options and move your mouse in
| circles on your desktop, then go turn it back to 144hz or
| higher and move it around on your screen. If an average
| csgo or valorant player where to play with framegen while
| the real fps was about 60 and the rest of the frames
| where fake, it would be so completely obvious it's almost
| laughable. That said the 5090 can obviously run those
| games at 200+fps so they would just turn off any frame
| gen stuff. But a new/next gen twitch shooter will for
| sure expose it.
| swinglock wrote:
| I'll take that bridge off your hands.
| UltraSane wrote:
| DLSS 4 can actually generate 3 frames for ever 1 raster
| frame. When talking about frame rates well above 200 per
| second a few extra frames isn't that big of a deal unless
| you are a professional competitive gamer.
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| Rasterizing results in better graphics quality than DLSS if
| compute is not a limiting factor. They are trying to do an
| apples to oranges comparison by comparing the FPS of standard
| rendering to upscaled images.
|
| I use DLSS type tech, but you lose a lot of fine details with
| it. Far away text looks blurry, textures aren't as rich, and
| lines between individual models lose their sharpness.
|
| Also, if you're spending $2000 for a toy you are allowed to
| have high standards.
| UltraSane wrote:
| DLSS 4 uses a completely new model with twice as many
| parameters and seems to be a big improvement.
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| I hope so, because it looks like 8k traditional rendering
| won't be an option for this decade.
| brokenmachine wrote:
| Why is that an issue? Do you have an 8k monitor?
| maxglute wrote:
| > if compute is not a limiting factor.
|
| If we're moving towards real time tracing compute is going
| to always be a limitting factor, as it was in the days of
| pre rendering. Granted currently raster techniques can
| simulate ray trace pretty well in many scenarios and looks
| much better in motion, IMO that's more limitation of real
| time ray trace. There's a bunch of image quality
| improvements beyond raster to be gained if enough compute
| is throw at ray tracing, i think a lot of dlss / frame
| generation goal is basically to offload more cpu to
| generate higher IQ hero frames while filling in blanks.
| hervature wrote:
| These are NVidia's financial results last quarter:
|
| - Data Center: Third-quarter revenue was a record $30.8
| billion
|
| - Gaming and AI PC: Third-quarter Gaming revenue was $3.3
| billion
|
| If the gains are for only 10% of your customers, I would put
| this closer to the "next to no gains" rather than the
| "massive gains".
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| I started thinking today, when Nvidia seemingly keeps just
| magically increasing performance every two years, that they
| eventually have to "intel" themselves, where they haven't made
| any real architectural improvements in ~10 years and just
| suddenly power and thermals don't scale anymore and you have
| six generations of turds that all perform essentially the same,
| right?
| ryao wrote:
| Nvidia is a very innovative company. They reinvent solutions
| to problems while others are trying to match their old
| solutions. As long as they can keep doing that, they will
| keep improving performance. They are not solely reliant on
| process node shrinks for performance uplifts like Intel was.
| Salgat wrote:
| The 5090's core increase (30%) is actually underwhelming
| compared to the 3090->4090 increase (60% more), but the real
| game changer is the memory improvements, both in size and
| bandwidth.
| sfmike wrote:
| One thing I always remember when people say a 2k gpu is insanity.
| How many people get a 2k ebike. a 100k weekend car. a 15k
| motorcycle to use once a month. a time share home. Comparatively
| a gamer using it even a few hours a day for 3k 4090 build is
| really an amazing return on that investment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-07 23:00 UTC)