NVIDIA is full of shit
NVIDIA is full of shit
blog.sebin-nyshkim.net
NVIDIA is full of shit
124 comments
-
-
Folks, ask yourselves, what game is out there that REALLY needs a 5090? If you have the money to piss away, by all means, it's your money. But let's face it, games have plateaued and VR isn't all that great.
Nvidia's market is not you anymore. It's the massive corporations and research firms for useless AI projects or number crunching. They have more money than all gamers combined. Maybe time to go outside; me included.
-
Oh, VR is pretty neat. It sure as shit don't need no $3000 graphics card though.
-
Cyberpunk 2077 with the VR mod is the only one I can think of. Because it’s not natively built for VR you have to render the world separately for each eye leading to a halving of the overall frame rate. And with 90 fps as the bare minimum for many people in VR you really don’t have a choice but to use the 5090.
Yeah it’s literally only one game/mod, but that would be my use case if I could afford it.
-
Also the Train World Sim Series. Those games make my tower complain, and my laptop give up.
-
-
Only Cyberpunk 2077 in path tracing. The only game i have not played until i can run it on ultra settings. But for that amount of money, i better wait until the real 2077 to see it happen.
-
The studio has done a great job. You most certainly have heard it already, but I am willing to say it again: the game is worth playing with whatever quality you can afford, save stutter-level low fps - the story is so touching it outplays graphics completely (though I do share the desire to play it on ultra settings - will do one day myself)
-
-
-
Since when did gfx cards need to cost more than a used car?
We are being scammed by nvidia. They are selling stuff that 20 years ago, the equivalent would have been some massive research prototype. And there would be, like, 2 of them in an nvidia bunker somewhere powering deep thought whilst it calculated the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
3k for a gfx card. Man my whole pc cost 500 quid and it runs all my games and pcvr just fine.
Could it run better? Sure
Does it need to? Not for 3 grand...
Fuck me!.....
-
I haven’t bought a GPU since my beloved Vega 64 for $400 on Black Friday 2018, and the current prices are just horrifying. I’ll probably settle with midrange next build.
-
When advanced nodes stopped giving you Moore transistors per $
-
-
Have a 2070s. Been thinking for a while now my next card will be AMD. I hope they get back into the high end cards again :/
-
The 9070 XT is excellent and FSR 4 actually beats DLSS 4 in some important ways, like disocclusion.
-
Concur.
I went from a 2080 Super to the RX 9070 XT and it flies. Coupled with a 9950X3D, I still feel a little bit like the GPU might be the bottleneck, but it doesn't matter. It plays everything I want at way more frames than I need (240 Hz monitor).
E.g., Rocket League went from struggling to keep 240 fps at lowest settings, to 700+ at max settings. Pretty stark improvement.
-
-
AMD only releases high end for servers and high end workstations
-
-
Bought my first AMD card last year, never looked back
-
AMD’s Windows drivers are a little rough, but the open source drivers on Linux are spectacular.
-
-
I wish I had the money to change to AMD
-
This is a sentence I never thought I would read.
(AMD used to be cheap)
-
-
Is it because it's not how they make money now?
-
And only toke 15 years to figure it out?
-
My last nvidia card was gtx 980.I bought two of them. After i heard about 970 scandal. It didnt directly affect me but fuck nvidia for pulling that shit. Havent bought anything from them. Stopped playing games on pc afterwards, just occasionally on console and laptop igpu.
-
AMD & Intel ARC are king now. All that CUDA nonsense, is just price-hiking justification
-
Nvidia is using the "its fake news" strategy now? My how the mighty have fallen.
I've said it many times but publicly traded companies are destroying the world. The fact they have to increase revenue every single year is not sustainable and just leads to employees being underpaid, products that are built cheaper and invasive data collection to offset their previous poor decisions.
-
Those 4% can make an RTX 5070 Ti perform at the levels of an RTX 4070 Ti Super, completely eradicating the reason you’d get an RTX 5070 Ti in the first place.
You'd buy a 5070 Ti for a 4% increase in performance over the 4070 Ti Super you already had? Ok.
-
They probably mean the majority of people, not 4070 Ti owners. For them, buying that 4070 Ti would be a better choice already.
-
-
After being AMD for years recently went back to nvidia for one reason. nvenc works way better for encoding livestreams and videos than amd
-
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kkf7q4L5xl8
Fixed in 9000 series
-
-
You don't need NVENC, the AMD and Intel versions are very good. If you care about maximum quality you would software encode for the best compression
-
It covers the breadth of problems pretty well, but I feel compelled to point out that there are a few times where things are misrepresented in this post e.g.:
Newegg selling the ASUS ROG Astral GeForce RTX 5090 for $3,359 (MSRP: $1,999)
eBay Germany offering the same ASUS ROG Astral RTX 5090 for €3,349,95 (MSRP: €2,229)
The MSRP for a 5090 is $2k, but the MSRP for the 5090 Astral -- a top-end card being used for overclocking world records -- is $2.8k. I couldn't quickly find the European MSRP but my money's on it being more than 2.2k euro.
If you’re a creator, CUDA and NVENC are pretty much indispensable, or editing and exporting videos in Adobe Premiere or DaVinci Resolve will take you a lot longer[3]. Same for live streaming, as using NVENC in OBS offloads video rendering to the GPU for smooth frame rates while streaming high-quality video.
NVENC isn't much of a moat right now, as both Intel and AMD's encoders are roughly comparable in quality these days (including in Intel's iGPUs!). There are cases where NVENC might do something specific better (like 4:2:2 support for prosumer/professional use cases) or have better software support in a specific program, but for common use cases like streaming/recording gameplay the alternatives should be roughly equivalent for most users.
as recently as May 2025 and I wasn’t surprised to find even RTX 40 series are still very much overpriced
Production apparently stopped on these for several months leading up to the 50-series launch; it seems unreasonable to harshly judge the pricing of a product that hasn't had new stock for an extended period of time (of course, you can then judge either the decision to stop production or the still-elevated pricing of the 50 series).
DLSS is, and always was, snake oil
I personally find this take crazy given that DLSS2+ / FSR4+, when quality-biased, average visual quality comparable to native for most users in most situations and that was with DLSS2 in 2023, not even DLSS3 let alone DLSS4 (which is markedly better on average). I don't really care how a frame is generated if it looks good enough (and doesn't come with other notable downsides like latency). This almost feels like complaining about screen space reflections being "fake" reflections. Like yeah, it's fake, but if the average player experience is consistently better with it than without it then what does it matter?
Increasingly complex manufacturing nodes are becoming increasingly expensive as all fuck. If it's more cost-efficient to use some of that die area for specialized cores that can do high-quality upscaling instead of natively rendering everything with all the die space then that's fine by me. I don't think blaming DLSS (and its equivalents like FSR and XeSS) as "snake oil" is the right takeaway. If the options are (1) spend $X on a card that outputs 60 FPS natively or (2) spend $X on a card that outputs upscaled 80 FPS at quality good enough that I can't tell it's not native, then sign me the fuck up for option #2. For people less fussy about static image quality and more invested in smoothness, they can be perfectly happy with 100 FPS but marginally worse image quality. Not everyone is as sweaty about static image quality as some of us in the enthusiast crowd are.
There's some fair points here about RT (though I find exclusively using path tracing for RT performance testing a little disingenuous given the performance gap), but if RT performance is the main complaint then why is the sub-heading "DLSS is, and always was, snake oil"?
obligatory: disagreeing with some of the author's points is not the same as saying "Nvidia is great"
-
I don’t really care how a frame is generated if it looks good enough (and doesn’t come with other notable downsides like latency). This almost feels like complaining about screen space reflections being “fake” reflections. Like yeah, it’s fake, but if the average player experience is consistently better with it than without it then what does it matter?
But it does come with increased latency. It also disrupts the artistic vision of games. With MFG you're seeing more fake frames than real frames. It's deceptive and like snake oil in that Nvidia isn't distinguishing between fake frames and real frames. I forget what the exact comparison is, but when they say "The RTX 5040 has the same performance as the RTX 4090" but that's with 3 fake frames for every real frame, that's incredibly deceptive.
-
-
"and the drivers, for which NVIDIA has always been praised, are currently falling apart"
what? they were shit since hl2
124 comments
My mind is still blown on why people are so interested in spending 2x the cost of the entire machine they are playing on AND a hefty power utility bill to run these awful products from Nvidia. Generational improvements are minor on the performance side, and fucking AWFUL on the product and efficiency side. You'd think people would have learned their lessons a decade ago.
they pay because AMD (or any other for that matter) has no product to compete with a 5080 or 5090
That’s exactly it, they have no competition at the high end
Because they choose not to go full idiot though. They could make their top-line cards to compete if they slam enough into a pipeline and require a dedicated PSU to compete, but that's not where their product line intends to go. That's why it's smart.
For reference: AMD has the most deployed GPUs on the planet as of right now. There's a reason why it's in every gaming console except Switch 1/2, and why OpenAI just partnered with them for chips. The goal shouldn't just making a product that churns out results at the cost of everything else does, but to be cost-effective and efficient. Nvidia fails at that on every level.
I have overclocked my AMD 7900XTX as far as it will go on air alone.
Undervolted every step on the frequency curve, cranked up the power, 100% fan duty cycles.
At it's absolute best, it's competitive or trades blows with the 4090D, and is 6% slower than the RTX 4090 Founder's Edition (the slowest of the stock 4090 lineup).
The fastest AMD card is equivalent to a 4080 Super, and the next gen hasn't shown anything new.
AMD needs a 5090-killer. Dual socket or whatever monstrosity which pulls 800W, but it needs to slap that greenbo with at least a 20-50% lead in frame rates across all titles, including raytraced. Then we'll see some serious price cuts and competition.
What do you even need those graphics cards for?
Even the best games don't require those and if they did, I wouldn't be interested in them, especially if it's an online game.
Probably only a couple people would be playing said game with me.
Once the 9070 dropped all arguments for Nvidia stopped being worthy of consideration outside of very niche/fringe needs.
Got my 9070XT at retail (well retail + VAT but thats retail for my country) and my entire PC costs less than a 5090.
Well, to be fair the 10 series was actually an impressive improvement to what was available. Since then I switched to AMD for better SW support. I know since then the improvements have dwindled.
AMD is at least running the smart game on their hardware releases with generational leaps instead of just jacking up power requirements and clock speeds as Nvidia does. Hell, even Nvidia's latest lines of Jetson are just recooked versions from years ago.
Cause numbers go brrrrrrrrr
But but but but but my shadows look 3% more realistic now!
The best part is, for me, ray tracing looks great. When I'm standing there and slowly looking around.
When I'm running and gunning and shits exploding, I don't think the human eye is even capable of comprehending the difference between raster and ray tracing at that point.
If you're on Windows it's hard to recommend anything else. Nvidia has DLSS supported in basically every game. For recent games there's the new transformer DLSS. Add to that ray reconstruction, superior ray tracing, and a steady stream of new features. That's the state of the art, and if you want it you gotta pay Nvidia. AMD is about 4 years behind Nvidia in terms of features. Intel is not much better. The people who really care about advancements in graphics and derive joy from that are all going to buy Nvidia because there's no competition.
First, DLSS is supported on Linux.
Second, DLSS is kinda bullshit. The article goes into details that are fairly accurate.
Lastly, AMD is at parity with Nvidia with features. You can see my other comments, but AMD's goal isn't selling cards for gamers. Especially ones that require an entire dedicated PSU to power them.