You said it!

Maybe most of them maxed out their credit card and will not be able to handle the next generation. No relief checks lately to blow either. Next gen may be a different situation. True wealthy people are almost always tight.

Most people among gpu buyers are irresponsible with their finances and buy things they can't afford. if that's what you call a whale then you nailed it! 😂

The average person spends $300 on a gpu and the industry can't sustain $2000 gpu's forever.

@@chiari4833 those people call other people irresponsible for not managing their finances, education or business aptitude well enough to be able to afford the things they do.

Yep. They already do it with cars.

Hardaware as a service is an old idea that every seller tries to implement differently. You'll own nothing and be happy! 😂

BRUH

Distant relatives, and she'd actually be his niece. It does make one think... nVidia has failed to be #1 by actual hardware design at any rate. They're only #1 by mindshare at this point, and they continue to lose that too. These features thus far are the first consumer friendly face they've shown in the better part of a decade. Which also looks suspect, because why now all of a sudden? After at least 6 years of telling gamers they aren't wanted or needed... now they care? 😂 Maybe they don't have the stranglehold on AI they thought they did? 🤔

How young are you?

Nvidia will always allow just enough room in the market to not be broken up for the monopoly they are.

​​@@x8jason8xnvidia always inovated in this market. They are number 1 gpu producers since like forever. Lots of text that is just destroyed by a simple question on google. U're kinda delusional.broski. u got AMD ? I have AMD too. I also have Nvidia on second PC. Why fanboying over clear facts.

Same here. My 3 monitors are all 1440p, so I just picked up a cheap 3060Ti months ago to replace my dying 2070 OC FTW for now. I'm not buying a 40 series card at this point unless I can find a 4080 for $300 lol

@@CeresOutpost I'm considering used also but they don't come cheap either. 4080 and 4090 are limited supply, over priced, and only barely handle ray tracing well. Next gen is the only answer I see. 7800x3d plays integrated as well as my last card: GTX 660. HaHaHa Not a frequent buyer.

I’m not him but it’s a PrimoChill Praxis Wetbench.

Thank you.@@xKB616

O wow they are expensive.@@xKB616

RT is not going away so you don't really have a choice unless you're just not going to play new games.

@@Longlius Not a single game out there that cant be played without RT.

​@@dex4sure361Exactly. No reason to get a card for RT unless you have the money to burn. By the time RT replaces rasterization, AMD would already have decent RT....

@@morgueblack well amd is not the only choice. i prefer nvidia still, but its just really overpriced right now. i think rtx hdr is very overhyped too.

it's simple, it depends on the usecase. If you only play games i'am team red all the way. But if you use AI tools or other niche graphicssoftware then it's team green all the way. They are mostly only optimised for intel + ngreedia. Or simply outright weren't build to use amd. But it's a large counterpoint which pretty much every reviewtuber misses out on.

Oh yeah, man, you're probably good waiting if you can manage it lol; what resolution do you primarily play at?

A good medium replace rate if you really just have the cash to spend is every other gen, yes. I tell my clients not to upgrade or build a new rig until their current one won't do something they need it to do, personally. In my own rigs, I generally don't upgrade them for 4-5 gens. Sooner if something breaks. A lot of people forget you aren't playing an FPS counter. 😂

​@@x8jason8xthat's true, I'm just going to buy a 6800 and upgrade in 8 years, right now it gets 80fps in the heaviest games on 1440p ultra, so that means it's gonna take alot of time until it gets below 60fps on easier games to run

Damn what do you do for a living?

@@thunderstar254 If you dont spend much on other hobbies each year spending $1000 every 2 years is pretty doable. Saved $40-50 a month for 24 months and you got a high-end GPU when the new generation comes out

😂 not that easy to save some of us have family to fead credit to pay 😢

Glad I didn’t spend extra. I got my 7900xtx for $800 and it’s been god to me even in the little Raytracing I do dabble in. Still hoping the RTX 5090 will finally be able to bring 100fps Raytraced gaming to 4k.

I think you just make poor financial decisions

I just upgraded from a 3090 to a 7900xt and I'm not upset especially knowing I paid 625 for the xt

​@@bignose1752no fucking shit

thats a dumb approach on upgrade lmao

Yes because it uses Tensor cores.

@@dex4sure361 Indeed. He just didn't mention it.

I'm also rocking my 1080ti from launch day, upgraded my setup, except gpu 2 years ago and i intend to get the most out of it. I was running on 2012 hardware, it worked for a while untill i started getting system issues, so to get rid of the issues permanently and stop wasting time and money on repair attempts, i decided to make a cheap upgrade that would remain relevant for this generation, the GPU alone is relevant enough to survive the generation of consoles we have atm and has enough VRAM to go that far. Do not get any of those 2, it is a waste of money. Specially if you plan on buying a GPU to use for as long as the 1080ti, assuming you got it early on release. Both cards offer great performance but lack VRAM longterm to survive. Do not be dumb and ignore the VRAM issue, it will come back to bite you in the @ss soon enough. I got a GTX 670 on my first build and ended up noticing the big mistake i made back then, the card was amazing at first, but within 2 years of using it, new games were pushing it to the point it was slowing down massively because it was lacking memory to run the games. The GPU had enough performance to deliver to survive longer, i had a 2GB model, if i had grabbed the 4gb variant instead, GPU would have been relevant for longer. This forced me to play games on console instead because i was getting similar performance, minus the memory issues for upping quality on PC which led to blue screens, random freezes and crashing. As consoles are better optimized than PC counterpart. So my pc was collecting dust for like 2-3 years due to my GTX 670 being literally trash and not being able to deliver what i wanted at the time. Untill the 1080ti came, i made my research and wanted to try 4k for the first time ever, so i bought it while still using my "high end hardware" from 2012, which was still somewhat relevant at the time. 1080ti was a premium purchase for me but very worth it. I could have saved money if i had bought a 1060 6gb instead back then, then upgraded to a RTX 3060 12gb. I would have saved like 300 bucks for the same type of experience, i would only loose that early hands on 4k experience, which was nice... for like a year. My advice for you would be to aim for a 5060 with 12+gb or similar card next generation if you really want to keep the tradition of upgrading parts every once in a while. But the best advice in reality is for you to try and stretch the 1080ti for as long as possible, if you care about not wasting too much money. If you upgrade this year or the next, you will have to upgrade again by ~2028/2029. Assuming the ps6 will release in 2027 and xbox in 2026 based on the leaks/plans. If this happens, it means that new games in next gen systems will have a massive bump in specs. So buying an expensive piece of hardware right now is not the best call. The 3080ti will perform great untill then, but when games started being focused on next gen hardware, it is possible that you will have to rely in DLSS and FSR to keep the card relevant. Same goes with the 4070 super. Next gen titles will push for more memory and require better specs. In terms of raw performance between consoles. PS4 FAT/SLIM to PS5 FAT/SLIM, the performance upgrade based on GPU alone is around 5-6 times performance. PS4 pro stands in between, offering around 3-4 times better performance than the base variants. So if we assume that the ps5 pro and ps6 will follow similar results, then it means that... ps5 pro will most likely perform around 2 to 4 times better than the base ps5, if it's 2 times better than the base ps5, then it puts the console at around the level of performance of a 4070 ti super. If it's 3 times performance, then it would have to be in between 7900xtx and 4090 performance. See the issue yet? I doubt the console can be 4 times as that would put it ahead of the 4090 in raw performance, which is illogical for a midgen refresh to beat current top tier pc hardware. Even if we low ball the performance leaps to lowest multiplier, 2 times the performance can be scary, specially for pc gamers because we are heavily dependant on low specs right now to run most games, this is thankfully possible due to xbox series s also existing. Go take a look at PS5 games on pc and see how much of a problem they can be right now, they require enough VRAM to run stable while also requiring good enough hardware to run these games on downgraded quality settings. If a ps5 pro is 2x performance of base ps5, then what will happen when ps6 launches...? If they do happen to launch it in 2027, we will be experiencing the end of the lineup that RTX 6000 series has to offer (meaning RTX 7k will be close). So hypothetically, if a PS6 offers like 1.5x increase in performance vs the pro variant (this is low balling both systems, so 2x for pro and 1.5x from pro to ps6), then the PS6 will outperform the 4090 by a small margin, and will only get better as the generation moves on. All consoles are compared to older hardware on release, and as the generation moves ahead, the hardware is optimized and compares to even more powerfull/recent hardware. PS5 was comparable to RTX 3060/2070 at launch, and now it out performs both by around 10-20% performance in most cases. So it is possible that the ps6 will be comparable to a 4090 at launch and most likely compare to a 5080/5080 ti. By the time we get rtx 7000, it will probably be around 7060 or 7060ti performance, worst case scenario, 7070 performance, with RTX 6060/ti/70 being relatively close in performance. This is assuming the generation leaps will maintain tradition on GPUs and consoles. If Sony and microsoft decide to go handheld next gen, then it means PC hardware will survive longer again, as the handheld will have to perform close enough to current gen to remain relevant, and if they make a short generation with handheld, like 5 years. Then we can stretch pc hardware even further without needing to upgrade. But from the looks of it, sony really wants a ps6 by 2027, so you need to keep this in mind when upgrading. The most sensible upgrade is a mid tier GPU with sufficient enough VRAM to survive. RTX 3060 12gb or better (amd/intel equivalents work aswell). The 1080ti outperforms the 3060 12gb by a small margin, which makes it a good enough GPU to survive this generation of gaming... Which means you are mostly fine, if you are okay with 1080p and 1440p gaming with adjusted settings to achieve 60fps, minus the ray tracing.

I got basically brand new 6950 XT for $400 on local market place. Nvidia is not that much better unless you're Ray tracing. Most Ray tracing games so far are not that great. Cyberpunk aside.. most RT games arent worth turning on even on Nvidia especially with a 4070. Buuut.. if you just want Nvidia then go for it.

😂 So you're leaving when they're finally fixed? Not that I don't respect the choice, may even go that route myself... but are you a masochist? 🤣

Intel gpus aren't as horrible as people say

There are no current-gen GPUs that can do 8K 240fps in the average current-gen title, and that won't change next-gen. Not because of a lack of hardware capability, but because of a lack of interest. Even if 8K 240Hz monitors were available, the increase in sharpness is so subtle that most people would either prefer pushing better graphics or even higher frame rates.

I am waiting for 32k120Hz to become thing. Well maybe in next 10-15 years.

@@Vorexia it says 192 rops and it runs 3GHz, I am legally obligated half a trillion displayed pixels per second 🌝

@@IgorBozoki1989 8k120 panels are coming in the next 12 months or so. Just buy 16

8k would only make since on a 100" plus screen. Otherwise ur just killing performance for no reason.​@Vorexia

😂😂😂😂😂 never Shitvidia can't make cheap products. Who wants PS7 with 1400$ cost

@@Zubik1000CZwhy would anyone make or buy cheap products? Oh wait! Fanboys that’s why, because they think $200 cheaper than $1200 makes $1000 look like a bargain and hey who needs ray tracing, frame gen or upscaling that ‘kinda’ works when it’s a year late anyway and game publishers been promoting the sequel for months already. Now here we see amd back in their natural habitat. Surviving on the scraps of consumers that only buy their product because they somehow convince themselves nvidia personally offended them. Like any cunning scavenger amd use this emotional reasoning against the dazed and confused consumer and quickly seals the deal with some fast talking, trashy performance charts and a safe space for the lost and misguided to voice their anger and justify the denial that just saw the good guys sell them a gpu that was 10-15% less expensive. Once converted, they’re exposed to a generation of campfire stories about a legendary driver that matured like fine wine and miraculously fixed all the issues that weren’t really amd issues but Microsoft’s issue and the almighty nvidia conspiracy’s that always seem to explain why it’s not amds fault they just treated us like the the never happy for anyone or anything soy boys we are because my Gpu was less expensive that means amd is my friend and would never take advantage of me. It’s true! Nvidia are bad people. Everyone I know that bought a $1000 amd gpu says the same thing.

I was wondering the same thing. I havnt spoken to anyone that said they’ve used it yet?

@@qubes8728 they haven’t yet. But yah next top tier card I don’t see them not including it. Nvidia not releasing anything with the port yet is arguably the reason some screen manufacturers hasn’t included the post in their 4k QD OLED monitors.

@@PremiumAli Nice wrap up Ali. Makes perfect sense.

and for Australians its 2000 dollars !

7900XTX goes for 1050 euros or bit less even if you look around...

This is the single most cry baby post I've ever seen.

You've never seen a jeep fanatic once bitch about having to put another part into their baby but a hobby that costs a fraction of that the provides countless more hours of entertainment is the worst ever

@@veilmontTV I don’t even know why I post that last line, fuck this shit

@@veilmontTV I’m going to kill myself today

Ya I own a 1070 I see the price of a 4070 wow 100 more then I pay back then this is crazy

Lmao, why the f*ck would you buy a 4000 super card, to then upgrade to a 5000 series card when the price settles down because you are worried about "pricing". Do you really need to upgrade every generation? You are literally wasting money every generation and are worried about saving money, how stupid are you really? Wtf is wrong with people nowadays...

Dlss just looks better.

Yeah if I were forced to choose i'd have to go with less artifacts. Next to a straight up crash artifacts are the next worst enemy

bruh the cope in this comment is legit.

@@Dexion845 for sure

@@magnomliman8114 wutt? How? I prefer DLSS. DLSS is better. You seem sort of DLSS insecure…

Bruh 4060 can play 1080p 60 maybe* but 1080p is trash, 1440p you need 4090 with path tracing

bro thats soooo fucking cap lmao 😂 and I am an Nvidia fanboy

@@AsianPersuation24x7 right

It does increase FPS? What are you talking about?

So you use it?

Lmao, that's the point of DLSS... so what you just said, you use DLSS all the time.

Yes if the game supports it yes. What I meant was RT.@@laszlozsurka8991

Have you actually seen them side by side in person or used FSR 2? Especially at 4K FSR 2/3 looks pretty good

@@androidx99 yes ive owned both a 6700xt and a 4070 and fsr2 is still a big mac in comparison to a restaurant burger it's cope, as a bonus dlss is perfectly serviceable at 1080p and a little okay at 1440 while fsr2 is just... bad. UKposts compression does it too many favors in comparison videos

That doesn't mean that they won't provide rasterized options. Ray tracing has frequently been incorporated into the baking process by developers to make more accurate rasterized lighting and shadows. Mainstream developers will try their best to optimize their graphics for mainstream hardware to get more people to buy and play their game, we'll see rasterization continue to be supported for years to come except for the occassional NVIDIA-sponsored path tracing title.

Based on what?

@@Vorexia And also raytracing in baking doesn't need anything from GPU. It can be done with old CPU or 2Gb VRAM GPU using CUDA.

@@gruntaxeman3740 baking?

@@pf100andahalf There was baked lightmaps in Quake, back in year 1996. No RT cards in players or developers. If game has graphics baked, that doesn't mean that game requires RT card. Baking is also today very fast so it doesn't matter. Setting up baking in game engine doesn't matter neither as every lighting technique requires some sort of setup and tuning. Only unbiased path tracer can make things easier to set up but I don't expect next generation AMD GPU to do that. As those GPUs are put to next generation consoles and it take 7 years to get new console generation, that don't affect game development for long time.

That has nothing to do with gaming GPU's lol

thats about their ai services

Nvidia makes their money in AI, GPUs are secondary.

Yes, before you call me names and say your favorite game will not let you use reshade. You are a fool who has become a slave to Nvidia. A more realistic looking picture should be the goal of all devs involved in the industry. Tell me you don't know. Nvidia is the one who is pushing to stop the use of reshade just 18 months before they release a very simple feature.