Aapje

The Quest 2 lenses are really quite poor, so I would instead suggest a Quest 3. Low chance of hardware defects, lots of support from the community, and a solid 2nd hand market if you don't like VR or that headset.

There is no way that this is true.

That is definitely a scam. Import duties are only due for actual deliveries, not for returns or repair items. You might want to sue them in small claims court. Let them show the evidence that they actually paid those duties (they can't).

That's a pretty generic statement when it's really only headset that seems to have issues right now. Pimax says that they are working on fixing it. It's probably fixed by the time you can get the 9070 XT for MSRP (seems like a pretty safe bet ) PS. I don't really understand the logic from the video where he is claiming that Pimax will take a long time to fix it, because Valve didn't fix something. Does he not understand that these are two different companies?

According to the Discord the update is planned for tomorrow, so we probably need a little more patience.

Basically what Hiob said, with the caveat that in some games it may be a significant, but not huge amount better. We need DCS benchmarks to see how it compares to the 9800X3D for this game. But even then the value is almost certainly not there for a pure gaming build.

Just keep in mind that right now is not the best situation for building/buying a desktop. I think that a 5070 Ti or 9070 XT with a 9800X3D should give a good result on 4K. You can move up to a 5080 or even 5090 if you want to increase it further. But GPU prices are very bad right now, so I would wait until the summer.

Depends on the settings. Keep in mind that @scommander2 seems to have a laptop, so his '4080' actually performs like a desktop 4070. And that 13900 is going to be neutered as well, but how much depends on how the manufacturer has configured the power limits of the CPU.

Generally, the GPU is a bit more important, but what you really need is a balanced out system. It's pointless to pair a very good GPU with a poor CPU. In simming games the CPU tends to be more important than in other games, since keeping track of the world state and such, tends to take a lot of CPU. The number of cores is not a good measure, since in games, what tends to matter more is to have really fast performance for a few cores. This is why the 3D-cache works so well for games, but not so much for many other kinds of applications. The 9800X3D is a top tier gaming CPU and relatively affordable for such a good processor, compared to the processors with lots of cores.

You need to keep in mind that support is a very hard job, since they basically have to know everything about all the products, yet it is typically staffed by junior people who are not necessarily the brightest. And they are often overworked as well. So most likely, the person you talked to was misinformed and not intentionally lying. This is a difficult topic anyway, since the support for third party sticks changes over time. And we already know that Moza is not the most expensive company with the best support, so expectations are not on the level of Virpil or such. Frankly, you sound like a rather unreasonable customer, who demands perfection and doesn't accept that other people accept cheaper products from companies that cut corners. It's not really a great look when you demand that the entire world adopt your personal preferences.

This is not really how it works. The benefit of a faster CPU depends in large part how much load there is on the CPU. For example, reviewers tend to test at 1080p to put as much load on the CPU as possible. Hardware Unboxed found 30% improvement on average at 1080p, but 45% in Assetto Corsa Competizione, which is most comparable to DCS, being a simming title. Simming titles tend to put more load on the CPU and thus benefit more from a fast one. And CPU is also very important for VR, and the 3D-cache that improves the 1% lows helps a lot with it, since less stutter is really important for VR. I think that if you get a 5080, there is really no question, and you should just get a 9800X3D, or you will waste part of that very expensive 5080 for a savings of $200 or so (or whatever currency you have). I would suggest first getting the 5080 and only then ordering the 9800X3D (and other parts), because I expect pricing and availability to keep improving.

The only headsets affected are the WMR-headsets. None of the newer headsets are WMR, which is exactly why they are killing that technology, because no new headsets are coming out with it, so there is no future for it. As people said above, you can get a temporary stay of execution, but it's not a long term solution. The Pimax Crystal Light and the Quest 3 are the best value headsets right now.

@Mr_sukebe Shouldn't you update or remove your signature? It looks like it is two upgrades out of date now.

@LucShep So instead of admitting that I am right and you are wrong, you are simply stating reasons why the MSRP went down (which goes against your claims) and that there was plenty of supply for a long time (same). I see a chronic inability to simply admit that you made false claims, and instead you make all kinds of statements that actually prove me right, but then pretend that they prove you right, when they don't do so at all. And your mostly offtopic rant about GDDR7 still does not actually support your own argument. Despite all the negatives you list, it was adopted, so why wouldn't the 3 GB modules be adopted then, especially as the downsides of GDDR7 will get less over time? And you are simply telling falsehoods about the pricing. You claimed an exponential price increase, and this is simply false. Untrue. You are saying things that are not correct. No matter how you try to spin it, MSRP or street pricing, there simply is no exponential curve that you can draw of the pricing, especially if you factor in inflation. There is little point in having a discussion if you keep telling these falsehoods and refuse to admit to the truth when challenged, but start moving the goal posts.

You have completely failed to give a reasonable argument why it is likely that we'll see long term pricing of 2500-3000 euros for such a card (which is what you claimed) and poor availability in the long term. This is how things went for an MSRP model of the 4080 Super: null So as you can see, we had an inflated early price, then apparently a lack of (sufficient) new shipments for a while causing the prices to spike, and then when a big new shipment came in, the prices went down a lot. After two months, the cheapest shop(s) hit MSRP, and then the pricing stayed very flat (the slight price changes are probably mostly due to exchange rate changes) and there was plenty of stock until the product was pulled off the market and the last remaining units spiked in price. So we had something like 9 months of perfectly fine pricing and availability. And at no point did the price spike anywhere close to 2500/3000. So on the one hand, we have you pulling these big numbers out of air, with absolutely no explanation of how you got to these numbers, and then on the other hand, there is me, who is actually providing evidence. And the reason why I'm jumping down your throat on this, is because this kind of 'sky is falling'-narrative just encourages people to give into the FOMO and order overpriced cards, when they already have a decent card and they would save quite a bit by just waiting out that early volatility. That said, we seem to have a lot more volatility for the 50-series right now due to Nvidia messing some things up, but unless the chips are fatally broken and they need to respin them, it should be solvable in a decent timeframe. And the current issues absolutely cannot be assumed to affect a potential Super-refresh. We absolutely do know that these modules have already been developed and are being tested by GPU makers: https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-develops-industrys-first-24gb-gddr7-dram-for-next-generation-ai-computing And you need to keep in mind that in a market with just a few potential buyers of GDDR-modules, the manufacturers don't spend a lots of money on new tech for the LOLs. They align their roadmaps, to make sure that they don't develop tech and built new production lines for nothing. The main uncertainty is when these things come to market, not so much whether they will. It's just common sense for them to want to use this, since they are now clearly facing a lot of customers who refuse to buy 8 GB cards, which is why they released clamshell versions of the 4060 Ti and RX 7600. A 12 GB low end card fits in the line up much better, and is cheaper than a 16 GB card. A proper lineup has gradually increasing specs across the line up, but both AMD and Nvidia went from from 16 GB to 12 GB in their lineup, when going to the x070/x700 cards. And we already see that 12 GB cards are choking on Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, which has mandatory raytracing, so they simply can't keep putting 12 GB on the mid-tier x070 cards. The only option to give people sufficient memory without increasing the bus size, which they clearly do not want, is to switch to the 3 GB modules. That would mean a further decrease in bus size, and Nvidia is already pretty low. So I think that this is unlikely. It's not just about what is needed, but to create a line up that is good at upselling. I think that this makes a lot of sense: x060: 12 GB (and probably also a slightly cheaper 8 GB version) x070: 18 GB x080: 24 GB x090: 32 GB Remember how Intel used to focus a lot on pushed the Mhz's as high as they could, because the common people didn't understand IPC, so they just would go: 'bigger number better' This line up would be great at clearly distinguishing the tiers based on VRAM. No, because it simply is not true. You mean the 4080 Super being cheaper than the 4080? The more the improvement in price/performance stagnates, the slower GPUs will become obsolete. So it makes sense for the market to then transition to higher pricing (since you can use the GPU for longer), with much lower sales volume. Ultimately, this in large part a technological issue. If the days of big 'free' improvements per generation are over, then we will have to adapt to that new reality. A large part of the anger is because people feel entitled to big gains for the same money every X years.

There's probably a language issue here, because I never claimed that your price was only available for a second, but that the price of 679 euros in NL was only briefly available (at most a day). I'm still waiting for you to explain how anyone could have taken that deal you posted, when that shop only sends their products to a few countries, and even then, probably with much higher shipping than what you paid. And I'm still waiting for an explanation why your invoice states that the VAT is 0%, because that in itself makes around a 20% difference.

How is that a proper reply to my argument that we are having a temporary shortage issue, and that you are catastrophizing this situation by making claims that this fairly recent change is what the future will look like? If you get the flu, do you also assume that you will feel sick forever, or do you expect to get better again? Showing that we indeed are having a shortage right now, of the new Nvidia cards, in multiple markets, doesn't actually counter anything I said, or support your claims. How so? Is there something that greatly increases demand compared to a few months ago, like we had during the crypto boom? No. Is there something that limits production of cards for all suppliers in the future? No, plenty of capacity for TSMC N4. And AMD is still using GDDR6, so they can always just make more GDDR6 cards if there is a GDDR7 issue. So everything points to an execution issue at Nvidia. They messed up. This inherently is a temporary issue. Either they shape up in the next few months, or AMD will be laughing to the bank by ramping up their production a lot. And even then Nvidia will fix it eventually. That it's really just an Nvidia issue is visible in the 7800 XT pricing. You can still buy them for almost their lowest price over here. So there is not a general shortage, just a shortage of the new Nvidia cards, and the old Nvidia cards that they stopped producing. But we have competition, so if they keep failing, then AMD will take that market share. Although I don't expect Nvidia to keep failing for a very long time. So the logical outcome is that the prices and supply of GPUs will normalize and stabilize over time. Worst case is that Nvidia keeps having issues, and that the people who insist on getting an Nvidia card pay out of their nose, but that still doesn't mean that there won't be GPUs available, just perhaps not what people want. PS. If 9070 XT prices shoot up a bit after the initial shipment sells out, this still doesn't prove me wrong. I'm talking about longer term trends, not some fluctuations. Short term supply issues after launch are perfectly normal and not a sign of permanent issues.

Sorry, that part I bolded is just nonsense. That card you got never hit that price in The Netherlands (nor did any of the other 7900 XTs). The closest it got was a price of 679 euros for a millisecond. And that shop where you bought only ships to some EU countries. And how would non-Portuguese people even know about the pricing in that shop? Your invoice also looks super fishy with a 0% VAT. Did you order it as a person or as a company? A zero percentage VAT is certainly not viable for everyone. How can you be reasoned with when you make all these false claims?

We already saw with the 4080 that $1200 was too much for a high supply situation, and they had to reduce the price for the Super. So you are now speculating in a way that doesn't make much sense if you look at recent history. Common sense says that if they flood the market with 5080s, pricing needs to drop close to MSRP for them to sell in large numbers. 2500 or 3000 dollar/euros would be utterly unrealistic. With the 5080 being so little faster than the 4080, they may have to toss in that extra VRAM to stir up demand, because common sense says that demand will be lower than for the 4080. I think that you are catastrophizing, extrapolating short term issues that are almost certainly temporary, into a belief that things will always be bad. Computer parts have always experienced shortages/excess supply, and thus high prices or very low prices. Either you adapt to that reality, or you accept that you pay more if you buy in a period of shortages. I've been there, buying a CPU from a dodgy guy selling stuff from his home, to get a good price. I think they are, actually. I see pricing around 700-800 euro in my country and sold prices of $800-$1000 on the American Ebay. In general, second hand pricing for GPUs seems heavily influenced by the pricing of new cards. That's not actually reality, but merely your narrative. Fact is that there are a decent number people who are willing to spend big on gaming, although of course not a massive amount. But they do exist and are a factor. Yes, of course there is always the reality that a game needs sufficient buyers, and that the higher the demands of the game, the more people get excluded. But on the other hand, optimization cost money as well, and lowering quality results in fewer buyers as well. So it's always a balancing act. And if you want to look at the future in a reasonable way, you actually have to look at where the industry is going, and it is a fact that 3 GB modules are on the roadmap. The plan is for 3 GB (24 Gb) modules to be introduced somewhere between now and 2026, and them to completely move over to 3 GB modules in 2026: It's logical that in the lead-up to bigger modules, we will have cards with relatively low VRAM, or with suboptimal clamshell designs. But I predict that we'll see the 3 GB modules being used for the 2026 generation at the latest, because that is what the roadmaps say. But it makes a lot of sense for Nvidia to release Super cards with a VRAM-upgrade in a year, since this allows Nvidia to increase demand halfway through the life of the product, rather than have to accept that demand will drop off very sharply. And with the 50-series being so poor, I bet that they will need that Super-refresh.

I don't really agree with this. First of all, due to the AI boom, there is great demand for high-VRAM cards, and Nvidia has released their top tier card with a very large bus and 32 GB. So I'm not sure where this idea comes from that we won't get high-VRAM cards. The big issue for the 5080 and down is the lack of 3GB VRAM modules, combined with Nvidia's desire for more economical bus sizes for these cheaper chips. With the newer production nodes, connectivity scales very poorly, so a large bus is getting more expensive to make. Just like the 40-series was extremely poor and the Super-refresh was OK, we may see a decent Super-refresh for the 50-series, with a 24 GB 5080 Super and a 18 GB 5070 Super.

I see the move to UDNA as the way for AMD to return to high-end cards. This would then be the same as what Nvidia does. All the best binned GB102-chips go into the professional cards that sell for big money, and the poorer chips get sold as 5090s and 5090Ds. This reduces risk, since if the professional cards sell poorly, you can sell more of these chips to gamers, and vice versa. And it also saves on development. I do think that it will drive up the prices for the lower end, as the chips will get bigger due to the professional stuff on the chip.

My guess is that he wears a thumb ring.

Not really sure why you are claiming to have been right. Your reasoning was and is still flawed. The actual 'best card' for DCS is the 5090. Everything else is weaker, and has less VRAM, but is also cheaper and uses less power. Over where I live, you can get a dual-fan 7900 XTX for 914 euros. So compared to the 9070 XT MRSP and the performance metrics you posted, the 7900 XTX is 14% faster for a 30% higher price. And from what others posted, my local market is probably one of the better ones and in many places, that gap is even bigger. And 16 GB of VRAM is still a very solid amount for DCS. If anything, what is DOA for DCS is the 5070, because I would definitely suggest that people get the 9070 XT or non-XT instead, because the extra 4 GB is a big deal.

GamersNexus pretty much told us that it is very close to the 7900 XT, so I would not assume that it will reach XTX levels (without very hard overclocking).

They had two models at the time with a very similar name, where one had this issue and the other did not. Demand dropped like a stone for either one, so they discounted them and I did buy the good one for half price. But I like a good deal and quadruple checked that this was the good one.