NVIDIA 5 Series cards - Get your wallets ready boys and girls....

[MJY65]

1 minute ago, Aapje said:

Performance per dollar today is better than it has ever been, so this is more a matter of expectations, than of reality. The 5090 is an entry level product in the same way that a Ferrari is...not at all. You can run DCS on a 4060, on a flat screen at 1080p or 1440p.

 

I think that forums and YouTube produce a lot of confusion (along with good information) to new prospective players. The drumbeat of things not working correctly and longing for the "next new thing" certainly makes it seem as though doing less would pretty much guarantee a disappointing experience.   That may not be true.

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, MJY65 said:

I think that forums and YouTube produce a lot of confusion (along with good information) to new prospective players. The drumbeat of things not working correctly and longing for the "next new thing" certainly makes it seem as though doing less would pretty much guarantee a disappointing experience.   That may not be true.

Absolutely! Just realize YouTubers only want hits. They’ll sensationalize everything. 
Then forums like this are all full of enthusiasts with these extreme rigs and such. That type of hardware isn’t really necessary to play any PC game including DCS which is actually quite mild in its requirements. This topic here revolves around a $2,000 card that only 1% of the gaming audience will buy.
Then something else worth noting about enthusiasts is that there are two kinds of gamers. 
People who buy PCs to play games. And people who buy games to play with their PC. The second category lives to screw around with their hardware as a hobby in itself but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary just to play a game. Plus people like to complain a lot and frankly on forums you only see problems, yeah surfing around here makes DCS look like one giant bug fix. 
Constantly yearning for content is another enthusiast affliction. The truth is any of the modules in this game have enough depth to keep you entertained for years even if they never received another update. Extreme gamers spend so many thousands of hours in a game they’ll actually run out of stuff to do and find every flaw in it and continually need more. That’s not the case for the vast majority of players. 

Edited February 4 by SharpeXB

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

Performance per dollar today is better than it has ever been, so this is more a matter of expectations, than of reality.

Not true, and this has been a subject of many a discussion at other places in recent years.
It'll depend on the time period and genre but, in general, it's really the contrary.

Compare today with a decade ago (2015), and with two decades ago (2005).
Your average "mid-range" GPU, their cost, especially the relative performance versus cost for their time period, more so if put against in % difference to the top-level models of the time, was far more representative of better value for the average person.

One may argue that there are more games today than there were then, so there's now more to chose from the current pool, and so wider/different performance requirements.
But modern AAA games are more demanding than ever, requiring hardware at "Recommended Settings" that, comparatively to a decade and two back, is far more costlier against average wages in western countries.

One may also argue that AI solutions for upscaling and frame-generation may alleviate things - that's the intention - but then there's nothing as "free lunch"....
Those come at a cost of picture and motion quality, and are now a way to exploit the very self game development system, by lazy gamedevs who are already counting on them as base model, for the game's "Default" performance and, therefore, skimp on game optimizations that would (and should) be done in the first place.
Meaning... you're back to the beginning, and their purpose - being twisted - may well become lost.

So...  paint it as you like, but "it used to be better", really.  
 

Edited February 4 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[nessuno0505]

I play DCS VR only on a Quest 3 using a 3080ti, and the performance is reasonably good. It's not necessary to have a 5090.

If I'd like to boost fps I think a 5080 can be enough (more than +50% speed, dlss and fg excluded). After almost 4 years of 3080ti (€ 1400 at the time), the € 1200 msrp required today for a 5080, although not a small price in absolute terms, are a marked improvement in the price/performance ratio of what was paid 4 years ago.

4090-5090 top tier cards are wonderful, but absolutely not needed to play and enjoy DCS.

Unfortunately, the prices of old "pre-covid" video cards seem to be no longer sustainable by manufacturers, since even AMD is not selling its video cards for free.

Edited February 4 by nessuno0505

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

Performance per dollar today is better than it has ever been, so this is more a matter of expectations, than of reality.

How true, lest we forget…

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/technology-has-advanced-so-rapidly-that-a-laptop-computer-today-is-96-cheaper-than-a-1994-model-and-1000x-better/

[LucShep]

50 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How true, lest we forget…

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/technology-has-advanced-so-rapidly-that-a-laptop-computer-today-is-96-cheaper-than-a-1994-model-and-1000x-better/

LOL!  That one almost sounded "woke"!
  ...you have to be really desperate to hold on that argument by bringing friggin laptops (considered downright luxury back in the day) to the conversation... 

Really, search same "general positivity" articles for PC hardware, such as CPUs, Motherboards, PSUs, and especially GPUs. You'll likely find none.
2024 is widely considered as one of the worst years for PC hardware in a long, long time. Same for gaming releases, with exception of a couple of AAA game titles. 

Weak releases in 2024 and beggining of 2025, of highly antecipated (and now even more expensive) products, which shown to be disapointining (Intel Arrow "Error" Lake + Z890 motherboards, AMD Ryzen 9000 "NothingBurger" + X870 motherboards, Nvidia 5000 series "for your 10.000$ gaming-center", etc) doesn't paint 2025 any better, so far.
 

Edited February 4 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

46 minutes ago, LucShep said:

LOL!  That one almost sounded "woke"!

Oh the humanity…

But really the point is electronics were just as expensive back then but did far less for what you were paying. And that article was from 2016. That computer package would be $4,200 today. For a machine that just sent emails and surfed the primordial internet. For what you pay today computers do a lot more and are more accessible to everyone. 
If I wanna be all woke about the plight of the average person, the poorest individual today still owns a smart phone. Ponder that

Edited February 4 by SharpeXB

[Lange_666]

You get a 5080/5090 for "a lot" of cash and this happens:

https://www.ghacks.net/2025/02/04/rtx-5090-gpus-are-failing-after-latest-driver-update-whats-going-on/

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, LucShep said:

Compare today with a decade ago (2015), and with two decades ago (2005).
Your average "mid-range" GPU, their cost, especially the relative performance versus cost for their time period, more so if put against in % difference to the top-level models of the time, was far more representative of better value for the average person.

This is again, just a matter of expectations. Fact is that a midrange Geforce GTX 970 from 2014, is almost three times slower than a 2023 4060 Ti, that is a little cheaper in inflation adjusted dollars. So objectively speaking, you have a far faster card.

The issue with focusing on subjective terms like like mid-range, is that you can get very weird results. For example:

- Scenario 1: You buy card X and this is a midrange card, because there are 2 products above it and 2 products below

- Scenario 2: You buy card X and this is a lower-midrange card, because Nvidia decided to released two extra high end products

According to your way of looking at things, you are worse off in scenario 2, but you actually got the exact same product, with the exact same capabilities, for the exact same price.

If scenario 2 happens because the average gamer got way richer, and Nvidia thus sees more reason to cater to richer gamers, then your conclusion is that gamers are worse off, even though the reality is that gamers got richer on average, and they chose to spend more money on GPUs. It seems backwards to see poverty as good and wealth as bad, and to see a voluntary choice to get a more premium product as a bad thing.

On 1/31/2025 at 11:22 PM, SharpeXB said:

Oh absolutely. My first DCS machine was rocking a Radeon HD 4850 which priced out at $199.  

I still have one lying around as a backup-card. Absolutely tiny heatsinks. It's pretty obvious that we are now getting a lot more product for our money, as even the lowest of low-end card have way bigger heatsinks. 

Edited February 4 by Aapje

[jskibo]

Still waiting for the new VooDoo 3DFX card to pair with my 4090

[rapid]

7 hours ago, jskibo said:

Still waiting for the new VooDoo 3DFX card to pair with my 4090

Ah Yes, this is where it all began for me. Good ol days when cards were worth the buck you spent on them.

These silly prices only came about due to a combination of Covid and Scalpers. Nvidia saw that people are willing to pay silly money for their cards so they joined in the fun too.

Saying all that I got an Am4 Slot and a 4090, If I get hold of a 5090 it's going to be a complete new build. New CPU motherboard case PSU etc...

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, rapid said:

These silly prices only came about due to a combination of Covid and Scalpers.

And Crypto & AI demand, and increases in die prices.

[LucShep]

On 2/4/2025 at 8:47 PM, Aapje said:

This is again, just a matter of expectations. Fact is that a midrange Geforce GTX 970 from 2014, is almost three times slower than a 2023 4060 Ti, that is a little cheaper in inflation adjusted dollars. So objectively speaking, you have a far faster card.

The issue with focusing on subjective terms like like mid-range, is that you can get very weird results. For example:

- Scenario 1: You buy card X and this is a midrange card, because there are 2 products above it and 2 products below

- Scenario 2: You buy card X and this is a lower-midrange card, because Nvidia decided to released two extra high end products

According to your way of looking at things, you are worse off in scenario 2, but you actually got the exact same product, with the exact same capabilities, for the exact same price.

If scenario 2 happens because the average gamer got way richer, and Nvidia thus sees more reason to cater to richer gamers, then your conclusion is that gamers are worse off, even though the reality is that gamers got richer on average, and they chose to spend more money on GPUs. It seems backwards to see poverty as good and wealth as bad, and to see a voluntary choice to get a more premium product as a bad thing.

I still have one lying around as a backup-card. Absolutely tiny heatsinks. It's pretty obvious that we are now getting a lot more product for our money, as even the lowest of low-end card have way bigger heatsinks. 

I guess we just live in different realities then.  You live on a very wealthy country, I guess?  

Try to tell that to a parent that, in early 2025, has to pay 530€+ for an RX7800XT, or 640€+ for an RTX4070S, to put it into his kid's new PC.  I have to do it all the time.
That's about half of the average (liquid) salary today in my country, which is 1150€ (and inflation goes.... heh!) 

And no, before that argument comes up, the RX7600XT and RTX4060Ti are not "mid-range" at all.
That is what the RX7800XT and RTX4070S are, "mid-range", same segment of the old GTX970, which completely changes your narrative there.

In 2005 we used to put an ATI X700 256MB for 150€ (that's 220€ in today's money) or an Nvidia GF6600GT 256MB for 200€ (today's 300€), which were mid-range segment. 
Average (liquid) salary here was 750€ in 2005.

In 2015 we used to put an AMD R9 280 3GB for 200€ (that's 250€ in today's money) or an Nvidia GTX970 4GB for 300€ (that's 380€ today), which were mid-range segment. 
Average (liquid) salary here was 950€ in 2015.

Both you and @SharpeXB mentioned the ATI HD4850, a (fantastic) true mid-range, which people bought for 200€ and less in the 2nd half of 2008, when it came out.
We used to build gaming systems by the dozens with those. Even the mighty HD4870 and HD4890 1GB models were sold for 300€ or less each, in their day. 
It makes you think for a while, knowing that for 300€ and change you could have one of the fastest GPUs in the market (in late 2008).  ...how much for an RX7900XTX now?? LOL

I deal with the subject of both gaming and hardware for decades (done it professionally in both areas, now merely a sidejob or hobby) and, to say that, today, for GPUs of mid-range we have it the same as before (or that we have it better now, as you've said previously) is, IMO, to be completely clueless on what goes into his own society.

As I said...   "it used to be better", and it really was for GPUs.
Paint it as fancy as you like but, this particular subject is close to me and, further than this, I think, it's one of those things that I'll politely "agree to disagree".
 

Edited February 6 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Try to tell that to a parent that, in early 2025, has to pay 530€ur+ for an RX7800XT, or 640€ur+ for an RTX4070S, to put it into his kid's new PC

A kid doesn’t need a new PC. That’s a funny definition of poverty

[LucShep]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

A kid doesn’t need a new PC. That’s a funny definition of poverty

Trolling much today, are we? 
Kids also don't need an iphone, but some get it anyway. What do you mean?

Presenting such prices to the parents doesn't mean that they go for the purchase (actually much to the contrary, for the vast majority of them).
It just means presenting that reality of GPU prices for them, a very different one to 10 or 20 years ago that those parents remember from back in their PC gaming days. 

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Trolling much today, are we? 
Kids also don't need an iphone, but some get it anyway. What do you mean?

Presenting such prices to the parents doesn't mean that they go for the purchase (actually much to the contrary, for the vast majority of them).
It just means presenting that reality of GPU prices for them, a very different one to 10 or 20 years ago that those parents remember from back in their PC gaming days. 

But nobody has to buy anything. Particularly luxury items like gaming PCs. Parents could buy their kids a PlayStation. Or a soccer ball. Whatever they can afford. You’re confusing wants with needs. A graphics card isn’t food or medical care. 

[okopanja]

[LucShep]

24 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But nobody has to buy anything. Particularly luxury items like gaming PCs. Parents could buy their kids a PlayStation. Or a soccer ball. Whatever they can afford. You’re confusing wants with needs. A graphics card isn’t food or medical care. 

I don't know, probably the "parent and son" interaction aspect of PC gaming goes completely over your head? 

Many of the complete systems I build or "list" (as components) are meant for that, as something that many parents here use to connect with their kids.
And many parents go for it when their teenager kids do great in school grades and such. 
Who in their turn have inherit their parent's (very) old PC before, and went "more advanced" in their gaming habits.
Many of these kids are (unfortunately) heavily influenced by tech-tubers and streamers, and are aware of what is good and isn't. 

What's next? Maybe they should try fishing? Or planting some cereals in someone's backyard to make bread and eat? 
....oooh the poor dirty peasants with dreams of PC gaming, right?
 

Edited February 5 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

29 minutes ago, LucShep said:

What's next? Maybe they should try fishing? Or planting some cereals in someone's backyard to make bread and eat? 

Sure. Lots of us grew up in an era before computers and survived. Go out and get some exercise. Kids today are mostly obese from spending too much time with screens and devices. Think about the heath benefits from expensive graphics cards

[LucShep]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure. Lots of us grew up in an era before computers and survived. Go out and get some exercise. Kids today are mostly obese from spending too much time with screens and devices. Think about the heath benefits from expensive graphics cards

Yep, your replies clearly show the "TROLL" label that people constantly put on you through the years.  
And shame on me, for taking the bait and thinking otherwise before (waste of time, I now realize).

 

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

Try to tell that to a parent that, in early 2025, has to pay 530€+ for an RX7800XT, or 640€+ for an RTX4070S, to put it into his kid's new PC.  I have to do it all the time.
That's about half of the average (liquid) salary today in my country, which is 1150€ (and inflation goes.... heh!) 

And no, before that argument comes up, the RX7600XT and RTX4060Ti are not "mid-range" at all.

The expectation that a kid should be able to get a mid-range PC is still just that, an expectation. In absolute terms, that 4060 Ti is still way faster than the cards of the past with the same inflation-adjusted prices...

And you can play DCS on those 'lower range' cards. Or you can take a card out of the trash bin and play War Thunder, and have a gaming experience that is way better than in 2005.

Quote

I guess we just live in different realities then.  You live on a very wealthy country, I guess?  

The irony of this statement! In what reality is it reasonable to argue that a kid is entitled to a mid-range PC, even in a rich country (and do you really think that there is no poverty in rich countries)? And to expect it in a relatively poor country... It's just utterly unreasonable. But I guess that this is yet again evidence of the deleterious effects of social media, that spreads unreasonable levels of entitlement everywhere.

I was raised in poorer circumstances than average, and certainly compared to my current peers. I played games on this:

Including on a DOS-simulator. I literally had no colors! I had no always-on internet. No free games with a War Thunder like budget. I programmed my own games and programs, without access to the Internet to help me out. I subscribed to a service that sent out floppies and later CD's with demos, shareware and freeware. I typed over software programs from magazines. And yet I had no shortage of things to do, because I didn't look at what I lacked compared to others, but I looked at what I did have and could do.

If those parents come to you complaining that their kid has to have a 7800 XT, you should ask them whether the kid's school or job requires them to have a 7800 XT. If not, they don't need it. They want it. Again, expectations (or actually, a sense of entitlement, if they think that they deserve to have it). If the kid can't manage to enjoy themselves on a 4060, or heck, a 1060, then they have failed as parents. 

[freehand]

We lived in a shoe box.

[LucShep]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

If those parents come to you complaining that their kid has to have a 7800 XT, you should ask them whether the kid's school or job requires them to have a 7800 XT. If not, they don't need it. They want it. Again, expectations (or actually, a sense of entitlement, if they think that they deserve to have it). If the kid can't manage to enjoy themselves on a 4060, or heck, a 1060, then they have failed as parents. 

As I said before, it doesn't have to do with them complaining or "has to have".

Wrong expectations? Of course they are!

As I said, it has to with a "parent and son" aspect of PC gaming, in many cases a repeat of similar experiences that a parent had (or wish they had) back in the day.
Many of these dads remember what components exhisted then and what were their prices then. To see them realizing in shock how expensive these are now,  reveals a lot (IMO).

Of course the kid gets a below average PC in the end, because no parent is willing to spend that much, and usually ends up going the used components route (still best solution).
Of course the kid has no saying and "it'll have to do". 

Even the RTX 4060 8GB that you mention, which is not much more than an entry level GPU (only the lowly 4050 sits below), still sells for 300€+. And the 4060Ti 8GB is 450€+.
That's the modern equivalent of a late 2006 GF7600GS, which sold for 80€ or so in here back in its day.  GPU prices are crazy today, yes, even the low entry level stuff. 
 

Edited February 6 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

I played games on this:

When I was in high school that was a $7,500 computer!

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

I guess that this is yet again evidence of the deleterious effects of social media, that spreads unreasonable levels of entitlement everywhere.

Absolutely!

[Panzerlang]

 

The comparisons are hardly fair. That's not to say NVidia aren't now engaging in predatory practices (they clearly are) but the difference between an old Voodoo-3D and an RTX4090 are rather obvious. It's like comparing a 1960's Mini Minor to a 2024 BMW.

Edited February 6 by Panzerlang