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

[Aapje]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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

According to Wikipedia, the mid-range model we had was $4,869, although that is a lot more in today's dollars. It was a bit of an extravagant buy at the time, although as a kid I was not exactly given it. It was more like a confiscation. And I did make it last a long time, when others had moved on.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

According to Wikipedia, the mid-range model we had was $4,869, although that is a lot more in today's dollars. It was a bit of an extravagant buy at the time, although as a kid I was not exactly given it. It was more like a confiscation. And I did make it last a long time, when others had moved on.

Isn’t it amazing though what that much money bought you then compared to today. The idea that things are so much “more expensive” today needs to take into consideration how much more these things do and how many more people can have access to them. In 1984 only 8.2% of US households had a home computer vs 90% today. 

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, Panzerlang said:

 

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.

Yeah, that's basically the problem in many of the clueless arguments that you'll read in this thread. 

These guys saying"how much better it is now" trying to defend the latest GPUs utterly ridiculous prices, not even comparing "apples to apples" when bringing up the equivalent of back in the day, just getting segments and models completely wrong.

The real GPU equivalents were not only much cheaper even after currency era conversion but, actually, may also have been used to better effect with the respective era demanding games back then. That's when the "price" problem does rear its ugly head.

That and "modern features" defense, like if gunpowder was discovered. Take the old CRT monitors, for instances (still the best motion clarity and response times, ever).
You could choose from a list of widely different resolutions and refresh, which could be selected without any blurring - there was no "native res" because that was whichever one the user found best for "quality-vs-performance", like intended, which was easier to achieve irrespective of GPU - for many years, long ago.
We had what was like "DLSS before its time", in the friggin monitor.
FrameGen what? Your average CRT (and Plasma TVs) at 60Hz always felt like 120Hz+ on modern LED panels.

Different subject but, really, that and so many other great things which were lost along the way and, unfortunately, never picked up again (and I still crave for a Pioneer Kuro or Panasonic VT/ST 1080P Plasma...). 

 

Edited February 6 by LucShep

[okopanja]

48 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Yeah, that's basically the problem in many of the clueless arguments that you'll read in this thread. 

As X gen, I share your opinion. But you should not forget that other gens, and in particular Z, value the GPUs way more than you and me. E.g. I am pretty sure we would value quality washing machine more than 5090 GPU, but reality is that kids will buy sooner GPU than something they trully deoend on.

Btw, I live in country considered rich, and do have a decent enogh income to afford 5090, but I foĺlow the rule that my PC should be well used for 5 years(depriciated) at least before considering replacement.