3 ms·
Compared to the 3090, the 4090 has about 60% more CUDA cores (16k vs 10k), runs at ~2.2GHz (up from 1.4GHz) and eats about an extra 100W of power. Over the las
by sdenton4 4y ago
Compared to the 3090, the 4090 has about 60% more CUDA cores (16k vs 10k), runs at ~2.2GHz (up from 1.4GHz) and eats about an extra 100W of power.
Over the last couple weeks, it's been possible to get 3090's on sale for juuuust under $1k (I picked one up after watching the prices come down from like $3k over the last couple years). The 4090 is priced at $1500... (and for me at least would require a new power supply.)
- xbar 4y agoRTX 3090 was $1500 at launch, and was a 50% boost over the previous gen at best. RTX 4090 is $1700 an is asserted to be ~1.9x performance, when taken with salt grain. You can buy a 3090 for $999 today at Best Buy. That's not a bad price per frame. $1700 for the 4090, if 1.9x speed for raster, is not a bad price per frame either. Both are stupid. Anyone spending $2k for video games graphics cards is wasting money in a stupid way: they are big, hot, shipped from far away, and turn into toxic landfill garbage in a matter of years. They mark the worst form of destructive consumerism that late-stage capitalism has produced, on par with leasing a new vehicle every 2 years: both are bad as products that turn into needless waste and both consume energy and produce unnecessary heat. I am definitely going to buy a 4090 on October 12.