4 ms·

NVIDIA has unleashed its next-gen GeForce RTX 4080 series graphics cards that come in 16 GB & 12 GB flavors at $1199 & $899 US pricing. Welp it looks like I'm

by causi 4y ago

NVIDIA has unleashed its next-gen GeForce RTX 4080 series graphics cards that come in 16 GB & 12 GB flavors at $1199 & $899 US pricing. Welp it looks like I'm buying a Series X because fuck that noise. PC gamers get put through hell for the last two years because Nvidia preferred selling to Chinese crypto miners and this is our reward?

nvllsvm 4y ago
Why not just buy a less powerful GPU? The 4080 is likely far, far more powerful than the series X.
- groovybits 4y ago
  As a PC gamer who's slowly losing interest in favor of console gaming... I don't mean to sound ignorant, but how is any GPU comparable to a console. For $500, I can get: a Series X and a controller, ready to play out of the box. With GamePass (currently $1 first month), I get instant access to a large library of games. A current GPU (20, 30, or 40 -series) costs more than that, and I also need to purchase the additional components to put it all together. I built a PC in college because it used to be the most cost effective option. But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. These 40-series prices will define the cost for the next generation of cards, and IMO its too much to justify for casual gaming.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Not sure what you're asking here? Consoles these days use midrange AMD GPUs. Getting a comparable rig is price wise perhaps a 100-200$ of price difference for (arguably) more flexibility. What's not computing for you?
    - groovybits 4y ago
      Can you show me a build that you can make from off-the-shelf parts today for $700 that is comparable to the 6700XT in the Series X, without carrying over existing parts? PC Part Picker doesn't seem to think so: https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#X=0,70000&sort=price https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#X=0,70000&sort=price
      - causi 4y ago
        Don't forget console optimization, at least for triple-A games, makes the hardware punch well above its weight class compared to the PC version. Halo 5 on the Xbox One looks about as good as anything I run on my GTX 1070 despite it having the hardware equivalent of a GTX 750.
        kllrnohj 4y ago
        Kinda mostly not a thing anymore. DX12 / Vulkan closed up the last remaining notable gap here. Particularly as consoles became more PC-like in OS-level restrictions to combat piracy, and PCs added more low-level interfaces to improve performance. Console optimizations these days is mostly just dialing in the settings & using liberal amounts of up-scaling (which the PC versions also often support, but is disabled by default)
  - __david__ 4y ago
    The PC is for high end gaming. It's not cost effective (contrary to what you said I'm not sure it's ever been cost effective[1]) compared to consoles. It typically only gets close to consoles at the end of a console cycle because they have such a step-function and the pc has a far more granular cost/performance curve over time. PC is really the only place where you get super high end framerates+resolution+graphics-fidelity combinations. It's only really cost effective if you upgrade slowly—a new cpu here, a new GPU there, amortizing the costs over the years. And the nvidia xx80/xx90 models are never the ones you'd buy if you are trying to be cost-effective. They are high end damn-the-money-just-give-me-all-the-graphics cards. [1] maybe back in the era where the PS3 was $600, but even then a xbox 360 was cheaper and mostly just as good fidelity-wise.
    - touch_abs 4y ago
      It used to be that you could assume that you would need a PC of some kind, for work/email/homework whatever, so upgrading the pc so it could do games made sense. Roughly the same time as the 360 era I built a PC for uni, and the extra cost to get console-beating parts (and adding in that PC games were cheaper or pirated) was way better value. Now Im not sure what I would do in the same position, a laptop and console costs significantly less than a PC that even matches it, and unis mostly stopped having any focus on CAD
  - quacker 4y ago
    how is any GPU comparable to a console. For perspective, a PS5 is about the performance of a GTX 1070, give or take. So a 3080/4080 are far far better performance than that. If you already have PC parts, you could potentially upgrade to a 3060Ti for $400 (minus whatever you can sell your current GPU for) and get better perf than a console. Otherwise, you're right. Starting from scratch, consoles are a better value, unless you really really want the best performance.
  - kllrnohj 4y ago
    > A current GPU (20, 30, or 40 -series) costs more than that, and I also need to purchase the additional components to put it all together. No it doesn't. An RTX 3060 brand new is under $500. So is a 6700 XT. If we're talking used, RTX 2060's are $200. Now, are consoles cheaper if all you care about is playing games and nothing else? Sure. But that's always been true. Usually the pro-PC argument is either because you want the flexiblity of PC gaming (that is, your games last longer, you've got things like steam sales, mod support, you want better-than-console quality & performance, etc...), or you already were going to have a PC at which point take the money you would have spent on a console and just add it to the PC in the form of a GPU. In a world of increasingly fewer PCs as a household item, being replaced with laptops & phones, that's less true than it used to be. But ymmv. > With GamePass (currently $1 first month), I get instant access to a large library of games. You get that on PC, too https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass
    - causi 4y ago
      You get that on PC, too https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass Yeah, but as far as I know that requires making your Windows login a Microsoft account, and frankly I'd rather risk giving piracy malware. I already pay for Game Pass Ultimate but I've long since excised Microsoft's tentacles from my desktop.
- causi 4y ago
  Sure, but with console optimization the series x is roughly equivalent to a 3070 in real-world performance and I get the value-add of a controller, a UHD blu-ray drive, and compatibility with my library of 360 games. My GTX 1070 already plays 90% of my game library at the highest details and framerate on my 60fps TV. Also, never having to deal with Steam's screwed-up gamepad framework again is probably worth two hundred bucks in frustration alone.
Arrath 4y ago
I briefly flirted with the idea of going back to console town, but I just love modding my games too much.
izacus 4y ago
I'd you want 3050 level performance, you can get that cheap as well?
balls187 4y ago
Try Xbox Cloud Gaming on your PC over your browser.
raydev 4y ago
The Series X performance is roughly equivalent to an Nvidia RTX2080. Why would you compare it to a 4080?
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
NB: 4080 12GiB has 9720 cuda cores and 2.21/2.51 base/boost clock (in GHz), whereas the 8GiB version has 7680 and 2.31/2.61 (in GHz). In other words, the name is utter bollocks because the 12GiB model has approximately 1.26 times the cuda cores of the 8GiB version for approx 0.96 times the core clock. Assuming no other bottleneck exists, the 12GiB version should be 1.21 times faster. This is supposed to be the xx70 and xx80 difference.

by causi 4y ago

nvllsvm 4y ago

Why not just buy a less powerful GPU? The 4080 is likely far, far more powerful than the series X.

groovybits 4y ago
As a PC gamer who's slowly losing interest in favor of console gaming... I don't mean to sound ignorant, but how is any GPU comparable to a console. For $500, I can get: a Series X and a controller, ready to play out of the box. With GamePass (currently $1 first month), I get instant access to a large library of games. A current GPU (20, 30, or 40 -series) costs more than that, and I also need to purchase the additional components to put it all together. I built a PC in college because it used to be the most cost effective option. But that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. These 40-series prices will define the cost for the next generation of cards, and IMO its too much to justify for casual gaming.
- izacus 4y ago
  Not sure what you're asking here? Consoles these days use midrange AMD GPUs. Getting a comparable rig is price wise perhaps a 100-200$ of price difference for (arguably) more flexibility. What's not computing for you?
  - groovybits 4y ago
    Can you show me a build that you can make from off-the-shelf parts today for $700 that is comparable to the 6700XT in the Series X, without carrying over existing parts? PC Part Picker doesn't seem to think so: https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#X=0,70000&sort=price https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#X=0,70000&sort=price
    - causi 4y ago
      Don't forget console optimization, at least for triple-A games, makes the hardware punch well above its weight class compared to the PC version. Halo 5 on the Xbox One looks about as good as anything I run on my GTX 1070 despite it having the hardware equivalent of a GTX 750.
      - kllrnohj 4y ago
        Kinda mostly not a thing anymore. DX12 / Vulkan closed up the last remaining notable gap here. Particularly as consoles became more PC-like in OS-level restrictions to combat piracy, and PCs added more low-level interfaces to improve performance. Console optimizations these days is mostly just dialing in the settings & using liberal amounts of up-scaling (which the PC versions also often support, but is disabled by default)
- __david__ 4y ago
  The PC is for high end gaming. It's not cost effective (contrary to what you said I'm not sure it's ever been cost effective[1]) compared to consoles. It typically only gets close to consoles at the end of a console cycle because they have such a step-function and the pc has a far more granular cost/performance curve over time. PC is really the only place where you get super high end framerates+resolution+graphics-fidelity combinations. It's only really cost effective if you upgrade slowly—a new cpu here, a new GPU there, amortizing the costs over the years. And the nvidia xx80/xx90 models are never the ones you'd buy if you are trying to be cost-effective. They are high end damn-the-money-just-give-me-all-the-graphics cards. [1] maybe back in the era where the PS3 was $600, but even then a xbox 360 was cheaper and mostly just as good fidelity-wise.
  - touch_abs 4y ago
    It used to be that you could assume that you would need a PC of some kind, for work/email/homework whatever, so upgrading the pc so it could do games made sense. Roughly the same time as the 360 era I built a PC for uni, and the extra cost to get console-beating parts (and adding in that PC games were cheaper or pirated) was way better value. Now Im not sure what I would do in the same position, a laptop and console costs significantly less than a PC that even matches it, and unis mostly stopped having any focus on CAD
- quacker 4y ago
  how is any GPU comparable to a console. For perspective, a PS5 is about the performance of a GTX 1070, give or take. So a 3080/4080 are far far better performance than that. If you already have PC parts, you could potentially upgrade to a 3060Ti for $400 (minus whatever you can sell your current GPU for) and get better perf than a console. Otherwise, you're right. Starting from scratch, consoles are a better value, unless you really really want the best performance.
- kllrnohj 4y ago
  > A current GPU (20, 30, or 40 -series) costs more than that, and I also need to purchase the additional components to put it all together. No it doesn't. An RTX 3060 brand new is under $500. So is a 6700 XT. If we're talking used, RTX 2060's are $200. Now, are consoles cheaper if all you care about is playing games and nothing else? Sure. But that's always been true. Usually the pro-PC argument is either because you want the flexiblity of PC gaming (that is, your games last longer, you've got things like steam sales, mod support, you want better-than-console quality & performance, etc...), or you already were going to have a PC at which point take the money you would have spent on a console and just add it to the PC in the form of a GPU. In a world of increasingly fewer PCs as a household item, being replaced with laptops & phones, that's less true than it used to be. But ymmv. > With GamePass (currently $1 first month), I get instant access to a large library of games. You get that on PC, too https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass
  - causi 4y ago
    You get that on PC, too https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-game-pass Yeah, but as far as I know that requires making your Windows login a Microsoft account, and frankly I'd rather risk giving piracy malware. I already pay for Game Pass Ultimate but I've long since excised Microsoft's tentacles from my desktop.
causi 4y ago
Sure, but with console optimization the series x is roughly equivalent to a 3070 in real-world performance and I get the value-add of a controller, a UHD blu-ray drive, and compatibility with my library of 360 games. My GTX 1070 already plays 90% of my game library at the highest details and framerate on my 60fps TV. Also, never having to deal with Steam's screwed-up gamepad framework again is probably worth two hundred bucks in frustration alone.

Arrath 4y ago

I briefly flirted with the idea of going back to console town, but I just love modding my games too much.

izacus 4y ago

I'd you want 3050 level performance, you can get that cheap as well?

balls187 4y ago

Try Xbox Cloud Gaming on your PC over your browser.

raydev 4y ago

The Series X performance is roughly equivalent to an Nvidia RTX2080. Why would you compare it to a 4080?

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

NB: 4080 12GiB has 9720 cuda cores and 2.21/2.51 base/boost clock (in GHz), whereas the 8GiB version has 7680 and 2.31/2.61 (in GHz). In other words, the name is utter bollocks because the 12GiB model has approximately 1.26 times the cuda cores of the 8GiB version for approx 0.96 times the core clock. Assuming no other bottleneck exists, the 12GiB version should be 1.21 times faster. This is supposed to be the xx70 and xx80 difference.