GeForce RTX 40 Series
nvidia.com
nvidia.com
Also note that nothing is preventing Optical Flow Acceleration [0] (and subsequently the DLSS 3.0 models that they claim are exclusive to the 40 series) from running on either 2/3 RTX cards. Just like RTX Voice and other gimmick "exclusives" I expect it to be available to older cards the moment they realize their backlog of 30 series cards aren't clearing as quickly as they thought.
They're competing against an over-bloated secondhand market, AMD, Intel, much better integrated GPUs, and comparatively cheaper consoles that maintain sky-high demand with subsidized games via new subscription programs. They're vastly overestimating their brand loyalty (think Microsoft v Sony after the 360) and EVGA's exit makes more sense now than ever.
? There are no prices.
RTX 4090 $1,599
RTX 4080 16GB $1,199
RTX 4080 12GB $899
4080 16GB: $1200
4090: $1600
When you click on "Learn more" at the bottom.
4090 - $1600
4080 (16GB) - $1200
4080 (12GB) - $900
2. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-serie...
4090 - 1949EUR
4080 16GB - 1469EUR
4080 12GB - 1099EUR
LOL
I think NVidia decided to write off European market completely.
Those prices are basically US price + VAT (US prices don't include sales tax).
$1600 + 21% VAT (Median EU VAT) gives $1936.
Nvidia wants to be the Porsche of cards, not the VW, so they're pricing themselves accordingly.
From my point of view, 2x NVLinked 3090s give me the same benefit as one 4090 at 150W higher power consumption and nothing is super appealing about 4090 until drivers on Linux and PyTorch/TensorFlow implementation get stable enough for production use which took like 6 months last time, so there is no pressure in buying it.
Software companies adjust prices all the time. Manufacturers don’t have the luxury of 0 marginal cost.
And to think you can get an Xbox Series X for around 500 EUR now.
PC Gaming is dead.
PC gaming was never more alive than those last two years.
I am guessing the dead rumour is because the console market is growing faster. Conveniently ignoring that the mobile market is growing faster than the console market (mobile has 50% of market value by some analyses).
Conversely, AAA games are mostly not exclusive to PC keyboard/mouse control (games market could be split by input devices: mobile touchscreen, console controller, PC keyboard + mouse).
The feeling I get from the whole thing is NV doesn't care that much about consumer graphics anymore, and doesn't care about providing competitive value. More of their revenue is coming from business applications, all of which is growing, and gaming looks like its down to 1/3 and shrinking.
Me and most of my PC gaming friends gave up on this hobby in the past two-three years due to the insane GPU prices. I moved to the Oculus Quest 2 and they moved to PS5 and Steamdeck since the price of a modern GPU alone buys you a whole stand-alone gaming console today. Crazy stuff.
I assume the 4000 series is basically a paper launch designed to make the existing 3000 inventory look attractive and make the people who were waiting on the 4000 series being good value rethink and just buy a 3000 instead.
For the price of one mid level 40 series card I can buy two consoles (Xbox Series X + Digital PS5). I know that the games themselves end up costing more, but I don't really care about the majority of new games coming out and the ones I do are often on game pass.
Just got PS5 and the PS Extra membership whose library has almost every game I wanted. Maxed out my SSD storage on day 1. And I think the XBox subscription is even better. I mean PC is still cheaper but the difference is not that big anymore.
Why give up? Modern games are perfectly playable at 720p/no AA, reaching 60+ FPS also on pre-GTX 2000 cards.
I've moved to 1080p just because I bought my latest card before the price hike, but I still don't mind playing at 720p/no AA.
- buy a $800 GPU, keep PC gaming and all the fun maintenance associated with that
- buy a cool new toy like a Xbox Series X/PS5/Steam Deck
- don't do anything, game at 720P with no AA (this sounds sort of like when I had lunchables for dinner yesterday)
Your alternative isn't wrong but they weren't looking to optimize for staying on a PC, but rather, for gaming, and were already thinking in terms of "how much of my disposable income do I want to spend on my hobby?" rather than "should I spend my disposable income on my hobby?"
Plus, the very fact that it's a general purpose computer I can use for work, programming, and cool GPU stuff like Stable Diffusion are what made me get a PC over a console. In other words, I'm gonna need a computer anyway, why not get one that can play games over getting a computer or laptop and also a games console that doesn't do everything as well as a gaming PC?
I'm sure in the long term one would actually spend less on a PC than a console, given all these constraints.
PC -> TV experiences are also not great in general.
Also many will not buy a desktop computer, their compute device is a phone at most.
Computer performance has felt ~stagnant for the past decade. Given the number of platforms that build to be mobile friendly, there is increasingly less need to be constantly running a power hungry rig as my main configuration when I am spending most of my time browser the internet. If I want to "desktop game" I could stream from the living room to my desk in the event it is not a controller friendly experience.
Why not? I recently bought an inexpensive gamepad, hooked up TV via HDMI and added a wireless keyboard+touchpad to the mix (I can't get used to Steam console mode). Overall experience is pretty good, effectively indistinguishable from PS4 we had in the office.
Streaming boxes like the nvidia shield or similar have their own issues, along with dropping to desktop and so on.
While a dedicated TV console has none of those issues.
For the years I had a living room PC hooked up to the main TV, I used a small gamepad-sized wireless keyboard and touchpad similar to this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00Z81U3YY
The one I had worked pretty well, but it wasn't this model.
For the maintenance, it’s not like you’re buying a car. Unless you’re enthusiastic about your pc, you can get a pre-built, plug it in and use it, same as console.
Not to mention that games are cheaper and there’s more cheap indie titles available, so if one is optimising for max gaming enjoyment for the least money, pc looks like a better option. But if the plan is to play through the best titles here and there, then console is a good option as well.
On console you match the label to the machine and it works.
This sounds sort of like audiophiles, who don't listen to music unless the audio system doesn't have expensive cables.
I game at 1440p on a GTX 1080 from launch day in 2016. Cost is essentially no object for me, as gaming is my primary hobby and I can easily spend 60hrs/week playing video games, so the return would be more than justified in my mind.
But I haven't upgraded in 6 years because there has been no reason to. I'm running my favorite games at 144fps, and the newer super-high fidelity stuff I can run at 60fps, which is more than reasonable.
I will say that I was excited for the 40XX lineup, but at these prices I'm more inclined to hunt for a cheaper 2080 or 3080 solely for RTX functionality, but that's an enthusiast feature even for someone like me who spends a huge amount of time gaming.
I couldn't imagine giving up my access to old titles, console emulators, mods, itch.io experiments, and low-budget indie games on Steam to save a few hundred bucks in the short-term to buy a console.
YMMV if you're not paid well in a HCOL area, or if your location offers alternatives such as PC cafes.
I still enjoy games, but with adult life I'm playing either after diner (if I'm not too tired) or on the weekends, and gaming competes with other entertainment (series, movies, going out with friends/dates with SO, etc). So as I've grown it takes less time overall.
I am, however, making a schedule for Homeworld 3 and KSP2 when they launch (:
This is mostly a matter of multitasking (which I know HN is fairly divded on).
I play games when I watch TV, and I also use games to socialize with my friends.
If an average person added up ~80% of their socialization time and all of their TV/movie/audiobook/podcast time, I suspect that it'd look pretty close to the amount of gaming I do when I have a full time job (probably fluctuates between 10-40 hours per week).
I historically have bought 1-2 gen old cards and it has worked well for me too.
The big filter right now is 4k 120hz. If you’re aiming for that you need a recent card with hdmi 2.1, which is like 3k nvidia 6k amd series. I upgraded displays recently and it finally forced me, begrudgingly, onto a more current gen card. Really wanted to wait for 4k/7k lines to ditch my old 1080Tis.
This has been true for as long as I’ve seen. Mid-range GPUs have historically tended to cost about as much as whole consoles. Pascal, one of the most well-received lines in terms of pricing, sold the GTX 1070 for $400 MSRP, the same price as buying a whole PS4. These new prices being the equivalent of buying two whole machines is what’s truly intense.
> gaming looks like its down to 1/3 and shrinking
I believe that you're looking at the same chart that I was thinking of when I saw this line, which likely incorporates crypto GPUs into the "gaming" segment.
CDNA 1 had little changes over the previous GCN variant, except for the addition of matrix operations, which have double throughput compared to the vector operations, like NVIDIA did before (the so-called "tensor" cores of NVIDIA GPUs).
CDNA 2 had more important changes, with the double-precision operations becoming the main operations around which the compute units are structured, but the overall structure of the compute units has remained the same as in the first GCN GPUs from 2012.
The changes made in RDNA vs. GCN/CDNA would have been as useful in scientific computing applications as they are in the gaming GPUs and RDNA is also defined to potentially have fast double-precision operations, even if no such RDNA GPU has been designed yet.
I suppose that the reason why AMD has continued with GCN for the datacenter GPUs was their weakness in software development. Until today ROCm and the other AMD libraries and software tools for GPU computational applications have good support only for GCN/CDNA GPUs, while the support for RDNA GPUs was non-existent in the beginning and very feeble now.
So I assume that they have kept GCN rebranded as CDNA for datacenter applications because they were not ready to develop appropriate software tools for RDNA.
That's basically the reason for the split. Video game shaders need the latency improvements from RDNA (particularly the cache, but also the pipeline level latency improvements, each clock an instruction completed rather than once every 4 clocks like GCN).
But supercomputers care more about bandwidth. The once every 4 clocks on GCN/CDNA is far denser and more power efficient.
RDNA has more cache and runs with far less latency. Like 1/4th the latency of CDNA/Vega. This makes it faster for video game shaders in practice.
But what kind of latency are we talking about here?
CDNA has 16-wide SIMD units that retires 1 64-wide warp instruction every 4 clock cycles.
RDNA has a 32-wide SIMD unit that retires 1 32-wide warp every clock cycle. (It's uncanny how similar it to to Nvidia's Maxwell and Pascal architecture.)
Your 1/4 number makes me think that you're talking about a latency that has nothing to do with reads from memory, but with the rate at which instructions are retired? Or does it have to with the depth of the instruction pipeline? As long as there's sufficient occupancy, a latency difference of a few clock cycles shouldn't mean anything in the context of a thousand clock cycle latency for accessing DRAM?
That's what's faster.
Vega64 accesses HBM in like 500 nanoseconds. (https://www.reddit.com/r/ROCm/comments/iy2rfw/752_clock_tick...)
RDNA2 accesses GDDR6 in like 200 nanoseconds. (https://www.techpowerup.com/281178/gpu-memory-latency-tested...)
EDIT: So it looks like my memory was bad. I could have sworn RDNA2 was faster (Maybe I was thinking of the faster L1/L2 caches of RDNA?) Either way, its clear that Vega/GCN has much, much worse memory latency. I've updated the numbers above and also edited this post a few times as I looked stuff up.
The weird part is that this latency difference has to be due to a terrible MC design by AMD, because there's not a huge difference in latency between any of the current DRAM technologies: the interface between HBM and GDDR (and regular DDR) is different, but the underlying method of accessing the data is similar enough for the access latency to be very similar as well.
500ns to access main memory, and lol 120 nanoseconds to access L1 cache is pretty awful. CPUs can access RAM in less latency than Vega/GCN can access L1 cache. Indeed, RDNA's main-memory access is approaching Vega/GCN's L2 latency.
----------
This has to be an explicit design decision on behalf of AMD's team to push GFLOPS higher and higher. But as I stated earlier: video game programmers want faster latency on their shaders. "More like NVidia", as you put it.
Seemingly, the supercomputer market is willing to put up with these bad latency scores.
We're not talking here about the latency that gamers care about, the one that's measured in milliseconds.
I've never seen any literature that complained about load/store access latency in the shader core. It's just so low level...
Well, I don't know per se. What I can say is that the various improvements AMD made to RDNA did the following:
1. Barely increased TFLOPs -- Especially compared to CDNA, it is clear that RDNA has fewer FLOPs
2. Despite #1, improved gaming performance dramatically
--------
When we look at RDNA, we can see that many, many latency numbers improved (though throughput numbers, like TFLOPs, aren't that much better than Vega 7). Its clear that the RDNA team did some kind of analysis into the kinds of shaders that are used by video game programmers, and tailored RDNA to match them better.
> I've never seen any literature that complained about load/store access latency in the shader core. It's just so low level...
Those are just things I've noticed about the RDNA architecture. Maybe I'm latching onto the wrong things here, but... its clear that RDNA was aimed at the gaming workload.
Perhaps modern shaders are no longer just brute-force vertex/pixel style shaders, but are instead doing far more complex things. These more complicated shaders could be more latency bound rather than TFLOPs bound.
It's a bit of a mystery to me how anyone can run a high availability service that relies on Nvidia datacenter GPUs. Even if you somehow get it all sorted out, if there was ANY other option I would take it.
Turing is an evolution of Volta. In fact, in the CUDA slides of Turing, they mention explicitly that Turing shaders are binary compatible with Volta, and that's very clear from the whitepapers as well.
Ampere A100 and Ampere GeForce have the same core architecture as well.
The only differences are in HPC features (MIG, ECC), FP64, the beefiness of the tensor cores, and the lack of RTX cores on HPC units.
The jury is still out on Hopper vs Lovelace. Today's presentation definitely points to a similar difference as between A100 and Ampere GeForce.
It's more: the architectures are the same with some minor differences.
You can also see this with the SM feature levels:
Volta: SM 70, Turing SM 75
Ampere: SM 80 (A100) and SM 86 (GeForce)
A100 and GA102 DO NOT have same core architecture. 192KB of L1 cache in A100 SM, 128KB in GA102 SM. That already means that it is not the same SM. And there are other differences. For example Volta started featuring second datapath that could process one INT32 instruction in addition to floating point instructions. This datapath was upgraded in GA102 so now it can handle FP32 instructions as well(not FP16, only first datapath can process them). A100 doesn't have this improvement, that's why we see such drastic(basically 2x) difference in FP32 flops between A100 and GA102. It is not a "minor difference" and neither is a huge difference in L2 cache(40MB vs 6MB). It's a different architecture on a different node designed by a different team.
It’s true tbat GA102 has double the FP32 units, but the way they works is very similar to the way SMs have 2x FP16 in that you need to go out of your way to benefit front them. Benchmark show this as well.
I like to think that Nvidia’s SM version nomenclature is a pretty good hint, but I guess it just boils down to personal opinion about what constitutes a base architecture.
They have some differences besides the different set of implemented features, e.g. ECC memory or FP64 speed, which are caused much less by their target market than by the offset in time between their designs, which gives the opportunity to add more improvements in whichever comes later.
The architectural differences between NVIDIA datacenter and gaming GPUs of the same generation are much less than between different NVIDIA GPU generations.
This can be obviously seen in the CUDA version numbers, which correspond to lists of implemented features.
For example, datacenter Volta is 7.0, automotive Volta is 7.2 and gaming Turing is 7.5, while different versions of Ampere are 8.0, 8.6 and 8.7.
The differences between any Ampere and any Volta/Turing are larger than between datacenter Volta and gaming Turing, or between datacenter Ampere and gaming Ampere.
The differences between two successive NVIDIA generations can be as large as between AMD CDNA and RDNA, while the differences between datacenter and gaming NVIDIA GPUs are less than between two successive generations of AMD RDNA or AMD CDNA.
What's happening is that with mining dying they know the gaming market won't magically expand, there will be a few years of reduced interest. The only way they can make it look good on their balance sheet is if the entreprise segment grows and that means reassigning their capacity towards it even if it means reducing volume on the consumer side.
From a business point of view this makes perfect sense.
Now masses of 30 series are being dumped onto the used market from a combination of ex-mining card and ex-gaming cards being sold in preparation for the 40 series. Gamers who were looking for 3060/3060ti/3070's can probably pickup a used 3080 for comparable money on ebay.
So what does the demand for the 4060 look like? I'm assuming a 4060 is a binned down part that didn't make the cut for higher models? You wonder if nvidia is left with a lot of chips that would've gone to the 4060 which they can't sell.
Remember: don't buy miner cards and let them rot. They artificially generated scarcity thus raising the prices for everybody during the pandemic. And don't believe that a card that has been on 24/7 is safe to use. "but it was undervolted!" means nothing.
I don't think there was anything artificial about the scarcity generated by miners; the demand was genuine. Scalpers are a different matter....
> And don't believe that a card that has been on 24/7 is safe to use
Are you claiming that it is somehow unsafe to use?
For your wallet, yes. Do you have any information about the environment in which a card was used? Temperature, dust, air moisture were like in a home or there operated in an industrial warehouse? Fan bearing status after all these hours? Voltage applied? Stock BIOS? were they in an enclosure or in a sort of a case? Thermal paste has been changed? Ever been disassembled?
I would not trust a miner's card even if it was a gift.
Miners screwed the market over and now they want you to think that their used crap is such a bargain. Let them deal with their waste, don't help them.
As for waste: I very much hope it will not become waste. Why would you be advocating for that?
That would be even more true for cards owned by non-miners; most miners will operate at a large enough scale to use some best practices, which definitely isn't true about most people who buy GPUs for personal use.
And that "not safe to use"? You think it's gonna explode? Worst case it doesn't work, but even that's probably pretty low risk. Hardware doesn't "wear" that way that quickly.
The only thing I could imagine to break are capacitors, but I still have to run into anyone who has issues like that.
Let them clean up their environmental disaster.
But graphics cards are what we REALLY need to focus on and you better believe you are tuning in for the next big show. It's almost manufactured.
GPU mining is poised to be permanently done. There is no "lesson" to teach miners, because there is no expected repeat of such a run on GPU mining again.
Meanwhile, the implication from your post is that it is better that the tens or hundreds of thousands of GPUs miners currently own and may offload would be better in a dump, just for retribution.
In some ways, letting a GPU run at a constant load (and thus constant temperature) is less damaging than a typical gaming workload I imagine, where the temperature fluctuates often. In other ways it probably isn't (e.g. atoms of the chip 'migrating' over time with the constant electron flow, though I have no idea how much of an issue that is with modern chips).
If I can inspect a card in person, I would be plenty happy to buy an ex-mining card, but most of these are going to be sold online sight-unseen. This isn't a problem exclusive to mining cards though; people have been selling damaged GPUs as 'working' for years.
Yup, assuming it works and checks out the first 24 hours I have it.
Solid state electronics are pretty robust. If they survive whatever torture you put them through plus being shipped to my door, chances are it will work just fine. In my experience there are some problematic GPU models that are more prone to early failure under heavy use (HD6990 I'm looking at you!), but they are more rare than legend may lead folks to believe.
At an appropriate discount it's far cheaper to just buy these at pennies on the dollar and just be alright with self-insuring for a rather rare early failure. When you can buy 2 or 3 for the price of new, it starts to get rather compelling.
The few investigations have generally found mining cards are perfectly fine and if anything above-average in used quality. Because yes the primary damage is from thermal cycles, not just being on. And since mining is a constant load & constant environment, it has very few thermal cycles. And miners primarily care about efficiency, so they're power-limiting them[1] which further reduces strain on the cards.
Fans might be closer to death than a typical used card would be, but on pretty much any GPU those are cheap & easy to replace. That's really the only "risk"
1: And before someone inevitable scoffs at this, it's common enough that this is built into tools like nicehash. It's literally "click 1 button" territory, not exactly something a miner wouldn't attempt.
For Nvidia it made no sense not to produce as many ships as they could.
Of course, if a card's running at thermal throttle for long periods of time, that has a chance to damage the card, but given that most cards are running underclocked, the likelihood that you'll run into that problem is low.
Let's see though:
- 1080 TI (2017) = $699 = $845 (22' price counting inflation)
- 2080 TI (2018) = $999 = $1,178 (22' price counting inflation)
- 3080 TI (2021) = $1199 = $1,311 (22' price counting inflation)
- 4080 16GB (2022) = $1199
I don't know when GPU mining really started to popularize, but there was a significant leap in pricing from the 1080 TI and the 2080 TI. When you roughly account for inflation, it's about on par with current pricing.
Looks like they could trim prices to 1080 TI levels, but I don't see that happening unless sales slow a bit.
Also, I'd like to add, I used general Consumer Price Index to figure this out, so it could vary if inflation did not impact the GPU supply, manufacturing, transport, and other influencing factors similarly.
1080TI, the only outliner in your example has less than 500mm2 of die size.
And all of that are before taking account of GDDR memory costing, the board, higher TDP requirement and heatsink differences.
While I dont think 4080 pricing is good value or cheap by any standard. I also dont think it is ridiculously expensive. From a transistor stand point, you are getting 2.7x the transistor between 3080Ti and 4090. With 4090 You are buying 76 billion transistor, with 24GB of GDDRX for only $1600.
Purely from a Wafer, Transistor per Die Space hence Cost per transistor, we are still getting it cheaper per node generation. The ratio, cost per transistor may not be dropping "as much" as what we were used to. But it is still dropping.
However the Initial cost for product development on new node is increasing. This fixed cost, ( think CAPEX ) amortised over "fixed volume" would mean the cost per "die" would also be increasing.
So once you add those together you will see we are at the end of the power curve.
- 1080 (2016) = $599
- 2080 (2018) = $699
- 3080 (2020) = $699
- 4080 12GB (2022) = $899
- 4080 16GB (2022) = $1199
Doubling the price of the flagship version of the launch product over just 6 years is well, a pretty large jump.
- 1080 (2016) = $599 - 2080 (2018) = $699 - 3080 (2020) = $699
- 4080 12GB (2022) = $899 - 4080 16GB (2022) = $1199
Doubling the price of the ?080 version of the launch product over just 6 years is well, a pretty large jump.
Edit: Apologies, got the 4080 numbers wrong, accidentally used GBP, corrected above. For the curious, the 4080 16GB is £1269, the 4080 12GB is £949. Meanwhile, the 4090 is £1679.
what implication are you trying to draw from that as far as whether MSRP is good or not?
Meanwhile NVIDIA stopped production pre-holiday season last year in an attempt to bolster their company value to 1 trillion dollars. Quite a risky play that didn't pay off [1].
[1] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-allegedly-halting-RTX-3...
> Meanwhile NVIDIA stopped production pre-holiday season last year in an attempt to bolster their company value to 1 trillion dollars. Quite a risky play that didn't pay off [1].
The source for that article MLID and wasn't borne out by actual production numbers. Actually there was a nominal rise in shipments in holiday '21.
https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/q421-sees-a-nominal...
Also, we're currently in a huge glut so obviously there was no availability problem in early Q1 '22 or Q2 '22 either - like, why is pulling back production for 2022 a bad thing, when you're already sitting on a huge stockpile of chips? Were they supposed to keep cranking and make the glut even worse?
People take these techtubers as gospel and a lot of what they say just ends up somewhere between slanted perspective and factually incorrect. But people are willing to believe literally anything as long as it paints NVIDIA in a bad light - just like people went from being absolutely sure that partners were scalping gpus and selling right into mining farms, but then the EVGA CEO says he didn't make any money at all during the mining boom and NVIDIA was capping prices and forcing him to sell at a loss suddenly everyone forgets about the board partners selling $2,000 3080s in their first-party stores. Or the "800-900w TGP" rumors for 4080 that ended up being off by double.
https://videocardz.com/newz/flagship-nvidia-ada-sku-might-fe...
There is just a ton of anti-nvidia sentiment in general and it completely distorts everyone's perception of reality. People will believe any random thing, even if it disagrees with common sense, or their own personal observations, as long as it scratches that "green man bad" itch. And there is a whole little cottage industry of people like MLID and kopite7kimi who thrive on catering to it for clicks. Once those negative frames get started, they don't go away, even if the information used to construct them later turns out to be false.
But people rushing to the defense of poor board partners who say they didn't make any money at all during the crypto boom, heck we actually lost money really takes the cake imo, like that's either actual goldfish-tier memory or massive "green man bad" brain, take your pick. They're the ones who handle sales of all the mining cards too - NVIDIA doesn't run that directly either, it's all partners.
https://videocardz.com/newz/first-nvidia-cmp-crypto-mining-p...
That is indeed the most succinct way of putting it.
Nvidia has primarily been associated with gaming. With Machine Learning that’s starting to change. With tools like Stable Diffusion every single artist is going to want a $1600 GPU and honestly that’s a bargain for them!
I think it’d be sweet if you could spend $100 to $10,000 and get a linear increases in cores, ram, and performance. That’s not how it works. But philosophically I have no problem with it.
Hopefully AMD steps up and brings some real competition.
Most artists who are not tech savvy to spin up their local Stable diffusion instances are probably going to pay and use one of the online services like DALL-E 2 or something.
Packaging Python is a dumpster fire of local environment complexity. But this is an extraordinarily solvable problem. I won’t call it solved today. But we have Proof of Life of solutions.
And yeah it’s not super duper hard. It’s just not how Python projects are structured by default. Simple Diffusion isn’t setup that way. Some random person on the internet spent some time to package it up nicely and in exchange they hit #1 on HN. Possibly more than once!
- download the Python embedded environment,
- modify `pythonXX.pth` to `import site`,
- install pip in the environment,
- install all dependencies with pip,
- install your code as an executable module (with a `__main__.py` file).
You can ship this as a ZIP file and simply run `./python.exe -m your_module arg1 arg2 arg3...`
Partner prices were like 200$ more I believe last time.
What is something it can’t handle?
For other purposes (like scientific computing/ml), while 3090 can do a lot of things that 4090 does, it's half the speed (or even slower) and a lot less energy efficient, say 1x4090 = 2x3090, 4090 uses 450W, dual 3090 uses 700W, of course you can power limit both of them further, but you still get best bang for your buck out of the 4090.
Beatsaber is a great game but the graphics aren't very stressful (nor do they need to be).
Keep in mind people are also starting to mod VR into more and more new PC games that were never designed for it. Stuff like Elden Ring, FF7R, the Resident Evil remakes, etc.
The 3080 released for $800 USD in Jan 2021 which one calculator[1] says is $905 USD with inflation. So a 4080 is $900. At least they are consistent.
edit: 3080 12 GB, that is. The original 3080 was $700 USD in Sep 2020 which is $800 in 2022. So the base 4080 is priced above that.
They're competing against an over-bloated secondhand market, AMD, Intel, much better integrated GPUs
For the 4080/4090 pricing, the only competition is AMD.
Just glancing at some benchmarks, the Intel ARC A380 is worse than a GTX 1650[2] and the best integrated graphics I know of is the Ryzen 7 5700G which is worse than a 1050[3]. I don't see why these would affect 4080/4090 pricing at all.
1. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
2. https://www.pcgamer.com/official-intel-arc-380-benchmarks/
3. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-5700g-revie...
The "actual" 4080 16GB is $1200.
But I realized I did give the price for the 3080 (12 GB) model, which I corrected in an edit. So I think you're sort of right in the sense that the 4080 (12GB) is priced above the 3080 (10GB) in real terms, and that the 4080 (16GB) is priced way above the 3080 (12 GB) in real terms.
Console gaming: cheaper, plug it in your tv and you're done, sit on your couch, use a controller.
I use a PC for a lot of things but gaming will never be one of them. The console looks great as it is.
No they aren't. All signs point to ARC's first outing being a swing & a miss, and Intel themselves didn't even have any plans to come anywhere close to competing at the top end. Intel's highest end ARC card, the A770, was positioned against the RTX 3060. And Intel is both missing any semblance of a release date it set for itself, but the drivers are also a disaster and rumors are Intel is going to shutter the entire division, focusing only on data center compute cards only.
So used cards yes are a factor, yes, but if this really is a 2x performance jump then those aren't going to be a factor here. None of the $1000+ GPU buying market is going to care about saving $100-300 to get half the performance after all.
That just lives AMD as competition, and only if RDNA 3 comes out a winner. Which the rumor mill is saying it will be, but AMD's graphics track record is spotty to put it mildly. I'm sure Nvidia's internal plan is to just cut prices if RDNA 3 surprisingly competes at the top end instead of just the midrange, but in the meantime is happy to take those fat fat margins.
The RX 6650 XT is in the same price bracket as the RTX 3050. I'm not sure they would be considered competition even if RX 77whatever were in the same price bracket as the RTX 3050. Nvidia just seems to push just the right buttons on the software features which AMD just cannot seem to get.
Don't get me wrong. I would love AMD to be competition. They should frankly team up with Intel. AMD has the hardware and Intel can provide the software. Don't see that happening considering AMD went alone on their FP8 proposal and everyone else joined up on a separate paper.
But there's occasionally the random great piece of software like DLSS 2 or RTX Voice, definitely. AMD kinda tries with stuff like FSR or Anti-Lag, it's just not as well done as Nvidia's version.
Are you sure about that?
The page here says it uses "Optical Flow Accelerator of the NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture" which sounds like a hardware feature?
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/dlss3-ai-powered-n...
NVidia can suck it and go solely target cloud computing - they already dedicated a significant portion of the announcement to just that. Why didn't the fact A) this is extremely lucrative and B) they dominate there already reduce their price for regular consumers? Corporate greed.
If I see NVidia cards start shipping in consoles, I'll know they decided to rip us off so they could get great deals for the same hardware to manufacturers. A total middle finger to us PC gamers.
I'm getting an AMD vs Intel vibe like I did from years back. I switched then, I'll switch again.
/rant
The computing power of these new GPUs (in FP32 TFLOPS) is as below:
Nvidia RTX 4090: 82.6 TFLOPS (450 watts¹)
Nvidia RTX 4080-16GB: 48.8 TFLOPS (320 watts¹)
Nvidia RTX 4080-12GB: 40.1 TFLOPS (285 watts¹)
Nvidia H100 (SXM card): 60.1 TFLOPS (700 watts)
Nvidia RTX 3090 Ti: 40.0 TFLOPS (450 watts)
AMD Instinct MI250X: 47.9 TFLOPS (560 watts)
AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT: 23.7 TFLOPS (335 watts)
Both the NVIDIA and the AMD server GPUs are about 30 times faster at FP64 operations. At equal FP32 Tflops, the server GPUs would be 32 times faster at FP64 operations.
A 16 factor comes from having an 1:2 FP64/FP32 speed ratio instead of an 1:32 ratio, and an additional factor of 2 comes because the server GPUs have FP64 matrix operations, which do not exist in consumer GPUs.
So the difference in FP64 speed is really huge. Moreover, the server GPUs have ECC memory. When you have a computation that takes a week, you would not want it to provide wrong results, forcing you to redo it.
- What will MIG look like on these GPUs?
- Are there multiple graphics queues now?
Otherwise, the RAM remains the greatest limitation of NVIDIA’s platform. They should really design a RAM add in standard and decouple it from the chip.
IMO NVIDIA’s greatest competition is against Apple, who have achieved a unified memory architecture and a naturally multi queue (actually parallel) graphics and compute API. Everyone from normals to the most turbo “ML boys” do not comprehend yet how big of a deal the M1 GPU architecture is.
Personally, I like using RT for some single player showpiece games with a 3080 Ti, RT was useless on my 2080, but the games that I play the most do not use RT at all. DLSS is always great on any title that offers it, but again the real issue is that most of the games that people put real time into are the types of games for which RT is irrelevant. Graphical showpiece stuff is just a lot less relevant to the contemporary gaming market than it used to be.
“In /my opinion/, this doesn’t add enough to the game experience to justify the performance penalty. Also, my hardware isn’t strong enough to use it. Therefor it’s a gimmick! Herpa derpa!”
That may actually be giving too much credit. It’s probably more like “I don’t like it so it’s a gimmick that no one else should enjoy”
(Best sources I could quickly find on my phone. Annoying ads warning)
https://www.prosettings.com/zywoo-csgo/
https://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/csgo-best-resolution-s...
As for lowest settings, the CS:GO don't have options to put the game into flat panel mess that is professional Q3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3ui0hz6sm0
If you look at LoL, Fortnite, Valorant, Overwatch, they're all kind of the same — fairly flat light, bright colourful characters against a backdrop of pastels and otherwise muted background colours. Texture detailing is discrete and everything almost looks like block colours if you squint. Rainbow 6 Siege, CSGO, PUBG are the same, minus the colourful characters.
Even if those games didn't optimise their engines for performance over visual fidelity, their visual design would make them fairly light weight anyhow.
You're also at a disadvantage running the graphics on High.
In any game that I want to play at a "competitive" level, I always put the settings to the absolute lowest settings so the computer always gets 100+ FPS.
No reason to even try to optimize. The point is winning, not it looking good. In fact, in some games, the developers have had to go back and make it more fair for higher settings because of low settings hiding tall grass.
You're looking at number people logged into an online service and thinking it represents anything about gamers that by definition aren't online. A typical sampling bias.
steam, ubisoft connect, origin, blizzard launcher, and rockstar are all online today, even for single-player games. I'm not sure where a significant number of non-platform-delivered games would even exist in 2022, I haven't bought a single game that didn't use steam or another platform from a vendor in ages.
The exception being GOG I guess, and to be fair there's a decent number of new-ish titles on that (horizon zero dawn) and I always make an effort to buy titles there when possible, but even still GOG's marketshare is minuscule in comparison to steam.
so no, actually, I disagree that there's some large repository of single-player games that are not showing up on steam or another equivalent.
(do PSN/XBL keep public player count stats?)
Overwatch and Valorant alone may have increased female participation in video games by double digit percentages. Also, the TV show for League, which was obviously aimed at women.
All multiplayer only
There are more single-player games than multi-player, but overall more hours have been spent (or are currently being spent) on multi-player games. For example, someone might play BioShock Infinite once and complete the story in under 15 hours and then never touch it again, but easily rack up hundreds of hours in Apex Legends.
As you've said though, there's a sampling bias. Going by the "current players online" metric might diminish how many players are playing single-player games without being online.
A multiplayer lives and dies by its community, so it makes sense that multiplayer gamers would coalesce around a relatively smaller number of games.
Multiplayer games are also designed far more around player retention. The unpredictability of human opponents, combined with various design decisions meant to keep players engaged, means that a multiplayer gamer may primarily play the same game for years. A solo player reaches the end of their game, maybe they even exhaust all the side content and achievements, but then they move on to the next single player game.
When I've seen this written it's often explained as to do with the fact that single-player is a much more curated experience, where the developers can stage-manage where you go and even where you look, and discard resources they know you won't see again.
That's why single-player often looks way better than multiplayer, where a) the experience isn't that curated and b) fps matters much more.
Gamers don't see it that way though because often, faked reflections are "good enough".
In some cases though, the faked reflections are noticeable and immersion breaking. I notice it in MS Flight Simulator. I'm flying over water and approaching a large city, and I can see the reflection of buildings in the water. But when I push the nose down, as the image of the buildings goes off the top of my screen, the reflections go away too. In reality, this wouldn't happen. But in the sim, it does because the reflections are generated by just inverting the rendered image of the buildings.
There's a map in Apex Legends where a section has a shiny floor. It fakes a reflection by rendering an environment-mapped texture. It does a decent job at making the floor look like it's reflective, but as you move around and compare what's being rendered to the actual geometry, you notice how it falls apart. But in a competitive FPS, you're not looking at the environment long and hard enough to notice.
Duke Nukem 3D had proper reflections, but it did it by actually mirroring all the geometry, a technique that only really works well if the geometry is simple.
RT makes reflections Just Work and work properly.
Most upper market cards can already run most games well at 1440p or 4k.
Personally, people say RT is a gimmick but I find it incredible on my 3080 for games that support it. In a game like Control the lighting is absolutely stunning, and even in a game like Minecraft RTX, the soft lighting and shadows are simply fantastic. (Minecraft IMO is a perfect example of how better soft shadows and realistic bounce lighting aren't just for "ultra realism" simulators.) It's already very convincing when implemented well. So I'm very happy to see continued interest here.
Have you tried CyberPunk 2077?
https://www.tweaktown.com/articles/10049/cyberpunk-2077-benc...
CP2077 seems to be the modern Crysis.
Op claimed to get 60 FPS at 4K with "pretty much" everything at max - I hope that wasn't implying "everything but raytracing". I got the card for raytracing, without raytracing even my 5 year old card worked ok and looked good enough.
Looks like I was wrong- the benchmark shows average FPS of 30, not 60. When I change DLSS to "Ultra Performance", then the FPS is 59.29 (I assume vsync) and I didn't see any visual differences in the benchmark. With DLSS at "Quality", average FPS is 27, with drops as low as 9, and obvious visual frame skips.
At the very least, seems like I should force DLSS to Ultra Performance, so I bring the average FPS during complex scenes up.
That sim eats graphics cards for breakfast.
I'm not sure I understand why memory is important for gaming? For most games, with every settings maxed up, it'll be a stretch if it uses 6GB of VRAM.
For other applications than gaming, 100% agree, but for gaming I can't imagine it's important.
Depends on what kind of gaming you do, not all games consume the same type of resources from the GPU. Simulation games will usually be limited by RAM size/speed, VRAM size/speed and CPU, rather than actual clock speed of GPUs. Action games would require better latency and not so much about VRAM/RAM size and so on.
It is very subjective. DLSS for me is always a blurry mess. I'm turning it off in every game - I'll better will turn off some RTX features than suffer that blurriness torture.
The pool of games that ask for extremely high performance is very small and pretty easy to ignore by accident.
What the hell Nvidia. Post EVGA breakup, this is a bad look. Seems like they're setting MSRP ridiculously high in order to undercut board partners down the line.
Not with even 50% of the FLOPS. The 4090 won't be the best perf/$, but considering how much perf/$ and perf/watt you can get these days, I think it's pretty hard to complain that these are available. If you don't play games, get a Ryzen 5 7600X for $300 with an iGPU more than capable of high-quality desktop computing.
You can also get a brand new laptop for $130 right now https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-14-0-laptop-intel-celeron-... , which is $57.37 in 1990 dollars. (according to https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ ). The high-end is more expensive than ever, and the low-end is cheaper than ever. The Apple Lisa was $10k in 1983, which is about $30k today. You can get a Boxx Apex with multiple $10k Quadro GV100 GPUs and 8TB SSDs for that money today, or roughly a dozen high-end (but not TOTL) gaming PCs.
correction: 120hz not 144hz.
0: https://www.xbox.com/en-CA/consoles/xbox-series-x?xr=shellna...
That certainly implies many games dont support it.
I'm not really sure what Microsoft is trying to say on your link but the Series X definitely cannot run everything at native 4K.
PC gaming at the high end has always been about spending a lot of money to get the best graphics possible. Consoles always have much better bang for the buck early in a new console generation.
PC components are definitely too expensive right now, for several reasons, including Nvidia's pricing choices
While developers are free to make 4K 120hz their target, few games attempt it, and the ones that do, often make significant graphical compromises or are graphically undemanding to begin with.
I don't know why OP's setup would age like milk. As long as you keep them clean, games haven't really advanced that much in the last few years, in terms of graphics requirements.
Also, if anyone has advice on building a new machine, I'm listening. I've been out of the game so long that I don't even know where to start, and have children that want towers built.
It really didn't last any less time than PS4 or any other console.
ps5 hardware is sold at a profit (they hit profitability within 6-9 months of launch) and while microsoft claimed to a court that their hardware was subsidized as a justification for refusing to open the platform to alternate stores (so, somewhat self-interested of course), if you believe the production costs are fundamentally similar to PS5 then this is most likely "hollywood accounting".
It's real easy to have the xbox division license their branding from a parent company and if we set that at $100 a console then oops, there went all the profit.
It's not the PS3 days anymore where sony is losing 30% of the value of the console on the initial sale (and actually that wasn't the case for the other vendors even back in the PS3 days). Consoles are sold at a slight profit these days.
That said, having a "big APU" where everything shares a single bank of RAM and a single cooler/etc is a massive cost advantage. There is a lot of redundant cooling and memory in an ATX/PCIe spec PC and it all adds up. A console is one product with one assembly/testing line and one cooling/fan system and one set of memory. Clearly there is a market for "console-style PCs" which apply similar cost-optimizations, with a similar model to Steam Deck. Just so far there's nobody who's been willing to do the up-front cost and yet will choose not to lock down the resulting platform - Valve is somewhat unique on that front.
I did try to do some CUDA based AI rendering stuff on my 2080S but 8GB didn't seem to be enough.
Its weird to comprehend the 'stretching' of technology advance over time as I age, especially on the value side. There hasn't ever been the same 'feel' for me from the first leap of moving from software rendered Quake to a 3D-card - despite the various advances since, although I remember bump-mapping as another massive leap.
It's totally unfair in some ways. As an example the control you have over lighting a scene (either in a game or something you're rendering) is way beyond what multi-million dollar studios were using in my younger years.
What happens to society/reality when technology capable of producing video content indistinguishable from reality is affordable to many? Its already happening. Its going to become more commonplace.
The problem of 'truth' becomes massive - is the thing presented to you something that actually happened or was it fabricated?
I assume you mean the Xbox One S, because the Series S doesn't have a disc drive.
Thanks for catching it. Unfortunately I missed the edit window for the post.
It does show you how poor naming conventions can screw you over. Then again naming things is one of the two* hardest problems in computing.
* (Zero based two).
Reminder that the 780ti was $700. The top spec SKU.
Nvidia has took the GPU shortage and now set that pricing as the norm. And people will eat it up like suckers.
Pricing can't be insane and causing huge demand at the same time...
Nvidia sets the bar and AMD follows. AMDs prices have slowly crept up as well. So no matter what, you're paying much more for a top spec GPU today than you ever have before.
It's in the best interests of both Nvidia and AMD to keep these prices high, and it's a detriment to the consumer.
AMD did it with their CPUs as well. They undercut Intel with some great price/performance deals. Grabbed their market share back and are now bumping those prices back up to parity with Intel. Now neither company has to cut their prices.
Nvidia will use artificial scarcity to push these prices. We know they can produce a shit tonne of GPUs, they did it for years.
Before the first Ryzen, only Intel Atom CPUs had a price around $50/core, while the better Intel Core CPUs had prices around $100/core. Then Intel had to also follow AMD and drop the prices for the top models to around $50/core (the "efficiency" cores in Alder Lake and Raptor Lake count as a half core).
So there is still hope that the RDNA 3 GPUs will have a more decent performance/price ratio, even if it is unlikely that they will be faster than the RTX 40 Series.
When it comes to certain luxury products, price increases actually do increase demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
It's why people pay thousands of dollars for a handbag cost maybe tens of dollars to produce. People like playing status games.
This effect is why third richest person on the planet is Bernard Arnault of Louis Vuitton, someone you've likely never heard of. He's currently wealthier than Bezos. He didn't actually improve our lives or revolutionize industry. He just latched into our primitive status seeking behavior.
It's likely he wouldn't be the third richest person with just Louis Vuitton and it's probably mostly because of LVMH.
For $2000 you could get better light beams in a game you're already playing, or if you're physically capable you could take a mountaineering course and get a helicopter to and from a remote climb
So if you're in the business of having almost anything else to do with the money, it's going to seem like a really tenous financial choice.
Specially 1600 for a component that need probably at least half that much more just to be fully utilized.
$30/mo doesn't hit as hard as $1100 up front. For some consumers, its a fundamentally different way of thinking.
$700 USD in 2013 is worth $900 USD in 2022. Almost a decade of inflation.
Also, the GTX Titan was $1000 USD msrp, which was essentially the 780Ti with double the memory.
It feels more like 700$ in 2013 would be worth now 1400$??
No. "Printing Money" is a shortcut term used for many of the measures used by the federal reserve recently, but it's not literally printing money in this case (significantly less than trillion has actually been printed since 2019). Going into the details of the economics of this is a mess, and inflation is absolutely high and causing problems right now, and very likely is higher than official CPI numbers but it's not anywhere near 100% in 3 years. Keep in mind lots of prices dropped in 2020 and were still recovering/suffering in 2021, so that paints a skewed picture vs comparing 2022 to 2019 before covid wrecked things.
> It feels more like 700$ in 2013 would be worth now 1400$??
USD$700 circa 2013 adjusted for inflation is USD$890 in 2022. Feel free to pay more if you feel like it should be more though.
3090 is still just fine and generates profits.
The price is right if you sell all you produce. Empty shelves means you charge too little.
Personally I think what they're doing is maximizing launch profit without totally crashing the 30x0 market which has a supply glut, something else board partners are worried about.
I'm really not sure why you think this is bad for board partners - you haven't really explained your reasoning and what you did say doesn't make much sense. This is all positive for board partners. It's the cheap founders edition cards that undercut board partners.
My understanding regarding the EVGA debacle is that Nvidia sets really high MSRP along with charging for the chips & giving themselves a headstart and the partners can't go above the MSRP then Nvidia comes in and slashes prices that only Nvidia can compete at (since they can give themselves discounts on the chips along with all of the other advantages they have).
What board partners likely want is either: Nvidia is time-limited to a few months with Founder Cards or Nvidia allows them to sell cards for more money and Nvidia can't make any card except Founder.
Mine was, something like 9 months later. But I got my queue email & had 24 hours to buy. Maybe dig through your emails to see if you just missed it? Or maybe the model you waitlisted on was basically cancelled.
However, NVIDIA added $200 for both smaller models making them $1200 and $900.
It is debatable whether 4090 is worth $1600, but in comparison with it the two 4080 models are grossly overpriced, taking into account their GPU sizes and their 2/3 and 1/2 memory sizes.
It's the Turing strategy all over again - when you have a stockpile of older cards, you don't make your new cards too attractive. And yes, they also have a big TSMC allocation too - but they gotta get rid of the Ampere stuff first, the longer it sits the more it will have to be marked down, launching new cards that obsolete the inventory they're trying to sell would just make things worse.
AMD is going to be doing the same thing - they pushed back the midrange Navi 33 and will be launching only the high-end Navi 31 until that miner inventory burns through a bit. Similarly to NVIDIA, that likely implies they'll be launching at a high price, they'll undercut NVIDIA by $100 or $200 or something and take the margins but they're not gonna be the heroes of the $700 market either.
---
The EVGA thing is a tempest in a teapot though, the losses he's talking about are something that's happened in the last month (he supposedly decided to quit back at the start of the year) and not representative of the (large, 10x normal) margins that board partners have been making in recent years. I personally didn't see much evidence of "price caps" with partner's first-party storefronts selling 3080s at 2.50-3x FE MSRP either.
And yes, jensen is an asshole and being a partner is a low-margin business, everyone already knows that.
EVGA is losing money because of some of it's CEO's ridiculous prestige side-projects (custom motherboards, enthusiast monitors, video capture cards that turned out to be falsely advertised, pcie sound cards, etc) and generous warranty support (long and transferable with absurdly cheap extended warranties) coupled with a higher-than-average failure rate (because they contract out assembly) and a generally lower-than-industry margin (because they contract out assembly) and they're just being drama queens on the way out.
Someone else with a personal axe to grind (EVGA tried to blacklist him for a critical review), but relaying some commentary from the other board partners: https://www.igorslab.de/en/evga-pulls-the-plug-with-loud-ban...
It is kind of mind boggling how this can happen for a country with almost infinite supply of hydro power, but here we are.
Of course, Norway being Norway, since the start of September we now get a 90% refund for everything above 0.7NOK (based on the average price of each 24 hours) so for most of us will survive.
Oh, and since most power plants are owned by the public this doesn't affect budgets as badly as it could have done.
(It is even more complicated but I don't have more time now. Someone please fill in if I got something really wrong. Also, yes, this is a wild tangent but thinking I know HN I guess it will the day a little less boring for someone : )
That’s not true, my contract is for 0.41 (EUR, but that’s kinda the same right now) and I’ve seen far higher prices. Unless you are talking wholesale, which might be true but is useless for a consumer comparison.
In California with PGE we pay $0.49/Kwh on peak if you're using above "baseline"
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-ra...
Our power bill for a <2000sqft single-family home is about $800 per month right now, and CA + PGE keep trying to do things like this to prevent solar from being worth it: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2022/08/cpuc-proposed-...
At that level you're really in the territory where people will trip breakers in their home. This is "you have to hire an electrician and rewire part of your house" level of power consumption, which doesn't seem sustainable? Or at least "don't turn the stove on at the same time", which seems like an awfully disruptive way to ask people to live.
Heck, at that level for homes/cities with older electric service at lower amperages, the computer is now a significant fraction of the total service capacity of your connection to the city grid.
What's the response then? "Sorry you're not living in a new build home, forget about gaming"?
For me the wall-power isn't a huge issue but now you have to think about air conditioning. 1-2KW dissipating in a closed room heats the room up fast. This is already a problem with the RTX 2000-series that I'm running now and it seems like it'll be even worse.
"Glad you want to game, now please evaluate your home's electrical and HVAC systems to ensure they are compatible with a giant box pumping 2KW of power and converting it directly to heat"
While reading this I felt a tinge of nostalgia for back when I had to ask my mother to stay off of the phone while I was online.
Maybe that's the genius of their plan? The chip designers continue to put out better & hotter processors and expect someone else to figure out cooling. Thermal design failures are not attributed to Intel and Nvidia, instead to OEMs and consumers.
Offering a more powerful GPU/CPU for people and use-cases that demand it is not a problem. Most games these days run well even on mid-tier cards of the 20 series, that's two generations ago. So people have all the choice in the world.
Just because a 1000 bhp LaFerrari exists in the market, doesn't mean you cannot buy a ~100 bhp Corolla. People who buy the Ferrari will need to take special care of their car to get the most out of it. That's a pleasure in itself for some.
At the high-end, Nvidia is making more powerful cards (HP) with the same fuel efficiency as before. Maybe they are making more efficient cards at the lower end but those don’t get attention on HN it seems.
No, perf/w is still climbing every generation. It'll climb hugely this generation too.
NVIDIA's marketing number is 2x perf at the same wattage as last gen, obviously needs to be validated by third party testing but they're shrinking two nodes at once here, it's a bigger node jump than Pascal was.
People have been primed to react negatively by a couple of twitter rumormongers like kopite7kimi. Yeah 4090 has a high TGP, but it's more like 400W TGP (450W TBP) and not the 800W TGP / 900W TBP that he was shouting from the rooftops about. There is still a huge gain in efficiency here, it's just also a very large (and expensive) chip on top of the higher efficiency.
But people don’t discard their incorrect mental frames when the information used to build them is falsified. Actually they just tend to retrench and dig deeper (“450W is still too much even if it is 2x perf/w!”). Ada is a power hog, “everybody knows it”.
https://videocardz.com/newz/flagship-nvidia-ada-sku-might-fe...
People said they wanted a balls-out big chip on a competitive node, that's exactly what the 4090 is, it's highly efficient and very large, this is much closer to the cutting edge of what the tech can deliver than Samsung 8nm junk or little baby 450mm2 dies. Now people are complaining about the TDP and the cost, even if it's more efficient that's not good enough. Unfortunately the TDP is a matter of physics, thermal density is going up every generation and a big chip on a modern node pulls a lot of power.
There are lower models in the stack too and those will maintain that efficiency benefit. It's a larger-than-pascal node shrink, efficiency is going up a lot here.
This is what Intel did for a while with their "tick tock" strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model
You'll be hard pressed to find a generation where power efficiency actually decreased. That didn't happen with the RTX 30xx series, for example. Even though power skyrocketed, performance increased by more than power did. Meaning efficiency still increased. That's been true for every generation I can think of, certainly all the more recent ones anyway. Maybe AMD had a few like that where they just re-rev'd the same architecture multiple times in a row.
With watercooling and a big rad, it can get even quieter.
the bigger issue is where all that additional heat is going and how. I'll be paying close attention to the SPL metrics for this generation.
What you describe is accurate, the 3090 Ti produces a tremendous amount of heat under load in my experience and I would expect the same with these new cards.
I was undervolting and underclocking my Titan XP for a long time (with a separate curve for gaming) but lost the config and have been lazy to go back. I mainly did this because it has a mediocre cooler (blower design that is not nearly as good as the current ones but also not terrible) and even at low usage it was producing a lot of heat and making some noise (the rest of my system I specifically designed to have super low noise).
Some people are probably in the target audience for the 4090. Others may prefer the 4080 models, which have a slightly lower TDP than the 3080 models but still get a nice performance boost from much higher clock rates.
This isn't necessarily a bad or losing strategy, BTW, it just is what it is. Data paths are often very hot and don't scale linearly in many dimensions, just like power usage doesn't. Using smaller bus widths and improving bus clock in return is a very legitimate strategy to improve overall performance, it's just one of those tough tradeoffs.
Rule of thumb: take any flagship GPU and undervolt it by 30%, saving 30% power/heat dissipation, and you'll retain +90% of the performance in practice. My 3080 is nominally 320/350W but in practice I just cliff it to about 280W and it's perfectly OK in everything.
[1] Some people might even be positively surprised, since a lot of the "leaks" (bullshit rumors) were posting astronomically ridiculous numbers like 800W+ for the 4090 Ti, etc.
Every time this comes up, people forget that:
1) Flagship cards like the 3090 Ti and 4090 consume significantly more power than typical cards. You should not buy a flagship card if power is a concern.
2) You don't have to buy the flagship card. Product lineups extend all the way down to tiny single-fan cards that fit inside of small cases and silent HTPCs. It's a range of products and they all have different power consumption.
3) You don't have to run any card at full power. It's trivial to turn the power limit down to a much lower number if you want. You can drop 1/3 of the power and lose only ~10-15% of the performance in many cases due to non-linear scaling.
4) The industry has already been shipping 450W TDP cards and it's fine.
If power is an issue, buy a lower power card. The high TDP cards are an option but that doesn't mean that every card consumes 450W
Physics is telling you that you need to let the chip "shrink" when you shrink. If you keep piling on more transistors (by keeping the chip the same size) then the power goes up. That's how it works now. If you make the chip even bigger... it goes up a lot. And NVIDIA is increasing transistor count by 2.6x here.
Efficiency (perf/w) is still going up significantly, but the chip also pulls more power on top of being more efficient. If that's not acceptable for your use-case, then you'll have to accept smaller chips and slower generational progress. The 4070 and 4060 will still exist if you absolutely don't want to go above 200W. Or you can buy the bigger chips and underclock them (setting a power limit is like two clicks) and run them in the efficiency sweet spot.
But, everyone always complains about "NVIDIA won't make big chips, why are they selling small chips at a big-chip price" and now they've finally gone and done a big chip on a modern node, and people are still finding reasons to complain about it. This is what a high-density 600mm2 chip on TSMC N5P running at competitive clockrates looks like, it's a property of the node and not anything in particular that NVIDIA has done here.
AMD's chips are on the same node and will be pretty spicy too - rumors are around 400W, for a slightly smaller chip. Again, TDP being more or less a property of the chip size and the node[0], that's what you'd expect. For a given library and frequency and assuming "average" transistor activity: transistor count determines die size, and die size determines TDP. You need to improve performance-per-transistor and that's no longer easy.
[0] an oversimplification ofc but still
That's the whole point of DLSS/XeSS/Streamline/potentially a DirectX API, get more performance-per-transistor by adding an accelerator unit which "punches above its weight" in some applicable task and pushes the perf/t curve upwards. But, people have whined nonstop about that since day 1 because using inference is a conspiracy from Big GPU to sell more tensor cores, or something, I guess. Surely there is some obvious solution to TAAU sample weighting that doesn't need inference, and it's just that every academic and programmer in the field has agreed not to talk about it for the last 20 years, right?
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?
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.
What's not computing for you?
PC Part Picker doesn't seem to think so: https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#X=0,70000&sort=price
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)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
And yes moore's law notionally died a long time ago, but it's been able to be hidden in various ways... and things are getting past the point where it can be hidden anymore.
Node costs are way way up these days, TSMC is expensive as hell and everyone else is at least 1 node behind. Samsung 5nm is worse than TSMC N7 for instance, and TSMC N7 is 5+ years old at this point.
Samsung 8nm (a 10+ node) used for Ampere was cheap as hell, that's why they did it, same for Turing, 12FFN is a rebranded 16nm non-plus with a larger reticle. People booed the low-cost offering and wanted something on a competitive, performant, efficient node... and now NVIDIA hopped to a very advanced customized N5P node (4N - not to be confused with TSMC N4, it is not N4, it is N5P with a small additional optical shrink etc) and people are back to whining about the cost. If they keep cost and power down by making the die size smaller... people whine they're stonewalling progress / selling small chips at big chip prices.
Finally we get a big chip on a competitive node, this is much closer to the edge of what the tech can deliver, and... people whine about the TDP and the cost.
Sadly, you don't get the competitive node, giant chip, and low prices all at the same time, that's not how the world works. Pick any two.
AMD is making some progress at shuffling the memory controller off to separate dies, which helps, but generally they're probably going to be fairly expensive too... they're launching the top of the stack first which is a similar Turing-style "capture the whales while the inventory of last-gen cards and miner inventory sells through" strategy. That likely implies decently high prices too.
There's nothing that can really be done about TDP either - thermal density is creeping up on these newer nodes too, and when you make a big chip at reasonable clocks the power gets high these days. AMD is expected to come in at >400W TBP on their products too.
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.)
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.
Wait till you hear about disposable vapes with perfectly rechargeable lithium-ion batteries
Intel has already moved to 2.0, and AMD is rumored to be supporting displayport 2.0
Would have liked to see this for 40 series, but I guess I will wait to build my first PC
But I assume that they will get a certification in the future.
For Thunderbolt, where it was Intel who did the certifications, many companies have sold motherboards or computers for months or years with non-certified Thunderbolt ports which worked OK, while waiting for the certification.
Strange since the new frame interpolation in DLSS 3 might bring us much closer to smooth motion on sample-and-hold displays.
Then it’s just a matter of managing envs for various projects. Smooth sailing.
When there was a monthly income from mining and selling ETH, with payback that could be counted in a few months, insane GPU prices made sense for miners (or combo gamer/miners.)
Without that, it's down to gamers with high discretionary income, and how well alternatives are priced. For example, if you can get an RTX 3080 or 3090 for less than $600, you might not consider the RTX 4080 or higher. If AMD releases competitive parts and undercuts their prices (I'd bet on this), these parts will likely take longer to sell, and drop in price.
Almost certainly, with Nvidia's overstock of RTX 3000 cards, they simply want the RTX 3000 to look good in comparison, and get sold, while they control the supply of RTX 4000 cards (perhaps only producing a relative trickle until the RTX 3000 are gone.) Then they could adjust prices to meet the market, and again the RTX 4000 "lower" prices will seem better (if only in comparison to the previous prices.)
(Disclaimer: I paid $800 for an AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB, and mined enough ETH to pay it off, and then stopped mining. I wanted it for gaming, but I did not think the price was reasonable.)
Really? RX 6650 XTs are already in the same price range as RTX 3050s. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change in the short term unless AMD does something really bad for their business.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
You might be able to pick up a card that was used for mining super cheap.
Whether this is just misdirection thrown around by crypto miners looking at a hole of sunk assets or not, I could not say. Personally I'd just buy new, but I have also probably never spent over 300usd on a card.
I'm looking forward to buying a used crypto mining card when the current one dies.
UPD: asked a friend to generate image on m1 with diffusion bee. It took 4 minutes 30 seconds to generate one 25 sample image. It is not even close and much worse than I thought.
Obviously your choice depends greatly on budget + availability of hardware, as well as your desired resolution, but I'd suggest the 2070 or 2080 (maybe 2080ti?) as a good starting point.
Or even 3090
Even for gaming though wouldn’t 3090 be more future-proof? 4K is really the way to experience games in 2021 and beyond
You certainly don't need a 3090 for gaming in 4K. nVidia's claim of the 3090 being a "4K" card is marketing bullshit. If a game can't be run in 4K on a 3080, then the 10-20% performance increase of a 3090 isn't likely to change that.
> Not so cheap if you're just using it for gaming
I am not even sure if there is any recent game that can utilize 24GB of a 3090.
Honestly everything VR takes up huge amounts of vram, it's not possible to run No Man's Sky at max settings with only 8gb vram, and you still might need to dial down some settings with 12gb vram.
This is with a Quest 2, I'm guessing headsets with higher resolution will be even more demanding.
It's not just double the memory, is faster memory as well. Although, less CUDA cores and also doesn't include latest NVENC encoder/decoder, nor AV1 encoder, so... Tradeoffs I guess :) For some people it will be worth it, for others no.
For what? AI shit? These are for games broski
the hardware for low-precision matrix multiplications in ML is mostly independent of the hardware that’s typically utilized for vertex and fragment shaders in computer graphics. It really only gets used for graphics if using DLSS. It’s not used at all for (integer) computations in cryptomining.
Are they for high-precision scientific simulations because it’s possible to multiply matrices on them? These cards are probably quite shit at double-precision matrix multiplications.
Yes and they make Quadros for those :)
I assume they will soon have a professional card announcement that includes 48GB+ cards. Assuming that the high ram cards have improvements similar to this generational leap in the gaming market, they will be in high demand.
Sure, but you dont buy a high end GPU and then buy the best one next generation... I mean some do sure but a high end GPU like this you keep for a few years...
To be fair the ability to easily purchase the cards didn't materialize either until recently. Why develop for what your consumer can't get?
I hope they come out with 4090TI with more memory though
But also doesn't account for poor programming. I remember a reddit post about God of War using 15gb of vram after a while of playing, probably a memory leak.
Having available vram just gives yourself headroom for newer games with higher quality textures, there was a game which name eludes me which shipped with 8k resolution textures for 4k gaming so it used like 10gb of vram? Or something along those lines.
But it can also be used for pre-caching stuff, like if you were playing WoW and the next zone was already precached so you don't need to load it from the disk.
I think that new tech Sony and MS were working on, direct storage access? Will play a bigger and better role than higher vram.
I only game at 1440p so I don't care for more than 8gb of vram.
horizon zero dawn, notably, was already VRAM-limited by 10gb cards several years ago and would run lower-quality assets on a 3080.
I'm completely bottlenecked on RAM, but for what I do, even a 3060 would be adequate performance.
For inference? You can’t generally shard an AI across multiple cards, but you can run multiple instances. Depends on what your trying to do.
In no case will it be a simple linear speedup, and you certainly can’t add the memory together.
Speed is generally not a serious issue:
- I'm not trying to scale to millions of users on inference; it's a dev machine
- Training is a bit of fine-tuning; I'm not building big models from scratch.
- Worst-case speed has gone into "annoying" territory, but never into prohibitive. Worst case, I can grab a coffee while things run.
- It's not a lot of coffee, since I'm trying to visualize some interesting things about some data. The majority of that is data cleaning, visualization, data engineering, UI/UX, meetings, and a million other things. My GPU is sitting idle >>95% of the time.
I am constrained by RAM. In the era of GPT2 -> GPT3, Stable Diffusion, etc., RAM becomes a major bottleneck. There are cloud workflows, but they aren't a great fit, both due to data security / regulatory issues, to how we plan to do dev ops / deployment, as well as just to time for integration.
Dropping $8k on 4x 24GB GPUs would be a no-brainer if it let me work with bigger models.
I'm sure people can describe Better Ways to Do Things, but changing workflows, system architecture, etc. to those workflows would be obviously out-of-scope for what I'm trying to do. At that point, I'm better off working with smaller models. They're good enough.
You can clearly see the graphics details have been reduced in the RTX off version. Check how the outline of the portal or the gun look like for example, completely different textures.
The window above also changed textures. It's _very_ dishonest.
It seems like they went from 384/320 bit width (on 3080) down to 256/190? Anyone know the story behind it?
The 30xx cards needs a wide bus to feed it, but with the L2 cache on the GPU, you can get away with a smaller bus width (and faster memory on top, things shifted in the last couple of years and DDR6(X) memory is even faster now than it was).
Some of this also has to do with what kind of memory configurations you want to offer, as they are tied to the bus width. So if you widen the bus, you are looking at using more memory chips and having more memory. This pushes the price point upward, and you want it to tier somewhere in the middle of it all.
One "mistake" on the 30xx (Ampere) series were that the 3080 was much too powerful for its price point, and you couldn't really cram too much more power out above it due to its memory config. With this change, you can introduce a 4080Ti in between the 4080 16Gb and the 4090 as a mid-seasonal upgrade, and widen the bus a bit to satisfy it.
4080 12GB: $900
4080 16GB: $1200
4090: $1600
Ampere specs: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/compare/
This looks like a smaller bump than Ampere. 3090 seems cheaper and better than 4080. As people have pointed out, what I'd really like is more / upgradeable RAM. NVidia is trying to not compete with their higher-end cards, but ML tools are increasingly consumer.
It kinda feels like cheating.
This is starting to look like a repeat of Geforce FX vs Radeon 9700 Pro all over again.
Note that the 3070 had a launch MSRP of 500$.
Stop being a corporate apologist. Nvidia is known for anti consumer behaviour since forever. This is just another Turingesque launch. i.e. bad.
I swear you "but the tax" people always crawl out the woodwork whenever someone is discontent with pricing.
As far as the price, the equivalent card from the 3 series was the 3090 RTX, which released at $1499 msrp 2 years ago. Given the inflation over past few years, $100 increase is not an increase in constant dollars. This new top of the line card has twice the performance for effectively the same price.
Yes these top of the line cards are crazy expensive, but it doesn’t seem like this is actually worse than the 3 series pricing. You are talking about more than 6 Xbox’s worth of compute here for an ultra enthusiast market.
My 2070 Super is still getting me along pretty well, we'll see if an upgrade is worth it.
E: At those MSRP's posted by other commenters....not likely, goddamn.
Luckily 'en-gb' is less likely to be overridden than 'en-us'.
Where are all the good web developer at
Absolutely hate how 4080 16GB and 4080 12GB are completely different products under the same name. That's good old nvidia for you.
Your comment is kinda weird.
You don't have permission to access "http://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series..." on this server.
Reference #18.3df06e68.1663689222.96a3b41'
That said the Mac Studio is a pretty badass machine. Don't let me dissuade you from one if you just want it. But it's a worse choice if you just want to dabble in ML stuff, IMO. Staying with the well trodden road will help you more when you're new to it all.
Modern GPUs use virtual memory so they can see very large amounts of data and the GPU and OS will work together to page data in and out, like normal RAM. But if you want good performance, you need to work out of VRAM, so you need as much of it as possible, so you aren't paging data in and out. (More specifically to answer your question, yes it will page data from SSD into RAM and then into VRAM; this is because the data must pass through the memory controller in practice on most designs to go over PCIe, but if you are using fancier Tesla/Quadro cards, they can actually do P2P DMA transfers and go directly from SSD -> GPU, but this requires special care and support from all pieces of hardware inbetween.)
Note that in a funny twist of fate, the M1 series from Apple kind of has an advantage here. They use very high-bandwidth LPDDR5X for their designs, and the GPU and CPU share that. Which means that in theory, the Mac Studio for example could have astronomically large amounts of VRAM dedicated to a task like ML. So why not use a Mac? Because the hardware is only good as the software you run it on, and training/tuning ML software on Macs is simply nowhere near as well polished as Linux/Nvidia. That's all it comes down to. And I say "well polished" very liberally; in practice it's all a bit of a hodge-podge nightmare because the job is very hodge-podge...
On the other hand, these GPUs are very very good for gaming - with DLSS, most of modern games will run at high details at 4K and look like something that scifi shows dreamed of just 10 years back.
Need the equivalent of multiple linked A40s.
For comparison, the 3090 launched at $1500.
Last year I was bored in the hospital with little to do, so I decided it was time to build a new PC after upgrading my last build from 2009 for many years. I was completely out of touch with the parts buying experience and the shortages/price-hikes. I was genuinely baffled when I found out I could not buy a video card from any PC part store. I managed to snag a 2070 super secondhand for a not ridiculous price, and I was lucky for it.
I've waited a long time and I'm just excited that I might be able to get a 4070 some time in the new year.
Still works great at 1440p
EDIT: Ah, archive.org has it: http://web.archive.org/web/20220920152158/https://www.nvidia...
> Ab XXX,XX $ > Verfügbar ab Monat XX.
So I believe it'll get removed soon again.
I'm more excited about the Hopper server-class cards — not because I'll be using them, but because now Stability can swap their A100s for H100s and train more Stable Diffusion models for me to mess around with!
Why decrease overall power consumption of the top of the line cards? PSUs and cooling can handle it and it’s for the customer that wants top performance. There are plenty of other cards in the line at lower total wattage with a good performance per watt.
"Good enough to improve Portal and Skyrim" - exciting news in 2022.
Also, games demos in 1080p stream... 4k is just must-have for it. Apple can do it, so can you, Nvidia.
When you mentioned Skyrim, you got me going.
It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean that games have remained the same for 5 years, or that there's no reason to upgrade. If you don't want to, go ahead, but there is definitely appetite for faster cards.
But the issue is that games industry derotated into current sore state.
MTX everywhere and rarely you get a full version of a GOOD game.
So yes. My current card will probably wait till gaming industry will reinvent itself.
Its not really me, good games are just not created as often now.
Unclear wrt space, heat, and power.
There is ZERO point to playing games that need more power.
As all games for eternity. If you release a game that doesn't it will end up in historys waste basket together with 2077.
The games I did try on it are: PUBG (~55 FPS), Fortnite (60), Java Minecraft with bad mods (60), Scrap Mechanic (60), Sable (40-50).
Make sure you get a DDR5 version though, DDR4 is 30% less performant for Unity/Unreal games.
Which means Fortnite is still playable because that probably gets 90 FPS without vsync. And so are Java Minecraft and Scrap Mechanic.
PUBG and Sable would be annoying to play on a DDR4 card.
Not for me, but for Microsoft and all those that would want to play that game now and specially in the future when a KWh becomes more expensive than $1.
Why is this megacorp using this famous person's name for marketing? Does the 40XX series have anything to do with Ada Lovelace at all?
(Yes I know Ada Lovelace passed away a long time ago so the name is probably free to use without paying her estate.)
This does mark a departure from a convention of only single surnames, and one could surmise as to why that decision was made. Though one might also consult a Falsehoods list, since 'Ada Lovelace' was never $first_name $last_name to begin with, having been derived from something like /(Augusta Ada|Ada Augusta) King \(née Byron\), Countess of Lovelace/
Even whole companies are named after famous people that have nothing to do with the company (Tesla, Faraday Future, etc)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_(microarchitecture)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius_(microarchitecture)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_(microarchitecture)
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/06/01/intels-newest-processo...
> Until the mid-1990s, Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel internally named its processors after cartoons, dead musicians and other well-known monikers. Attorneys for the late rocker Frank Zappa helped put an end to that practice after reaching out to the company about a potential trademark violation, said Intel spokesman Bill Calder. The legal team for the world’s largest computer-chip maker subsequently ordered that any new product code names be based on “existing, non-trademarked places in North America that can be found on a map,” Calder said.
> After struggling to find a suitable or available name in Oregon, where much of the chip design team is based, he stumbled upon Haswell in his ZIP code database.
> “I didn’t know anything about Haswell other than that it’s a good name,” Hampsten said. “Another reason I liked it, it had a suffix — well — which I could use for various other names.”
But realisitcally it hits amazon, best buy, what's the real price going to be? these rates or another 30 to 50%?
bandwith limited, you pay for the dlss licence, not the hardware
The combination of the Steam Deck w/ Xbox Cloud Gaming, has changed how I will move forward with PC gaming.
I think in the future, I'd want to use steam deck w/ an external GPU when driving my large monitor, and then cloud streaming, SoC gpu for handheld mode.
1) The latency will always be a problem, and for me low latency gameplay IS the reason I play games.
2) When the cloud providers electricity contract runs out the cloud service will cost 10x.
Location matters greatly here. There are tons of data centers in my area due to stable electricity prices due to a high nuclear base generation capacity. I paid the same ten years ago as I do now.
I think marginal prices are going to shuffle the board pretty harshly from now on though!
Energy does not create itself out of thin air. (except from the sun, and that takes millions of years to get stored as coal, oil and gas) so it's just a matter of time before the nuclear plants margins are going to break too.
I was for nuclear after I discovered uranium has 1.000.000.000x the energy contents per weight of batteries but now I realize without cheap marginal coal, oil and gas nuclear is too risky.
As I see it now the only solution is to reduce consumption, yeasterday voluntarily or tomorrow (today in EU) dragged by our hair.
Press button -> see the light coming out of the TV.
No benchmark crap.
My fantasy was the steam deck 2 having egpu support.