Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghastmaster | Hacker News Reader

AMD's decision to back out of the high end cards seems even more logical given this information. High end may be trending too powerful. I used to buy the high end cards, but my next one will not be so. The cost and the power consumption are large factors in that decision. I do not need nor can I afford a super computer for gaming.

View on HN

Does it really? I keep thinking that they could just slap on 32G of VRAM on a midrange card and they would get roaring enthusiast support. I'm guessing the only reason they don't do that is to not encroach on their more expensive ML cards?

For gaming I would be happy with 16GB card. Enough to survive three or so generations more.

I personally game a bit but I spend more time these days experimenting with deep learning so I would pay a premium for extra VRAM on my home machine.

It seems both Nvidia and Intel are now brute forcing things with more energy consumption and possibly much larger dies. Which is not that great in either power efficiency or costs.

Doing best at 100-150W GPU at top seems most responsible move to me. With reasonable cost for the GPU to boot.

Have you ever considered Geforce Now? It's incredible to use, and all the power consumption is in their data center instead of your home. Right now it's a 4080 but presumably they'll upgrade to 5080s once those are out.

I used to build my own PCs, but GFN is a much nicer (and significantly cheaper!) experience overall. I can play everything on ultra, at 4k (with DLSS) for $20/mo and don't need to worry about keeping up with new GPUs or local heat, noise, and system maintenance. For an aged, busy gamer, it's really really nice.

The load times are pretty terrible and game compatibility is 80-90%. But otherwise I are it’s a good deal. Great for turn based and rpg type games, but very mid for first person. I would recommend it with those reservations. Also I don’t think the high end tier is worth it because of the bandwidth inconsistency in their data centers.

Load times, you mean when you first start a game? Once you're in, everything is fast.

As for bandwidth inconsistencies, what do you mean? In the US northwest and in Chicago at least, I've had the high tier for years and it's been fantastic. Sure it's not your ISP or router? FWIW I've found hardwired ethernet to work a lot better than WIFI.

Yeah first start is such a terrible experience. 2-3 splash screens all taking forever. Compared to modern consoles where you can just suspend and go. Once it gets going it’s a non issue but fists start up is a couple minutes which is aggravating

What games are you playing? I'm guessing FPS don't work so well with latency

I do play shooters from time to time. It's not quite as smooth as a good local GPU, but perfectly playable if you're not competitive. A bit of Destiny 2, The Division 2, Remnant 2, Apex Legends, a bunch of other forgettable extraction shooters, etc. I win some matches but not a lot. At my level, it's my skill (or lack thereof) that's the bottleneck, not GFN lag. If you're trying to go pro, I probably wouldn't consider this good enough. But for casual play it's great.

With 120fps and Reflex on a fast connection, the lag is minimal and lower than what you might find on many consoles with TV lag. Not as crystal smooth as a true high end PC with a fast mouse and 240 Hz monitor, but really not as bad as you'd fear.

Aside from shooters, I play 95% of my games on GFN (along with a handful of unsupported ones using Crossover or Parallels, which both suck compared to GFN). Mostly ARPGs these days (PoE, D4, Last Epoch), some factory games and city builders (Cities Skylines, Frostpunk), and a handful of light sims (Snowrunner).

It's so nice. I could never afford a 4080 or any of their GPUs anymore, but honestly I wouldn't bother even if I could. Not having to manage my own thermals and noise is amazing, as is being able to play on a MacBook, my handheld, my phone, and my TV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com