If that's not just hot hair from NVIDIA, I totally get the business decision from AMD but man, would love some more competition in the higher end.
Personally? It's a no for me dawg, DLSS unfortunately doesn't actually replace the need for the raw GPGPU crunch.
For the average layman and a consumer? Nvidia will be selling those GPU's like hotcakes.
That said, if you read between the lines, it looks like the new 5090 is about ~40% faster than the 4090 at rasterisation. That’s a solid inter generational improvement.
DLSS is absolutely the answer for gaming for the masses. DLSS will continue to improve and is far, far cheaper at creating intermediary frames than rendering them for real.
I buy my cards for AI first and gaming second, though. So DLSS is little use to me. 5090 is a bit of a weak improvement over the 4090 for me, but here we are.
In other words, the same performance at somewhere in the range of 2x-3.5x lighter workload. In other words, vastly different performance under same workload. It is veeery on the edge of false advertisement for them to omit the information in parentheses until later in the presentation. :)
That line should have been “4090 frame rates on budget hardware thanks to DLSS 4” or something like that.
Anyway, my point with those lines was to highlight just how defensive AMD was vs how offensive NVIDIA was.
Never trust vendor performance claims (these specifically rely on 3x frame generation), and never assume cards will be available at MSRP.
That's obviously a marketing hoax. Spray DLSS and other tricks and you can make this kind of claims while the raw power is clearly on the side of the 4090
0: https://www.techradar.com/computing/gpu/amd-announces-new-ra...
Update: typical HN behavior. someone is downvoting all my comments one by one...
edit: confirmed.
You cant downvote older comments or comments older than 1 / 2 days.