It's the Asus tax. Their Matrix model was also the most expensive 4090 out there. But really all the AIBs are charging a much bigger markup on 5090s on top of the original high price.
It's the Asus tax. Their Matrix model was also the most expensive 4090 out there. But really all the AIBs are charging a much bigger markup on 5090s on top of the original high price.I saw that too and about gagged. $2000 is already sky high but adding another 40% to that for a fancy cooler is ludicrous. 🙄
They know anyone willing to buy the 5090 isn't concerned at all about value. Throwing a few extra hundred at the card doesn't mean much. It's already $2000 for only a 30% performance increase.It's the Asus tax. Their Matrix model was also the most expensive 4090 out there. But really all the AIBs are charging a much bigger markup on 5090s on top of the original high price.
Very curious that 5090 performs almost 9% faster on average in 4K Max RT when paired with a 13900K than with a 9800X3D in Tom's Hardware review. Thats quite a large margin in the most relevant settings to a 5090. Has it been tested in any other review?
Minecraft supports full path tracing, as well as DLSS 2 upscaling on RTX cards. We don't enable DLSS, and the 5090 actually doesn't allow us to do that — a game or driver bug of some form.
The 5090 really underperformed in this game when running on the 9800X3D, but did better on the 13900K; Nvidia is looking into the situation.
At least the cost of the 5080 is the same of the 4080 Super, so while the improvements might not be impressive, it's not likely to be worse.Reviews of 5080 and down are likely to be brutal since even 5090 isn't that impressive
Only meaningful improvement is DLSS 4 using better model which will also work fine on 40 series. Smart choice is to skip this gen - it won't last long and next time they'll have to give 3 GB modules too by default and N3E.At least the cost of the 5080 is the same of the 4080 Super, so while the improvements might not be impressive, it's not likely to be worse.
Reflex 2 (frame warp) is only meant for competitive games and not compatible with FGReflex 2 might help with the latency, where is it?
That's disappointing.Reflex 2 (frame warp) is only meant for competitive games and not compatible with FG
Theres been some chatter online that heavy BVH processing in RT at 4K favors faster memory and mem latency of 13900K. As 4K non RT is pretty even / favors 9800X3D but 4K RT doesnt, there may be some merit to this. In any case, this result certainly shows that a 9800X3D is not at all a prerequisite for the 5090, as anyone buying 5090 for less than 4K + max RT needs their head checked.As much as I dislike HWUB, they have a review showing the 9800x3d pulling ahead in 1080 through 4k in a decent amount of games. BUT, it's raster only, add DLSS and the margin shrinks. Although there are still graphical glitches.
It definitely shows the 9800x3d has more head room than any other "publicly' available chip.
If I can refind it in the youtube feed I'll link it.
AKA the AI dudesas anyone buying 5090 for less than 4K + max RT needs their head checked.
Reflex 2 (frame warp) is only meant for competitive games and not compatible with FG
Reflex 2 (frame warp) is only meant for competitive games and not compatible with FG
MFG isn't necessarily bad, it's just ahead of its time? It needs both high FPS and monitor refresh to really shine. Reflex 2 might help with the latency, where is it?
I recall you need to combine high fps physics fix with something else to get the right game speed. I set it all up a while ago. I prefer to use 120fps even with the game speed problems, it's a huge improvement over 60fps. But this is an ancient engine that doesn't need a modern GPU to begin with for 120fps.I've played 1000+ hours of Fallout 3,NV, 4 happily at 60 Hz. The game engine really needs a lot of help going beyond 60, but I finally got around to trying the "High FPS Physics fix" in FO4, and had it running correctly near 120 FPS on my VRR monitor. My response: "I think I see some small benefit, maybe". But after playing a while like that I hit some areas where it started having frame pacing issues, and that was very noticeable and jarring. So I switched back to 60 FPS and it was perfectly smooth again...
So fake frames are completely wasted on me. Adding artifacts I can see, and latency, to increase the frame output rate that I don't see any benefit from. It's just lose-lose for me.
I recall you need to combine high fps physics fix with something else to get the right game speed. I set it all up a while ago. I prefer to use 120fps even with the game speed problems, it's a huge improvement over 60fps. But this is an ancient engine that doesn't need a modern GPU to begin with for 120fps.
That's a really great video by HUB. I think they did a good job balancing that 4x and MFG in general isn't bad per se, but also showing that it's also not really performance.MFG isn't necessarily bad, it's just ahead of its time? It needs both high FPS and monitor refresh to really shine. Reflex 2 might help with the latency, where is it?
That might be the difference. I think it's much more noticeable with mouse movements. Even on the desktop the difference is completely obvious to me.
I have a 360 Hz OLED. Didn't feel much difference in a few short sessions of Quake 2 RTX on it. In contrast, input lag can be pretty nasty. Takes all the fun out of playing.I'd love to see some testing of how many people could detect higher frame rate difference when gaming only using a controller, I'd bet the numbers fall a LOT. But I won't hold my breath on that testing, everyone sponsoring tests seems to want to use higher FPS to sell you more expensive GPU's or Monitors, and now more Fake Frames.