You must log in or # to comment.
It covers the breadth of problems pretty well, but I feel compelled to point out that there are a few times where things are misrepresented in this post e.g.:
Newegg selling the ASUS ROG Astral GeForce RTX 5090 for $3,359 (MSRP: $1,999)
eBay Germany offering the same ASUS ROG Astral RTX 5090 for €3,349,95 (MSRP: €2,229)
The MSRP for a 5090 is $2k, but the MSRP for the 5090 Astral – a top-end card being used for overclocking world records – is $2.8k. I couldn’t quickly find the European MSRP but my money’s on it being more than 2.2k euro.
If you’re a creator, CUDA and NVENC are pretty much indispensable, or editing and exporting videos in Adobe Premiere or DaVinci Resolve will take you a lot longer[3]. Same for live streaming, as using NVENC in OBS offloads video rendering to the GPU for smooth frame rates while streaming high-quality video.
NVENC isn’t much of a moat right now, as both Intel and AMD’s encoders are roughly comparable in quality these days (including in Intel’s iGPUs!). There are cases where NVENC might do something specific better (like 4:2:2 support for prosumer/professional use cases) or have better software support in a specific program, but for common use cases like streaming/recording gameplay the alternatives should be roughly equivalent for most users.
as recently as May 2025 and I wasn’t surprised to find even RTX 40 series are still very much overpriced
Production apparently stopped on these for several months leading up to the 50-series launch; it seems unreasonable to harshly judge the pricing of a product that hasn’t had new stock for an extended period of time (of course, you can then judge either the decision to stop production or the still-elevated pricing of the 50 series).
DLSS is, and always was, snake oil
I personally find this take crazy given that DLSS2+ / FSR4+, when quality-biased, average visual quality comparable to native for most users in most situations and that was with DLSS2 in 2023, not even DLSS3 let alone DLSS4 (which is markedly better on average). I don’t really care how a frame is generated if it looks good enough (and doesn’t come with other notable downsides like latency). This almost feels like complaining about screen space reflections being “fake” reflections. Like yeah, it’s fake, but if the average player experience is consistently better with it than without it then what does it matter?
Increasingly complex manufacturing nodes are becoming increasingly expensive as all fuck. If it’s more cost-efficient to use some of that die area for specialized cores that can do high-quality upscaling instead of natively rendering everything with all the die space then that’s fine by me. I don’t think blaming DLSS (and its equivalents like FSR and XeSS) as “snake oil” is the right takeaway. If the options are (1) spend $X on a card that outputs 60 FPS natively or (2) spend $X on a card that outputs upscaled 80 FPS at quality good enough that I can’t tell it’s not native, then sign me the fuck up for option #2. For people less fussy about static image quality and more invested in smoothness, they can be perfectly happy with 100 FPS but marginally worse image quality. Not everyone is as sweaty about static image quality as some of us in the enthusiast crowd are.
There’s some fair points here about RT (though I find exclusively using path tracing for RT performance testing a little disingenuous given the performance gap), but if RT performance is the main complaint then why is the sub-heading “DLSS is, and always was, snake oil”?
obligatory: disagreeing with some of the author’s points is not the same as saying “Nvidia is great”
I don’t really care how a frame is generated if it looks good enough (and doesn’t come with other notable downsides like latency). This almost feels like complaining about screen space reflections being “fake” reflections. Like yeah, it’s fake, but if the average player experience is consistently better with it than without it then what does it matter?
But it does come with increased latency. It also disrupts the artistic vision of games. With MFG you’re seeing more fake frames than real frames. It’s deceptive and like snake oil in that Nvidia isn’t distinguishing between fake frames and real frames. I forget what the exact comparison is, but when they say “The RTX 5040 has the same performance as the RTX 4090” but that’s with 3 fake frames for every real frame, that’s incredibly deceptive.
He’s talking about DLSS upscaling - not DLSS Frame Generation - which doesn’t add latency.
It does add latency, you need 1-2ms to upscale the frame. However, if you are using a lower render resolution (instead of going up in resolution while rendering internally the same) then the latency will be lower because you have a higher frame rate
Yeah, so it doesn’t add latency. It takes like 1-2ms iirc in the pipeline, which like you said is less than/the same/negligibly more than it would take to render at the native resolution.
Which also means it’s not possible to use it to go to 1000 fps
So it has limits? Oh no…… At 1000fps you can’t do much rendering effects at all. Luckily no one, and I do literally mean no one, plays games at 1000fps.
Yes, but that also means there’s no FPS advantage at all at 500 Hz using DLSS and people do play at 500Hz
deleted by creator
Only Cyberpunk 2077 in path tracing. The only game i have not played until i can run it on ultra settings. But for that amount of money, i better wait until the real 2077 to see it happen.
The studio has done a great job. You most certainly have heard it already, but I am willing to say it again: the game is worth playing with whatever quality you can afford, save stutter-level low fps - the story is so touching it outplays graphics completely (though I do share the desire to play it on ultra settings - will do one day myself)
