https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series/
No doubt a day one purchase for well-off peeps with high-end
racing/flightsim setups at 4k. Whether the cheaper $900/$1200 4080 versions
would be tempting upgrades for present 3080 owners is an interesting
question. My 2yr-old $800 3080 is likely worth little on ebay, and since
I've been happy at 1440p and mostly play less-demanding games, the yearning
to upgrade just isn't there for now, and I'll wait until a 4k OLED monitor
in just the right formfactor appears before considering one of these nextgen
cards.

Also, AMD will be launching their RDNA3 lineup in November.

rms

On 20/09/2022 18:23, rms wrote:
> https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series/
>   No doubt a day one purchase for well-off peeps with high-end
> racing/flightsim setups at 4k.  Whether the cheaper $900/$1200 4080
> versions would be tempting upgrades for present 3080 owners is an
> interesting question.  My 2yr-old $800 3080 is likely worth little on
> ebay, and since I've been happy at 1440p and mostly play less-demanding
> games, the yearning to upgrade just isn't there for now, and I'll wait
> until a 4k OLED monitor in just the right formfactor appears before
> considering one of these nextgen cards.
>
> Also, AMD will be launching their RDNA3 lineup in November.
>

Well that's cheap!

As I've probably said before my days of buying higher end graphics cards
are long behind me and even then I went for the more expensive ones I
wouldn't go for the most expensive but try and hit that sweet spot. My
last upgrade was from an ageing GTX 570 HD* to a budget end GTX 1650 OC.
I did think about moving into the mid-range but I just couldn't justify
it when I really don't have, or want, any games that the 1650 isn't more
than capable of running to what I find is an acceptable level. I'm sure
I'd find what a card like the 4090 could do is impressive but ultimately
I know that for me the novelty quickly wears off.

*Even that upgrade was kinda forced on me as I thought it was failing
due to the appearance of graphical artefacts but in reality it was the
PSU that was most likely the core problem.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 1:26:53 AM UTC-7, JAB wrote:
> On 20/09/2022 18:23, rms wrote:
> > https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series/
> > No doubt a day one purchase for well-off peeps with high-end
> > racing/flightsim setups at 4k. Whether the cheaper $900/$1200 4080
> > versions would be tempting upgrades for present 3080 owners is an
> > interesting question. My 2yr-old $800 3080 is likely worth little on
> > ebay, and since I've been happy at 1440p and mostly play less-demanding
> > games, the yearning to upgrade just isn't there for now, and I'll wait
> > until a 4k OLED monitor in just the right formfactor appears before
> > considering one of these nextgen cards.
> >
> > Also, AMD will be launching their RDNA3 lineup in November.
> >
> Well that's cheap!
>
> As I've probably said before my days of buying higher end graphics cards
> are long behind me and even then I went for the more expensive ones I
> wouldn't go for the most expensive but try and hit that sweet spot. My
> last upgrade was from an ageing GTX 570 HD* to a budget end GTX 1650 OC.
> I did think about moving into the mid-range but I just couldn't justify
> it when I really don't have, or want, any games that the 1650 isn't more
> than capable of running to what I find is an acceptable level. I'm sure
> I'd find what a card like the 4090 could do is impressive but ultimately
> I know that for me the novelty quickly wears off.
>
> *Even that upgrade was kinda forced on me as I thought it was failing
> due to the appearance of graphical artefacts but in reality it was the
> PSU that was most likely the core problem.

Seeing as how I just bought a 3060 Ti to play Elden Ring, not going to
happen here either. I'll probably upgrade my CPU next, which of course
means MB/CPU & Ram. I was thinking about doing it soon as I'm on
Win 10 and it's complaining my computer doesn't meet requirements
for 11. On the other hand I don't see any reason to, I've got 11 on my
work computers, and it's just more of a pain in the ass to get to settings
I want. I did see Vampire Slayers was bottlenecking pretty hard on
the CPU, but performance mode works to fix that.

I usually don't upgrade unless there's something I really want to play,
or several somethings that my GPU really can't handle even
with minimum graphics.

- Justisaur
ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:26:51 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 20/09/2022 18:23, rms wrote:
>> https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series/
>>   No doubt a day one purchase for well-off peeps with high-end
>> racing/flightsim setups at 4k.  Whether the cheaper $900/$1200 4080
>> versions would be tempting upgrades for present 3080 owners is an
>> interesting question.  My 2yr-old $800 3080 is likely worth little on
>> ebay, and since I've been happy at 1440p and mostly play less-demanding
>> games, the yearning to upgrade just isn't there for now, and I'll wait
>> until a 4k OLED monitor in just the right formfactor appears before
>> considering one of these nextgen cards.
>>
>> Also, AMD will be launching their RDNA3 lineup in November.
>>
>
>Well that's cheap!
>
>As I've probably said before my days of buying higher end graphics cards
>are long behind me and even then I went for the more expensive ones I
>wouldn't go for the most expensive but try and hit that sweet spot. My
>last upgrade was from an ageing GTX 570 HD* to a budget end GTX 1650 OC.
>I did think about moving into the mid-range but I just couldn't justify
>it when I really don't have, or want, any games that the 1650 isn't more
>than capable of running to what I find is an acceptable level. I'm sure
>I'd find what a card like the 4090 could do is impressive but ultimately
>I know that for me the novelty quickly wears off.
>
>*Even that upgrade was kinda forced on me as I thought it was failing
>due to the appearance of graphical artefacts but in reality it was the
>PSU that was most likely the core problem.
>
*---

I don't know why, but my eVGA GeForce RTX Super 2700 is still doing a
great job. I play everything at maximum resolution and quality without
any signs of a slowdown.

If anything, if I was to buy something it would probably be a monitor
of higher resolutions and features than my current Dell Gaming
monitors (I have two 27 inch ones).

I don't know what the fancy terms means for the new monitors any way.

-pw

On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:23:52 -0600, "rms"
<rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:

>https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series/
> No doubt a day one purchase for well-off peeps with high-end
>racing/flightsim setups at 4k. Whether the cheaper $900/$1200 4080 versions
>would be tempting upgrades for present 3080 owners is an interesting
>question. My 2yr-old $800 3080 is likely worth little on ebay, and since
>I've been happy at 1440p and mostly play less-demanding games, the yearning
>to upgrade just isn't there for now, and I'll wait until a 4k OLED monitor
>in just the right formfactor appears before considering one of these nextgen
>cards.

nVidia's CEO also just recently announced, essentially, that Moore's
Law is dead and GPUs have no option to go up in price. Well, he
controls a company that has a virtual stranglehold on GPUs, so I'm
sure he's trustworthy in this regard, right?

My days of paying excessively high amounts for a GPU are long past, I
think. Back in the day, I'd happily sling $200-400 USD for a video
card (and might even go through several per year at that price) but
I'm not sure I see the value in it anymore.

Graphics are more-and-more becoming 'good enough' and a lot of
developers - especially the Indies - are relying more on clever
artistry than pushing polygons to differentiate themselves. The only
ones who can really afford to develop the super high-end visuals are
the triple-A publishers, and their products are becoming less and less
interesting as far as gameplay and value are concerned. So if I'm
running a GPU two or three generations old? That's fine as far as I'm
concerned.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 13:50:17 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:23:52 -0600, "rms"
><rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>
>>https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series/
>> No doubt a day one purchase for well-off peeps with high-end
>>racing/flightsim setups at 4k. Whether the cheaper $900/$1200 4080 versions
>>would be tempting upgrades for present 3080 owners is an interesting
>>question. My 2yr-old $800 3080 is likely worth little on ebay, and since
>>I've been happy at 1440p and mostly play less-demanding games, the yearning
>>to upgrade just isn't there for now, and I'll wait until a 4k OLED monitor
>>in just the right formfactor appears before considering one of these nextgen
>>cards.
>
>nVidia's CEO also just recently announced, essentially, that Moore's
>Law is dead and GPUs have no option to go up in price. Well, he
>controls a company that has a virtual stranglehold on GPUs, so I'm
>sure he's trustworthy in this regard, right?
>
>My days of paying excessively high amounts for a GPU are long past, I
>think. Back in the day, I'd happily sling $200-400 USD for a video
>card (and might even go through several per year at that price) but
>I'm not sure I see the value in it anymore.
>
>Graphics are more-and-more becoming 'good enough' and a lot of
>developers - especially the Indies - are relying more on clever
>artistry than pushing polygons to differentiate themselves. The only
>ones who can really afford to develop the super high-end visuals are
>the triple-A publishers, and their products are becoming less and less
>interesting as far as gameplay and value are concerned. So if I'm
>running a GPU two or three generations old? That's fine as far as I'm
>concerned.
>
I'm still running a 1080GTX that I paid $600 for. I'm not going into RTX
until it is fully mature.

2000 series was definitely not, I mean, they put ray-tracing into
Minecraft and Quake 2, ffs.

3000 series was the first serious attempt at it, but prices went nutso,
and games showed serious lack of detail to accomodate the ray tracing
overhead (I'm looking at you Cyberpunk).

4000 series is the first one I'll evaluate for a purchase, and probably a
4060, because... nutso prices.

But rn, my 1080 does just fine, and I have a ridiculous backlog of games
that will run on it perfectly. It's near top-of-the line pre-ray tracing.
I'm not convinced at all that ray tracing is worth the ransom Nvidia is
charging for it. That and the cards are getting too long to even fit in
my case! I'm very resistant to recasing my computer.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>nVidia's CEO also just recently announced, essentially, that Moore's
>Law is dead and GPUs have no option to go up in price. Well, he
>controls a company that has a virtual stranglehold on GPUs, so I'm
>sure he's trustworthy in this regard, right?

Even monopolists have to set prices based on demand if they want to
maximize profits. I think Nvidia may have a unrealistic expectation
about what the demand for thier cards is likely to end up being.
Their pricing seems to be based on the same logic they used when
they increased prices for their last couple of generations of GPUs.
Consumer demand was growing, while demand from cryto miners was exploding.

This time though, consumer spending on PCs is way down, and is only
likely to fall even further. Demand from crypto miners has already
collapsed and may never recover now that Ethereum has moved away from
a proof-of-work model.

Moore's Law is dead but Nvidia has relatively large profit margins for an
electronics company, so they have room to keep prices stable, even lower
them, despite their costs increasing. Mind you if the demand Nvidia is
expecting doesn't materialize, it'll be their board partners that will
be forced lower prices and then go begging to Nvidia to lower chip prices.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

>I don't know why, but my eVGA GeForce RTX Super 2700 is still doing a
>great job. I play everything at maximum resolution and quality without
>any signs of a slowdown.

You're playing elden ring with this? I guess at 1080p it would manage.
You're likely not getting HDR with that setup either.

rms

Am 22.09.22 um 19:50 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> Graphics are more-and-more becoming 'good enough' and a lot of
> developers - especially the Indies - are relying more on clever
> artistry than pushing polygons to differentiate themselves. The only
> ones who can really afford to develop the super high-end visuals are
> the triple-A publishers, and their products are becoming less and less
> interesting as far as gameplay and value are concerned. So if I'm
> running a GPU two or three generations old? That's fine as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
Same here, I am happily playing 90% of the games on my Steam Deck
nowadays and that thing only has a measly APU. But it is also not
pushing resolution boundaries, which is perfectly fine being a mobile
device.
I can hold off from a new gpu purchase for several years, even with VR
in mind. Foveated rendering will offload a ton of rendering load from
the gpus in the next gen.

Am 23.09.22 um 03:19 schrieb Ross Ridge:
> Even monopolists have to set prices based on demand if they want to
> maximize profits. I think Nvidia may have a unrealistic expectation
> about what the demand for thier cards is likely to end up being.
> Their pricing seems to be based on the same logic they used when
> they increased prices for their last couple of generations of GPUs.
> Consumer demand was growing, while demand from cryto miners was explodi
I guess they have not yet gotten the end of the mining boom for good on
their radar.
Ethereum which was the only driving force of gpu mining has shifted to
proof of stake instead of proof of work last week, no fork is on its
way, and newer coins will not touch gpu mining. So this market is gone
for good, but NVidia probably has gotten this too late on their radar to
change prices and strategy.

"But perhaps the most damning indictment of what Nvidia is doing comes in
the shape of value for money. At $1,600, the new RTX 4090 looks expensive
enough to be irrelevant to the vast majority of gamers. But the fact that it
looks like good value compared to the RTX 4080 12GB is completely crazy"
https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-rtx-40-series-let-down

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/xlms6v/comment/ipksxew/

rms

rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>"But perhaps the most damning indictment of what Nvidia is doing comes in
>the shape of value for money. At $1,600, the new RTX 4090 looks expensive
>enough to be irrelevant to the vast majority of gamers. But the fact that it
>looks like good value compared to the RTX 4080 12GB is completely crazy"
>https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-rtx-40-series-let-down

Yah, a few sites have noticed that the RTX 4090 gives better performance
per dollar on just abou every metric than both the RTX 4080 12G and 16G.

Another interesting point that article makes is the Nvidia probably
isn't planning on selling many of these GPUs anyways:

Expect Nvidia to keep production numbers low for this
generation. It knows the whole Ada Lovelace series is onto a loser
in terms of market conditions. That can't be helped. It's going to
be tough for the next 18 months to two years, at least, whatever
Nvidia does. So, it will likely keep volumes uncharacteristically
low and try to maintain higher margins courtesy of short supply,
the idea being to keep very high prices for the longer term
and for future generations when the market has picked up again,
even if sales of Ada Lovelace suffer. That makes sense given Ada
Lovelace has the potential to struggle, whatever, thanks to all
those external factors.

The only problem is that Nvidia is going to need to sell a lot of them
at some point if they're going to recoup the massive investment they
made into designing these GPUs. Waiting a couple of years for sales
to recover while keeping prices unchanged won't be easy. AMD is about
to announce a new generation chiplet based GPUs that will likely be
significantly cheaper to make than Nvidia's new chips, and Intel has
their new discrete graphic cards coming soon.

Still Nvidia may not have a lot of options, apperently they have a lot
3000 series GPUs in their warehouses they need to get rid of. They don't
want their new 4000 GPUs undercutting them. But with crypto miners also
having a lot 3000 series cards to get rid of, it also be hard for Nvidia
not lower the prices on thier previous generation GPUs.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 18:39:12 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>rms <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>>"But perhaps the most damning indictment of what Nvidia is doing comes in
>>the shape of value for money. At $1,600, the new RTX 4090 looks expensive
>>enough to be irrelevant to the vast majority of gamers. But the fact that it
>>looks like good value compared to the RTX 4080 12GB is completely crazy"
>>https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-rtx-40-series-let-down

>Yah, a few sites have noticed that the RTX 4090 gives better performance
>per dollar on just abou every metric than both the RTX 4080 12G and 16G.

>Another interesting point that article makes is the Nvidia probably
>isn't planning on selling many of these GPUs anyways:

> Expect Nvidia to keep production numbers low for this
> generation. It knows the whole Ada Lovelace series is onto a loser
> in terms of market conditions. That can't be helped. It's going to
> be tough for the next 18 months to two years, at least, whatever
> Nvidia does. So, it will likely keep volumes uncharacteristically
> low and try to maintain higher margins courtesy of short supply,
> the idea being to keep very high prices for the longer term
> and for future generations when the market has picked up again,
> even if sales of Ada Lovelace suffer. That makes sense given Ada
> Lovelace has the potential to struggle, whatever, thanks to all
> those external factors.

>The only problem is that Nvidia is going to need to sell a lot of them
>at some point if they're going to recoup the massive investment they
>made into designing these GPUs. Waiting a couple of years for sales
>to recover while keeping prices unchanged won't be easy. AMD is about
>to announce a new generation chiplet based GPUs that will likely be
>significantly cheaper to make than Nvidia's new chips, and Intel has
>their new discrete graphic cards coming soon.

>Still Nvidia may not have a lot of options, apperently they have a lot
>3000 series GPUs in their warehouses they need to get rid of. They don't
>want their new 4000 GPUs undercutting them. But with crypto miners also
>having a lot 3000 series cards to get rid of, it also be hard for Nvidia
>not lower the prices on thier previous generation GPUs.

Although I'd be wary of buying a used GPU pre-owned by a cryptocrank.
Constant use - and heat - probably haven't done the capacitors and
microelectronics on those boards much good. I'm sure lots of people
will buy them - whether they're aware of the device's history or not -
but I wouldn't be surprised if many of these frugal buyers face
sporadic and difficult-to-troubleshoot issues from these devices,
which could tarnish nvidia's reputation for years to come.

But you have to wonder if this pressure isn't one of the reasons EVGA
bailed on nvidia. nvidia's margins have been relatively good (although
dropping since a high in 2018, they're still around the 20% range),
EVGA has been squeezed tighter (it's margin is about 5%), and it could
be the competiton from used GPUs - on top of the increased costs of
nvidia chips - was the feather that broke the camel's back.

Shame; I rather liked EVGA cards. And nvidia cards too, for that
matter. But they're pricing themselves... well, not out of my reach,
but out of where I feel I'm getting value for money. And in an era
where graphics capability of its competitors are often 'good enough'
and there's increasingly less demand for such raw power, it's a risky
move on nvidia's part.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:30:50 -0600, "rms"
<rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:

>>I don't know why, but my eVGA GeForce RTX Super 2700 is still doing a
>>great job. I play everything at maximum resolution and quality without
>>any signs of a slowdown.
>
> You're playing elden ring with this? I guess at 1080p it would manage.
>You're likely not getting HDR with that setup either.
>
>rms
*--

Yes, and a lot of others!

ER: 2560x1440, Auto-Detect Best Rendering Settings=ON, Quality=High,
All game settings on High

144Hz refresh rate

Dell S2719DGF (I am using two of them, but not with ER).

I don't know what 1080p and HDR are.

Don't know what my framerates are either.

-pw

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>But you have to wonder if this pressure isn't one of the reasons EVGA
>bailed on nvidia. nvidia's margins have been relatively good (although
>dropping since a high in 2018, they're still around the 20% range),
>EVGA has been squeezed tighter (it's margin is about 5%), and it could
>be the competiton from used GPUs - on top of the increased costs of
>nvidia chips - was the feather that broke the camel's back.

Apparently EVGA told Nvidia that they were ending their relationship back
in April. Back then it was less obvious that a recession was coming,
but the PC market was already slowing and the Ethereum merge was only a
matter of time. So EVGA would've known the next generation of Nvidia
GPUs weren't likely to match previous generations in terms of sales.
I can imagine EVGA lowering their internal sale forcasts until it got
the point where they decided they might as well just lower them to zero.

More generally, I think Nvidia's board partners could bear a lot of
the brunt of Nvidia's pricing decisions. If market conditions end
up being as bad as they look, they're the ones that will be forced to
lower prices first. They have their own costs of development they need
to recoup and while their margins are better than EVGA's, because they
make their own boards, they're not as big as Nvidia's.

EVGA probably would've got clobbered if they choose continue to working
with Nvidia. Whatever their reasons, it's very much looking like they
made the right choice.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 22:11:24 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>But you have to wonder if this pressure isn't one of the reasons EVGA
>>bailed on nvidia. nvidia's margins have been relatively good (although
>>dropping since a high in 2018, they're still around the 20% range),
>>EVGA has been squeezed tighter (it's margin is about 5%), and it could
>>be the competiton from used GPUs - on top of the increased costs of
>>nvidia chips - was the feather that broke the camel's back.
>
>Apparently EVGA told Nvidia that they were ending their relationship back
>in April. Back then it was less obvious that a recession was coming,
>but the PC market was already slowing and the Ethereum merge was only a
>matter of time. So EVGA would've known the next generation of Nvidia
>GPUs weren't likely to match previous generations in terms of sales.
>I can imagine EVGA lowering their internal sale forcasts until it got
>the point where they decided they might as well just lower them to zero.
>
>More generally, I think Nvidia's board partners could bear a lot of
>the brunt of Nvidia's pricing decisions. If market conditions end
>up being as bad as they look, they're the ones that will be forced to
>lower prices first. They have their own costs of development they need
>to recoup and while their margins are better than EVGA's, because they
>make their own boards, they're not as big as Nvidia's.
>
>EVGA probably would've got clobbered if they choose continue to working
>with Nvidia. Whatever their reasons, it's very much looking like they
>made the right choice.

I hadn't known that about the April announcement; thanks for the
update.

EVGA also pointed to the competition from nvidia's own "Founder
Edition" cards, since those tended to get first-choice of the best
components, leaving aftermarket brands to struggle for what's left
(which was especially a problem during the crypto-boom, and during the
pandemic's shipping crisis). Founders Editions often came out before
the aftermarket brands too, and so grab the choicest customers too.
Apparently that practice was taking a big bite out of EGVA's sales.

This transition away from nvidia cards will likely kill EVGA, unless
they have some ace hidden up their sleeves. Their other product lines
just don't seem robust enough to support the company (and certainly
don't inspire the robust premiums that video cards earn; as important
as it is to buy a quality power-supply, 9 out 10 customers will buy
the cheaper one, and not EVGA's)

Still, I think long run this will hurt nvidia even more, at least in
the discrete GPU market. I can't help but remember my experiment a few
years back when their GeForce Now streaming service was introduced,
and my lowly Atom-processor powered Netbook gave reasonable (if not
entirely playable) performance with games like "Kingdom Come:
Deliverance". More powerful - but still very dated - PCs with
integrated video ran far better. Nvidia's offerings are becoming
increasingly unimportant except to the '1337' gamer, and even though
nvidia could still sell its GPUs to streaming services, I doubt that
would compare to the sales they'd make directly to individual
customers or through OEMs.

Moores Law may be dead... but nvidia's strategy can't be to overload
its boards with more GPU chips at an ever-increasing cost; it's
unsustainable and will likely leave them vulnerable to an up-n-coming
tech company that better leverages existing tech rather than relying
on brute force.

On 22/09/2022 03:01, Justisaur wrote:

> Seeing as how I just bought a 3060 Ti to play Elden Ring, not going to
> happen here either. I'll probably upgrade my CPU next, which of course
> means MB/CPU & Ram. I was thinking about doing it soon as I'm on
> Win 10 and it's complaining my computer doesn't meet requirements
> for 11. On the other hand I don't see any reason to, I've got 11 on my
> work computers, and it's just more of a pain in the ass to get to settings
> I want. I did see Vampire Slayers was bottlenecking pretty hard on
> the CPU, but performance mode works to fix that.
>

My PC is relatively new and even it says that it can't run Win 11.
That's sorta of true but only because I need to change the BIOS settings
to enable some security features.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:16:27 AM UTC-7, JAB wrote:
> On 22/09/2022 03:01, Justisaur wrote:
>
> > Seeing as how I just bought a 3060 Ti to play Elden Ring, not going to
> > happen here either. I'll probably upgrade my CPU next, which of course
> > means MB/CPU & Ram. I was thinking about doing it soon as I'm on
> > Win 10 and it's complaining my computer doesn't meet requirements
> > for 11. On the other hand I don't see any reason to, I've got 11 on my
> > work computers, and it's just more of a pain in the ass to get to settings
> > I want. I did see Vampire Slayers was bottlenecking pretty hard on
> > the CPU, but performance mode works to fix that.
> >
> My PC is relatively new and even it says that it can't run Win 11.
> That's sorta of true but only because I need to change the BIOS settings
> to enable some security features.

Ah that could be it. I don't really feel like bothering with trying to get it
updated at this point, though it's supposed to have better memory
management, which should make a small improvement to overall speed.

- Justisaur

On 9/27/2022 3:16 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 22/09/2022 03:01, Justisaur wrote:
>
>> Seeing as how I just bought a 3060 Ti to play Elden Ring, not going to
>> happen here either.  I'll probably upgrade my CPU next, which of course
>> means MB/CPU & Ram.  I was thinking about doing it soon as I'm on
>> Win 10 and it's complaining my computer doesn't meet requirements
>> for 11.  On the other hand I don't see any reason to, I've got 11 on my
>> work computers, and it's just more of a pain in the ass to get to
>> settings
>> I want.  I did see Vampire Slayers was bottlenecking pretty hard on
>> the CPU, but performance mode works to fix that.
>>
>
> My PC is relatively new and even it says that it can't run Win 11.
> That's sorta of true but only because I need to change the BIOS settings
> to enable some security features.
>
Shirley you meant "change the BIOS settings to disable some security
features"!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 27/09/2022 15:42, Justisaur wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:16:27 AM UTC-7, JAB wrote:
>> On 22/09/2022 03:01, Justisaur wrote:
>>
>>> Seeing as how I just bought a 3060 Ti to play Elden Ring, not going to
>>> happen here either. I'll probably upgrade my CPU next, which of course
>>> means MB/CPU & Ram. I was thinking about doing it soon as I'm on
>>> Win 10 and it's complaining my computer doesn't meet requirements
>>> for 11. On the other hand I don't see any reason to, I've got 11 on my
>>> work computers, and it's just more of a pain in the ass to get to settings
>>> I want. I did see Vampire Slayers was bottlenecking pretty hard on
>>> the CPU, but performance mode works to fix that.
>>>
>> My PC is relatively new and even it says that it can't run Win 11.
>> That's sorta of true but only because I need to change the BIOS settings
>> to enable some security features.
>
> Ah that could be it. I don't really feel like bothering with trying to get it
> updated at this point, though it's supposed to have better memory
> management, which should make a small improvement to overall speed.
>

I'm still on Win 10 as I also just don't see the point at the moment of
going to Win 11. My last upgrade was from Win 7 and that was because of
support being withdrawn. I did have a bit of a panic when it seemed to
say the upgrade was no longer free but a quick bit of googlefoo found
that it's fairly simply to get the free upgrade legitimately.

Am 23.09.22 um 00:35 schrieb Zaghadka:
> I'm still running a 1080GTX that I paid $600 for. I'm not going into RTX
> until it is fully mature.
>
> 2000 series was definitely not, I mean, they put ray-tracing into
> Minecraft and Quake 2, ffs.
I have a 2080FE which very likely will serve me another bunch of years,
the card is fine.
The price was ok, due to the fact that i got it for FE MSRP back then,
when NVidia actually cared about the gaming customers.

Am 23.09.22 um 21:23 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> Shame; I rather liked EVGA cards. And nvidia cards too, for that
> matter. But they're pricing themselves... well, not out of my reach,
> but out of where I feel I'm getting value for money.
Amen to that, my 2080 will run another bunch of years but then I will
have a serious look towards AMD, just the same way I switched over from
Intel when the Ryzens came out.
The few features I lose are less pain than paying the nvidia tax. AMD
now has a real chance to regain marketshare from NVidia if they play
their cards right.

On 29/09/2022 10:09, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 23.09.22 um 21:23 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> Shame; I rather liked EVGA cards. And nvidia cards too, for that
>> matter. But they're pricing themselves... well, not out of my reach,
>> but out of where I feel I'm getting value for money.
> Amen to that, my 2080 will run another bunch of years but then I will
> have a serious look towards AMD, just the same way I switched over from
> Intel when the Ryzens came out.
> The few features I lose are less pain than paying the nvidia tax. AMD
> now has a real chance to regain marketshare from NVidia if they play
> their cards right.
>

I've stuck with nVidia not because I like what they offer as such but
instead because when I do an upgrade my choices of what to get are very
much driven by what I hope are relatively independent recommendations of
what will met my needs. It's also the reason that for my last upgrade I
switched from Intel to a Ryzen as that seemed to be the best value for
money in the budget sector.

"rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> writes:

> Also, AMD will be launching their RDNA3 lineup in November.

Even Intel is apparently intending to get their video cards out, in
October. Good to have competition but it'll be definitely interesting to
see how or if Intel performs.