nVidia 3090 reviews thread

[BFG10K]

Written:

Custom-Designs der GeForce RTX 3090 im Test

Wie schnell die Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 wirklich ist, klärt ComputerBase mit Custom-Designs von MSI und Gigabyte im Test.

www.computerbase.de

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Review: BFGPU Benchmarks Unleashed

Right now, the GeForce RTX 3090 is the single most powerful graphics card money can buy. It sits at the pinnacle of NVIDIA’s product stack currently

hothardware.com

ZOTAC GeForce RTX 3090 Trinity Review

Zotac's GeForce RTX 3090 Trinity comes at the NVIDIA MSRP of $1499. It offers 24 GB VRAM paired with a large triple-fan, triple-slot cooler that ensures temperatures and noise levels stay low. Outside of gaming, the fans will stop completely because of the fan-stop capability.

www.techpowerup.com

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjcxrfEVhc8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgs-VbqsuKo

 

[Hitman928]

Thanks, that makes the long term downward trend clear.



This whole diversion was begun when someone suggested having similar stock to the last launch was comparable to using first Year iPhone sales, as a basis for launching current iphones (which are 100x higher today).

This downward trend makes it abundantly clear that analogy/argument is complete nonsense. Discrete GPU sales are NOT a fresh new product space on a massive upward swing. In fact they are in long term decline.

I know a lot of people dislike the dominant position NVidia held in the market, and will use any reason to attack them, but sorry this one isn't a valid argument.

Then maybe you can explain how Nvidia's gaming revenue has more than doubled in the last 5 years despite the total number of discrete GPU sales being cut in half (or more)?

 

[AtenRa]

Then maybe you can explain how Nvidia's gaming revenue has more than doubled in the last 5 years despite the total number of discrete GPU sales being cut in half (or more)?

Because price segments changed the last 5 years,

Low end use to be at $100-$150 and now is at $200-$300
Middle-end used to be at $200-$300 and now its at $500 to $800
High-end used to be at $350 to $500 and now its up to $1500

 

[Hitman928]

Because price segments changed the last 5 years,

Low end use to be at $100-$150 and now is at $200-$300
Middle-end used to be at $200-$300 and now its at $500 to $800
High-end used to be at $350 to $500 and now its up to $1500

So are you saying the same number of people are buying discrete GPUs but now just paying over 2x the amount for them?

Edit: Also, the O.G. Titan and 780 Ti came out all the way back in 2013 with a price tag of $1000 and $700 respectively, so prices have been in your increased range for longer than the last 5 years.

 

[AtenRa]

But I will have to say again that Ampere launch capacity was very low,
The problem created was due to NVIDIA launch of RTX3080 MSRP at $699, resulting in a huge interest among gamers after coming from Turing unrealistic high prices of the last two years.

 

[AtenRa]

So are you saying the same number of people are buying discrete GPUs but now just paying over 2x the amount for them?

Edit: Also, the O.G. Titan and 780 Ti came out all the way back in 2013 with a price tag of $1000 and $700 respectively, so prices have been in your increased range for longer than the last 5 years.

Well if you dont increase the volume , the only other way to increase revenue is by increasing the price.
So to answer your question, yes people buying more expensive GPUs the last 5 or more years.
And yes this started back in 2012 with HD7970 and GTX680 , with Turing being the top of the iceberg.

 

[Hitman928]

Well if you dont increase the volume , the only other way to increase revenue is by increasing the price.
So to answer your question, yes people buying more expensive GPUs the last 5 or more years.
And yes this started back in 2012 with HD7970 and GTX680 , with Turing being the top of the iceberg.

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. The overall discrete market is shrinking, but if you look at the mid-range (or what used to be called mid-range) and above market, it is actually growing.

 

[AtenRa]

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. The overall discrete market is shrinking, but if you look at the mid-range (or what used to be called mid-range) and above market, it is actually growing.

Well I dont have data but it could be possible that more people buying $500 to $800 cards today that 5 years before.
Also to note the price shift per segment was also communicated two years ago from NVIDIA themselves with Turing.

 

[Hitman928]

Well I dont have data but it could be possible that more people buying $500 to $800 cards today that 5 years before.
Also to note the price shift per segment was also communicated two years ago from NVIDIA themselves with Turing.

Yes, again, the market has shifted and more people are buying the mid-range and higher options than ever before, that was the whole point. Even if you say prices per bracket increased, that doesn't account for the over 2x gaming revenue growth.

 

[AtenRa]

Yes, again, the market has shifted and more people are buying the mid-range and higher options than ever before, that was the whole point. Even if you say prices per bracket increased, that doesn't account for the over 2x gaming revenue growth.

I strongly believe that the big shrink of the Desktop dGPU market is at the entry level and not in the middle to high end. There are way less sub $100 cards being sold the last 5 years than in 2010-12 mainly due to better and faster integrated GPUs from both Intel and AMD. There are also way higher volume of GAMING LAPTOPs sold the last 5 years with dGPUs vs in 2010-12 that also increased revenue substantially.

So its a combination of both 2x price increase in Desktop but also a huge increase of Gaming laptops that resulted in the huge Gaming revenue increase of NVIDIA the last 5 years.

 

[Hitman928]

I strongly believe that the big shrink of the Desktop dGPU market is at the entry level and not in the middle to high end. There are way less sub $100 cards being sold the last 5 years than in 2010-12 mainly due to better and faster integrated GPUs from both Intel and AMD. There are also way higher volume of GAMING LAPTOPs sold the last 5 years with dGPUs vs in 2010-12 that also increased revenue substantially.

So its a combination of both 2x price increase in Desktop but also a huge increase of Gaming laptops that resulted in the huge Gaming revenue increase of NVIDIA the last 5 years.

Yes, those are still discrete GPU sales though, I was always basing my assessment on discrete GPU sales. Nvidia's revenue for laptops will also be less than what they get for the same chip in a discrete card. The point I was trying to make is that you can't look at the total discrete market sales dropping by more than half and assume demand for gaming GPUs has gone down significantly. The numbers show that at worst, gaming GPU sales have remained steady and most likely increased and people are spending money on higher tier GPUs more than ever before. That was what the point I was making and it seems like you agree.

 

[AtenRa]

Yes, those are still discrete GPU sales though, I was always basing my assessment on discrete GPU sales. Nvidia's revenue for laptops will also be less than what they get for the same chip in a discrete card. The point I was trying to make is that you can't look at the total discrete market sales dropping by more than half and assume demand for gaming GPUs has gone down significantly. The numbers show that at worst, gaming GPU sales have remained steady and most likely increased and people are spending money on higher tier GPUs more than ever before. That was what the point I was making and it seems like you agree.

Yes i will agree, gaming TAM remained the same or even increased the last 10 years. So we have the same TAM with 2x higher prices and an increased Market in the Laptop space with 2x prices . The combination of those two is what made the increase of NVIDIA gaming revenue the last 5-10 years.

Edit: I dont remember where I heard/read this but NVIDIA strongly increased DT dGPU sales the last 5 years in the Chinese Internet Cafe market adding huge increase of revenue as well.

 

[Asterox]

Well, it’s pretty hard to resist.

 

[loki1944]

Poor argument given that overall GPU sales have been stagnating or declining for years:

What is the revenue by year; that's what matters more than units sold.

 

[Saylick]

If we want to better understand how Nvidia are making more revenue yet selling less units overall, what we're looking for is the average sale price (ASP) for Nvidia GPUs over the last 2 decades. It's readily apparent that the ASP has skyrocketed in the last decade or so, and you can get a rough estimate of that by dividing the total consumer GPU sales amount by the number of units sold.

 

[swilli89]

But I will have to say again that Ampere launch capacity was very low,
The problem created was due to NVIDIA launch of RTX3080 MSRP at $699, resulting in a huge interest among gamers after coming from Turing unrealistic high prices of the last two years.

When discussing supply and demand why would you only focus on demand? The price point is right in line where it should be based off previous generations of new chips on new nodes. The major factor in the Ampere launch was total lack of supply. We've seen multiple points of data illustrating that the inventory available at launch and to this day was abysmally low. NVIDIA rushed the launch for some reason before it built up ample stock. A really odd move in my opinion. Another full month of production and NVIDIA would have pleased everyone looking to buy a card day one.

 

[Heartbreaker]

What is the revenue by year; that's what matters more than units sold.

We were talking about the number to stock given past history. So numbers of units is what matters.

 

[Mopetar]

This whole diversion was begun when someone suggested having similar stock to the last launch was comparable to using first Year iPhone sales, as a basis for launching current iphones (which are 100x higher today).

The point was that you can't just expect to keep doing the same as you always have. The comparison with the iPhone was to make it abundantly clear that this is the case and that large companies can and do stockpile inventory for months before a launch.

This downward trend makes it abundantly clear that analogy/argument is complete nonsense. Discrete GPU sales are NOT a fresh new product space on a massive upward swing. In fact they are in long term decline.

No it doesn't, because that's overall sales which aren't broken down by product category. I don't find it at all strange that overall GPU sales started to decrease when both Intel and AMD started offering integrated graphics that meant lower end computers no longer needed a discrete graphics card.

Using data without having the full picture just leads to bad conclusions. Are you really going to try to claim that the market for high-end gaming GPUs is really shrinking when we just saw some of the most insane demand recorded?

 

[blckgrffn]

@Mopetar it kind of leads to a possible conclusion that nvidia really didn't want to sell that many cards out of the gate. They hit first and got a ton of press when we were all hungry for it.

Now they sit back and try to play spoiler for AMD? This whole launch seems like they are trying to play 4-D chess or something and I am not able to follow the play by play and make sense of it.

Now they can tweak SKUs and pricing post RNDA2 launch? I find that hard to believe, it seems to me that is way too much (potentially unearned) respect towards AMD.

OR, just subpar planning on nvidias supply chain part. Which happens, especially now, given the issues around movements of goods and people at a global scale. I guess that's the occam's razor reason, but those reasons are usually boring.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Using data without having the full picture just leads to bad conclusions. Are you really going to try to claim that the market for high-end gaming GPUs is really shrinking when we just saw some of the most insane demand recorded?

As opposed to your made up guesses about the state of the market.

The insane demand was not predictable based on past sales. That is precisely the point.

According to Newegg, the volume at the store for that single niche product, exceeded Black Friday volume.

There is nothing that could have anticipated that. It's just insane.

 

[pj-]

When discussing supply and demand why would you only focus on demand? The price point is right in line where it should be based off previous generations of new chips on new nodes. The major factor in the Ampere launch was total lack of supply. We've seen multiple points of data illustrating that the inventory available at launch and to this day was abysmally low. NVIDIA rushed the launch for some reason before it built up ample stock. A really odd move in my opinion. Another full month of production and NVIDIA would have pleased everyone looking to buy a card day one.

Steve from gamersnexus talked to several AIB partners and they said it wouldn't have made much difference if the launch was in october. Basically indicated that cards would have sold out in 5 mins instead of instantly

 

[Hitman928]

Steve from gamersnexus talked to several AIB partners and they said it wouldn't have made much difference if the launch was in october. Basically indicated that cards would have sold out in 5 mins instead of instantly

But how many people would have been able to grab a card in that 5 minutes versus most people never even seeing it in stock?

 

[Dribble]

But how many people would have been able to grab a card in that 5 minutes versus most people never even seeing it in stock?

In October exactly the same number would own it either way.

 

[pj-]

But how many people would have been able to grab a card in that 5 minutes versus most people never even seeing it in stock?

Obviously more, but not nearly enough to have "pleased everyone looking to buy a card day one. "

 

[Hitman928]

In October exactly the same number would own it either way.

Well yeah, but that's missing the point. I mean, I'm sure the first 100 cards could have been ready by Sep 1, why not just start then with the first hundred shipments? Would have been the same result on launch day and you could just say wait for more shipments, the cards will come at the same time either way.

Obviously more, but not nearly enough to have "pleased everyone looking to buy a card day one. "

Again, not the point. People aren't upset that not everyone who wanted one could get one, that happened with the last two gen launches as well. People are upset that almost no one who wanted one got one and the vast majority of people never even saw them in stock despite many being on the store pages right when they were supposed to drop. If most people didn't get one but they at least knew of others who did, this would have gone over much better.

I've been following the nowinstock bot and since launch day, there are have 8 times a single card model has briefly come in stock across all major online stores (Amazon, Newegg, BestBuy, B&H, Gamestop, Nvidia) and many models have never been in stock despite being told cards would be resupplied every other day. This does not give an impression of having good supply. Maybe this is because of the whole crashing issue and AIBs have held back cards to put new revisions out but that goes back to it being a rushed launch and not giving partners sufficient time to test their cards. Either way this launch is a mess and is more of what you'd expect of and AMD GPU launch based on reputation.

 

[Mopetar]

@Mopetar it kind of leads to a possible conclusion that nvidia really didn't want to sell that many cards out of the gate. They hit first and got a ton of press when we were all hungry for it.

Now they sit back and try to play spoiler for AMD? This whole launch seems like they are trying to play 4-D chess or something and I am not able to follow the play by play and make sense of it.

Now they can tweak SKUs and pricing post RNDA2 launch? I find that hard to believe, it seems to me that is way too much (potentially unearned) respect towards AMD.

OR, just subpar planning on nvidias supply chain part. Which happens, especially now, given the issues around movements of goods and people at a global scale. I guess that's the occam's razor reason, but those reasons are usually boring.

All of that is just way too Machiavellian evil villain to be reasonable. It's the bad TV version of how companies operate.

I just think NVidia knows exactly how much of a stinker Samsung 8nm is compared to TSMC since they're making products on both. Unlike Intel, NVidia also respects the competition. The 1080 Ti at $700 was because they though Vega might actually be a contender. The 3080 at $700 is because they take Navi seriously as well.

A card like the 3080 beating the pants off the 2080 Ti at nearly half the cost doesn't happen for no reason. NVidia would have like to be able to charge 2080 Ti prices for that, but they know if AMD has something competitive and undercuts them just a month later they'll catch a lot of flak and have to cut prices (makes them look weak or caught off guard) and probably offer rebates.

Since the stock of cards is fairly low anyways, it's far better to hedge and get a lot of good publicity for offering such great performance for such a low cost.

It's really just NVidia trying to make the best of a bad situation. I don't think it's all bad planning on their part, just enough things not working out all at the same time.

Not every at bat is going to be a home run, but you still have to swing like you want to knock it out of the park to actually hit one. Occasionally you catch a curveball that makes you attempts look a little foolish, but NVidia wouldn't be where they are today as a company if they didn't keep aiming for the fences. Any company that wants to play it completely safe is just a troupe of monkeys that hasn't decided if they should come down from the trees yet.