New GPU News from CES 2025

[ZedClampet]

Nvidia:​

Nvidia announces the RTX 50-series, led by the $1,999 RTX 5090 with 'twice the performance of the 4090'

With more AI acceleration than ever even the RTX 5070 is claimed to offer RTX 4090-level performance for $549.

www.pcgamer.com

Nvidia's new RTX 5070 will deliver 'RTX 4090 performance at $549' when it launches in February

The lowest spec new RTX Blackwell GPU is capable of frame rates akin to the $1,599 RTX 4090 of the previous generation, though likely only through new DLSS 4 AI smarts.

www.pcgamer.com

Nvidia announces DLSS 4 with Multi Frame Generation, says it can help multiply frame rates by 'up to 8X over traditional brute-force rendering'

Aaaand it's for RTX 50-series GPUs. Are we really surprised?

www.pcgamer.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWYbqOFyB5Q

Nvidia RTX 50-series and dev kit show that rasterization is old news and we're now firmly in the era of AI rendering

Though for now, we'll just have to make do with a video as to what it all means for in-game graphics

www.pcgamer.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H681NInCwFo

I reckon the Nvidia RTX 5090 Founders Edition is the best looking graphics card I've seen in... well, ever, actually

It's just plain menacing, and that angled power connector is choice. Whaddya mean I'm a nerd?

www.pcgamer.com

AMD​

AMD's RDNA 4 GPUs are about efficiency in terms of performance and price: 'We know where gamers buy products, it's well below that $1,000 price point'

The number one priority for this generation of Radeon GPU is "improving performance in the areas that gamers care about most."

www.pcgamer.com

AMD might have told us little about its RDNA 4 graphics cards but at least we know the Radeon RX 9070 and 9070 XT have 16 GB of VRAM

It looks like Asus has actually told us more than AMD did.

www.pcgamer.com

AMD says 'the performance data out there for RDNA 4 is completely inaccurate'

But the RX 9070 and RX 9070 XT not being in AMD's CES keynote is not about any kind of development slip.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Why_Me]

I'm looking forward to the reviews so that we can see the raster benchmarks.

 

[Acuityy]

I saw the digital foundry video where they test the new frame gen, I have to say that I noticed several artifacts. The new 5000s do not seem convincing at all in raw performance compared to the 4000 series, but they could be interesting for those coming from the 2000 or 3000 series.
Look at the character sitting on the chair at 2:45

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzufsxtZpA&t=168s

 

[ZedClampet]

I saw the digital foundry video where they test the new frame gen, I have to say that I noticed several artifacts. The new 5000s do not seem convincing at all in raw performance compared to the 4000 series, but they could be interesting for those coming from the 2000 or 3000 series.
Look at the character sitting on the chair at 2:45

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzufsxtZpA&t=168s

I wouldn't notice those artifacts. I don't examine the screen to that level of detail.

That was an extremely positive video. Looks like huge gains and improvements for those of us who will use the new DLSS4. Otherwise it will be normal generational improvements in games without it.

 

[Acuityy]

I wouldn't notice those artifacts. I don't examine the screen to that level of detail.

That was an extremely positive video. Looks like huge gains and improvements for those of us who will use the new DLSS4. Otherwise it will be normal generational improvements in games without it.

I love playing on PC because I love having a clean image. I couldn't play like that.

 

[Colif]

4x fake frames, might look 240 but feels 60.

I am going to listen to my own advice and not upgrade every generation. Aka ignore these cards.

A 5090 costs $4k here, same price as an entire pc.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

I saw the digital foundry video where they test the new frame gen, I have to say that I noticed several artifacts. The new 5000s do not seem convincing at all in raw performance compared to the 4000 series, but they could be interesting for those coming from the 2000 or 3000 series.
Look at the character sitting on the chair at 2:45

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzufsxtZpA&t=168s

One of the guys from DF commented elsewhere that a lot of the artifacting you see in the videos is down to the fact they had to record at locked 120FPS with Vsync on and also theres Youtube compression to deal with.

I used Path Tracing, Frame Gen and DLSS in Alan Wake 2 to keep frame rates up above 60 on pretty high settings on a 4070 and theres a blurriness to everything maybe down to TAA that was noticeable to start with, but it wasnt a deal breaker. Its a wait and see for proper reviews I think.

 

[Colif]

I don't like the reliance on features to make it look faster but you don't feel the same speed. Games aren't movies, i expect it is jarring to see 240 but react at 60 (if you lucky to get 60 and not 30).
Too much relying on upscaling already, now we have copied blurry graphics.
This isn't progress.
have we reached a plateau?

 

[ZedClampet]

I don't like the reliance on features to make it look faster but you don't feel the same speed. Games aren't movies, i expect it is jarring to see 240 but react at 60 (if you lucky to get 60 and not 30).
Too much relying on upscaling already, now we have copied blurry graphics.
This isn't progress.
have we reached a plateau?

It's far less blurry than the old DLSS. From that Digital Foundry video, the graphics looked quite good.

And, yes, we've sort of reached a plateau. GPUs are a pretty mature tech now. If you want big gains, they can either get bigger, more expensive and use much more power, or we can use other tech advances to give us the big gains.

As far as reacting to 240 frames when you are really getting 60 frames, at 60 frames, you are getting a frame every .016 seconds. At 240 frames you are getting a frame every .004 seconds. That means the maximum time difference a reaction can be from an actual frame is 0.008 seconds, or 8 thousandths of a second.

No matter how hard you try, you can't convince me you are so good that 0.008 seconds will throw you off--and that's the worst case scenario. You will almost always be closer to a real frame than that.

Now me, that's another story. I'll have to turn it off when I play...

 

[Colif]

It introduces latency and that could be noticeable in some games.

 

[ZedClampet]

It introduces latency and that could be noticeable in some games.

No, it really doesn't. Nothing that would be noticeable.

Why are you obsessed with crapping on the new graphics cards? I think you need a hug.

 

[Rolfil]

The fact that a 5070 will still have 12gb, which probably means 8gb for a 5060 isn't good. The price staying roughly the same for the cards that people actually will buy is good.

I was going to go with a new AMD card and the 5070ti probably being a lot more expensive would have sealed it. Then my PC died and I ended up with a 4070ti Super. This is running most of my games easily at 60fps, 1440p at under 50% utilization.

I can't see any reason for most gamers to upgrade from a 40 series card or AMD equivalent. It's only now that people are really using DLSS3 and FSR2.

For me the 4x frame generation sound's like nVidia are selling snake oil.