Best time to sell your used 4090s is now.

[phanbuey]

I don't mean to say AI is bad for anyone who has a use for it, but Nvidia is indeed pricing their cards for AI more so than gaming,

but if that's true then so is AMD - since they're basically the same price. AMD doesn't even announce prices until they see NV prices and then copy them - and their cards don't even have AI features.

9070XT should be at $500-$550 and then they will start gaining market share from NV gamers.

 

[pf100]

Maybe the thread title should be changed to: "Best time to keep your used 4090's is now."
I look at things a bit differently today than when this thread was started 6 months ago.
Back then I was thinking I'd sell my 4090 and get a 5090 but now I'm not thinking that at all.
Unless you found a 5090 close to msrp at release soon after this thread was started and and sold your 4090 for $1400 right then, there never was a good time to sell your 4090 if you wanted to upgrade.
This whole gpu scenario is stupid as hell.

 

[Krit]

Maybe the thread title should be changed to: "Best time to keep your used 4090's is now."

That's very underrated comment. RTX 4090 is fast enough gpu and when selling it to change for a new RTX 5090 you may lose some value on exchange. Also RTX 5090 is not a big upgrade from RTX 4090.

9070XT should be at $500-$550 and then they will start gaining market share from NV gamers.

I agree but 600€ for a RX 9070 XT shold be good enought to compete with 850€ RTX 5070 Ti. $500-550 thats a bit low in today's money.

 

[Godrilla]

Maybe the thread title should be changed to: "Best time to keep your used 4090's is now."
I look at things a bit differently today than when this thread was started 6 months ago.
Back then I was thinking I'd sell my 4090 and get a 5090 but now I'm not thinking that at all.
Unless you found a 5090 close to msrp at release soon after this thread was started and and sold your 4090 for $1400 right then, there never was a good time to sell your 4090 if you wanted to upgrade.
This whole gpu scenario is stupid as hell.

No edit option. Any chance we'll have a 5080 super, 9090xt competitive this year? Although I don't see pricing improving much even after those come into the picture. Maybe they'll hover around the $1500 to $2000 . Which wouldn't change much. Maybe admin can update title don't sell your 4090 because the replacement is now an additional $1500 to 2k out of pocket ( when selling a used 4090. The liquid cooled 5090s are just on another level of crazy pricing and no stock of those Although I had a chance to purchase the Astra liquid a MSRP $3789 from Asus store notifications last month.

 

[Krit]

Any chance we'll have a 5080 super, 9090xt competitive this year?

Super is a tradition probably yes it may come out but 9090xt i would say it's way less chance coming out because RX 9070 XT is already close to it's maximum capabilities. There is no information about bigger die gpu from AMD.

 

[evernessince]

The 4090 doesn't crash and has physx.

It also shows you the hotspot temp as well. These shouldn't be "advantages and yet they are.

Go get a better monitor -_-

Higher res isn't strictly better, especially if you are going for higher refresh rates.

Most importantly for me though, I avoid 4K because windows sucks at scaling and has a hard thumbnail max size of 256 x 256. 4K monitors essentially make thumbnails on windows worthless.

Sorry but no sane person would use 1440p to compare cards at that level. Who cares whether you get 120 or 140 fps unless it’s competitive gaming and I’m sure even cheaper cards manage to get good fps at Counterstrike.

That you think 120-140 FPS only benefits eSports is WILD.

No, anyone playing games benefits from hitting at least 140 FPS. Even desktop usage and watching videos benefits from 140 FPS over 60. You might have a point if we were talking about much higher FPS numbers but 140 is just a basic QOL improvement for everyone.

I don’t know how we got here….The only point I was trying to make was MSRP is up 25%, memory size is up 33%, memory bandwidth is up 80% and those two significantly benefit AI usage. Gaming performance @ 4k is up 20-30% and that’s always nice to have.

No, you were saying I was wrong when that was a load of nonsense. You can't win the argument so you pound the table like a child.

Hello. Insane person here. I almost always play at 1440p with a 4090. Why? Because I get higher frame rates than people that play at 4k and 1440p looks great to me. When I hear "no sane person woulds use a 4090 or 5090 at 1440p" or "no sane person would compare the 4090 and 5090 at 1440p", well, I do both of those things because 1440p is my target.

You aren't crazy, the vast majority of PC gamers would agree with you here. If the choice is 4K 60ish FPS vs 1440p 120-140 FPS (and it is for a 5090 in many demanding games), most gamers will take the smoother experience over the very slight clarity improvement that 4K brings. I remember when I got my first 144 Hz monitor and it made a world of difference in everything, including just using the desktop.

 

[phanbuey]

You aren't crazy, the vast majority of PC games would agree with you here. If the choice is 4K 60ish FPS vs 1440p 120-140 FPS (and it is for a 5090 in many demanding games), most gamers will take the smoother experience over the very slight clarity improvement that 4K brings. I remember when I got my first 144 Hz monitor and it made a world of difference in everything, including just using the desktop.

But why not just dlss 4K to 1440p fps + sharpening filter looks better than 1440p.

I don’t see a reason to live at a lower resolution when upscaling exists.

 

[steamrick]

Higher res isn't strictly better, especially if you are going for higher refresh rates.

I'm not into competitive shooters, so I'm very happy with 5120x2160@120Hz. I don't need more than 120 for casual shooters or other games.

If you are into competitive shooters, shouldn't you be happy that you're in the CPU limit instead of GPU limit?

 

[evernessince]

But why not just dlss 4K to 1440p fps + starting filter looks better than 1440p

If a person is considering using an upscaler, using DLSS at 1440 is going to get you more performance and frankley some games need that. It's not a one size fits all choice for every game, it's going to depend on personal preference, the game at hand (if the game supports it, how good the implementation is, visual quality trade-offs, etc), and the FPS the end user is getting vs what they'd prefer.

A person could run at 1440p with DLAA if they prefer maximum visual quality while maintaining good performance. Again, it depends.

 

[Krit]

Higher res isn't strictly better, especially if you are going for higher refresh rates.

Most importantly for me though, I avoid 4K because windows sucks at scaling and has a hard thumbnail max size of 256 x 256. 4K monitors essentially make thumbnails on windows worthless.

100% agree i was using HP X34 34" 3440x1440 165hz for around 2-3 years then i bought a LG 32GR93U-B 32" 3840x2160 144hz for me also windows scaling was a big issue at native and custom settings also text size was never good in terms of it's size either it was too small or too big no optimal settings available. Those bigger 16:9 32" screens also look like old 4:3 after 21:9 to me it's more like downgrade. Biggest advantage for 4k screen is space for work and for gaming 4k in my opinion is very close to 3440x1440 no significant improvement in visual quality where upgrade from 1080p to 1440p is way more noticable. Also 4k screen is hard to run at great fps and LG's panel was slower than HP's i can even tel the difference betwen 165hz and 144hz LG 4k screen it just not as smooth in motion as HP.

 

[evernessince]

I'm not into competitive shooters, so I'm very happy with 5120x2160@120Hz. I don't need more than 120 for casual shooters or other games.

If you are into competitive shooters, shouldn't you be happy that you're in the CPU limit instead of GPU limit?

I agree, my argument was precisely that 120-140 FPS is good for even casual users. I think you are assuming I mean 240 Hz+ (which is fair, that's what most people consider high refresh rate).

In this instance though, I was replying to Webmanau who claimed that 120-140 FPS is only for competitive games. That's his idea of high refresh rate but as you and as most PC gamers would agree, 120 - 140 FPS is just much nicer to use over 60 FPS and it definitely has benefits for casual users outside of eSports. His definition of high refresh rate gaming seems to be dated back to 2013 when the bar has moved significantly since then.

 

[JustBenching]

But why not just dlss 4K to 1440p fps + sharpening filter looks better than 1440p.

I don’t see a reason to live at a lower resolution when upscaling exists.

Because native bro. Yeah sarcasm. Ive been banging this drum forever, get a goddamn 4k screen and use dlss to get your desired framerate. Youll get the framerate you want while still having way better image quality than if you played native with your low res monitor.

 

[webmanau]

The way I read this is: I should sell my 5090 and buy a 9070XT. I’ll get a great midrange card and can feel good about myself for getting good p/p ratio. If I downgrade to a 1080p screen (might have one in the basement somewhere!) I may not even notice the difference and feel even better. Sounds like a win win to me!

 

[Frizz]

The way I read this is: I should sell my 5090 and buy a 9070XT. I’ll get a great midrange card and can feel good about myself for getting good p/p ratio. If I downgrade to a 1080p screen (might have one in the basement somewhere!) I may not even notice the difference and feel even better. Sounds like a win win to me!

It's a Shallow Hal situation

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

But why not just dlss 4K to 1440p fps + sharpening filter looks better than 1440p.

I don’t see a reason to live at a lower resolution when upscaling exists.

I can think of two reasons:
1) 1440p cannot be natively expanded to 4k like 1080p and 720p can, so the swkward resolutions caling can cause lower visual quality depending onw aht software you use

2) I speak from experience, as a heavy GoG patron, that a lot of old games on a 1440p system will play nice, not rendering at 1440p, but operating normally. On a 4k system, some games will not display all resolution options, others will display resolutions that dont work right, or have other issues. The issues that occur when I run GoG games on my media PC with a 4k TV dont show up on my main system with a 1440p144 screen.

Because native bro. Yeah sarcasm. Ive been banging this drum forever, get a goddamn 4k screen and use dlss to get your desired framerate. Youll get the framerate you want while still having way better image quality than if you played native with your low res monitor.

Some people dont like using upscaling, and there is nothing wrong with that. And its not like upscaling is 100% stable and never has image quality issues of its own.....

Maybe the thread title should be changed to: "Best time to keep your used 4090's is now."
I look at things a bit differently today than when this thread was started 6 months ago.
Back then I was thinking I'd sell my 4090 and get a 5090 but now I'm not thinking that at all.
Unless you found a 5090 close to msrp at release soon after this thread was started and and sold your 4090 for $1400 right then, there never was a good time to sell your 4090 if you wanted to upgrade.
This whole gpu scenario is stupid as hell.

I always keep my GPUs for at least a couple generations, sometimes longer. The hassle of reselling is just a PITA. I still dont have the urge to upgrade my 6800xt (although a surprise 9080xt could change that).

 

[JustBenching]

Some people dont like using upscaling, and there is nothing wrong with that. And its not like upscaling is 100% stable and never has image quality issues of its own.....

I don't think there is a single situation where dlss at higher res (say 4k dlss q) doesn't look better than native at lower res.