MicroCenter confirms GeForce RTX 4080 US pricing, from $1200 to $1549

celwin

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,443
What I find comical, in a sad way are people rushing out to buy a new RTX 4080, but they already have a nice 3090 or something newer. Like what?

A 3080 Ti, 3090, and 3090 Ti are fantastic cards, even today, there's no fire rush to run out and get this slightly faster 4080 for $1200+

I could see if you had an old 1080 Ti or 2070, yes go grab that 4080, but anyone with a 3080 Ti or better I think are crazy getting this new card. Unless you picked up a new 4k OLED monitor that you need 144+ fps in games at that high res.
I would say most are Impulse buyers. Chasing the latest gen without thought.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
751
What I find comical, in a sad way are people rushing out to buy a new RTX 4080, but they already have a nice 3090 or something newer. Like what?

A 3080 Ti, 3090, and 3090 Ti are fantastic cards, even today, there's no fire rush to run out and get this slightly faster 4080 for $1200+

I could see if you had an old 1080 Ti or 2070, yes go grab that 4080, but anyone with a 3080 Ti or better I think are crazy getting this new card. Unless you picked up a new 4k OLED monitor that you need 144+ fps in games at that high res.
See, if I were in that position, I'd just stick with what I've got...

...but what I've got in my desktop right now? Forget the 1080 Ti or 2070, what's in there is a GTX 980 bought about seven years ago that mainly hasn't been replaced because Pascal was too soon, Turing was overpriced and didn't offer enough raster performance gain, and let's not get into the hot mess that was Ampere availability up until a few months before Ada Lovelace's debut in the RTX 4090.

I think I'm long overdue for an upgrade here (in part so I can hand that same GTX 980 down to my bro so he's not stuck on an even more dated GTX 760 that the 980 replaced), but that doesn't mean I'll waste money out of sheer impatience. I may even switch to AMD just to spite them if RDNA 3 is competitive in VR performance.
 

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
12,318
Yeah, the 4080 at $1200 just seems horribly priced. I don't blame nvidia for getting what they can now, but I can't imagine sales being good once the AMD cards come out, unless they drop prices to match.
AMD makes their money from CPUs. Do you really think they are going to go whole hog producing GPUs compared to Nvidia? They are publically owned and will do what it takes to make as much for their shareholders as possible. That's CPUs. No lie.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,377
With under 400mm die Epyc cpu going for $1000 to $11,000 (and the pure AMD high margin part, not a card with ram and many other non-AMD part) I could believe that it would be hard to beat. True even for the 2x70mm Ryzen 4 part.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
See, if I were in that position, I'd just stick with what I've got...

...but what I've got in my desktop right now? Forget the 1080 Ti or 2070, what's in there is a GTX 980 bought about seven years ago that mainly hasn't been replaced because Pascal was too soon, Turing was overpriced and didn't offer enough raster performance gain, and let's not get into the hot mess that was Ampere availability up until a few months before Ada Lovelace's debut in the RTX 4090.

I think I'm long overdue for an upgrade here (in part so I can hand that same GTX 980 down to my bro so he's not stuck on an even more dated GTX 760 that the 980 replaced), but that doesn't mean I'll waste money out of sheer impatience. I may even switch to AMD just to spite them if RDNA 3 is competitive in VR performance.

In your case a 4080 is absolutely justified even with the high price, it'd be a monumental upgrade, and something to keep for many years in your PC.

But I'd still probably wait to see how good the 7900XTX performs, there's rumors it might like a 4085 type card, better then the 4080 but not as good as the 4090.
 

jobert

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2020
Messages
1,119
See, if I were in that position, I'd just stick with what I've got...

...but what I've got in my desktop right now? Forget the 1080 Ti or 2070, what's in there is a GTX 980 bought about seven years ago that mainly hasn't been replaced because Pascal was too soon, Turing was overpriced and didn't offer enough raster performance gain, and let's not get into the hot mess that was Ampere availability up until a few months before Ada Lovelace's debut in the RTX 4090.

I think I'm long overdue for an upgrade here (in part so I can hand that same GTX 980 down to my bro so he's not stuck on an even more dated GTX 760 that the 980 replaced), but that doesn't mean I'll waste money out of sheer impatience. I may even switch to AMD just to spite them if RDNA 3 is competitive in VR performance.
You sure made some excuses for not upgrading during that whole time. And don't stop now as you can clearly wait two more years for the next gen.:p
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
751
In your case a 4080 is absolutely justified even with the high price, it'd be a monumental upgrade, and something to keep for many years in your PC.

But I'd still probably wait to see how good the 7900XTX performs, there's rumors it might like a 4085 type card, better then the 4080 but not as good as the 4090.
Above 4080 performance for $1,000 sounds good to me, since the 4090, while especially desirable for VR, is both priced a bit beyond my reach and is hardly in stock.

AMD can very easily win over a lot of sales just by having cards on shelves to sell, with better performance than the 4080 at a lower price.

You sure made some excuses for not upgrading during that whole time. And don't stop now as you can clearly wait two more years for the next gen.:p
Money, or the lack thereof, is a pretty damn valid excuse, if you ask me. I don't have endless thousands to piss away just to make myself look [H]arder than everyone else, so every dollar had better count for something in a system I intend to use for literal years.

For context: that 980 was $315 new and sealed in late 2015. I didn't have a decent income until early in 2020 with a new job - just before the pandemic hit and everything went to hell.

That 980 was good enough to start with when the Rift CV1 and Vive launched in 2016, but VR games quickly became much more demanding as the years went on.

Now I'm not looking at $300-550 cards, but $700-1,600 ones because everything's went up in price so damn much on the high end even before the scalpers make it all worse. That's less "impulse buy" and more "I better think carefully about this", especially when I want to be certain that my VR performance goals are met.

And thanks to Babel Tech Reviews and a select few YouTubers covering what more mainstream tech reviewers won't, I know that time is now. I'm practically done waiting - it's just down to the RTX 4090, the RX 7900 XTX, or really attractively-priced used 3090s.
 
Last edited:

Advil

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,095
12GB 3080, new from Newegg, $789 right now. You can upgrade that 980 and be blown away. Enough VRAM for now and no fighting launch availability of anything. They have used ones for $600.

But yes I'd hold for reviews on the 7900XTX if you really want to spend in the $1000 category. It probably won't be in stock long if it's any good, but maybe it will drive the 4080 down?
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,377
12GB 3080, new from Newegg, $789 right now.
Which his not that much better of a deal than a 4080 at $1200 if at all........spectacularly

4080 give you what, 45-49% more performance for 52% more dollar, with the value goes down has performance goes up history of the industry we could call that a tie.

$535 6800xt or a $655 6900xt that come with 2 free games seem much better, obviously if one need-want OptiX like rendering in blender or some CUDA related feature, Nvidia would still be the best choice but in that regard the 4080 blow the 3080 out of the water by dollar it seem.

New Ampere card are way too overpriced right now imo, at least when you go above the 3070ti, the 3080Ti and up are sold at 4080 price and higher..... completely useless outside someone that has a use for more than 16gig of VRAM, 4080 will give you better performance, less power, superb cooling, AV1, etc... often at a better price.

New RDNA 2 or used NVIDIA seem where to go.
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,409
1668708877895.png



Wow I stand corrected. Looks like indeed people are fed up with these prices.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
751
12GB 3080, new from Newegg, $789 right now. You can upgrade that 980 and be blown away. Enough VRAM for now and no fighting launch availability of anything. They have used ones for $600.

But yes I'd hold for reviews on the 7900XTX if you really want to spend in the $1000 category. It probably won't be in stock long if it's any good, but maybe it will drive the 4080 down?
Terrible price for a 3080 when the same money can buy a used 3090 - I've seen them in the $700-800 range, sometimes with full-cover waterblocks (I have a custom loop) - and gain a substantial amount of performance.

But I'm holding out for the RX 7900 XTX for a litany of reasons - DisplayPort 2.1 support (could be huge for future monitors and especially VR HMDs), likely better Linux drivers, and forcing NVIDIA to adjust their prices in response if it's competitive.

For what it's worth, I actually do have a better GPU than the GTX 980 for PC games, but it's an RTX 2070 Max-Q in an HP OMEN X 2S that's so prone to overheating that it will throttle if I don't have fans blowing hard underneath, and even when it isn't, it performs more like a desktop 2060. Kinda underwhelming to the point that it drove me back to desktop builds because the thermal throttling sucked so much.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,685
I didn't read the whole thread, but I'm sure other people have already said: the 7900XT and 7900XTX can't drop fast enough.
There needs to be some healthy competition here to help with all of nVidia's dumb.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,923
Which his not that much better of a deal than a 4080 at $1200 if at all........spectacularly

4080 give you what, 45-49% more performance for 52% more dollar, with the value goes down has performance goes up history of the industry we could call that a tie.

$535 6800xt or a $655 6900xt that come with 2 free games seem much better, obviously if one need-want OptiX like rendering in blender or some CUDA related feature, Nvidia would still be the best choice but in that regard the 4080 blow the 3080 out of the water by dollar it seem.

New Ampere card are way too overpriced right now imo, at least when you go above the 3070ti, the 3080Ti and up are sold at 4080 price and higher..... completely useless outside someone that has a use for more than 16gig of VRAM, 4080 will give you better performance, less power, superb cooling, AV1, etc... often at a better price.

New RDNA 2 or used NVIDIA seem where to go.
I do think DLSS 3.0, if you play the games that use it, and are playing at higher res, is an absolutely killer feature. The performance leap is just massive. Also, the general raytracing performance is a huge leap over last gen as well - Even without DLSS 3.0.

The power numbers are nice for the 4080 as well. However, no DP 2.0 is -really- lame, IMO. Honestly, if you aren't playing at 4K I don't think these cards are really worth it right now if you already have something like a 3080+. If I were looking at a 3080ti/3090 though, the 4080 is an easy choice. It's worth the extra couple hundred at that point given the 40%+ gains across the board, uses less power doing it, and DLSS 3.0 future proofing.
 
D

Deleted member 109755

Guest
With my experience with MC's stock reporting recently, I'd say you don't know what's really there unless you go... this is not an automatic system that tracks it. Dallas store made me drive over an hour out of my way to go get something they said was in stock and they had none of it.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,923
I drove up to the Denver MC today since I was up there anyways on a work trip. The reporting online pretty closely matched the in store scenario. They had loads of 4080's. In fact, they had more 4080's then 3080's, and when I was there more people wanted 3080s...
 

NightReaver

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
2,102
I drove up to the Denver MC today since I was up there anyways on a work trip. The reporting online pretty closely matched the in store scenario. They had loads of 4080's. In fact, they had more 4080's then 3080's, and when I was there more people wanted 3080s...
I'm still surprised by that. Looking at my local MC, 3080s are somehow still $750+ which is just ridiculous for a 2 year old card. I guess if you MUST have it....
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
I'm still surprised by that. Looking at my local MC, 3080s are somehow still $750+ which is just ridiculous for a 2 year old card. I guess if you MUST have it....

Just for fun I put my RTX-3080 up for sale on Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace for $600, it's the Gigabyte white version, in PERFECT condition, no bites yet a day later on Facebook, and on Cragislist got a dozen replies almost immediately, but everyone saying they want to send me their 6 digit verification code or some BS? I said it's a local cash deal only, no mailing it and weird code stuff, and then they never replied back.

Basically 24 hours later, my $600 RTX 3080 is not wanted in the Chicago area.
 

Saabjock

Gawd
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
620
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Anybody buying this card is a 'certified' idiot. No doubt of any kind remains.
Long-term wealthy people do not make stupid purchases...that is why they retain wealth.
I suspect the people buying this card are scrounging to save every penny just to do so...OR...they can but will have major regret when AMD launches their 7900XTX.
There is no good reason to spend $50 less for a card that is so far below in performance.....none.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
I currently have the 3080 10GB bought exactly two years ago Nov. 2020 for $749 @ Microcenter.

Back then I thought to myself yeah in a couple years I'll pick up the 4080.

Then the 4090 came out, with beastly performance of 75% to almost double the performance of the 3090. And the 4090 was only a hundred bucks more then the 3090 I thought to myself okay that's the way it should be, the new card is almost twice as fast for just a little bit more money.

Then the 4080 rumors come out $1200 price tag, not a huge performance upgrade over the 3080. WTF?

And now the benchmarks this week it shows it's mostly 30% to 50% faster than the 3080. But costs a whopping $500 more. That's crazy.

I could almost justify the $1,200 price if it was the same performance difference like the 3090 to 4090, meaning double the performance. But it barely being 50% faster and is $1200. What. The. Fuck. ? No way.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
Bottom line the 4090 is only a $100 more than last gen but gives a massive 75% to 100% performance upgrade.

The 4080 is $500 more than last gen and only gives 40% to 50% performance upgrade.

At that rate, the real price for the 4080 should be like $799, and on with inflation $899 tops, certainly not $1200.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
Was just at Microcenter, buying a new Seasonic PSU, and I went to the GPU section, and they did have 4080s in stock, and I had cash in hand, and they had the white one I liked. Hummed and hawed for like 5 minutes in that isle, and I just couldn't pull the trigger. Just couldn't do it. $1200 for what, 40% to 50% better performance over my 3080? I was almost about to grab it, then thought $1200 for not even 50% upgrade, ugh can't do it.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
Checked a bunch of reviews, and the 4080 is about 45% faster then my 3080.

My threshold has typically been a GPU upgrade needs to be at least 50% of an upgrade for me to purchase, and if it's 75% faster then for sure I'm buying immediately. But this being 45% AND $1200 that's just tough pill to swallow. Actually the 4090 would be a smarter buy LOL.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,923
45% if you only look at raster average. It's closer to 60%-70% in raytracing heavy games, not even including the massive gains from DLSS 3.0.

Not saying it's a great buy, but between the VRAM upgrade and general gains I don't think it's really a bad card for an upgrade if you don't have the 12GB+ 3000 series cards. It's a tough sell for anyone already on 3080 12GB + level of performance though.

If you don't care about raytracing, I think folks are crazy to buy it without waiting for the 7900XTX reviews first.

Still, this isn't nearly as bad as the move from 1080ti -> 2080ti. That was way worse, and you didn't have the COVID/Inflation factors.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
751
DLSS 2.0 was fine by me with the resolution upscaling, but 3.0 is a step too far with the interpolated frames and increased latency.

I already deal with enough "fake" frames in VR when the framerate dips below the HMD refresh rate; that's where timewarp/spacewarp/reprojection kicks in and adds synthesized frames so you at least still have the semblance of smooth head-tracking rather than nauseating judder. It's still not ideal when most such implementations outright halve the framerate, but it's the best we can do when some games still barely hit 45 FPS in VR with a 4090 (MSFS2020 comes to mind).

I'd rather the GPU vendors focused more on native performance rather than fudging numbers with AI upscaling and interpolation figures; let those be in addition to the base performance rather than the expected performance figure out of the gate.

Also, I'm with Zorachus here: the 4090 nets you more frames for your dollar, so you might as well bite the bullet and spend the extra for the high-end card if you're aiming for this level of performance anyway.

It'll last much longer in the long run, assuming nothing gets shaken up too much with additional rendering features and new APIs that quickly become required for games to run, but we're far from the mad dash that was DirectX 6 through 11 and the rapid Shader Model revisions that brought. Now, it's all mainly ray-tracing additions.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,923
DLSS 2.0 was fine by me with the resolution upscaling, but 3.0 is a step too far with the interpolated frames and increased latency.

I already deal with enough "fake" frames in VR when the framerate dips below the HMD refresh rate; that's where timewarp/spacewarp/reprojection kicks in and adds synthesized frames so you at least still have the semblance of smooth head-tracking rather than nauseating judder. It's still not ideal when most such implementations outright halve the framerate, but it's the best we can do when some games still barely hit 45 FPS in VR with a 4090 (MSFS2020 comes to mind).

I'd rather the GPU vendors focused more on native performance rather than fudging numbers with AI upscaling and interpolation figures; let those be in addition to the base performance rather than the expected performance figure out of the gate.

Also, I'm with Zorachus here: the 4090 nets you more frames for your dollar, so you might as well bite the bullet and spend the extra for the high-end card if you're aiming for this level of performance anyway.

It'll last much longer in the long run, assuming nothing gets shaken up too much with additional rendering features and new APIs that quickly become required for games to run, but we're far from the mad dash that was DirectX 6 through 11 and the rapid Shader Model revisions that brought. Now, it's all mainly ray-tracing additions.
The latency add of DLSS 3.0 is negated by the massive uplift in frame rates so it's a complete wash. I would say nvidia did give us an uplift in native performance. You've got 40% raster, and 60% in raytracing, again, not including DLSS 3.0 at all. It's just a matter if raytracing is something you value.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
Not a fan of DLSS, I just like raw GPU performance, no gimmicks. What card gives me the best performance at ultra max settings in my games. And the 4080 is an ok upgrade, but certainly not a $1,200 worthy upgrade, at $799 yes.

But then the 4090 costs only like 20% more than the 4080, yet gives like 50% better performance.

If I'm willing to spend $1200 on 50% of an upgrade, why not spend $300 more for almost 100% of an upgrade.
 

Andrew_Carr

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
2,697
AMD makes their money from CPUs. Do you really think they are going to go whole hog producing GPUs compared to Nvidia? They are publically owned and will do what it takes to make as much for their shareholders as possible. That's CPUs. No lie.
No. But here's the weird thing to me: Even last gen when they had competitive cards, availability for AMD cards was much better.
I currently have the 3080 10GB bought exactly two years ago Nov. 2020 for $749 @ Microcenter.

Back then I thought to myself yeah in a couple years I'll pick up the 4080.

Then the 4090 came out, with beastly performance of 75% to almost double the performance of the 3090. And the 4090 was only a hundred bucks more then the 3090 I thought to myself okay that's the way it should be, the new card is almost twice as fast for just a little bit more money.

Then the 4080 rumors come out $1200 price tag, not a huge performance upgrade over the 3080. WTF?

And now the benchmarks this week it shows it's mostly 30% to 50% faster than the 3080. But costs a whopping $500 more. That's crazy.

I could almost justify the $1,200 price if it was the same performance difference like the 3090 to 4090, meaning double the performance. But it barely being 50% faster and is $1200. What. The. Fuck. ? No way.
Checked a bunch of reviews, and the 4080 is about 45% faster then my 3080.

My threshold has typically been a GPU upgrade needs to be at least 50% of an upgrade for me to purchase, and if it's 75% faster then for sure I'm buying immediately. But this being 45% AND $1200 that's just tough pill to swallow. Actually the 4090 would be a smarter buy LOL.
Is that taking into account the latest drivers for the 3xxx or are they reusing old benchmarks?
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
No. But here's the weird thing to me: Even last gen when they had competitive cards, availability for AMD cards was much better.


Is that taking into account the latest drivers for the 3xxx or are they reusing old benchmarks?

Reading the reviews today, I believe all cards tested are based on recent nVidia driver's, maybe not the newest ones just released, but stuff from a week or two ago.

And compiling them all, the 4080 is approx. 45% faster on average over the 3080. Even several reviewers stated that, the 4080 is less than 50% faster than the 3080 10GB.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
751
The latency add of DLSS 3.0 is negated by the massive uplift in frame rates so it's a complete wash. I would say nvidia did give us an uplift in native performance. You've got 40% raster, and 60% in raytracing, again, not including DLSS 3.0 at all. It's just a matter if raytracing is something you value.
In a way, this feels like discussing memory bandwidth vs. latency, where higher MT rates require looser timings to avoid errors, but timings are measured in clock cycles and sufficiently higher clocks may result in overall lower latency (good DDR4 can do 10ns or even less) if the timings don't have to be increased too much more. There's a balance to be struck, and one cannot go blindly on what the numbers say by themselves without running a few calculations first.

Note that DLSS 3.0 does not work in VR (nor would I expect it to if it relies on synthesized frames of its own), therefore making it of substantially less value to me than DLSS 2.1, which theoretically can work in VR, but no games currently support it right now.

With that said, the 4090 is an absolute beast in VR, down to making some games actually playable with (almost) no synth/dropped frames for once. That's why I want it.

Ray-tracing may be of value to me in the future, but we haven't hit that threshold of "RT required" for any games to actually run, not like the old days when Deus Ex: Invisible War and Thief: Deadly Shadows mandated DX8/Shader Model 1.1 at minimum right when people were getting suckered into buying GeForce 4 MXs without programmable shaders (GF4 Ti would've worked), or when Bioshock required SM 3.0 officially (but could be patched to run on SM 2.0 cards like Radeon 9x00/Xx00), or later when Crysis 3 required DX11 at minimum despite also running on consoles with DX9c/SM 3.0-era GPUs.

You literally couldn't get by on a seven-year-old GPU back then like I could with the GTX 980 now, standards and tech were advancing far too quickly.

I believe that by the time that RT is mandatory for new PC games, the GPUs available then will make the RTX 4090 look like an entry-level RT card, and ray-traced VR games would actually be a viable thing. There may even be wrappers for whatever proprietary API that NVIDIA might be pushing for RT before DX12 Ultimate incorporated support, much like how 3dfx Glide has wrappers for modern OpenGL and Direct3D so you can still run the classics with 3D acceleration.
 

Advil

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,095
That's right on. What I've been surprised about is that there have not even been any decent proof of concept playable games from anyone where the entire lighting system is RT. With the release of the 4090 it really seems to me that DLSS upscaling from 1080p to 4k should be able to get us some playing test games that are entirely RT. But no one has done it yet.
 
Last edited:

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,923
That's right on. What I've been surprised about is that there have not even been any proof of concept playable mini games from anyone where the entire lighting system is RT. With the release of the 4090 it really seems to me that DLSS upscaling from 1080p to 4k should be able to get us some playing test games that are entirely RT. But no one has done it yet.
Quake 2 RT kills most systems, and that's Quake 2. The best you're going to get is a blend with games like Control, 2077, DL2, etc.

I will say RT is absolutely required in DL2. It's one of the few games where raytracing makes a big difference as there wasn't much effort into crafting decent shader based lighting/shadowing effects.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,377
That's right on. What I've been surprised about is that there have not even been any decent proof of concept playable games from anyone where the entire lighting system is RT.
I am not sure I understand enough the nuance enough to judge but that we could be still quite far away, but isn't Quake 2 fully path traced, then denoised and shown has is (unlike Metro exodus that has a lot of composition done with traditional rastered element) ?

Looked like this in 2019 pre-denoise:


denoiser1.png


A 4090 now run Quake 2 RTX at 70fps+ in 4k, which could make possible to augment the samples per pixels quite high at 1080p and still be at 60fps I would imagine.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
661
Glad to see these still rotting on shelves. I find it kinda gross how they are advertising special financing with it. It's like "hey we'll rip you off selling you something you don't need for way more than its worth". I have a MC credit card I use for the 5% off and pay it off every month, or I have done the 0% interest for 6 months for larger purchases just so I am not out the cash all at once (I have it though). Here they are trying to get you to buy one with 36 month financing really? Are we buying a car? LOL, the absolute state of graphics cards market right now. Looking forward to the correction.

1669055085165.png
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
10,014
Glad to see these still rotting on shelves. I find it kinda gross how they are advertising special financing with it. It's like "hey we'll rip you off selling you something you don't need for way more than its worth". I have a MC credit card I use for the 5% off and pay it off every month, or I have done the 0% interest for 6 months for larger purchases just so I am not out the cash all at once (I have it though). Here they are trying to get you to buy one with 36 month financing really? Are we buying a car? LOL, the absolute state of graphics cards market right now. Looking forward to the correction.

View attachment 528456
It is more likely no interest financing. Idk if that is with the Wells Fargo MC card or you have to sign up with another 3rd party card.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,720
Instead of buying a 4080 I decided to upgrade my system, new case, motherboard, CPU, and RAM. Slowly putting together last night, now to connect it all tonight, seems a bit overwhelming all the wires to connect up properly LOL
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20221122_045659794.PORTRAIT.jpg
    PXL_20221122_045659794.PORTRAIT.jpg
    365.2 KB · Views: 0
  • PXL_20221122_140826157.jpg
    PXL_20221122_140826157.jpg
    503 KB · Views: 0
  • PXL_20221122_045646782.PORTRAIT.jpg
    PXL_20221122_045646782.PORTRAIT.jpg
    419.3 KB · Views: 0
Top