Was Nintendo right to opt out of the graphics arms race?

[Chrkeller]

Soundwave said:

Chrkeller said:

I am genuinely and sincerely just trying to avoid another disaster.  You appeared to being arguing against Perma on something he didn't say.  If I am mistaken, that is on me and apologies. 

Not just your opinion, best I can we are all impressed with the S2.  Especially the third-party support, way better than I expected.  The S2 is excellent.   

A 2080 is 2018, a 5050 is 2025.  That is 7 years and multiple generations apart..  the 2080 has 12% better performance.  Fact.  So, being generations ahead does not offset raw power, fact.  We should start accepting facts.  Again, I feel bad about playing a role in derailing a really good thread, so let us get it back on topic.    

I don't even have much interest in PC architecture generations other than to say they do exist, which is not really debatable. Using the 20-series as a baseline can be misleading because the 20-series was a massive leap forward, the leap where DLSS and tensor core usage and all of Nvidia's AI investment really took off in a tangible way. Not every PC generation is going to have that level of a jump, that doesn't mean PC architectures don't exist or are meaningless. There is a significant different between AMD GCN 2.0 architecture and Nvidia Ampere/Lovelace, again if someone is upset by that comment, fine. 

20-series also ironically is probably the beginning of the end of Nvidia giving a crap about gaming as that level of technology soon started to be eaten up for AI servers creating the modern AI boom and I don't think going forward Nvidia really gives that much of a crap if gamers are going to whine that the 40 series or 50 series or 60 series or 70 series are smaller leaps. They don't care now, why should they, aside from having almost a quasi-monopoly (92%+ marketshare) they make 100x more money from AI companies than they do from gamers. 

But again, none of that has anything to do with this thread's topic and should never have been a debatable point to begin with. 

to my earlier point, we shouldn't argue positions nobody took.  Not a single person said they don't exist.  We all agree they exist.  

Your argument was a 7-year difference in architecture is massive, not always, as is the case with the 2080 vs 5050.   

Nobody said they are meaningless.  Again, we shouldn't argue imaginary battles.  My argument, I believe Norion agrees, raw power trumps architecture generations in most cases, especially recently.  Likely, to your point, that trend will continue.  A lot of people, myself included when I built my first gaming rig, rely on accurate information.  Posting that architecture generations mean more than raw power is inaccurate and could be wrongly mislead people looking to get into gaming.  It would be tragic for someone to pass up on say a 3070 in favor of a 5050 because they read architecture matters more.      

Again, we should debate positions people took.  And to be fair, I am not the only who has pointed this out to you.  It is universally agreed this is a problem in this particular thread.

edit

According to benchmarks I googled, a 1080 outperforms a 3050 by 25%..  and you are saying the 2000 series was a bit jump in architecture, and yet..  raw power.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 14 January 2026