By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

hinch said:

Lol that true. You'd go up a tier and get less VRAM depending on what SKU. At least AMD are a bit more consistant across its stack. Here's hoping Nvidia learns from its mistakes for Blackwell because even AiB's are tired of this BS (looking at the reports/rumors for the 4060 Ti 16GB).

For next gen I want to see something like this

5050 8GB
5060 12GB
5070 16GB
5080 20GB
5090 24GB

Rather than the mess we have had the last couple generations. Its way less confusing for consumers/gamers and matches closer to the performance class and tier.

Yea it depends but Nvidia generally considers their workstation GPUs when configuring the specs for their consumer GPUs while Radeon doesn't since with a lot of Nvidias consumer GPUs, they can do workstation tasks almost as well as their workstation GPUs but the only real cuck is that Vram. But I do think similar to Kepler > Maxwell > Pascal where Vram has gone up, Blackwell will also see Vram go up. Just the question is whether or not the price will also go up like with Lovelace.

Still my predictions are:

5090: 24GB
5080: 16GB but higher bandwidth
5070/Ti: 16GB less bandwidth
5060 Ti: 12GB
5060: 8GB

I don't think we will see a 12GB 60 class for a while lol



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Around the Network
hinch said:

Lol that true. You'd go up a tier and get less VRAM depending on what SKU. At least AMD are a bit more consistant across its stack. Here's hoping Nvidia learns from its mistakes for Blackwell because even AiB's are tired of this BS (looking at the reports/rumors for the 4060 Ti 16GB).

For next gen I want to see something like this

5050 8GB
5060 12GB
5070 16GB
5080 20GB
5090 24GB

Rather than the mess we have had the last couple generations. Its way less confusing for consumers/gamers and matches closer to the performance class and tier.

Ngl, if Nvidia keeps this up, I'm switching to team red for my GPU needs when I do my next build early next year



Overwatch 2 is coming to steam. I've bought the game 3 times. When is it most expensive.

Well after it went free to play. LUL.



3 times? For what? 2 smurf accounts? lol



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

3 times? For what? 2 smurf accounts? lol

This blizzard gamer knows it.



Around the Network

This move from Blizzard is strange.

They've been doing their own thing for many years without problems, and they decide to do this now? Why? It's too soon to be because of MSoft's deal, and even then they would likely still be able to do their own thing.

Has Overwatch 2 been doing bad lately? I remember the launch was vrey good, but I don't know how's it doing right now, even more so after all the stuff that Blizzard promised before launch and have now cancelled.

Is it because it's free-to-play model doesn't bring as much money as they expected and are trying to bring more people in by launching it on Steam?

As I said, it's strange and raises a lot of questions.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if MS wants to "Sunset" battle.net eventually. I think a lot of companies are figuring out that maintaining their own launcher for that extra "30%" might not be as worth it as they initially thought. Hoarding all that data, paying for datacenters around the world, cloud saves, support tickets, managing refunds, charge backs, managing voice chats and group chats etc. Can really start to add up. And it's not like they can advertise on Steam which has a growing number of userbase and now that PC handles are becoming a thing with Steam Deck being at the forefront, it's getting harder to justify not being on Steam.

Plus if the game sells more than $10 million, Valve takes 25% of the revenue and if the game sells more than $50 million, Valve takes 20% which are easy to do with AAA games. And I am sure Valve has a lot of back handed deals with these big publishers as well.



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

I don't doubt that MSoft will try to do something about Battle.net, but it's too soon to have any power to make that happen.

No, this is a decision that's been taken within the company.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

JEMC said:

I played, and enjoyed, the first three Gears of War, but I don't think I'll ever get Gears 5, and the meain reason is Gears 4.

MSoft decided to use this game and the remaster of the first one to push for its Store to compete with Steam, and they did so in a way that neither of those games can be launched on Steam. And since Gears 5 follows the story unvelied in Gears 4, it doesn't make sense for me, a single player guys, to get Gears 5 because I won't know what's going on.

Do what I did and become a Xbot by buying a Xbox Series S.

(I played Gears of War 1 Ultimate on Xbox PC Game pass few years ago and Gears of War 4 as well).

Ended up buying Gears of War 1 Ultimate, 2, 3, Judgment, 4 and 5 (double dipped on Steam too) for my Xbox lol.

Just finished Gears 1 Ultimate again on Xbox few months ago, gonna play 2 later this year.