It's not that Nvidia would lose anything from that, it's more that game developers won't support a card which would sell in thousands (probably) over its lifetime - which means that Nvidia won't have anything to show really aside from 8K (pointless) and 200+ fps (also a bit pointless as you won't see these through YouTube).
680, 980, 1080, 2080 were all about similar to their respective previous gen higher tier parts. If we account for things like 590 and 690 (when they actually worked) then this seems like a far cry from "weakest 80 class" really.
Yes. The important part is how it stacks up to the rest of the cards in its generation.
He's honestly far more generous than the situation merits, already considering the 4080 an actual '80' class GPU and not the 70 class it really is(cut down sub 400mm² upper midrange die with 256-bit bus). It's seriously tragic how bad things have gotten in the GPU space. And it's worse that people defend and apologize for it, even though we can see that in other areas, things are not nearly as bad, like with CPU's, all because we have proper competition there.
Pascal was a massive performance improvement over the prior generation, but Nvidia didn't call a 1060 a 1070Ti and double the price for it. That's exactly what happened with Lovelace, though.
Speaking of which, this could apply to the med range too, the 4060 is now the most used GPU on the Steam Hardware Survey. I think this is the first time in a while that a 60 class card climbs up the charts in the same generation. It only happened back with the 970 generation as far as I can remember.
That's not how the technologhy world works, by any stretch of anyone's imagination. GPUs have never sold that way, CPUs have never sold that way, motherboards, storage devices, host bus adapters, monitors, powersupplies... This is not a rational take.
Costs include features and R&D, they are the highest in the case of NVIDIA compared to any competitor, you also pay based on support and longevity, NVIDIA offers the longest driver support in the industry, their current support includes 5 generations (vs 3 generations for AMD).
Nvidia are genuinely famous for dropping any kind of driver support for architectures more than a single generation old. lol What on earth kind of bizarro world are you living in? And by driver support, I dont mean 'still functions', I mean 'is actively being optimized for'. You dont need driver support for things to still function. I'm still using a Pascal GPU and there's very few things I literally cant run at all due to lack of driver support(mostly just lack of horsepower), even though they've dropped driver support ages ago.
This is just completely false.
That's literally how things have ALWAYS worked in the processor world up until super recently. And still how it actually works with CPU's.
No, it's really not. Most PC gamers paying attention know this, but of course you're going to deny it to your deathbed because you've literally never once accepted any criticism of Nvidia ever, in any situation, and for any reason, no matter how legitimate.
Yes, it really is. Check the "Supported products" tab.
Most PC games don't know anything and are just spreading the same misinformation which has been debunked dozens of times over and over again.
Again, I'm talking active optimizations. We all know and have seen how Nvidia architectures more than a single generation old tend to fall backwards heavily in performance in newer games. You're like the Ministry of Truth telling us to deny the things we're seeing with our eyes and ears.
Most optimizations Nvidia implement are relevant to all h/w which the driver supports.
Which has zero to do with the drivers and is usually a result of game developers dropping optimization for these particular h/w families.
I'm like actually the one who knows what he's talking about while you're describing things existing only inside your head.