Confused on Steam Play and Proton? Be sure to check out our guide.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

NVIDIA announce the RTX 3090, RTX 3080, RTX 3070 with 2nd generation RTX

By - | Views: 39,603

Today the 'Ultimate Countdown' from NVIDIA ended with the announcement of the RTX 3090, RTX 3080 and the RTX 3070, all of them being absolute monsters with 2nd generation RTX. Powered by their Ampere generation, this definitely sounds like a big generational leap. It's really easy to be excited about it and I am.

Not just in terms of power, the price of the main two RTX 3080 and the RTX 3070 puts them well in line with the current 20xx generation which is pretty amazing for the difference in power. We need to take anything with a pinch of salt though of course, until independent benchmarks can be done.

Here's some shots from the presentation:

Meanwhile, the RTX 3090 is aimed at replacing the TITAN GPUs they did previously. A true overkill GPU, which they claim will let you play 8K.

Full specifications:

  GeForce RTX
3090
GeForce RTX
3080
GeForce RTX
3070
NVIDIA CUDA® Cores 10496 8704 5888
Boost Clock (GHz) 1.70 1.71 1.73
Standard Memory Config 24 GB GDDR6X 10 GB GDDR6X 8 GB GDDR6
Memory Interface Width 384-bit 320-bit 256-bit
Ray Tracing Cores 2nd Generation 2nd Generation 2nd Generation
Tensor Cores 3rd Generation 3rd Generation 3rd Generation
NVIDIA Architecture Ampere Ampere Ampere
NVIDIA DLSS Yes Yes Yes
PCI Express Gen 4 Yes Yes Yes
NVIDIA G-SYNC® Yes Yes Yes
Vulkan RT API, OpenGL 4.6 Yes Yes Yes
HDMI 2.1 Yes Yes Yes
DisplayPort 1.4a Yes Yes Yes
NVIDIA Encoder 7th Generation 7th Generation 7th Generation
NVIDIA Decoder 5th Generation 5th Generation 5th Generation
VR Ready Yes Yes Yes
Maximum Digital Resolution (1) 7680x4320 7680x4320 7680x4320
Standard Display Connectors HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Multi Monitor 4 4 4
HDCP 2.3 2.3 2.3
Length 12.3" (313 mm) 11.2" (285 mm) 9.5" (242 mm)
Width 5.4" (138 mm) 4.4" (112 mm) 4.4" (112 mm)
Height 3-Slot 2-Slot 2-Slot
Maximum GPU Temperature (in C) 93 93 93
Graphics Card Power (W) 350 320 220
Recommended System Power (W) (2) 750 750 650
Supplementary Power Connectors 2x PCIe 8-pin 2x PCIe 8-pin 1x PCIe 8-pin

On top of all that, they're also the first to come with support for the AV1 codec, which is very promising for being more efficient and more feature-filled than older popular codecs.

Pricing / Availability

  • RTX 3090 - £1,399 / $1,499 - Available September 24th
  • RTX 3080 - £649 / $699 - Available September 17th
  • RTX 3070 - £469 / $499 - Available October (no exact date given)

Each will also have a special Founders edition available, which an increased price.

When going by price to performance ratio, the RTX 3070 sounds absolutely ridiculous. If (big if), it truly has the RTX 2080 ti level performance for a vastly cheaper sum then it alone could help usher in a new level of gaming performance for a great many people. More GPUs based on Ampere will be coming, as these are just the first. I can't help but think about the RTX 3060, whenever they announce one that is. Considering the power of the RTX 3070, the RTX 3060 is quite likely to be a mega deal for people after both performance and an affordable price. Also makes me curious even more so now on Intel, as they announced their Xe-HPG gaming GPUs which arrive next year. Then we have AMD too with RDNA2 which is supposed to be this year. So much to look forward to for hardware enthusiasts!

Since NVIDIA support Ray Tracing already on Linux with their own extensions, and they already have early support for the vendor-neutral provisional Ray Tracing extensions in Vulkan it's going to be very interesting to see just how far developers will push it. Ideally though, we need more games on Linux that use it.

For those of you who really do love the serious technical side of it, NVIDIA has announced the release of a 'whitepaper' on the RTX 30 series which will be available on September 17. They say it will give a lot of detail on every aspect of the new cards in 'exhaustive detail'.

Other Windows-only stuff was announced too of course like RTX for Fortnite, a new 'NVIDIA Broadcast' effects suite application for livestreamers like backgrounds and noise removal, another RTX-powered application for video editing and more. Not that any of it matters for Linux users and gamers - sadly.

You can watch the whole thing below and see the announcement here.

YouTube Thumbnail
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Accept Cookies & Show   Direct Link
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Hardware, NVIDIA
18 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. Find me on Mastodon.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
55 comments
Page: «5/6»
  Go to:

Cestus Sep 2, 2020
nvidia and hardware acceleration in linux often gets on my nerves... unfortunately.
emphy Sep 2, 2020
The price class I am more interested in has been nicely cut off from that first graph (hint: it's not on the right side).

Impressive as the performance of the new releases is, this new generation will actually interest me when/if amd and/or nvidia release a sub-$200 video card with faster than 2070 super performance or, even better, a sub-$70 card with faster than 1660 super performance.


Last edited by emphy on 2 September 2020 at 12:31 pm UTC
CFWhitman Sep 2, 2020
After using AMD cards for the last 8 plus years. I'm not anxious to go back to Nvidia. I do more than game, and AMD seem to handle desktop usage more smoothly in Linux than Nvidia, and certainly a lot more effortlessly. Of course, you need to have a way to keep Mesa up to date for games, but it's not too hard on several distributions.
Shmerl Sep 2, 2020
Quoting: HoriAnd what's the alternative?
AMD is the only competitor and it's way too expensive.

Not sure how you can compare prices for not yet released cards. Regular prices for comparable cards for AMD are actually lower than for Nvidia.

And AMD cards don't really lack any features that I care about.


Last edited by Shmerl on 2 September 2020 at 6:41 pm UTC
Arten Sep 3, 2020
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: slaapliedje
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: kokoko3kI just hope old gpu prices goes down, but it never happens.

They'd really prefer to price gouge you at all points in time, not just at release.

All that needs to be done is:

a) passing laws that force companies (...).

How about the complete opposite? Throw away all laws that currently pose an obstacle to competitors, don't force companies to anything. New players on the market will appear trying hard to get their niche, boom, prices drop. This is actually happening with VR sets right now.

Creating more laws against businesses does not make things better for the consumers. It onerates the entire production chain and makes it harder for everyone to get that. And it keeps competitors away for the big players. That's exactly what you don't want to happen.
A big problem is that all the players in a market tend to end up being bought out by the larger players. That's basically just part of capitalism. (...)
And that happens because of the State -- specially laws and regulations --, not in spite of it. Big businesses do constantly skew the perception of the public to make it look like there is lack of regulations, and they win double by more and more obstacles which they are able to work with but not their smaller competitors. A freer market with no rules and thus no barrier against newcomers would be the best deterrent against monopolies. Sure, I understand there is a complex production chain, but these very same suppliers would benefit from more customers too, so it's not this chain that prevents competition. Conversely, it's hopeless to try and use the State against the big guys, they are best buddies and will use this whole perception to their profit.

Removing laws that prevent a business from polluting will suddenly stop pollution?

I guess we should make murder legal too so that all murder stops.

As for prices and wages, capitalism is a failure and laws are made in order to prop up capitalism from failing. Without laws such as anti-monopoly ones, you get monopolies. That is the natural order of things. You can't have infinite competition, especially on a finite planet, and that competition doesn't necessarily magically result in lower prices especially once you get duopolies/monopolies/etc because if the controllers of production seek higher prices then no one cares about trying to give cheap prices because that stops making them more money at a certain point (lowering prices more doesn't result in increased number of sales/money). The only thing that really kept capitalism afloat anytime in history where there weren't yet laws stopping them from doing evil things is because the controllers of production had morals.

It's not efficient to have ten different delivery trucks driving down a neighborhood street. It's the cheapest and most efficient to have ONE, and one that is owned by the people or has laws preventing profiteering so that everyone gets the cheapest service possible. As long as that service is democratically and decently managed like the USPS here in the U.S., it will always be the best system. The only way to have that kind of efficiency with capitalism would be to have a monopoly, but then you'd instantly get price gouging unless you had laws to ensure that they were fair and not abusive like that. Why have a mini economic dictatorship entity like that when you can have it democratized instead and owned by the workers or the public at large?

Capitalism ALWAYS results in monopolies and extreme profiteering without laws to stop the greed from spiralling out of control, but inevitably capitalism also corrupts the government to undermine all that which is why so many monopolies reign supreme right now because of corrupt governments.

Likewise, I can also argue that governments ALWAYS are susceptible to corruption and ineptitude, and that's why having watchdogged democratic governments to prevent such abuse is required.

So, you want fight monopoly with... monopoly? State is also monopol. With all negative efects, but its monopoly on violance.
Problem is that state benefits big corporations, with huge legal and lobbying team and resources. Why you think that EU bans old car? Green politics? No. Car makers want protection from the competition. Developmnet cost for Euro 6 are so huge, that is no chance fo develop it without help and without patent infringement. But concurency still emerging but now in form of EV.

Remove regulation (patents included, or at least shorten their duration) and you kill monopolies without milions of other regulations.
Purple Library Guy Sep 3, 2020
Quoting: Arten
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: slaapliedje
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: kokoko3kI just hope old gpu prices goes down, but it never happens.

They'd really prefer to price gouge you at all points in time, not just at release.

All that needs to be done is:

a) passing laws that force companies (...).

How about the complete opposite? Throw away all laws that currently pose an obstacle to competitors, don't force companies to anything. New players on the market will appear trying hard to get their niche, boom, prices drop. This is actually happening with VR sets right now.

Creating more laws against businesses does not make things better for the consumers. It onerates the entire production chain and makes it harder for everyone to get that. And it keeps competitors away for the big players. That's exactly what you don't want to happen.
A big problem is that all the players in a market tend to end up being bought out by the larger players. That's basically just part of capitalism. (...)
And that happens because of the State -- specially laws and regulations --, not in spite of it. Big businesses do constantly skew the perception of the public to make it look like there is lack of regulations, and they win double by more and more obstacles which they are able to work with but not their smaller competitors. A freer market with no rules and thus no barrier against newcomers would be the best deterrent against monopolies. Sure, I understand there is a complex production chain, but these very same suppliers would benefit from more customers too, so it's not this chain that prevents competition. Conversely, it's hopeless to try and use the State against the big guys, they are best buddies and will use this whole perception to their profit.

Removing laws that prevent a business from polluting will suddenly stop pollution?

I guess we should make murder legal too so that all murder stops.

As for prices and wages, capitalism is a failure and laws are made in order to prop up capitalism from failing. Without laws such as anti-monopoly ones, you get monopolies. That is the natural order of things. You can't have infinite competition, especially on a finite planet, and that competition doesn't necessarily magically result in lower prices especially once you get duopolies/monopolies/etc because if the controllers of production seek higher prices then no one cares about trying to give cheap prices because that stops making them more money at a certain point (lowering prices more doesn't result in increased number of sales/money). The only thing that really kept capitalism afloat anytime in history where there weren't yet laws stopping them from doing evil things is because the controllers of production had morals.

It's not efficient to have ten different delivery trucks driving down a neighborhood street. It's the cheapest and most efficient to have ONE, and one that is owned by the people or has laws preventing profiteering so that everyone gets the cheapest service possible. As long as that service is democratically and decently managed like the USPS here in the U.S., it will always be the best system. The only way to have that kind of efficiency with capitalism would be to have a monopoly, but then you'd instantly get price gouging unless you had laws to ensure that they were fair and not abusive like that. Why have a mini economic dictatorship entity like that when you can have it democratized instead and owned by the workers or the public at large?

Capitalism ALWAYS results in monopolies and extreme profiteering without laws to stop the greed from spiralling out of control, but inevitably capitalism also corrupts the government to undermine all that which is why so many monopolies reign supreme right now because of corrupt governments.

Likewise, I can also argue that governments ALWAYS are susceptible to corruption and ineptitude, and that's why having watchdogged democratic governments to prevent such abuse is required.

So, you want fight monopoly with... monopoly? State is also monopol.
You do have a point. In theory, the advantage of the state is that it works for the public rather than private shareholders. The "shareholders" of the state is us. In practice, generally not so much. What's needed is deeper democracy, including in arenas currently considered off-limits to the concept because they're "the economy". Whether it's via a truly democratically controlled state, or democratically controlled companies (ie co-operatives) or some combination, what we need is that grand cliche that's so rarely tried: Power to the people.
Arten Sep 3, 2020
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: Arten
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: slaapliedje
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: kokoko3kI just hope old gpu prices goes down, but it never happens.

They'd really prefer to price gouge you at all points in time, not just at release.

All that needs to be done is:

a) passing laws that force companies (...).

How about the complete opposite? Throw away all laws that currently pose an obstacle to competitors, don't force companies to anything. New players on the market will appear trying hard to get their niche, boom, prices drop. This is actually happening with VR sets right now.

Creating more laws against businesses does not make things better for the consumers. It onerates the entire production chain and makes it harder for everyone to get that. And it keeps competitors away for the big players. That's exactly what you don't want to happen.
A big problem is that all the players in a market tend to end up being bought out by the larger players. That's basically just part of capitalism. (...)
And that happens because of the State -- specially laws and regulations --, not in spite of it. Big businesses do constantly skew the perception of the public to make it look like there is lack of regulations, and they win double by more and more obstacles which they are able to work with but not their smaller competitors. A freer market with no rules and thus no barrier against newcomers would be the best deterrent against monopolies. Sure, I understand there is a complex production chain, but these very same suppliers would benefit from more customers too, so it's not this chain that prevents competition. Conversely, it's hopeless to try and use the State against the big guys, they are best buddies and will use this whole perception to their profit.

Removing laws that prevent a business from polluting will suddenly stop pollution?

I guess we should make murder legal too so that all murder stops.

As for prices and wages, capitalism is a failure and laws are made in order to prop up capitalism from failing. Without laws such as anti-monopoly ones, you get monopolies. That is the natural order of things. You can't have infinite competition, especially on a finite planet, and that competition doesn't necessarily magically result in lower prices especially once you get duopolies/monopolies/etc because if the controllers of production seek higher prices then no one cares about trying to give cheap prices because that stops making them more money at a certain point (lowering prices more doesn't result in increased number of sales/money). The only thing that really kept capitalism afloat anytime in history where there weren't yet laws stopping them from doing evil things is because the controllers of production had morals.

It's not efficient to have ten different delivery trucks driving down a neighborhood street. It's the cheapest and most efficient to have ONE, and one that is owned by the people or has laws preventing profiteering so that everyone gets the cheapest service possible. As long as that service is democratically and decently managed like the USPS here in the U.S., it will always be the best system. The only way to have that kind of efficiency with capitalism would be to have a monopoly, but then you'd instantly get price gouging unless you had laws to ensure that they were fair and not abusive like that. Why have a mini economic dictatorship entity like that when you can have it democratized instead and owned by the workers or the public at large?

Capitalism ALWAYS results in monopolies and extreme profiteering without laws to stop the greed from spiralling out of control, but inevitably capitalism also corrupts the government to undermine all that which is why so many monopolies reign supreme right now because of corrupt governments.

Likewise, I can also argue that governments ALWAYS are susceptible to corruption and ineptitude, and that's why having watchdogged democratic governments to prevent such abuse is required.

So, you want fight monopoly with... monopoly? State is also monopol.
You do have a point. In theory, the advantage of the state is that it works for the public rather than private shareholders. The "shareholders" of the state is us. In practice, generally not so much. What's needed is deeper democracy, including in arenas currently considered off-limits to the concept because they're "the economy". Whether it's via a truly democratically controlled state, or democratically controlled companies (ie co-operatives) or some combination, what we need is that grand cliche that's so rarely tried: Power to the people.

My ancestors alredy tried it and we get out of totalitarian dictatorship of comunist party in 1989. Never again. We need free marked economy with minimal state. Not another example of horrible results with good intention.
Purple Library Guy Sep 3, 2020
Quoting: Arten
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: Arten
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: slaapliedje
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: kokoko3kI just hope old gpu prices goes down, but it never happens.

They'd really prefer to price gouge you at all points in time, not just at release.

All that needs to be done is:

a) passing laws that force companies (...).

How about the complete opposite? Throw away all laws that currently pose an obstacle to competitors, don't force companies to anything. New players on the market will appear trying hard to get their niche, boom, prices drop. This is actually happening with VR sets right now.

Creating more laws against businesses does not make things better for the consumers. It onerates the entire production chain and makes it harder for everyone to get that. And it keeps competitors away for the big players. That's exactly what you don't want to happen.
A big problem is that all the players in a market tend to end up being bought out by the larger players. That's basically just part of capitalism. (...)
And that happens because of the State -- specially laws and regulations --, not in spite of it. Big businesses do constantly skew the perception of the public to make it look like there is lack of regulations, and they win double by more and more obstacles which they are able to work with but not their smaller competitors. A freer market with no rules and thus no barrier against newcomers would be the best deterrent against monopolies. Sure, I understand there is a complex production chain, but these very same suppliers would benefit from more customers too, so it's not this chain that prevents competition. Conversely, it's hopeless to try and use the State against the big guys, they are best buddies and will use this whole perception to their profit.

Removing laws that prevent a business from polluting will suddenly stop pollution?

I guess we should make murder legal too so that all murder stops.

As for prices and wages, capitalism is a failure and laws are made in order to prop up capitalism from failing. Without laws such as anti-monopoly ones, you get monopolies. That is the natural order of things. You can't have infinite competition, especially on a finite planet, and that competition doesn't necessarily magically result in lower prices especially once you get duopolies/monopolies/etc because if the controllers of production seek higher prices then no one cares about trying to give cheap prices because that stops making them more money at a certain point (lowering prices more doesn't result in increased number of sales/money). The only thing that really kept capitalism afloat anytime in history where there weren't yet laws stopping them from doing evil things is because the controllers of production had morals.

It's not efficient to have ten different delivery trucks driving down a neighborhood street. It's the cheapest and most efficient to have ONE, and one that is owned by the people or has laws preventing profiteering so that everyone gets the cheapest service possible. As long as that service is democratically and decently managed like the USPS here in the U.S., it will always be the best system. The only way to have that kind of efficiency with capitalism would be to have a monopoly, but then you'd instantly get price gouging unless you had laws to ensure that they were fair and not abusive like that. Why have a mini economic dictatorship entity like that when you can have it democratized instead and owned by the workers or the public at large?

Capitalism ALWAYS results in monopolies and extreme profiteering without laws to stop the greed from spiralling out of control, but inevitably capitalism also corrupts the government to undermine all that which is why so many monopolies reign supreme right now because of corrupt governments.

Likewise, I can also argue that governments ALWAYS are susceptible to corruption and ineptitude, and that's why having watchdogged democratic governments to prevent such abuse is required.

So, you want fight monopoly with... monopoly? State is also monopol.
You do have a point. In theory, the advantage of the state is that it works for the public rather than private shareholders. The "shareholders" of the state is us. In practice, generally not so much. What's needed is deeper democracy, including in arenas currently considered off-limits to the concept because they're "the economy". Whether it's via a truly democratically controlled state, or democratically controlled companies (ie co-operatives) or some combination, what we need is that grand cliche that's so rarely tried: Power to the people.

My ancestors alredy tried it and we get out of totalitarian dictatorship of comunist party in 1989. Never again. We need free marked economy with minimal state. Not another example of horrible results with good intention.
First, I don't recall advocating anything resembling Soviet Communism, whose state and production were very much the opposite of democratically controlled. Second, bad though Soviet Communism was, when Russia stopped being Communist and introduced a free market economy with a minimalist state, people started dying like flies. The place went into freefall. Things didn't start going back to normal until they reasserted the authority of the state and went a bit more mixed.
Within capitalist countries it is noticeable that the most prosperous ones with the least poverty and misery are generally the least free-markety with the strongest states--the Nordics and such like. So I really don't think there's a strong case to be made for everyone imitating the US or some Baltic hellholes that caught the free market bug.
Mohandevir Sep 3, 2020
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: Arten
Quoting: Purple Library Guy
Quoting: Arten
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: slaapliedje
Quoting: Patola
Quoting: Guest
Quoting: kokoko3kI just hope old gpu prices goes down, but it never happens.

They'd really prefer to price gouge you at all points in time, not just at release.

All that needs to be done is:

a) passing laws that force companies (...).

How about the complete opposite? Throw away all laws that currently pose an obstacle to competitors, don't force companies to anything. New players on the market will appear trying hard to get their niche, boom, prices drop. This is actually happening with VR sets right now.

Creating more laws against businesses does not make things better for the consumers. It onerates the entire production chain and makes it harder for everyone to get that. And it keeps competitors away for the big players. That's exactly what you don't want to happen.
A big problem is that all the players in a market tend to end up being bought out by the larger players. That's basically just part of capitalism. (...)
And that happens because of the State -- specially laws and regulations --, not in spite of it. Big businesses do constantly skew the perception of the public to make it look like there is lack of regulations, and they win double by more and more obstacles which they are able to work with but not their smaller competitors. A freer market with no rules and thus no barrier against newcomers would be the best deterrent against monopolies. Sure, I understand there is a complex production chain, but these very same suppliers would benefit from more customers too, so it's not this chain that prevents competition. Conversely, it's hopeless to try and use the State against the big guys, they are best buddies and will use this whole perception to their profit.

Removing laws that prevent a business from polluting will suddenly stop pollution?

I guess we should make murder legal too so that all murder stops.

As for prices and wages, capitalism is a failure and laws are made in order to prop up capitalism from failing. Without laws such as anti-monopoly ones, you get monopolies. That is the natural order of things. You can't have infinite competition, especially on a finite planet, and that competition doesn't necessarily magically result in lower prices especially once you get duopolies/monopolies/etc because if the controllers of production seek higher prices then no one cares about trying to give cheap prices because that stops making them more money at a certain point (lowering prices more doesn't result in increased number of sales/money). The only thing that really kept capitalism afloat anytime in history where there weren't yet laws stopping them from doing evil things is because the controllers of production had morals.

It's not efficient to have ten different delivery trucks driving down a neighborhood street. It's the cheapest and most efficient to have ONE, and one that is owned by the people or has laws preventing profiteering so that everyone gets the cheapest service possible. As long as that service is democratically and decently managed like the USPS here in the U.S., it will always be the best system. The only way to have that kind of efficiency with capitalism would be to have a monopoly, but then you'd instantly get price gouging unless you had laws to ensure that they were fair and not abusive like that. Why have a mini economic dictatorship entity like that when you can have it democratized instead and owned by the workers or the public at large?

Capitalism ALWAYS results in monopolies and extreme profiteering without laws to stop the greed from spiralling out of control, but inevitably capitalism also corrupts the government to undermine all that which is why so many monopolies reign supreme right now because of corrupt governments.

Likewise, I can also argue that governments ALWAYS are susceptible to corruption and ineptitude, and that's why having watchdogged democratic governments to prevent such abuse is required.

So, you want fight monopoly with... monopoly? State is also monopol.
You do have a point. In theory, the advantage of the state is that it works for the public rather than private shareholders. The "shareholders" of the state is us. In practice, generally not so much. What's needed is deeper democracy, including in arenas currently considered off-limits to the concept because they're "the economy". Whether it's via a truly democratically controlled state, or democratically controlled companies (ie co-operatives) or some combination, what we need is that grand cliche that's so rarely tried: Power to the people.

My ancestors alredy tried it and we get out of totalitarian dictatorship of comunist party in 1989. Never again. We need free marked economy with minimal state. Not another example of horrible results with good intention.
First, I don't recall advocating anything resembling Soviet Communism, whose state and production were very much the opposite of democratically controlled. Second, bad though Soviet Communism was, when Russia stopped being Communist and introduced a free market economy with a minimalist state, people started dying like flies. The place went into freefall. Things didn't start going back to normal until they reasserted the authority of the state and went a bit more mixed.
Within capitalist countries it is noticeable that the most prosperous ones with the least poverty and misery are generally the least free-markety with the strongest states--the Nordics and such like. So I really don't think there's a strong case to be made for everyone imitating the US or some Baltic hellholes that caught the free market bug.

Unfortunately, politicians and people in general are making weird amalgams where it's black or white... There is no shade of grey between 100% capitalism and 100% communism. People are driven by their fears, which is a pretty bad thing.

There is social-democracy in Canada where people live quite happy and free (violence free too). It's not perfect, but it's not a shark pond either (no matter the side these sharks come from).

Seriously, I'm pretty happy to be Canadian, when I look to what's happening, right now, in the US...


Last edited by Mohandevir on 3 September 2020 at 12:59 pm UTC
Derheim Sep 3, 2020
I hope I'm wrong, but believe they are talking about Ray Tracing 2x performance 3070 > 2080ti (or games using DLSS), which, if I'm right, is pretty shitty thing to do. I really hope benchmarks prove me wrong, because if they are talking about raw performance, then consumers win!


Last edited by Derheim on 3 September 2020 at 3:52 pm UTC
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.