It covers the breadth of problems pretty well, but I feel compelled to point out that there are a few times where things are misrepresented in this post e.g.:

Newegg selling the ASUS ROG Astral GeForce RTX 5090 for $3,359 (MSRP: $1,999)

eBay Germany offering the same ASUS ROG Astral RTX 5090 for €3,349,95 (MSRP: €2,229)

The MSRP for a 5090 is $2k, but the MSRP for the 5090 Astral – a top-end card being used for overclocking world records – is $2.8k. I couldn’t quickly find the European MSRP but my money’s on it being more than 2.2k euro.

If you’re a creator, CUDA and NVENC are pretty much indispensable, or editing and exporting videos in Adobe Premiere or DaVinci Resolve will take you a lot longer[3]. Same for live streaming, as using NVENC in OBS offloads video rendering to the GPU for smooth frame rates while streaming high-quality video.

NVENC isn’t much of a moat right now, as both Intel and AMD’s encoders are roughly comparable in quality these days (including in Intel’s iGPUs!). There are cases where NVENC might do something specific better (like 4:2:2 support for prosumer/professional use cases) or have better software support in a specific program, but for common use cases like streaming/recording gameplay the alternatives should be roughly equivalent for most users.

as recently as May 2025 and I wasn’t surprised to find even RTX 40 series are still very much overpriced

Production apparently stopped on these for several months leading up to the 50-series launch; it seems unreasonable to harshly judge the pricing of a product that hasn’t had new stock for an extended period of time (of course, you can then judge either the decision to stop production or the still-elevated pricing of the 50 series).

DLSS is, and always was, snake oil

I personally find this take crazy given that DLSS2+ / FSR4+, when quality-biased, average visual quality comparable to native for most users in most situations and that was with DLSS2 in 2023, not even DLSS3 let alone DLSS4 (which is markedly better on average). I don’t really care how a frame is generated if it looks good enough (and doesn’t come with other notable downsides like latency). This almost feels like complaining about screen space reflections being “fake” reflections. Like yeah, it’s fake, but if the average player experience is consistently better with it than without it then what does it matter?

Increasingly complex manufacturing nodes are becoming increasingly expensive as all fuck. If it’s more cost-efficient to use some of that die area for specialized cores that can do high-quality upscaling instead of natively rendering everything with all the die space then that’s fine by me. I don’t think blaming DLSS (and its equivalents like FSR and XeSS) as “snake oil” is the right takeaway. If the options are (1) spend $X on a card that outputs 60 FPS natively or (2) spend $X on a card that outputs upscaled 80 FPS at quality good enough that I can’t tell it’s not native, then sign me the fuck up for option #2. For people less fussy about static image quality and more invested in smoothness, they can be perfectly happy with 100 FPS but marginally worse image quality. Not everyone is as sweaty about static image quality as some of us in the enthusiast crowd are.

There’s some fair points here about RT (though I find exclusively using path tracing for RT performance testing a little disingenuous given the performance gap), but if RT performance is the main complaint then why is the sub-heading “DLSS is, and always was, snake oil”?

obligatory: disagreeing with some of the author’s points is not the same as saying “Nvidia is great”

Do you not see any value in engaging with views you don’t personally agree with? I don’t think agreeing with it is a good barometer for whether it’s post-worthy

FYI your first link isn’t actually inside of your spoiler tag

I think you’ve tilted slightly too far towards cynicism here, though “it might not be as ‘fair’ as you think” is probably also still largely true for people that don’t look into it too hard. Part of my perspective is coming from this random video I watched not long ago which is basically an extended review of the Fairphone 5 that also looks at the “fair” aspect of things.

Misc points:

• In targeting Scope 2 emissions they went with renewables to get down to 0 Scope 2 emissions. (p13)
• In targeting Scope 3 emissions they rejigged their transportation a little (ocean freight instead of flying, it sounds like?) to reduce emissions there. (p14)
• In targeting Scope 3 emissions they used an unspecified level of renewable energy in late manufacturing with modest claimed emissions reductions. (p14)
• Retired some carbon credits, which, yes, are usually not as great as we would like, but still. (p14)
• They may have some impact by choice of supplier even when they don’t necessarily directly spend extra cash on e.g., higher worker payments.
• They may have some impact by engaging with suppliers. They provide small-scale examples of conducting worker satisfaction surveys via independent third party which seemed to provide some concrete improvements (p30) and “supporting” another supplier in “implementing best practices for a worker-management safety committee” (p30).
• They’re reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals in final assembly, and according to them they are “the first company to start eliminating CEPN’s second round priority chemicals” (p31). I don’t know much about this.
• With partners, they “organize school competitions in which children are educated about […] e-waste” (p40).
• They’re “building local recycling capacity” in Ghana by “collaborating” with recycling companies (p40).
• Extremely high repairability (with modest costs for replacement parts that make it financially sensible to repair instead of replace) keeps more phones in use, reducing all the bad parts of having to manufacture brand new phones.
• The ICs make up a huge portion of the environmental costs of the phone (both with the FP4 (pp 40-41) and with the FP5 (p10)), and Fairphone isn’t big enough to get behemoth chip manufacturers to change their processes (though apparently they’re lobbying Qualcomm for socketable designs, as unlikely as that is to happen any time soon). If you accept the premise that for around half of the phone they have almost no impact on in terms of the manufacturing side, it makes their efforts on the rest a bit better, I guess?

So yes, they are a long way from selling “100% fair” phones, but it seems like they’re inching the needle a bit more than your summary suggests, and that’s not nothing. It feels like you’ve skipped over lots of small-yet-positive things which are not simply “low economy of scale manufacturing” efforts.

Unfortunately it’s hard for the rest of us to tell if you actually think you want a video to save you from having to read 18 sentences or if you’re just taking the piss lol

Would love to see tests like this attempting to use DXVK etc (as part of their testing on Windows) to better isolate more factors

For platforms that don’t accept those types of edits, the link OP tried to submit: https://www.theverge.com/news/690815/bill-gates-linus-torvalds-meeting-photo

An empty stomach
Hungry for my beloved starch
Life in Latvia

Knock at door. “Who is?” “Free potato”. Open door. Is secret police.

Some other factors to consider:

• Parallel-to-slot (long) fins can make it harder to effectively use multiple fans because the airflow directions (once the air is redirected upon hitting the GPU heatsink) will clash between each fan (see image).
• Heatpipe design might be simpler or better when the pipes are mostly-straight across the perpendicular-to-slot (short) fins compared to having to have bent pipes of much more variable length.
• Short fins themselves might be easier or cheaper in manufacturing somehow?
• Long fins can mean that air spends more time being heated before being ejected (making its average temperature higher before ejection, lowering heat transfer).

Speculation: the airflow on the GPU fans completely dominates the airflow on the GPU’s heatsink, making “ambient” airflow direction essentially irrelevant for airflow that goes directly across that heatsink except as it pertains to reaching those GPU fans.

Having the short-fin direction also allows significantly more “exhaust area” for the GPU’s hot air than the long-fin direction (effectively both long sides are “GPU exhaust” instead of both short sides being “GPU exhaust”) and additionally the exhaust that would face into the front of the case – which I assume would be less efficient due it fighting incoming airflow – doesn’t have to be used.

https://xkcd.com/221/

We just sent the code

Somehow this phrase triggered a memory of this short comedy sketch: https://youtu.be/LButXcZ57pc

Tbh I thought it was a bunch of non-lemmy platforms (e.g., mbin which fedia.io runs - anecdotally it usually happens due to some types of edits not federating well), but if someone from infosec.pub (which runs lemmy) also had the problem then I’m actually not sure what the common factor is lol

edit: the common factor might just be instances that have blocked lemmy.ml, which currently includes fedia.io (my instance) and infosec.pub (the other commenter’s instance), though I’m surprised links to lemmy.ml’s hosted images are included in the block

Yes! It still maintains some features not in mainline Mastodon, which I guess is why infosec.exchange runs it

Image link for those on platforms that don’t see it (e.g., me): https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/745658dd-60ef-44f9-bcf9-290aa9f23573.webp

That video of them interviewing people on the street with it was pretty fun!

https://lemmy.world/post/30798447

by posting a comment supported by sources

I have literally linked:

• the updated EULA
• the updated Privacy Policy
• records of when the game was updated
• an article discussing the changes

jesus christ lol, the root level comment saying “Borderlands 2 recently had a rootkit added to it” is not supported by any of the available evidence but is STILL getting promoted here and elsewhere (like the Steam reviews) despite all of the above - so no, piss off dude, I HAVE posted comments supported by sources - they’re just being ignored by you and others

Man I’m so fucking tired of this sensationalist bandwagoning part of the internet. Turns out changing the platform to fedi/threadi doesn’t solve the problem because it’s fundamentally the people that are the problem 🙃

No guessing is required, the actual EULA is available to be read: https://store.steampowered.com//eula/49520_eula_0 (assuming the correct EULA is being linked from the store page edit: …which may not be the case based on the last-updated date (maybe Steam doesn’t have the current version?)

Based on what I’m seeing here so far, I would describe that review’s language as sensationalist

edit2: based on the available information (namely frames from the video sparking the backlash) this IS the same EULA that’s being blasted, so my original comment stands

edit3 electric boogaloo: people are calling it “the EULA” but it seems like the main contention is over the privacy policy (with just some of the modding stuff etc being in the EULA): https://www.take2games.com/privacy/en-US/