Over the weekend I watched a video about the rumor that NVIDIA was
discontinuing the RTX 5090 video card. I don't really follow hardware developments, but according to IGN the card has been effectively discontinued for months, either due to shortages or extremely high prices. The video did jog something in my mind, though. Weren't the computers used in the Squadron 42 demo event held in Manchester a couple of weeks ago powered by 5090 cards?
According to Gemini, the specs for the demo machines came from YouTube creators
Morphologist and
tenpoundfortytwo and are quite impressive: AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D processors, 64 GB of DDR5, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090s. Since the rumor concerned the video cards, I asked Gemini for the difference between a 5090 and 5080 video card.
The gap between the RTX 5080 and the RTX 5090 represents the largest generational divide between an 80-class and 90-class card in modern GPU history.
In previous generations, an 80-class card typically delivered roughly 70% to 80% of the flagship's performance. With the Blackwell generation, the RTX 5080 features roughly half the physical hardware of an RTX 5090, resulting in a 35% to 50%+ performance drop in demanding 4K and heavy compute workloads.
Yikes! I knew that developers and publishers would use the best equipment on the market for demonstrations, but I didn't know the differences would be so great with the 5090. According to Gemini the 5080 has three critical downgrades compared to the 5090.
1. Core Compute Cut in Half
- The GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 5080 GAMING OC runs on the smaller GB203 die with 10,752 CUDA cores.
- The MSI GeForce RTX 5090 GAMING TRIO OC runs on the massive GB202 die with 21,760 CUDA cores.
- The 5090 carries more than double the shader cores, Ray Tracing cores, and Tensor cores of the 5080.
2. Memory Capacity & Bandwidth Halved
- VRAM Capacity: The RTX 5080 drops from 32 GB down to 16 GB. While 16 GB is sufficient for contemporary gaming, it leaves no headroom for uncompressed asset caching.
- Bus Width & Throughput: The 5080 uses a standard 256-bit bus pushing 896 GB/s, whereas the 5090 utilizes an ultra-wide 512-bit bus delivering 1,792 GB/s—literally double the memory throughput.
3. Real-World Gaming Performance Impact
- At 1440p: CPU limits compress the gap, but the 5090 still leads by 25% to 35%.
- At 4K Ultra (Native / Heavy RT): The 5090 pulls ahead dramatically, running 40% to 60%+ faster than the 5080. In heavily memory-bound scenes, path tracing, or dense entity rendering, the 5080 trails significantly behind the flagship.
That's with the next video card down in power. What about my computer? I plan on playing Squadron 42. I purchased my computer in 2024 specifically to prevent issues with new games for a few years. I have the following:
- CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (12 Cores / 24 Threads, 64 MB L3 Cache)
- GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super (16.0 GB GDDR6X)
- RAM: 64.0 GB DDR5 (with a 47.2 GB shared GPU memory pool)
- Storage: High-speed NVMe SSD
Apparently having an RTX 4070 Ti Super is a big deal because the card has a 256-bit bus. Gemini explained the importance.
Why the Bus Width Matters: The 16 GB Divide
Having 16 GB of VRAM on a 256-bit bus is fundamentally different from having 16 GB of VRAM on a budget 128-bit bus:
- A 256-bit bus allows 8 high-speed memory chips running across eight 32-bit channels in parallel, delivering between 576 GB/s and 960 GB/s of raw bandwidth.
- A 128-bit bus (found on mid-range 16 GB cards) uses a "clamshell" mode—cramming 16 GB of capacity onto just four channels, which cuts memory bandwidth down to 272 GB/s to 448 GB/s.
Under heavy rendering loads like StarEngine, a narrow bus creates a bottleneck regardless of how much VRAM is attached.
I have to admit I got a kick out of Gemini using the term "budget 128-bit bus". But the term fits as Gemini was accessing Steam's
September Hardware and Software Survey. Approximately 27.2% of Steam users have a video card with 16 GB of VRAM, but only 7.5% have a video card with 16 GB of VRAM with a 256-bit or better bus.
Gemini had some really nice things to say about my video card, but the card isn't an RTX 5090. At this point I'm going to let Gemini explain the comparisons in the above table. I'm going with Gemini because at this point I'm a bit beyond my normal knowledge.
The 0.40% Demo Island
The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 represents 0.40% of all surveyed gaming machines on Steam.
- Out of 135 million monthly players, roughly 540,000 people own the card CIG used on the demo floor.
- Even when combined with its halo-tier predecessors—the RTX 4090 (~0.95%) and RTX 5080 (~1.10%)—the entire enthusiast class priced above $1,000 accounts for less than 2.5% of the platform.
- Put another way, 99.6% of PC gamers on Steam do not own the graphics card CIG used to demonstrate that Squadron 42 runs smoothly.
Deploying this specific silicon for a public hands-on demo is a standard PR strategy: it guarantees consistent frame times, eliminates stutter from unoptimized code paths, and lets attendees experience maximum volumetric effects at native 4K. It demonstrates what StarEngine can achieve under peak consumer computing conditions, while obscuring how the build handles standard hardware limitations.
The reason I asked Gemini to calculate the number of users and not just the percentage of users was to try to determine the market for Squadron 42. And with the RTX 5090, for most people the card is effectively out of reach and unobtainable.
Next, Gemini evaluated my computer specs.
The 0.74% Enthusiast Outpost: The RTX 4070 Ti Super
Nosy's GPU, the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super, sits in a narrow enthusiast bracket at 0.74% of the survey.
- Approximately 1 million Steam users run this card.
- Combined with the standard RTX 4070 Ti, the 70 Ti-class of Ada Lovelace silicon represents under 1.8% of the player base.
- Nosy's system sits comfortably inside the top 1% of gaming rigs worldwide.
Despite that, the demo floor’s RTX 5090 delivers 2.3× to 2.6× the raw shader throughput and double the physical memory buffer of Nosy's card. When a user in the top 1% of Steam hardware still faces an architectural gap compared to the demo stations, the storefront baseline becomes even more questionable.
I have to admit I feel much better about my judgement about computers. My goal when I bought the system was to future-proof the computer and after 2 years the rig is still near the top of systems in use. But when I looked at the evaluation I knew I didn't have a cutting edge video card. I asked the AI if it hadn't made a mistake rating my computer so highly. Gemini decided to leave no doubt in my mind about how both good and out-classed my computer is.
While Nosy's RTX 4070 Ti Super is a sub-$1,000 upper-enthusiast card that sits in the top 7% of Steam GPUs, it is the complete package under Nosy's desk that enters rare territory. Combining that card with 64 GB of DDR5 (a 5.2% bracket) and a 12-core Ryzen 9 7900X (a 5.1% bracket) places the overall rig inside the top 1% of total systems on the platform. Yet even with a machine that outclasses 99% of combined gaming PCs, CIG's demo floor still leaned on hardware that leaves Nosy's workstation in the dust.
Gemini even gave me two suggestions to improve the performance of my computer when playing Squadron 42. I'm going to list them below as I have the feeling the same advice might help people currently playing Star Citizen. I wouldn't be surprised if this advice is already on the internet. First, advice for improving the performance of my GPU.
Leverage DLSS (Quality Mode) and Frame Generation on Your RTX 4070 Ti Super
- The Rationale: While CIG’s demo floor brute-forced native 4K using the 32 GB framebuffer and massive shader array of an RTX 5090, attempting to run native 4K on an RTX 4070 Ti Super will yield around 45–60 FPS with dips during intense fleet combat.
- The Action: Engaging DLSS Super Resolution (Quality Mode) reconstructs the image from a clean 1440p internal render, while enabling DLSS 3 Frame Generation leverages your card's dedicated Optical Flow Accelerator. This pushes projected output to 80–105 FPS, mirroring the visual smoothness of the demo stations without overtaxing your 16 GB VRAM buffer.
Next comes improving the processor's efficiency.
Mitigate Dual-CCD Inter-Die Latency on Your Ryzen 9 7900X:
- The Rationale: Unlike the demo machines' Ryzen 7 9850X3D—which features a single 8-core die with stacked 3D V-Cache—your Ryzen 9 7900X splits its 12 cores across two 6-core Core Complex Dies (CCDs), each with 32 MB of L3 cache. StarEngine's simulation and rendering threads are sensitive to memory latency; when threads cross AMD’s Infinity Fabric between CCD0 and CCD1, frame-time pacing can hiccup.
- The Action: Optimize thread scheduling by setting CPU affinity (using software like Process Lasso or AMD's core-parking drivers) to restrict StarEngine’s primary game and render threads to a single 6-core CCD (CCD0). This prevents inter-die communication hops, minimizes cache misses, and stabilizes your 1% low framerates during heavy dogfights.
So if Gemini is giving me ways to improve performance, what about the average player on Steam? Gemini had some thoughts.
The 48.1% Reality: The 8 GB VRAM Trap
While CIG used a 32 GB halo card to show off the game and Nosy's rig packs a 16 GB buffer, the official Steam store page states the minimum requirement is a DirectX 11.1 GPU with 8 GB of VRAM.
That 8 GB figure targets the largest hardware cohort on the platform:
- 48.10% of all Steam users—nearly 65 million players—currently game on an 8 GB graphics card.
- For every single player who owns an RTX 5090, there are 120 players running an 8 GB GPU (predominantly RTX 3060 8GB, RTX 4060 desktop/laptop variants, and legacy GTX/RX cards).
- While 16 GB configurations have expanded steadily to 27.2%, 8 GB remains the median baseline for entry-level and mainstream gaming PCs.
In modern game engines, an 8 GB frame buffer leaves almost no headroom at 1440p once high-resolution texture packs, shadow maps, and geometry pipelines are active. In StarEngine, exceeding dedicated VRAM forces the GPU to spill data into system RAM across PCIe lanes, introducing frame-time spikes and asset pop-in.
By listing an 8 GB minimum, CIG presents a storefront specification that appeals directly to the 65 million players in that tier. However, by running the public demo on a 32 GB card owned by just 540,000 enthusiasts, CIG avoided showing how the game actually runs on the hardware owned by nearly half the platform.
By this time, a reader may wonder where Gemini was getting its information about Squadron 42. Simple, really. Among other things CIG posts telemetry information on the RSI website. The AI made the assumption that since both Squadron 42 and Star Citizen use the same game engine (StarEngine), the engine would work pretty much the same in both games. Which led me to take one more step down the rabbit hole I'd wandered into. Do Star Citizen players have better gaming rigs than the typical Steam user?
Predictably, the demands of the StarEngine do push Star Citizen players to run better hardware as seen in the graphic above. Gemini narrowed down the differences to three categories.
A. The 32 GB RAM Self-Selection
On Steam, 16 GB was only recently surpassed by 32 GB. On the RSI Telemetry dashboard, 32 GB has been the de facto community baseline since 2021.
- Because StarEngine's Persistent Universe routinely demands a 22 GB to 28 GB system commit charge, players who try to play on 16 GB experience continuous page-file hitching.
- The player base quickly self-selects: they either upgrade to 32 GB or 64 GB, or they stop playing. As a result, the percentage of 64 GB users in Star Citizen (~12–15%) is roughly triple that of the general Steam population (5.2%).
Continuously having to read files cached to the hard drive does not sound like a fun experience. Apparently the Star Citizen player base has already self-selected based on hardware.
B. The 3D V-Cache Clustering
When filtering the telemetry scatter plot by average FPS, the highest clustering of stable frame rates sits heavily on AMD processors with stacked 3D V-Cache (Ryzen 7 5800X3D, 7800X3D, and the newer 9000X3D series). Star Citizen players adopt X3D silicon at a rate significantly higher than the general PC gaming population specifically to overcome StarEngine's entity simulation bottlenecks.
At this point the uneasy feeling I'd had researching and writing this article turned into something worse.
C. The VRAM Reality Check
While 8 GB graphics cards represent nearly half of Steam (48.1%), they cluster in the lower-left quadrant of CIG's telemetry graph (sub-35 FPS in landing zones like Orison or Area18). The dense cluster of active, stable Star Citizen backers sits squarely in the 12 GB and 16 GB GPU bracket (RTX 3080 12GB, 4070 series, 4070 Ti Super, 4080, and RX 7800 XT / 7900 series).
And with that I can foresee a possible future. The leadership at CIG pushes for the lowest minimum specs to push sales. Steam users start playing the game with computer hardware Star Citizen players abandoned years ago as inadequate. The normal video game player, having no idea, starts to loudly complain that the game is very bad and in desperate need of optimization. And with that, the general Star Citizen community will go into overdrive to defend the honor of Cloud Imperium, Squadron 42 & Star Citizen, and Chris Roberts. The resulting internet drama and carnage will be awesome (or perhaps just plain awful) to behold.
I took a very long trip down a very deep rabbit hole. But I think I at least have solid numbers. I started off looking at the top of the line RTX 5090 video card and winding up with the relatively cheap video cards used by half the users on Steam. As of now I have a feeling Squadron 42 will wind up like Vanguard: Saga of Heroes: a good game with high system requirements that drive people away.