NVIDIA Marketplace (US consumer GPU storefront)

Vendor launch MSRP for the RTX 5090 Founders Edition as stated on nvidia.com; NOT a live transaction price. The marketplace itself lists prices as 'recommended retail, actual prices may vary'. OBSERVATION DATE: the figure above was observed/listed on 2026-10-04 unless a different date is stated inline; treat it as needing re-verification once it is more than a quarter old. PRICE CLASS: this is an ASKING price captured from a live listing or product page, i.e. the price at which a seller advertises the part for sale right now. It is NOT a sold/completed transaction price, NOT an auction result and NOT a dealer cost. A realised price on the same day would generally be lower, and for used or refurbished parts the gap between ask and realised is typically wide PERISHABLE-FIGURE STAMP (added 2026-10-04, uniform across data/supply/ so it is greppable). PRICE CLASS: ASKING price - the rate at which a seller advertises the item for sale, NOT a sold, completed or realised transaction price. OBSERVED: 2026-10-04 (the date this record was verified against its source; the per-figure fetch date is not restated in price_basis) RE-VERIFY BY: 2027-01-04 - the repo's quarterly re-verification bar. After that date this figure is presumed drifted and must be re-checked against its source before it is quoted again. A price without its observation date is noise; this stamp exists so a reader can tell a fresh figure from a stale one without reading prose. UNIT: Vendor launch MSRP for the RTX 5090 Founders Edition as stated on nvidia.com; NOT a live transaction price READING RULE: No further perishable flag is published for this figure.

lead_time_weeks is null STRUCTURALLY: this record prices a vendor LAUNCH MSRP, and the marketplace's own position is that these are 'recommended retail, actual prices may vary' - i.e. the storefront is not the seller at this number and publishes no dispatch or availability commitment at all. There is no order to have a lead time for.

EAR 3A001 or EAR99 (below the 3A090.a TPP / performance-density thresholds) + EAR 744.23 (Entity List) + EAR 744.6 (Unverified / MEU lists)

MECHANISM: the part falls BELOW the ECCN 3A090.a/.b TPP and performance-density thresholds, so the advanced-computing licence regime, its case-by-case China/Macau carve-out and its D:5 screening do NOT attach. What remains is the general EAR plus destination-country import rules and screening of the consignee and its ultimate parent against the Entity, Unverified and MEU lists. NO LICENCE REQUIRED for the sale itself; the screening is a party-listing check, not a performance-threshold check. The binding ECCN determination for any specific part is the exporter's own classification, not this record.

NVIDIA's own storefront carries 70 GeForce SKUs across ASUS, MSI, PNY, Maingear and Steiger Dynamics. Per-SKU prices are rendered client-side and were not retrievable by the fetcher, so the only figure verified here is the MSRP. Every board partner AIB price observed on 2026-10-03 on US retail sites was well above this MSRP (RTX 5090 $3,329.99-$5,199.99 at B&H, all temporarily out of stock), so treat MSRP as a floor. Re-verify before use; this is the most perishable figure in the record. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04, mechanism-level; source spl-eccn-3a090-ccl): consumer gaming cards of this generation generally do NOT meet the 3A090.a TPP/performance-density parameters and fall under ECCN 3A001 or are designated EAR99, i.e. the advanced-computing licence regime with its case-by-case and D:5 screening does not attach to them. This is exactly what makes export status a PER-PART property rather than a per-vendor one: a GeForce RTX 5090 and a datacenter/professional part from the same vendor and the same process generation can carry entirely different control status. Recorded as false for that reason, NOT because the part is unregulated - it remains subject to the EAR generally, to destination-country import rules, and to screening of the consignee and its ultimate parent against the Entity, Unverified and MEU lists (15 CFR part 744). The binding ECCN determination for any specific SKU is the exporter's own classification, which no public vendor page states. LEAD TIME: null and structurally so. This record prices a VENDOR LAUNCH MSRP stated on nvidia.com, and the marketplace's own position is that prices are 'recommended retail, actual prices may vary' - i.e. nvidia.com is not selling these at this number and publishes no dispatch or availability commitment behind it. A recommended retail price therefore carries no lead time at all, and treating the MSRP as evidence of current channel availability would be a category error. Real availability and any delivery window live in the retail channel records (Newegg, Amazon, B&H, Micro Center, CDW), where the observation is a live listing with an asking price and, in CDW's case, an actual week window. Probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time.