The Leaked Super Prices are Real - Are They Good Enough?

[YoungBlade]

Nvidia just announced the pricing and availability dates for their Super series refresh on their CES event livestream.

 

Leak performance figures show that the RTX 4070 Super is slightly slower than the RTX 4070 Ti (about 5% slower) and the RTX 4070 Ti Super (what a mouthful...) is slower than the RTX 4080 by about 10-15%. The RTX 4080 looks to be a modest improvement over the RTX 4080 (about 5% faster), but comes with an official $200 price cut.

 

So effectively, every GPU in the stack is moving down in price. The RTX 4070 Super is replacing the RTX 4070 Ti at $600. The RTX 4070 Ti Super is replacing the RTX 4080 at $800. And the RTX 4080 Super slots in above them at $1000. This pricing structure makes some sense if the rumored performance is true, as the RTX 4080 Super should then be about 20% faster than the RTX 4070 Ti Super while costing 20% more. The odd one out is the RTX 4070 Super is actually priced better than its performance would suggest. The RTX 4070 Ti Super looks to be about 10-15% faster, but will cost 33% more.

 

This arguably makes the RTX 4070 Super the best value card in the lineup. It should be around 50% faster than the OG RTX 3070, with 50% more VRAM, while costing $100 more - a 20% price bump. The big advantage of the RTX 4070 Ti Super, then, is that it has that extra 4GB of VRAM - so Nvidia is really charging a premium for that extra VRAM.

 

This could put AMD in a really rough spot, especially if the RTX 4070 Super is about on par with the RTX 4070 Ti, as that card already traded blows with the RX 7900 XT usually priced around $800. AMD may need to slash prices on their two top-tier models, which may well be Nvidia's whole reason for launching this series in the first place. With the RTX 4080 Super surely beating the 7900 XTX in raster performance, there's really no argument for the 7900 XTX anymore, unless it drops below $900, where it will then need to command a premium over the RTX 4070 Ti Super, which might be tough. AMD may even need to bring it down to price parity with the RTX 4070 Ti Super, which could destroy their current pricing structure.

 

While obviously I'd like to see these cards even lower, these prices actually look pretty good to me in the current market. They are disruptive, which is how new GPU pricing should be.

[emosun]

that poll sure is going to reveal just how many people starting building computers after 2020

[Levent]

This naming scheme nowadays makes no sense. 4070TiS sounds like a good card for me to consider upgrading from my 3070.

[IkeaGnome]

4 minutes ago, emosun said:

that poll sure is going to reveal just how many people starting building computers after 2020

How so? Or are we ignoring inflation? 1080 TI released at $700 in 2017. Adjusting for inflation today that card released for $876.88. 
40 series is now in line with inflation not above it like it’s been. 

[RONOTHAN##]

As always, I would want to wait till reviews are out before fully making an opinion about it. For all we know, those performance figures could be extremely optimistic or extremely conservative.

 

Still, that 4070 Super looks pretty good, and it's almost certainly going to do something to the normal 4070 which is where I think the real value will come in. The 4070 is already IMO their best value GPU this generation, and knocking $50-100 off of its ~$550 will only help. If that card ends up at ~$450, it's really hard to beat. 

[WereCat]

If 4000 released with those prices at the performance of these cards then at launch it would be acceptable. 

But we are far from launch at this point so I don't think these are good prices. 

 

Yes, they are good prices in a vacuum vs what 4000 series was until now. 

It's a nice marketing move and it will work for them for sure. 

[boaz_n_hoaz]

I do believe that the 4080 Super will be a huge boost for gamers following the adjustment to price. The 4080 was never a bad card, just overpriced but with a small bump in performance and a new lower price it's looking a lot better

[8tg]

3 minutes ago, Levent said:

This naming scheme nowadays makes no sense. 4070TiS sounds like a good card for me to consider upgrading from my 3070.

Throwback to the GeForce 7 series

7900 GS, GS AGP, GT, GTO, GTX and GX2

 

We should have more naming, give me a GeForce RTX 4075ti Super Plus

[LinusTech]

10 minutes ago, 8tg said:

Throwback to the GeForce 7 series

7900 GS, GS AGP, GT, GTO, GTX and GX2

 

We should have more naming, give me a GeForce RTX 4075ti Super Plus

Don't forget the 7950s in there! 

[YoungBlade]

22 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

As always, I would want to wait till reviews are out before fully making an opinion about it. For all we know, those performance figures could be extremely optimistic or extremely conservative.

Considering there are no architectural changes from previous cards, or even die changes, and the performance numbers are roughly in line with the increase or decrease in CUDA cores from the respective cards these are replacing, I think it's a pretty safe bet. I'd be absolutely shocked if the final numbers were off by more than 10% in aggregate.

 

However, as with all hardware launches, no one would pre-order anything. Reviews are still required to verify the claims and make sure there are no hidden problems. So I'm certainly not saying to ignore independent testing in favor of leaks and back-of-the-napkin math.

 

22 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Still, that 4070 Super looks pretty good, and it's almost certainly going to do something to the normal 4070 which is where I think the real value will come in. The 4070 is already IMO their best value GPU this generation, and knocking $50-100 off of its ~$550 will only help. If that card ends up at ~$450, it's really hard to beat. 

That's what I'm hoping for. My GPU budget keeps shrinking as I just bought a home, so I don't want to splurge much. If the pricing of the RX 7800XT and RTX 4070 non-Ti non-Super can come down to more like $450, that would probably be a point where I could finally pull the trigger and upgrade my aging RTX 2060 Super. Both are effectively exactly a 100% uplift with more VRAM.

[Gat Pelsinger]

AMD's price cut is a 100% coming (NO, read on). Now with these Nvidia prices, they have no competition. As @YoungBlade said, the RTX 4070 Super is literally on par with 7900 XT according to Techpowerup with a nice price cut.

 

Actually now that I think about it, I just checked the VRAM for 7900 XT (16GB) and 7900 XTX (24GB). I was actually kind of shocked because I still thought they had 16 GB Of VRAM. Recalling the 3090 vs 6900XT days. So with this VRAM, AMD actually still has enough competition. The 4080 Super is just 3% faster (but obviously has all the Nvidia tech which is seen as a superior blessing) than 7900XTX but it is 16 vs 24 GB VRAM, which is a massive difference. The 7900XTX is going to last a long while than the 4080 Super, but again, ray tracing performance is a thing which 4080 S wins easily. The 4070 ti Super is almost on par with the 7900XT, but it is 16 vs 20, which is again noticeable. So no, AMD still has competition.

 

It just boils down to if you really like Ray tracing and other Nvidia tech, but other than, the 7900 XTX is going to last way longer.

[YoungBlade]

14 minutes ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

AMD's price cut is a 100% coming (NO, read on). Now with these Nvidia prices, they have no competition. As @YoungBlade said, the RTX 4070 Super is literally on par with 7900 XT according to Techpowerup with a nice price cut.

 

Actually now that I think about it, I just checked the VRAM for 7900 XT (16GB) and 7900 XTX (24GB). I was actually kind of shocked because I still thought they had 16 GB Of VRAM. Recalling the 3090 vs 6900XT days. So with this VRAM, AMD actually still has enough competition. The 4080 Super is just 3% faster (but obviously has all the Nvidia tech which is seen as a superior blessing) than 7900XTX but it is 16 vs 24 GB VRAM, which is a massive difference. The 7900XTX is going to last a long while than the 4080 Super, but again, ray tracing performance is a thing which 4080 S wins easily. The 4070 ti Super is almost on par with the 7900XT, but it is 16 vs 20, which is again noticeable. So no, AMD still has competition.

 

It just boils down to if you really like Ray tracing and other Nvidia tech, but other than, the 7900 XTX is going to last way longer.

Purely for gaming, I don't see the 16GB VRAM buffer being a problem until the next console generation. The reason being that the current consoles have just 16GB of shared VRAM. In practice, the PS5 and Series X can use up to around 10GB of VRAM for their games. This means that, with extra eye candy and RT, a 12GB buffer can sometimes fall short for 4K gaming (occasionally even for 1440p gaming) but it's very likely that, with cross-platform titles, 16GB will be sufficient for years.

 

Basically, I believe it will take until the next console gen for 16GB to be a problem. The next console gen likely won't happen for at minimum 2 years, and even if Sony and Microsoft truncate this generation that much, games that actually require the increased VRAM would still be a couple of years off - just like the lag from the PS5 launch to when 8GB started to be an issue. So worst case, 16GB starts to have problems in 4 years. But realistically, I think it'll be more like 6 years before that finally materializes. And at that point, it's basically moot.

 

So unless AMD slashes prices, I don't see the RX 7900 XTX being able to compete with the RTX 4080 Super in any meaningful way. All it had against the RTX 4080 was that it was $200 cheaper and slightly better for raster. Now, it has neither of those things.

 

IMO, the RX 7900 XTX will need to be $800 to be in line with the RTX 4070 Ti Super. And the RX 7900 XT will have to drop to $600 to be up against the RTX 4070 Super. This will then mean that the RX 7800 XT will have to drop to $450 to keep price/performance parity. Then the 7700 XT will need to fall to $375 for the same.

 

So in a few months, I could see a completely different pricing structure in AMD's future to have their cards make sense.

[Middcore]

1 hour ago, Levent said:

This naming scheme nowadays makes no sense. 

 

If only EVGA was still in the game so we could have a 4070 ti Super SSC (4070 ti Super Super SuperClocked). 

[Gat Pelsinger]

@YoungBlade

 

VRAM matters. Just wait until you some more highly optimized titles like Alan Wake 2 and Forespoken. 

[YoungBlade]

43 minutes ago, Gat Pelsinger said:

@YoungBlade

 

VRAM matters. Just wait until you some more highly optimized titles like Alan Wake 2 and Forespoken. 

Where did I say VRAM didn't matter? All I said was that it's unlikely for a card to need more than 16GB of VRAM to function properly for gaming until the next console generation, due to the current consoles only having 16GB of total memory.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you brought up Alan Wake 2, as it actually can run at 4K max settings with just 12GB of VRAM without the performance falling off due to a lack of VRAM, but even with an RTX 4090, it only gets around 20fps in demanding sections, which is basically unplayable, so those settings are not really relevant to current-gen cards. Now, Forspoken does use more than 12GB of VRAM at max settings 4K and is playable on higher end cards, so that is certainly a disappointment for RTX 4070 Ti users, but it doesn't use more than 16GB - it generally never even allocates more than 16GB.

 

Do you have any reason to believe that there will be major titles launched in the next few years that require more than 16GB of VRAM to scale properly while still being playable on an RTX 4070 Ti Super, RTX 4080, or RTX 4080 Super?

[Gat Pelsinger]

@YoungBlade But more VRAM for same price? I'll take it! Unless I don't care about ray tracing. Like seriously, why are you taking in account if 16 GB if going to be enough or not? It is free VRAM. These super cards are for those who like Nvidia tech and ray tracing and are okay upgrading after some years. AMD is for those who want their rigs to live longer and don't care that much about ray tracing and higher current day performance. Both have their own justifications. Also, other workloads exist which can utilize a lot of VRAM. But if I be honest, if you are buying cards of these high tiers, I would probably go Nvidia for the performance + ray tracing and the superior Nvidia tech.

[Dedayog]

2 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

How so? Or are we ignoring inflation? 1080 TI released at $700 in 2017. Adjusting for inflation today that card released for $876.88. 
40 series is now in line with inflation not above it like it’s been. 

Is the 4080 Super relatively that much better than the 1080Ti comparatively?  Since it's $1000 vs $876 as you state.

 

The entirety of the GPU market has seen price increases NOT attributed to inflation but to straight up "cuz they can".  This marks Nvidia responding to the market in a good way, rather than the 20/30/40 series launches as a fuck you to consumers.

 

 

[Blademaster91]

I think if the 4000 series launched with those prices, with more VRAM it would've been better but IMO these GPU's are still too overpriced compared to past GPU's, like the GTX 10 series for example.

 These launches just don't seem exciting at all since Nvidia has increased their prices far higher than the rate of inflation.

[IkeaGnome]

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

Is the 4080 Super relatively that much better than the 1080Ti comparatively?  Since it's $1000 vs $876 as you state.

You think it’s going to have less than a 20% performance gain over a 1080ti? 

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, IkeaGnome said:

You think it’s going to have less than a 20% performance gain over a 1080ti? 

Relatively, not sure.  That is my question, cuz I simply don't know.

 

Sure it's a faster card, but is it better than inflationary improvements?

 

At $1200+, it's NOT even if you add in all the DLSS, CIA, NSA, FBI improvements.  At $999, maybe.

 

I just don't know how to compare the 2 cards, in relation to what else exists, on a linear scale.  Not just fps per $ or whatever.

 

 

[thrasher_565]

6 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

How so? Or are we ignoring inflation? 1080 TI released at $700 in 2017. Adjusting for inflation today that card released for $876.88. 
40 series is now in line with inflation not above it like it’s been. 

1080 were relesed at the height of mining so who knows what the real price would have been. at times they were like $1200 and just before the 2080 came out people dumped em for like $200 then raised back up to about $400ish

[Ebony Falcon]

I’d be Intrested to see a 70tisuper overclocked to to the max to see if it can match a stock 4080 

[kingmustard]

GTX 1080 - May 2016
RTX 2080 - Sep 2018
RTX 3080 - Sep 2020
RTX 4080 - Nov 2022

 

I will wait for the 50 series cards at the end of the year.

[YoungBlade]

9 minutes ago, kingmustard said:

GTX 1080 - May 2016
RTX 2080 - Sep 2018
RTX 3080 - Sep 2020
RTX 4080 - Nov 2022

 

I will wait for the 50 series cards at the end of the year.

Earlier rumors pointed to Blackwell getting delayed until 2025 due to fab constraints, although a recent video from Moore's Law is Dead did say that they're now looking at a Q4 2024 release again.

 

But given those earlier rumors, we might be looking at limited stock - so shortages could be a thing, especially with pent-up demand from the many folks waiting for next gen to offer better price/performance.

 

All that to say, end of the year is likely, but there's no guarantee it will happen, and even if it does, no guarantee you could get one.

 

But considering that you have an RTX 2080, I don't think you're exactly hurting for an upgrade, so waiting is definitely an option.

[Agall]

4 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Earlier rumors pointed to Blackwell getting delayed until 2025 due to fab constraints, although a recent video from Moore's Law is Dead did say that they're now looking at a Q4 2024 release again.

 

But given those earlier rumors, we might be looking at limited stock - so shortages could be a thing, especially with pent-up demand from the many folks waiting for next gen to offer better price/performance.

 

All that to say, end of the year is likely, but there's no guarantee it will happen, and even if it does, no guarantee you could get one.

 

But considering that you have an RTX 2080, I don't think you're exactly hurting for an upgrade, so waiting is definitely an option.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia's die allocation for Geforce cards continues to shrink just simply based on their recent quarterly reports. Geforce has like 1/6th the profits as their datacenter market, so any die they brand Geforce probably makes them half the money as it could as a datacenter card. I imagine its not a binning limitation given how underclocked most of those cards are.

 

I could also see Nvidia doing something scummy like discontinuing their Geforce dGPU lineup outside of the biggest boy and mid tier, then just using the rest of the Geforce allocated dies for laptops. RTX 4000 series has already made it hard to argue for dGPUs in the mid tier given how inexpensive RTX 4000 series laptops are for just a lower TDP version of the same GPU.