A 4070 SUPER is better than a 3090? Wow. Nvidia showcase SUPER GPUs

[filpo]

1 minute ago, porina said:

33% more VRAM bandwidth,

really? Oh I didn't catch that 

 

Yup, just checked. 256 bit bus interface leading to 672 GB/s instead of ~500 GB/s. Well that was quite weird when they released it with a 192 bit bus interface. But tbh with 12gb of ram it wasn't too much of a problem

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, filpo said:

really? Oh I didn't catch that 

 

Yup, just checked. 256 bit bus interface leading to 672 GB/s instead of ~500 GB/s. Well that was quite weird when they released it with a 192 bit bus interface. But tbh with 12gb of ram it wasn't too much of a problem

yea its using a cut down AD103 rather then the full AD104

[starsmine]

To my annoyance so I can complain



Oxymoronic, if DLSS is on, its NOT max settings. 

[filpo]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

To my annoyance so I can complain



Oxymoronic, if DLSS is on, its NOT max settings. 

Do you know if the 20 series has access to DLSS 2? Officially I mean

[starsmine]

9 minutes ago, filpo said:

Do you know if the 20 series has access to DLSS 2? Officially I mean

Always has.

I think we should just move past the numbers at this point, they are misleading. 20 has 3.5 for example, but not 3, that makes no sense when phrased that way because neither statement is true. It partially supports both versions but not the full suit. 

20 only lacks frame gen. 

20 has all version revisions of AA, SR and RR
30 has AA, SR and RR
40 has AA, SR, FG, and RR

if at a point there comes a revision that doesnt work state it then
Hell 10 series runs SR V1.9

[Holmes108]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

To my annoyance so I can complain



Oxymoronic, if DLSS is on, its NOT max settings. 

 

I don't think most people associate resolution with a "max setting". Otherwise what's the max? 4k? 8k? It's obviously referring to the sliders and toggles. On the other hand, I greatly enjoy pedantry myself, so I do get where you're coming from.

[starsmine]

21 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

 

I don't think most people associate resolution with a "max setting". Otherwise what's the max? 4k? 8k? It's obviously referring to the sliders and toggles. On the other hand, I greatly enjoy pedantry myself, so I do get where you're coming from.

max settings AT a given resolution is a thing though. I don't mean to imply resolution defines a max setting. 

1440p MAX settings with DLSS is NOT 1440p max settings.
It's 960p max settings... or worse, they dont actually specify what DLSS setting was used in their provided benchmark. 
1440p DLSS quality is 960p. then AI upscaled to 1440p. IDK if ultra quality ever came out, but that would be 1100p.

I just personally find it misleading to lead with 1440p max settings when it's more correct to say 960p max settings DLSS upscaled to 1440p. You shouldn't have to memorize this chart to understand what is actually being shown to you. 


Its why I keep running into people trying to get better frame rates by changing DLSS quality settings and wondering why its not going up when set to performance. (because you are CPU bottlenecked when playing any modern game at sub HD but they dont know thats what is happening). 

This is just a purely tangential rant though to be honest. I like the new super cards for what they are. 
 

[Holmes108]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

This is just a purely tangential rant though to be honest. I like the new super cards for what they are. 
 

 

Agreed.

 

I'll add that I think as long as DLSS is specified (ideally at what quality level, as well), then I don't think twice about it. If you don't specify DLSS at all, that's super misleading though.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

 

Agreed.

 

I'll add that I think as long as DLSS is specified (ideally at what quality level, as well), then I don't think twice about it. If you don't specify DLSS at all, that's super misleading though.

Mixing two benchmarks with different settings is misleading.

 

If I am only looking to play games (not do AI stuff) then features like DLSS and FSR have to be turned off to be a fair comparison across cards because they may not have the same visual quality, and most game benchmarks don't even test for that, the just test to minmax the GPU load.

 

If benchmark users want to do a gpu-power measuring contest, then they usually turn everything off that constitutes a load. That's what competitive game players do because they know that gives them an advantage. But I'd equate that to the "steroids" argument, that you're not actually playing on equal terms of you don't use the exact same settings as the competition. Yes, even you reshade.

[Mark Kaine]

13 hours ago, starsmine said:

To my annoyance so I can complain



Oxymoronic, if DLSS is on, its NOT max settings. 

no, no, that's technically false, you can have max settings + whatever upscaling methods,  or max settings without any upscaling... sure it may be a bit misleading,  but it's specified so not really. 

[Mark Kaine]

11 hours ago, starsmine said:

max settings AT a given resolution is a thing though. I don't mean to imply resolution defines a max setting. 

1440p MAX settings with DLSS is NOT 1440p max settings.
It's 960p max settings... or worse, they dont actually specify what DLSS setting was used in their provided benchmark. 
1440p DLSS quality is 960p. then AI upscaled to 1440p. IDK if ultra quality ever came out, but that would be 1100p.

I just personally find it misleading to lead with 1440p max settings when it's more correct to say 960p max settings DLSS upscaled to 1440p. You shouldn't have to memorize this chart to understand what is actually being shown to you. 


Its why I keep running into people trying to get better frame rates by changing DLSS quality settings and wondering why its not going up when set to performance. (because you are CPU bottlenecked when playing any modern game at sub HD but they dont know thats what is happening). 

This is just a purely tangential rant though to be honest. I like the new super cards for what they are. 
 

weird, always worked for me, but then im also not cpu constraint i guess.

 

i really love using FSR in RPCS3, it doesn't necessarily give you higher frames, although in select titles it does (Lolipop Chainsaw for example) but it almost always gives better responsiveness.  

 

PS: i also use FSR in Overwatch,  not for higher frames, but simply because my pc runs a lot more cooler and less noisy... but i do know in fact,  it would give me better fps too (tested it) but its locked to 165fps, since my screen is 165hz...

 

i even tried 330fps, but it feels kinda stuttery, i simply hate when refresh rate doesn't match framerate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[starsmine]

40 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

no, no, that's technically false, you can have max settings + whatever upscaling methods,  or max settings without any upscaling... sure it may be a bit misleading,  but it's specified so not really. 

It doesnt actually specify what resolution the game is running max settings on though. Like I said, BEST case its 960p max settings for most of the games listed. 

960p =/= 1440p

This isnt a hate piece on DLSS, its how much I hate how its communicated.

[Mark Kaine]

30 minutes ago, starsmine said:

It doesnt actually specify what resolution the game is running max settings on though. Like I said, BEST case its 960p max settings for most of the games listed. 

960p =/= 1440p

This isnt a hate piece on DLSS, its how much I hate how its communicated.

i agree, for clarity it should include the resolution obviously (and / or resolution scaling) i was just saying you can have "max settings" + dlss/fsr, that by itself is only slightly misleading if at all. 

 

but as always these charts have to be taken with a huge grain of salt obviously. 

[porina]

I propose a possible reason for leading with "DLSS on" results. The difference is between a user perspective and a tester perspective. DLSS has been out for over 5 years in some form and RTX currently makes up around 45% of all GPUs on Steam Hardware Survey. Wasn't there a thing about nvidia claiming how many people use upscaling? I think I posted in news a long time ago so don't fancy my chances of finding it quickly. If people are used to using DLSS, then those results are still valid assuming equal setting used. It would be nice if they specified the actual DLSS setting clearly on the same chart, but if "max settings" were used in general does that imply quality mode? To a gamer the actual render resolution is irrelevant. You care about a good enough output. For more testing scenarios that falls to more specialist outlets.

 

Edit: 

According to Nvidia's post in April 2023, based on data from Feb. 2023:

79% of 40 series gamers turn DLSS on

71% of 30 series gamers turn DLSS on

68% of 20 series gamers turn DLSS on

[Mark Kaine]

58 minutes ago, porina said:

71% of 30 series gamers turn DLSS on

hey, im the 29%!

 

but fsr, free stuff from the other guy i didn't pay for? hell, yeah, I probably turn it on (less artifacts too in my experience)! 

[porina]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

but fsr, free stuff from the other guy i didn't pay for? hell, yeah, I probably turn it on (less artifacts too in my experience)! 

Do whatever suits you but FSR2 generally has more obvious problems with image quality. Where the choice of both DLSS and FSR2 are available, I don't know of any occasion where I'd pick FSR.

[RejZoR]

21 hours ago, starsmine said:

To my annoyance so I can complain



Oxymoronic, if DLSS is on, its NOT max settings. 

I always say and always will. DLSS and FSR should always be considered as BONUS, not something mandatory to achieve basic performance. It's why I was annoyed when there were certain claims for certain games that you need DLSS or FSR to even have them playable. If that's the fact it's stupid.

[filpo]

Reviews for 4070 SUPER are out and will edit this post for later gpus 

4070 SUPER

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super review | PC Gamer

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super review: Boosted clocks and core counts for the same $599 as the vanilla 4070 | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)

Reviews for the 4070 Ti SUPER are also out

4070 TI SUPER

ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super TUF Review | TechPowerUp

Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Review: Best Graphics Card Of 2024? (forbes.com)

Colorful GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER BattleAx 16 GB Graphics Card Review: More VRAM, Same Price (wccftech.com)

Nvidia RTX 4070 Ti Super Review ft. MSI | KitGuru

MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super Ventus 3X review | PC Gamer

Edited January 24 by filpo

[RejZoR]

We actually need to hold out some more for prices to go where they should be. The fact they needed to make "Super" series that are at lower price and faster shows they weren't selling all that well. Also the fact that RTX 4070 Super is just few fps faster than my old RTX 3080 gives me no incentive to buy something new. And while RTX 4080 Super is faster, there is no way I'm paying 1000€ for that. I wasn't ready for 1200€ for stock 4080 and neither I am for the Super variant at 1000€. I'l buy another "80" series card when their prices drop back to $799 which for us in Europe means 800-850€. That's what I paid for GTX 1080Ti and for RTX 3080 (if I ignore slight COVID tax back then). And I don't just take price into consideration. If they launch RTX 5080 with dismissable performance uplift, then I don't care if it costs just $799 if it doesn't bring anything of worth to the table.

 

And while NVIDIA is all the Ai rage at the moment, their consumer market isn't something they can just throw away or ignore with "fuck you" attitude of overpriced graphic cards.

[pas008]

11 hours ago, RejZoR said:

We actually need to hold out some more for prices to go where they should be. The fact they needed to make "Super" series that are at lower price and faster shows they weren't selling all that well. Also the fact that RTX 4070 Super is just few fps faster than my old RTX 3080 gives me no incentive to buy something new. And while RTX 4080 Super is faster, there is no way I'm paying 1000€ for that. I wasn't ready for 1200€ for stock 4080 and neither I am for the Super variant at 1000€. I'l buy another "80" series card when their prices drop back to $799 which for us in Europe means 800-850€. That's what I paid for GTX 1080Ti and for RTX 3080 (if I ignore slight COVID tax back then). And I don't just take price into consideration. If they launch RTX 5080 with dismissable performance uplift, then I don't care if it costs just $799 if it doesn't bring anything of worth to the table.

 

And while NVIDIA is all the Ai rage at the moment, their consumer market isn't something they can just throw away or ignore with "fuck you" attitude of overpriced graphic cards.

i agree with most but the price thing i believe is here to stay, mainly because all tiers have gone up in price in electronic world

also everything has gone up way too far in price as is

[RejZoR]

14 hours ago, pas008 said:

i agree with most but the price thing i believe is here to stay, mainly because all tiers have gone up in price in electronic world

also everything has gone up way too far in price as is

And they'll go down if sales are bad. But people forgot how to vote with their wallets apparently...

[pas008]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

And they'll go down if sales are bad. But people forgot how to vote with their wallets apparently...

voting with your wallet isnt going to stop inflation, all currency lost its value, wages are higher, items are costing more because of this profit margins already shrank

[Obioban]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:48 PM, filpo said:

additional models within the range off 40 series

If I'm not mistaken most of the performance uplift of the 4070 Ti SUPER is going to 16GB of vram

It's a bit like they did with the 20 series, a mild increase. Not so big it's a Ti but not just an addition of VRAM (in the 4070 Ti SUPER's case)

better yet a quattro is actually an add on to their cars (four wheel drive)

 

but tbh this could go for all car companies. For example you've got BMW with their 318i, 320i, 330i, 330e, M340i and then M3

BMW's product names used to mean something (no longer).

 

E.g. 318i =

3 series (3)

1.8 liter engine (18)

fuel injected (i)

[starsmine]

On 1/18/2024 at 10:03 AM, pas008 said:

voting with your wallet isnt going to stop inflation, all currency lost its value, wages are higher, items are costing more because of this profit margins already shrank

we are not talking about inflation. 
greedflation =/= inlfation. 

That said, I dont think this is an unreasonable price, the full GP104 launched at 600MSRP, 700 Founders (GTX 1080)
the 4070 being the full AD104 die at 600 MSRP is where pricing should have been at launch of this generation. 

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

On 1/17/2024 at 2:49 AM, RejZoR said:

We actually need to hold out some more for prices to go where they should be. The fact they needed to make "Super" series that are at lower price and faster shows they weren't selling all that well. Also the fact that RTX 4070 Super is just few fps faster than my old RTX 3080 gives me no incentive to buy something new. And while RTX 4080 Super is faster, there is no way I'm paying 1000€ for that. I wasn't ready for 1200€ for stock 4080 and neither I am for the Super variant at 1000€. I'l buy another "80" series card when their prices drop back to $799 which for us in Europe means 800-850€. That's what I paid for GTX 1080Ti and for RTX 3080 (if I ignore slight COVID tax back then). And I don't just take price into consideration. If they launch RTX 5080 with dismissable performance uplift, then I don't care if it costs just $799 if it doesn't bring anything of worth to the table.

 

And while NVIDIA is all the Ai rage at the moment, their consumer market isn't something they can just throw away or ignore with "fuck you" attitude of overpriced graphic cards.

5080 will not be $799. Those ships sailed long ago. You're only upgrade path for south of $799 will likely be the "5070". I don't know why people are so optimistic that prices will go down next gen