Nvidia RTX 40 Super Series Review

[LMGcommunity]

5 minutes ago, FlyingPotato_is_taken said:

@AdamFromLTT Any word on what is going in this chart (after promising to improve after the GamersNexus video)?

Hey, we've fixed it.

[Middcore]

1 hour ago, aqarwaen29 said:

let me get straight they tested only 1 super 4070 and 4080?

did they use more than 1 card to get benchmark results?

if it was me i would test atleast 5 same type gpus for reliable results(IT COULD BE BAD LUCK WITH SLICON LOTTERY).

is there any proof linus actually used high end motherboard+ram for results?

cheap budget gaming/mid range motherboard can make in eye you lots frames.

where is proof for that?

if understand correct some ohter youtube channel made proof linus channel make bit off results and they where forced to cut down how many video they release.

maybe this also made them use cheaper mobo etc and that why so poor frames.

lastly computer are listed in video info,but we never see actual pc.can i trust such benchmark results?fishy

"High end motherboard" isn't going to make any difference. The GPU doesn't care what board it's in as long as it's in an appropriate PCIe slot. Please let's not start this crap again. 

[FlyingPotato_is_taken]

@LMGcommunity Glad it's fixed.

3:26: -1.99% in average gaming power is red. Not only hard to read on black background but here is how I see it:

somebody did context formatting (Excel) based on if it's below zero as bigger number better. What he forgot is considering that this isn't true for every parameter as such absurdly a lower power consumption is formatted in red suggesting it's bad. Similar an increase in IDLE power is green suggesting that it's good/improvement.

 

 

At 9:49 there is the next issue with a chart:

Max. power consumption of the 4080 super is 372W. The chart is cut of at 350W and I don't see any blue going to or above this.

Same applies to most other traces. 

Question: What is actually drawn in the chart and what is the claimed avg. and max calculated on? 

[Kefka900]

People arent mad per se, it just doesn't make any sense to not include a similar card at a similar price to a card in the review. You say people dont care about $1000 cards, but if that was the case, why do a review on a $999 card and not include the ~$950 direct competitor. If you were to omit a card to make room, why not nix the 3090 that you can't even buy anymore.

[Umeshwarnath]

Its wild how the 4080 performs better than the super. Is this like the MSI bios power limit issue with the 4070 ti super?

[TraxXavier]

Guys what do you think about the MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER 16G Ventus 2X OC https://www.msi.com/Graphics-Card/GeForce-RTX-4070-Ti-SUPER-16G-VENTUS-2X-OC

its a 2 fan model only 240mm long so quite a compact little card in comparison, most other RTX 4070 Ti SUPER Are 3 fan monsters,

and all RTX 4080 SUPER even more so.

 

So what do you think is the MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER 16G Ventus 2X OC adequately cooled and the other one overkill,

or should I with a mechanically bigger card (then I could pick a RTX 4080 SUPER)

 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

On 2/2/2024 at 3:30 AM, Anfros said:

I took it to mean that they want to develop/adopt testing for AI that isn't specifically accelerated by CUDA. Having Nvidia win every benchmark due to CUDA accelerating is not very useful if you are buying cards for an AI application that is not accelerated by CUDA.

It IS useful, because CUDA acceleration works well and plays well with nvidia drivers.

 

If a popular workload (e.g. Oobabooga with Llama or Stable Diffusion with an SDXL model) has an hard time on ROCm, that's on AMD for having clunky drivers and nunpopular/unaccelerated libraries, not on Nvidia for having good CUDA that developers use.