Nvidia RTX 4000 Launch
Discussion
nVidia seem to be on acid at the moment.
I upgraded a GTX1080 to a RTX4070 on my main gaming PC, (I got a decent deal via my employer). Decent card, Overpriced.
The true reflection on the state of the market was last month when I rebuilt my HTPC (Fractal North Ryzen 7600 based.). And was looking for a decent card for <£500. I am leery of buying used after being bitten in the past, I ended up getting a RX6800 for £430.(Replacing a RTX2070). I did get a bit caught up in the VRAM furore, and considering the evidence of the last couple of weeks for 1440p/4k, I am seeing VRAM use of 10 - 11GB Which makes sense when you look at the specs of current gen consoles.
I'd have been a happy returning customer for nVidia, but the ridiculous pricing on the new cards incentivised me to over to AMD. I'm quite impressed by the 6800 (I'm not a huge user if RT/DLSS)
Nice to see the pics of the RTX e-peen though
I upgraded a GTX1080 to a RTX4070 on my main gaming PC, (I got a decent deal via my employer). Decent card, Overpriced.
The true reflection on the state of the market was last month when I rebuilt my HTPC (Fractal North Ryzen 7600 based.). And was looking for a decent card for <£500. I am leery of buying used after being bitten in the past, I ended up getting a RX6800 for £430.(Replacing a RTX2070). I did get a bit caught up in the VRAM furore, and considering the evidence of the last couple of weeks for 1440p/4k, I am seeing VRAM use of 10 - 11GB Which makes sense when you look at the specs of current gen consoles.
I'd have been a happy returning customer for nVidia, but the ridiculous pricing on the new cards incentivised me to over to AMD. I'm quite impressed by the 6800 (I'm not a huge user if RT/DLSS)
Nice to see the pics of the RTX e-peen though
robbiekhan said:
I don't think those arguing about only 8GB VRAM on that particular mode being the issue considered the lack of memory bus width. If they knew that the lack of a wide bus meant that even if it had 16GB, that the performance vs the 8GB would be basically nothing, then things would be different. People only saw the lack of 16GB and went "wtf!" without thinking about it from a technical level.
8 more GB for 100 more bucks for 0% gain lol.
It's Nvidia basically saying "you wanted a 16GB 4060, here have one" and technically they did exactly that.
The idea of more than 8GB VRAM is that you want to minimise the swapping to system RAM when the VRAM allocation hits its limit. At 8GB even at 1440P you will encounter this a lot in modern games. I see it all the time, 8-10GB is the norm for dedicated game usage alone, whilst the OS and background apps consume up to 2GB VRAM without the need to cache to system RAM and swap around causing added latency and potential stutters etc when in a game and all that is going on.
Now the technical side of this statement is that on a 4060 Ti class card, you would not be able to run the same Ultra settings anyway because the card isn't powerful enough to maintain a good framerate, so using lower settings is a must and thus reducing the VRAM impact.
So that needs to be factored in too. It's simply not just a case of card x has 8GB and card y has 12GB, the capability of the card itself matters and will dictate if more or less VRAM is justified. In this case, you can't run games at settings that warrant more than 8GB, so releasing a 16GB 2060 class card is just silly and a waste of sand.
Much of the furore from youtubers was about 8GB cards running out of VRAM and having to pull from system memory (resulting in super-poor performance), so expanding to 16GB - even with the same bus bandwidth - would negate that.8 more GB for 100 more bucks for 0% gain lol.
It's Nvidia basically saying "you wanted a 16GB 4060, here have one" and technically they did exactly that.
The idea of more than 8GB VRAM is that you want to minimise the swapping to system RAM when the VRAM allocation hits its limit. At 8GB even at 1440P you will encounter this a lot in modern games. I see it all the time, 8-10GB is the norm for dedicated game usage alone, whilst the OS and background apps consume up to 2GB VRAM without the need to cache to system RAM and swap around causing added latency and potential stutters etc when in a game and all that is going on.
Now the technical side of this statement is that on a 4060 Ti class card, you would not be able to run the same Ultra settings anyway because the card isn't powerful enough to maintain a good framerate, so using lower settings is a must and thus reducing the VRAM impact.
So that needs to be factored in too. It's simply not just a case of card x has 8GB and card y has 12GB, the capability of the card itself matters and will dictate if more or less VRAM is justified. In this case, you can't run games at settings that warrant more than 8GB, so releasing a 16GB 2060 class card is just silly and a waste of sand.
Edited by robbiekhan on Thursday 20th July 16:45
What the 16GB card gives you is the same performance of the 8GB in general but not prone to massive slowdowns when using large textures.
It doesn't give better performance generally, why would it unless they upped the width of the bus and thus improved memory bandwidth?
I'd say that this has shown that the 'issue' with 8GB of VRAM was way overblown. When it was addressed, the people complaining just went off and complained that the card wasn't faster.
Lucas Ayde said:
Much of the furore from youtubers was about 8GB cards running out of VRAM and having to pull from system memory (resulting in super-poor performance), so expanding to 16GB - even with the same bus bandwidth - would negate that.
What the 16GB card gives you is the same performance of the 8GB in general but not prone to massive slowdowns when using large textures.
It doesn't give better performance generally, why would it unless they upped the width of the bus and thus improved memory bandwidth?
I'd say that this has shown that the 'issue' with 8GB of VRAM was way overblown. When it was addressed, the people complaining just went off and complained that the card wasn't faster.
Is it though? I might be missing something, but the benchmarks I've seen when using settings people would actually use there isn't massive slowdowns.What the 16GB card gives you is the same performance of the 8GB in general but not prone to massive slowdowns when using large textures.
It doesn't give better performance generally, why would it unless they upped the width of the bus and thus improved memory bandwidth?
I'd say that this has shown that the 'issue' with 8GB of VRAM was way overblown. When it was addressed, the people complaining just went off and complained that the card wasn't faster.
The problem with gamers nexus etc. style benchmarks is that they crank all the settings up when testing cards to keep the comparisons consistent.
Depends on your use case, cards with massive memory have been around for some things for years.
I did some stuff that required lots of 8Kx8K (and sometimes bigger) textures with lots of levels in the mipmaps and that burns through memory really quickly.
For other types of shiny graphics it doesn't matter much at all.
I did some stuff that required lots of 8Kx8K (and sometimes bigger) textures with lots of levels in the mipmaps and that burns through memory really quickly.
For other types of shiny graphics it doesn't matter much at all.
pquinn said:
Depends on your use case, cards with massive memory have been around for some things for years.
I did some stuff that required lots of 8Kx8K (and sometimes bigger) textures with lots of levels in the mipmaps and that burns through memory really quickly.
For other types of shiny graphics it doesn't matter much at all.
This is correct, whilst these are gaming cards, non gaming tasks do massively benefit as well.I did some stuff that required lots of 8Kx8K (and sometimes bigger) textures with lots of levels in the mipmaps and that burns through memory really quickly.
For other types of shiny graphics it doesn't matter much at all.
As an example here I am just exporting a batch of photos to JPEG from one of my shoots, note that Lightroom is using over 32GB of system RAM here, and 15GB of VRAM. A 16GB RAM would spike to choking point and spill over to system RAM as a result, whilst an 8GB card would have no chance and the whole export would be considerably slower.
Use case scenarios do indeed matter!
Donbot said:
Is it though? I might be missing something, but the benchmarks I've seen when using settings people would actually use there isn't massive slowdowns.
The problem with gamers nexus etc. style benchmarks is that they crank all the settings up when testing cards to keep the comparisons consistent.
That's what I was getting at .. the 'problems' with 8GB of VRAM weren't anything like as impactful on games generally as they were being hyped as .. a few games that were notably VRAM hungry pushed up to max textures are not typical of the great mass of games out there.The problem with gamers nexus etc. style benchmarks is that they crank all the settings up when testing cards to keep the comparisons consistent.
NVidia literally addressed the charge of 'needs to have more than 8GB VRAM' and the same people have switched to complaining that the card should also have greater memory bandwidth (wider bus).
Whilst that would be great (hey. who doesn't want more bang for the buck?), think back to the 4080 12/16 GB fiasco. People quite rightly complained that the naming was misleading as the '4080 12gig' was very different to the '4080 16gig'. Now the complaint is that the 8 and 16gig models of the 4060Ti are in fact the same chip, just with different amounts of VRAM. I would suggest that they should have had a 4060Ti with say,12gigs from the start and then had a slightly downclocked 4060 but using the same die, with 8gigs.
I would argue that the real issue with the current generation RTX40xx is that the value for money is just not there. Leaving aside the 4090, the price/performance hasn't really moved on. This contrasts sharply with the RTX30xx vs RTX20xx jump, which was massive. Being able to get 2080Ti like performance for £469 with the 3070 was incredible (except that the crypto boom made it very difficult to find cards at anything like RRP .. or even find cards).
Seems the base card is good enough for more vram.Plenty wil still buy it. (I bought a 4070!)
They really, really need some strong competition across the range. Hopefully AMD/Intel will upset the market more, but given the bust after the crypto boom i think we'll have ato wait a couple of generations, if at all.
Offering a marginal rasterisation uplift and using DLSS etc to provide the upgrade just plain sucks. They do seem to have very efficient architecture in le lower range cards. 4070 is around 200W.
They really, really need some strong competition across the range. Hopefully AMD/Intel will upset the market more, but given the bust after the crypto boom i think we'll have ato wait a couple of generations, if at all.
Offering a marginal rasterisation uplift and using DLSS etc to provide the upgrade just plain sucks. They do seem to have very efficient architecture in le lower range cards. 4070 is around 200W.
conkerman said:
Plenty wil still buy it. (I bought a 4070!)
They really, really need some strong competition across the range. Hopefully AMD/Intel will upset the market more, but given the bust after the crypto boom i think we'll have ato wait a couple of generations, if at all.
Offering a marginal rasterisation uplift and using DLSS etc to provide the upgrade just plain sucks. They do seem to have very efficient architecture in le lower range cards. 4070 is around 200W.
Very happy with my 4070 too (got the FE). Basically the same performance as the OG 3080 (a few percent slower), 12 gigs, new features like frame generation, incredibly low power consumption and in the case of the FE cards really nice and compact.They really, really need some strong competition across the range. Hopefully AMD/Intel will upset the market more, but given the bust after the crypto boom i think we'll have ato wait a couple of generations, if at all.
Offering a marginal rasterisation uplift and using DLSS etc to provide the upgrade just plain sucks. They do seem to have very efficient architecture in le lower range cards. 4070 is around 200W.
The only issue is the price which is about 15-20% too high compared to what it 'should' be IMO ... but sadly there's really nothing else current out there to compete. You can go for last gen AMD but the cards are huge and eat power with lower RT performance and don't have nice features like DLSS 2/3 (FSR isn't really on a par with DLSS upscaling).
I've just found a 4060ti on Amazon that is clearly priced wrong if anybody is interested.
Its priced as the 4060 variant instead of the TI.
Just ordered one, delivery is 15th August!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0C4F7KX1B/ref...
Its priced as the 4060 variant instead of the TI.
Just ordered one, delivery is 15th August!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0C4F7KX1B/ref...
TonyTony said:
I've just found a 4060ti on Amazon that is clearly priced wrong if anybody is interested.
Its priced as the 4060 variant instead of the TI.
Just ordered one, delivery is 15th August!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0C4F7KX1B/ref...
But it says RTX 4060, under the Ti section. Is it a pricing mistake for a Ti, or a listing mistake for a non-Ti?Its priced as the 4060 variant instead of the TI.
Just ordered one, delivery is 15th August!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0C4F7KX1B/ref...
They don't list a 2 fan 4060 Ti on the MSI shop on Amazon. - https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/page/5095B030-8ABA...
The 3 fan Ti version is £420.
They do make the 2 fan 4060 Ti Ventus though.
Probably the seller (or Amazon) doing their normal 'title-enhancing' to draw in more buyers using one listing instead of multiple for similar products.
I've seen it with other items where the title of the page and summary from search results shows your item with a unbelievably low price, but when you click through it is only the basic item that is cheap. and when you use the drop-down to pick the premium/correct item it takes the price to double the original price and more in line with other offerings.
Although in two cases over the years, I've managed to get the premium version for the basic price when the drop-down wasn't working properly...and my shopping basket & order summary showed the correct product at the wrong price. Neither were cancelled by Amazon/the seller, and both turned up.
I've seen it with other items where the title of the page and summary from search results shows your item with a unbelievably low price, but when you click through it is only the basic item that is cheap. and when you use the drop-down to pick the premium/correct item it takes the price to double the original price and more in line with other offerings.
Although in two cases over the years, I've managed to get the premium version for the basic price when the drop-down wasn't working properly...and my shopping basket & order summary showed the correct product at the wrong price. Neither were cancelled by Amazon/the seller, and both turned up.
Edited by mmm-five on Sunday 23 July 11:02
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff