GeForce RTX 4070Ti Super Reviews

CAD4466HK

CAD4466HK

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
2,779
Not much faster than a 4070Ti. The only saving grace is the 16GB of VRAM on a 256bit bus at the same money as a 4070Ti.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePbKc6THvCM


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QruyaA0ZrLk


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRxxc-0VfnM

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-tuf/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-ventus-3x/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/zotac-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-trinity/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/pny-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-verto-oc/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/galax-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-ex-white/

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/palit-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-jetstream-oc/

https://www.guru3d.com/review/asus-tuf-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-review/

https://www.guru3d.com/review/msi-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-ventus-3x-review/

https://www.guru3d.com/review/gainward-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-panther-oc-edition-review/

https://www.thefpsreview.com/2024/01/23/asus-tuf-gaming-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-video-card-review/
 
Last edited:
I didn't think it'd outpace the 4080, but I would have thought it'd been closer to the 4080 than it is. I sure wouldn't pass one up for the right price though.
Now if one can be had at 2-2.5 slot and 260mm long, I will add it to the unnecessary collection I have.

Seems like a solid 1440 card.
 
DogsofJune said:
I didn't think it'd outpace the 4080, but I would have thought it'd been closer to the 4080 than it is. I sure wouldn't pass one up for the right price though.
Now if one can be had at 2-2.5 slot and 260mm long, I will add it to the unnecessary collection I have.

Seems like a solid 1440 card.
Click to expand...

GPU power is right between the 4070ti and 4080 while bamdwidth was close to the 4080 with equivilent vram and cache to the 4080 so it was suprising to see it closer in performance to the 4070ti. Perhaps it is the 'unbalanced" architecrure during adjustments. 4070ti 4070tiS
and 4080 shown below.

Screenshot_20240123-123421_Samsung Internet.jpg
Screenshot_20240123-123347_Samsung Internet.jpg
Screenshot_20240123-123317_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
It's literally a gimped 4080, of course it's going to perform slower. What it comes down to is price vs performance. Is it worth that stretch over a 4070 Super or upgrade from the 4070 Ti?

performance-per-dollar-2560-1440.png
 
It's 7-15% faster than the 4070 Ti. What exactly were you expecting from a mid-cycle refresh?
 
Its definately the lamest mid cycle refresh. The 2060s and 2070s were both priced close to the 2060 and 2070 while performing VERY close to the 2070 and 2080, respectively. The 4070S is only slightly more than the 4070 launch price while being very close to the 4070ti in performance.

This lame duck hardly moves the needle at all.
 
OKC Yeakey Trentadue said:
Its definately the lamest mid cycle refresh. The 2060s and 2070s were both priced close to the 2060 and 2070 while performing VERY close to the 2070 and 2080, respectively. The 4070S is only slightly more than the 4070 launch price while being very close to the 4070ti in performance.

This lame duck hardly moves the needle at all.
Click to expand...
Turing had the benefit of being on a vastly more mature and cheaper node (16nm) with lower failure rates than Lovelace.
 
Guess I am juat looking at it from a reviewer, system builder, and board partner point of view.

When you have to spend lots of time and money packaging and reviewing a new product, you would hope it does something to excite a few new customers with a new price point.

With every other mid cycle card their was at least one scenario where the new card gave the user the ability to play "game X at Y frames for under Z dollars"

There is just nothing that this card brings to the table like that.
 
OKC Yeakey Trentadue said:
GPU power is right between the 4070ti and 4080 while bamdwidth was close to the 4080 with equivilent vram and cache to the 4080 so it was suprising to see it closer in performance to the 4070ti.
Click to expand...


Core count
4080..: 9728
4070ti: 7680
----
The middle would have been 8704


The 4070Ti super core count of 8448 is closer to the 4070ti (+10%) than the 4080 (-13.2%), the yield must be quite good at 82.5% of the chip of a reasonable size this late in a process life, maybe more mature drivers will shift things a bit and remove strange case to separate the ti super with the regular ti but I do not imagine by much. And because I imagine you do not always perfectly scale with core count increase either, maybe you do need to go a bit over that line to achieve to not be closer to the 4070ti (lack of vram case aside).

It must be the some of the most boring product to reviews, the latest drivers / game version refresh being maybe of similar value to them than the new product number, that could have been guessed to almost perfection in advance.
 
Last edited:
I'm personally pretty disappointed in this thing.

In overall averages 7900XT is more performative and nearly $100 less ($710 being the lowest price on NewEgg at the time of GN's launch video).
I think what everyone wanted was a card that would be decisively better than a 7900XT in everything. And I don't think we really even got close to that.
I think we all are also hoping that the 4080 Super decisively win vs the 7900XTX in everything too. But this is drawing even that idea/assumption into doubt.

The only games where it seems to be way out ahead is specifically in CP2077, AW2, and Ratchet and Clank specifically with path tracing on. With it off, the numbers are reversed.
Games like Avatar (that always have RT on) are close enough that although the 4070TiS is ahead, without an FPS counter on and simply playing the game, no human would notice the difference in performance between the two (HU notes it's a 3% difference). That same thing can be said about RE4 and Jedi Survivor.

Hogwarts and Spiderman the 7900XT actually comes out ahead in RT.

Fortnite is decisively for 4070TiS.

HU's chart isn't exactly accurate in the sense that the outliers shift the graph significantly. It's fair in the sense that each game is equally weighted, but if any of those titles aren't games you care about then a title like AW2 drastically skews the perception of how fast the 7900XT is, even in RT titles.

Certainly it does make me thing though that optimization will be the name of the game going forward. It's true nVidia is winning at the top end of RT, but I also wonder how much that has to do with optimization. What with a ton of RT titles being much more evenly matched and also AMD coming out ahead in a few. With the exception there being Path Tracing, which AMD doesn't have any counter to at this point.

Certainly though, I think if a game like CP2077 was more optimized for AMD cards, they would perform better at Ultra RT settings (without path tracing). Perhaps still not enough to win vs nVidia cards, but better than being 50% less performance. Again, I say that reflecting on things like Plague Tail, Avatar, Spider-man, Jedi Survivor, and RE4. To be clear to the nVidia fan boys, I'm not saying AMD should be winning all the time, I'm saying that lack of optimization specifically in those titles has made what should be closer (heck even perhaps still a 20% gap) be a 50% gap. And it's no "obfuscation of the truth" to also say CP2077 was heavily optimized specifically for nVidia cards.

So for consumers it still really comes down to what you play. Like I said at the top, I think everyone was hoping the 4070TiS would decisively win across the board, and we didn't get that. With the pricing difference there is still many legitimate reasons to buy the AMD card. And even in RT titles it's not a given that the nVidia card is faster. Even in Avatar, which DF said was the best looking game of 2023, the difference between nVidia and AMD here is 3%. Certainly if AW2, Ratchet and Clank, and CP2077 with full RT on are titles you consider to be important then the 4070TiS wins there. For virtually all of the raster only games, AMD is ahead. Especially, notably in titles like CoD (if you're into competitive FPS).

The rest of the titles, including the RT ones(!), the 4070TiS and 7900XT trade blows, meaning that from a pricing perspective the AMD card comes out ahead. Meaning that the reasons to buy the nVidia based GPU again come down to how much value you place on DLSS and the few titles where it's ahead due to RT.

Certainly if nVidia actually wanted to fight on price and the 4070TiS launched at $699, I think everyone, me included would call it a definite smash. But they didn't do that and as noted in both HU and GN (so not even my words here) the 4070TiS is underwhelming (with GN Steve calling it "Meh").
 
DogsofJune said:
I didn't think it'd outpace the 4080, but I would have thought it'd been closer to the 4080 than it is. I sure wouldn't pass one up for the right price though.
Now if one can be had at 2-2.5 slot and 260mm long, I will add it to the unnecessary collection I have.

Seems like a solid 1440 card.
Click to expand...
My 3080 is only a tad slower than this card, no thanks.
 
LukeTbk said:
Core count
4080..: 9728
4070ti: 7680
----
The middle would have been 8704


The 4070Ti super core count of 8448 is closer to the 4070ti (+10%) than the 4080 (-13.2%), the yield must be quite good at 82.5% of the chip of a reasonable size this late in a process life, maybe more mature drivers will shift things a bit and remove strange case. And because I imagine you do not always perfectly scale with core count increase either, maybe you do need to go a bit over that line to achieve to not be closer to the 4070ti (lack of vram case aside).

It must be the some of the most boring product to reviews, the latest drivers / game version refresh being maybe of similar value to them than the new product number, that could have been guessed to almost perfection in advance.
Click to expand...
If you factor in clocks, the 4070TiS is actually right in between the other cards:
Screenshot_20240123-144955_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Crazy. I felt a lot of people were hyped for the 4070 Ti Super. I certainly thought it could be the best of the 3.

It may be that the 4070 Super turns out to be the "winner" amongst all of the Super cards. Although with 4080 S being $999 it may push it to #1.
 
sk3tch said:
Crazy. I felt a lot of people were hyped for the 4070 Ti Super. I certainly thought it could be the best of the 3.

It may be that the 4070 Super turns out to be the "winner" amongst all of the Super cards. Although with 4080 S being $999 it may push it to #1.
Click to expand...
The 4070S I expect will be the weakest of the updates.

It’s still a 12GB card that costs $600. It’s 10% faster yes, but I think most people would’ve preferred a $100-$150 price drop over gaining 10% performance.

We’ll see what it’s like long term, but people looking for a budget card don’t seem to be clamoring for the 4070S, it isn’t “more compelling” than the other options just due to pricing and its performance class.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The 4070S I expect will be the weakest of the updates.

It’s still a 12GB card that costs $600. It’s 10% faster yes, but I think most people would’ve preferred a $100-$150 price drop over gaining 10% performance.

We’ll see what it’s like long term, but people looking for a budget card don’t seem to be clamoring for the 4070S, it isn’t “more compelling” than the other options just due to pricing and its performance class.
Click to expand...
4070 S is 15% faster than the 4070.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/31.html

12GB versus whatever GB is irrelevant at the $600 tier. Unless you want pure raster performance, no RT, no CUDA...

Definitely a weaker showing for the 4070 Ti S versus the 4070 S.
 
sk3tch said:
4070 S is 15% faster than the 4070.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/31.html
Click to expand...
Okay that’s fine. My point about pricing vs performance remains the same.
sk3tch said:
12GB versus whatever GB is irrelevant at the $600 tier. Unless you want pure raster performance, no RT, no CUDA...

Definitely a weaker showing for the 4070 Ti S versus the 4070 S.
Click to expand...
The 7800XT is $100 less. People at this price class are significantly more price sensitive than talking about much more expensive cards.

RT isn’t really usable on any card of this class.

And a card like the 7800XT isn’t a productivity slouch either.

Is the 4070S faster than a 7800XT? Yes, but it had better be. But certainly not so much faster that people think they want it or need it to consider it as “the only option” in this price class.

More to the point though it’s not even as much about my opinion as what is actually happening. We’ll see what happens long term, but short term the 4070S is not “shattering sales” by any measurement. Especially considering it has lower volume at launch even compared to the 4070.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Okay that’s fine. My point about pricing vs performance remains the same.

The 7800XT is $100 less. People at this price class are significantly more price sensitive than talking about much more expensive cards.

RT isn’t really usable on any card of this class.

And a card like the 7800XT isn’t a productivity slouch either.

Is the 4070S faster than a 7800XT? Yes, but it had better be. But certainly not so much faster that people think they want it or need it to consider it as “the only option” in this price class.
Click to expand...
I'll give you all of that but it is already proven that the 4070 S is a better update than the 4070 Ti S:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-tuf/44.html

ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super TUF is the company's base model for the RTX 4070 Ti Super—there is no Dual. In terms of clocks the card runs at NVIDIA reference speeds of 2610 MHz. Averaged over the 25 games in our test suite, at 1440p, we find the card only 7% faster than RTX 4070 Ti non-Super, which is much less than expected. At 4K, the gains are slightly bigger with 10%, but it's definitely not the 15%+ jump that we got with the RTX 4070 Super. Still, these gains help make up ground against AMD's RX 7900 XT, which still remains 3% faster in a pure raster scenario. Compared to last generation's flagship, the RTX 3090 Ti, the new Super card can beat it by a small margin of 4%, which is still impressive. You're basically getting last gen's x90 Ti performance with the x70 Ti Super. Compared to RTX 4070 Super, the performance uplift is 14% and the new card is 33% faster than the RTX 4070 non-Ti non-Super, too. The fastest card from Team Red, the Radeon RX 7900 XTX, is still 17% ahead, 21% at 4K—RTX 4080 Super is designed to rival this card.
Click to expand...
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The 4070S I expect will be the weakest of the updates.

It’s still a 12GB card that costs $600. It’s 10% faster yes, but I think most people would’ve preferred a $100-$150 price drop over gaining 10% performance.

We’ll see what it’s like long term, but people looking for a budget card don’t seem to be clamoring for the 4070S, it isn’t “more compelling” than the other options just due to pricing and its performance class.
Click to expand...
There are no budget cards to be had these days. This isn't really a response to your post other than the term budget.
The 4060 line is a joke, and the only Nvidia cards that have any real performance are outrageously priced.
AMD has some options, but you miss out on the RT, DLSS, NVenc, etc. features.
Buying a new video card is subjective to budget, availability, and honest use case. That doesn't include glory to the epeen status use either. I know I'd love a 4090, but why do I need one?

The true PC enthusiast will decide what works best for them, be it in the AMD camp or Nvidia. That's all we have these days.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
The 4070S I expect will be the weakest of the updates.

It’s still a 12GB card that costs $600. It’s 10% faster yes, but I think most people would’ve preferred a $100-$150 price drop over gaining 10% performance.

We’ll see what it’s like long term, but people looking for a budget card don’t seem to be clamoring for the 4070S, it isn’t “more compelling” than the other options just due to pricing and its performance class.
Click to expand...
It's simple really. Super series is kind of disappointing just being slotted in at existing prices. If Nvidia really wanted to wow anyone then I think $499 4070 Super / $699 4070 Ti Super (dumbass name) / $899 4080 Super would have been the way to go.

As for the one card they didn't discontinue, the 4070, that card is just weird anyway. Having the exact same number of CUDA cores as the 3070, and only about matching the performance of a 3080 is quite the hint that this thing is really a 4060 Ti. If anything I am being generous saying $699 for 4070 Ti Super.
 
Last edited:
DogsofJune said:
There are no budget cards to be had these days. This isn't really a response to your post other than the term budget.
The 4060 line is a joke, and the only Nvidia cards that have any real performance are outrageously priced.
AMD has some options, but you miss out on the RT, DLSS, NVenc, etc. features.
Buying a new video card is subjective to budget, availability, and honest use case. That doesn't include glory to the epeen status use either. I know I'd love a 4090, but why do I need one?

The true PC enthusiast will decide what works best for them, be it in the AMD camp or Nvidia. That's all we have these days.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

NVidia could’ve made the 4070S interesting in terms of price competitiveness but chose to not.

Sir Beregond said:
It's simple really. Super series is kind of disappointing just being slotted in at existing prices. If Nvidia really wanted to wow anyone then I think $499 4070 Super / $699 4070 Ti Super (dumbass name) / $899 4080 Super would have been the way to go.

As for the one card they didn't discontinue, the 4070, that card is just weird anyway. Having the exact same number of CUDA cores as the 3070, and only about matching the performance of a 3080 is quite the hint that this thing is really a 4060 Ti. If anything I am being generous saying $699 for 4070 Ti Super.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I would’ve liked to have seen the same things.

It’s definitely a stagnated segment. Sure cards “will sell” but it will not be anything like previous gen’s where product was really moving.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The 4070S I expect will be the weakest of the updates.

It’s still a 12GB card that costs $600. It’s 10% faster yes, but I think most people would’ve preferred a $100-$150 price drop over gaining 10% performance.

We’ll see what it’s like long term, but people looking for a budget card don’t seem to be clamoring for the 4070S, it isn’t “more compelling” than the other options just due to pricing and its performance class.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • average-fps-2560-1440.png
    average-fps-2560-1440.png
    84 KB · Views: 1
I was actually one of those who thought that the 4070 Ti Super could be the one to get out of the Super series but the benchmarks have been really disappointing. It's only about 5-6% faster than the 4070 Ti 12GB.

It loses pretty consistently to the 7900XT 20GB by about 5% in pure raster performance while costing about $100 more.

If you're only playing Fortnite at 1080p, the 4070 Super at $599 makes a lot more sense than the 4070 Ti Super at $799.

Hate to say it because I was considering making a jump to the green team, but the 4070 Ti Super is NOT the card that convinces.

Maybe the 4080 Super will perform better and change my mind but it would also cost a thousand dollars.

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe the 7900XT on sale will turn out to be the best value 4k capable card in the present.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
RT isn’t really usable on any card of this class.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. I use rt on my 3080 still with DLSS and it looks fantastic.

EDIT: Also, frame gen on the 4070 is a big deal along with Reflex to provide nearly double the fps with a minimal input lag increase compared to no frame generation. It's already on 85+ games unlike fsr3 which is only in 3.
 
Last edited:
GoldenTiger said:
Yes it is. I use rt on my 3080 still with DLSS and it looks fantastic.
Click to expand...
That's fair. I don't have any particular interest in downplaying yours or any one else's preferences when it comes to gaming.

In light RT loads the difference between the two cards is fairly minimal and either is good enough to run RT on and have acceptable frame rates (Avatar 2, RE4, Robocop, etc).

The games where RT takes the biggest impact, namely CP2077 and AW2 - there is a massive performance penalty on either the 4070S or 7800XT. Is the 4070S, noticeably better there? Yes, absolutely. But I agree with Daniel Owen that up-scaling 1080p isn't preferable and playing at 40fps isn't where you want to be on a fast paced FPS title. On AW2 which moves slower it's more passable to be at 30fps. If you don't mind that then that's up to you. But for Daniel Owen, and also for me, while looking at the RT is pretty, I wouldn't actually want to be playing the game at those performance levels on either the 4070S or 7800XT, despite the double digit increase vs the 7800XT on the 4070S with PT on in either title.


View: https://youtu.be/x6EfOf0ZoAM?feature=shared
GoldenTiger said:
EDIT: Also, frame gen on the 4070 is a big deal along with Reflex to provide nearly double the fps with a minimal input lag increase compared to no frame generation. It's already on 85+ games unlike fsr3 which is only in 3.
Click to expand...
I think you're expressing a specific preference as being the defacto for what most people want. And I think people who are reasonably looking at the tech and also recognize that it introduces input lag and it doesn't give the same level of reaction time of true frames will generally prefer frame gen to be off.

With some exceptions, which I would say that "most" people would be okay with (but even still not 100% of people because there isn't a consensus, just generally speaking), if your FPS is already consistently above 70-80fps or so or you're playing a game that doesn't require tight reaction time (eg: not competitive or fast paced FPS) then frame gen is "nice to have".

Framegen is like sprinkles or chopped nuts on the sundae. It's a nice to have, but it isn't a defining feature. Something I can say with certainty is there are zero people that would say they would prefer frame gen over simply having "real" double FPS.
 
vjhawk said:
I was actually one of those who thought that the 4070 Ti Super could be the one to get out of the Super series but the benchmarks have been really disappointing. It's only about 5-6% faster than the 4070 Ti 12GB.

It loses pretty consistently to the 7900XT 20GB by about 5% in pure raster performance while costing about $100 more.

If you're only playing Fortnite at 1080p, the 4070 Super at $599 makes a lot more sense than the 4070 Ti Super at $799.

Hate to say it because I was considering making a jump to the green team, but the 4070 Ti Super is NOT the card that convinces.

Maybe the 4080 Super will perform better and change my mind but it would also cost a thousand dollars.

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe the 7900XT on sale will turn out to be the best value 4k capable card in the present.
Click to expand...
4080 Super is 5% more cores, maybe slightly faster memory? I wouldn't count on it being much at all faster than the 4080. Biggest thing is the price drop. But frankly I'm not that excited about it being $999 either when it's predecessor was $699.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
It’s still a 12GB card that costs $600. It’s 10% faster yes, but I think most people would’ve preferred a $100-$150 price drop over gaining 10% performance.
Click to expand...
Nvidia doesn't want the price to budge. They're perfectly fine with the current price strategy. So to compensate they launch a seemingly new product at the same price point but it's "better". The pot is stirred and people are talking about gpus again. Consumers gonna consume anyway.
 
Absalom said:
Nvidia doesn't want the price to budge. They're perfectly fine with the current price strategy. So to compensate they launch a seemingly new product at the same price point but it's "better". The pot is stirred and people are talking about gpus again. Consumers gonna consume anyway.
Click to expand...
I do not disagree with you, that that is what they're doing. I just also think it mostly comes down to how much of the market they want to capture.

nVidia overwhelmingly has the majority marketshare, there is no disagreement there. But 2023 was a year that AMD consistently pulled percentage points away from nVidia (it’s single point gains, but 7% is 10’s or 100’s of millions of dollars in the discrete GPU market). If nVidia isn’t interested in competing on price or delivering giving price to performance, then they give AMD initiative to always deliver an option that still gives them plenty of margin and sell more cards.

Anything else I could say on the matter is conjecture, but I’ll just point out: if nVidia doesn’t care about any of these segments then they shouldn’t have bothered with the Super launches period. Although no one will complain about getting a bit more performance out of the same price points, it has otherwise been one of the biggest “nothing launches” I’ve seen in some time (if the 4070TiS as an example destroyed the 7900XT in everything I wouldn’t be putting it like this, and the same with the 4070S to the 7800XT but I and other have noted that so far the Super series though “nice” isn’t more compelling than a lower cost AMD option. People buying these cards are much more price sensitive than someone buying a halo card like the 4090).

It would’ve been far more beneficial if they would’ve just made the 4070 $500, the 4070Ti $700 and the 4080 $1000. Then they wouldn’t have even had to bother with making a new series that doesn’t really move the needle and still doesn’t deliver compelling price to performance. nVidia apologists will see this as being significant, but the sales numbers in the coming weeks will be a much greater indicator on how the market interprets this launch.
 
Last edited:
I just got a used 1070 going from a 1080TI. I am thrilled with the 1070. Hopefully, I am good to go for a long while.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
That's fair. I don't have any particular interest in downplaying yours or any one else's preferences when it comes to gaming.

In light RT loads the difference between the two cards is fairly minimal and either is good enough to run RT on and have acceptable frame rates (Avatar 2, RE4, Robocop, etc).

The games where RT takes the biggest impact, namely CP2077 and AW2 - there is a massive performance penalty on either the 4070S or 7800XT. Is the 4070S, noticeably better there? Yes, absolutely. But I agree with Daniel Owen that up-scaling 1080p isn't preferable and playing at 40fps isn't where you want to be on a fast paced FPS title. On AW2 which moves slower it's more passable to be at 30fps. If you don't mind that then that's up to you. But for Daniel Owen, and also for me, while looking at the RT is pretty, I wouldn't actually want to be playing the game at those performance levels on either the 4070S or 7800XT, despite the double digit increase vs the 7800XT on the 4070S with PT on in either title.


View: https://youtu.be/x6EfOf0ZoAM?feature=shared

I think you're expressing a specific preference as being the defacto for what most people want. And I think people who are reasonably looking at the tech and also recognize that it introduces input lag and it doesn't give the same level of reaction time of true frames will generally prefer frame gen to be off.

With some exceptions, which I would say that "most" people would be okay with (but even still not 100% of people because there isn't a consensus, just generally speaking), if your FPS is already consistently above 70-80fps or so or you're playing a game that doesn't require tight reaction time (eg: not competitive or fast paced FPS) then frame gen is "nice to have".

Framegen is like sprinkles or chopped nuts on the sundae. It's a nice to have, but it isn't a defining feature. Something I can say with certainty is there are zero people that would say they would prefer frame gen over simply having "real" double FPS.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of settings for Ray Tracing in Cyberpunk. You can do 1440p/60 w/DLSS and still have some good looking settings on, with a 4070/s.

However, it seems like you are actually talking about Path Tracing.
For non-path traced, there are plenty of games now, where a 4070/s will do 1440p/60 with good RT effects, without DLSS. With DLSS, you can enjoy higher framerates. Image quality varies. For Alan Wake, DLSS quality is quite good. And you can turn on some nice RT effects.

As far as framegen for Nvidia: Every Framegen game has Reflex as well (Nvidia's advanced solution for optimizing frame delivery in the graphics pipeline, resulting in lower input lag for most use cases). And some of those games with Reflex and Framegen turned on, have input lag which is comparable to, or better than with Framegen off and no Reflex. Its been awhile since I looked at benchmark numbers, so I won't try to say its like that in most games. Lemme review some numbers...
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
it has otherwise been one of the biggest “nothing launches” I’ve seen in some time
Click to expand...
In that in a world of nothing launch..... how much the 7800xt changed things price-performance over the real world 6800xt price of the time.... or the 4060/4070, lot of launch were we update to a cheaper to make card to be able to offer the same performance at the same price without hurting the margin in a inflationary world type.
 
DogsofJune said:
Speaking of nothing launches, AMD has one out today. 7600xt. Yikes on that performance compared to the 6700xt.

It's a world of reboots fellas. No matter what camp you are in.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Terrible shame that. As consumers basically it’s been as it’s always been: vote with your wallet.
I personally won’t be buying anything that either team is selling unless it benefits me. And I’d sooner buy used to not add to either of their bottom lines. But either way I should hope that no one thinks this level of competition is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top