NVIDIA rumored to be preparing GeForce RTX 4080/4070 SUPER cards

Stryker7314 said:
4090 super or riot
Click to expand...
giphy (6).gif
 
pavel said:
So, theoretically, a 4080 Super can use an AD102 and still have a 384-bit bus and 20GB of Vram?
That looks pretty good, to me, if so.


The current 4080 seems a bit gimped though - which is why the price is way too high, currently.


Agreed.


A 4040 might sound/look cooler, though?


Get a normal sized case? A normal case size might fit whatever gpu you get. It's funny, these peeps who get ITX cases and then complain/cry that none of the gpus out there fit in their case. Gpus got big - they ate a lot of food...they produce a lot of heat and power.
Which reminds me, if some ppl on here are saying the coolers are too big, needlessly too big what about AMD RDNA 3 cards that produce way more power (heat, too?) than each comparative nvidia card?!?
Click to expand...
The coolers are excessively large for the most part for zero reasons, the 4080 does not need a 4090 cooler and so on down the stack. It is stupid and causes problems not only in fit but also blocking pice slots and space for other stuff in that box. Plus why pay extra for something not really benefiting anyone in the first place? The 3080 cooler, two slot would work well on the 4080 and down in my opinion. The stupidly oversize coolers looks to be more a marketing BS to imply bigger is better and why you need to spend hundreds of dollars more this generation.
 
noko said:
The 3080 cooler, two slot would work well on the 4080 and down in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The 4080 has a 320W TDP, which is exactly the same as a 3080. So that's not really an opinion, it's just fact. Anything that worked on the 3080 should work on a 4080, from a pure wattage perspective. One has to wonder if part of the reason that 4080s are overpriced is because of that stupidly overkill cooler they come with.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
The 4080 has a 320W TDP, which is exactly the same as a 3080. So that's not really an opinion, it's just fact. Anything that worked on the 3080 should work on a 4080, from a pure wattage perspective. One has to wonder if part of the reason that 4080s are overpriced is because of that stupidly overkill cooler they come with.
Click to expand...
No to cut costs AIB want as few coolers as possible, even if it’s overkill it’s cheaper to be dealing with one design than multiple ones from a manufacturing and supply standpoint, economy to scale and all that jazz.
 
Lakados said:
No to cut costs AIB want as few coolers as possible, even if it’s overkill it’s cheaper to be dealing with one design than multiple ones from a manufacturing and supply standpoint, economy to scale and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

Sure, but couldn't they just reuse coolers from the 3080 line, with a few minor tweaks and save on material costs? Or I guess is their PCB layout so different that they can't do that at all?
 
Well I guess what you're saying is that they want fewer designs in the factory so they could focus on one design.... but they need multiple cooler designs by default since they give different ones for many of the ones below the 4080, so I just wonder if it's really for the best that they insisted on using a horribly overkill brick for the 4080 instead of scaling very far back, closer to the 4070 Ti cooler designs, which is only about 35W lower. Than the 4080. They could have also saved on the design costs, because basically any 3080 cooler would have worked for both.

Well, I don't know how this stuff works at their level, I just find it odd. The 4090 is supposed to be a low volume, high margin product as I figure, so I don't know why they would produce its cooler in any higher volumes than they had to....
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Sure, but couldn't they just reuse coolers from the 3080 line, with a few minor tweaks and save on material costs? Or I guess is their PCB layout so different that they can't do that at all?
Click to expand...
I get the impression Nvidia was very tight with the information they shared with their AIBs on target power and specs for the 4000 series so when they were doing their design mockups they planned for much larger power envelopes than what we ultimately got.
 
Lakados said:
I get the impression Nvidia was very tight with the information they shared with their AIBs on target power and specs for the 4000 series so when they were doing their design mockups they planned for much larger power envelopes than what we ultimately got.
Click to expand...
Could be part that and kept option open very late until they were sure about what AMD had, but maybe they got surprised by how good Nvidia special N5 turned out in a lower enveloppe in that regard (or how bad at scaling past a "reasonable" amount it happened to be if we say it the other way around).

It is not like the Founder Edition version were that much "understated" in those regards.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
Could be part that and kept option open very late until they were sure about what AMD had, maybe they good surprised by how good Nvidia special N5 turned out in a lower enveloppe in that regard (or how bad at scaling past a "reasonable" amount it happened to be if we say it the other way around).

It is not like the Founder Edition version were that much "understated" in those regards.
Click to expand...
Well it’s also a case that the AIBs put coolers on there capable of handling the upper power limits of the power inputs. So in the case of the 4090 many cooling solutions can handle a little over 500w because they knew the cards were using the 12VHPWR connector long before they knew the actual numbers for the silicon.

To prevent leaks Nvidia plays things close, that singes the AIBs a smidge but they are the ones that leak more info than just about anybody else.
 
I do not know enough about that, but there was talk that the cooling solution - power envelope need to be announced enough in advance to be ready that it was possible that it was not just keeping their cards close but actually not knowing yet that they would be so much more efficient than Ampere.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Massive fail if the 4080 Super stays with 16gb instead of upgrading to 20gb.
Click to expand...
The issue there being the bus.
polonyc2 said:
if the 4080 Super stays at 16GB then the real deal will be the vanilla 4080 which I'm assuming will drop to under $1000?
Click to expand...
That to me would be the hope. If they can make it $800, then sales on it would probably fly. That would require the entire lineup to get pushed down and the Super to sit at around $1000. Cynically the Super could sit at $1200 and the regular at $1000. Though I don't anticipate that that will move the cards the way they want.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
That to me would be the hope. If they can make it $800, then sales on it would probably fly. That would require the entire lineup to get pushed down and the Super to sit at around $1000. Cynically the Super could sit at $1200 and the regular at $1000. Though I don't anticipate that that will move the cards the way they want.
Click to expand...

Actually I think just pushing the 4080 down to a <=1k MSRP would be plenty to make it fly. Even at its current prices or a bit higher, I think reviewers have found it (all things considered) to be overall favorable to the 7900XTX in terms of pricing. If they put it down just under 1k (say even $999; people like 9's so that's a great price), I'm sure a lot of people sitting on the fence would jump at it. At that point, the 4090 would be 70% more expensive. Then you'd have the 4080 Super dangling out for everyone that doesn't quite want to commit to a 4090. I'm kind of worried if anything, this'll just kill AMD's sales...
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Actually I think just pushing the 4080 down to a <=1k MSRP would be plenty to make it fly. Even at its current prices or a bit higher, I think reviewers have found it (all things considered) to be overall favorable to the 7900XTX in terms of pricing. If they put it down just under 1k (say even $999; people like 9's so that's a great price), I'm sure a lot of people sitting on the fence would jump at it.
Click to expand...
The thing is AMD could just simply lower their prices in response. Which is likely what will happen. The 4080's "problem" is that it has been the worst value in the lineup. Too little bus, too little, ram, too high cost, and not definitive enough at "winning". The 7900XTX performs better than it at raster. In light RT titles they trade blows. Only when it's heavy RT does the 4080 pull ahead. And when you look at the huge list of titles, it's something like: 7900XTX>4080 in 6-7 titles. 7900XTX=4080 in 20 titles. 7900XTX<4080 in about 6-7 titles.
Meanwhile the 7900XTX can be found for $900 sometimes even less. Which is a solid $300+ less than the 4080.

4080 at $1000 becomes more interesting, but if the 7900XTX drops to $800 or less, then the same problem remains.
StoleMyOwnCar said:
At that point, the 4090 would be 70% more expensive. Then you'd have the 4080 Super dangling out for everyone that doesn't quite want to commit to a 4090. I'm kind of worried if anything, this'll just kill AMD's sales...
Click to expand...
AMD has good margins. It just will affect margins, not sales. And this is not including if AMD launches their own lineup of improved products.
 
I think the 4080 super will maybe just replace the 4080 that will just stop to make sense/exist, maybe what I would do a 20GB 4080 super, 10% better than the 7900xtx priced near $1000 and not try to price down the 4080 for it to make sense, the "4070tisuper" would replace the 4080 in the performance stack, being just below it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pavel
like this
UnknownSouljer said:
The thing is AMD could just simply lower their prices in response. Which is likely what will happen. The 4080's "problem" is that it has been the worst value in the lineup. Too little bus, too little, ram, too high cost, and not definitive enough at "winning". The 7900XTX performs better than it at raster. In light RT titles they trade blows. Only when it's heavy RT does the 4080 pull ahead. And when you look at the huge list of titles, it's something like: 7900XTX>4080 in 6-7 titles. 7900XTX=4080 in 20 titles. 7900XTX<4080 in about 6-7 titles.
Meanwhile the 7900XTX can be found for $900 sometimes even less. Which is a solid $300+ less than the 4080.

4080 at $1000 becomes more interesting, but if the 7900XTX drops to $800 or less, then the same problem remains.
Click to expand...

The big problem is FSR vs DLSS. Many of these cards (as can be seen in the GPU subforum of this forum) can be used at high FPS 1440p or maybe even 4k, with DLSS or FSR enabled. And with that, they do great... except that basically every review out there under the sun will praise DLSS much more than it praises FSR. With DLSS, even the 4080 can do competently at 4k, and likely at higher image quality than the 7900XTX. That's the crux of the issue, and I think a big part of the reason that they did say it was as good of a value as it was. It's powerful enough to get decent base framerates (even with RT enabled), and then DLSS just makes them shoot up, and it looks better doing it.

AMD just has too much catching up to do at upscaling. I guess you're right--they could lower prices again... but a even at around $200 extra, once you're at $800+, I think a lot of people would be willing to make that trade for a better software ecosystem and possibly better longevity simply due to it.

These aren't really all my words, either it's from these two fellows that do this... well all day every day:

View: https://youtu.be/7RnUAPMxdgY?t=1700
I timestamped it with where they were discussing the 4080 vs 7900XTX. Of course end of the day it's all debatable but... there are a decent amount of people jumping at Nvidia just for the software, and there are at least a few users on this forum suffering due to AMD's...

UnknownSouljer said:
AMD has good margins. It just will affect margins, not sales.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit skeptical about this, I think it could affect both.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
The big problem is FSR vs DLSS. Many of these cards (as can be seen in the GPU subforum of this forum) can be used at high FPS 1440p or maybe even 4k, with DLSS or FSR enabled. And with that, they do great... except that basically every review out there under the sun will praise DLSS much more than it praises FSR. With DLSS, even the 4080 can do competently at 4k, and likely at higher image quality than the 7900XTX. That's the crux of the issue, and I think a big part of the reason that they did say it was as good of a value as it was. It's powerful enough to get decent base framerates (even with RT enabled), and then DLSS just makes them shoot up, and it looks better doing it.

AMD just has too much catching up to do at upscaling. I guess you're right--they could lower prices again... but a even at around $200 extra, once you're at $800+, I think a lot of people would be willing to make that trade for a better software ecosystem and possibly better longevity simply due to it.

These aren't really all my words, either it's from these two fellows that do this... well all day every day:

View: https://youtu.be/7RnUAPMxdgY?t=1700
I timestamped it with where they were discussing the 4080 vs 7900XTX. Of course end of the day it's all debatable but... there are a decent amount of people jumping at Nvidia just for the software, and there are at least a few users on this forum suffering due to AMD's...
Click to expand...

I think people who are objective will look at options from both nVidia and AMD, and not be a fan-boy.

And to reiterate what I was saying, it’s not just about pure performance here. The reasons why 7900XTX’s have sold and 4080’s have not has come down to not just performance; it’s price to performance. And I illustrated that with talking about benchmarks and the $300 price disparity.

I’ve heard it said, even in that recent MLID video, that the 4080 is one of the worst selling cards from nVidia of all time (probably also in its class). That’s the reason to make a Super and drop the price in the first place. Otherwise, they shouldn’t use resources and call it a day. True or not is another discussion. The 7900XTX on the other hand is doing well.
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I'm a bit skeptical about this, I think it could affect both.
Click to expand...
That literally doesn’t make sense. If you could buy a 7900XTX today at $800, it would sell out.
AMD loses if price to performance in terms of raster is equal if price is also equal. But they have been more than competitive when performance is equal and there is a disparity in other ways. This is how their entire product stack is developed. AMD has more or less directly stated that this is their strategy.

You are aware they have other cards in the stack right? The 7800XT is a sales darling. And it has everything to do with price to performance and positioning. It’s this that nVidia is trying to combat. As well as being cast in a more favorable light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pavel
like this
UnknownSouljer said:
I think people who are objective will look at options from both nVidia and AMD, and not be a fan-boy.
Click to expand...
So HardwareUnboxed are just Nvidia fanboys?


View: https://youtu.be/YbKhxjw8EUE?t=1478

This video they're referencing was on the news page, I believe. They did a price to performance evaluation on the two cards, and even before it went down further, the 4080 was in their opinion just giving the 7900XTX a run for its money or beating it, especially when software and RT is factored in. A big part of that was DLSS. They did a full video on DLSS vs FSR, too. Is talking about DLSS just a fanboy thing?

Here's another one from LinusTechTips where they talked about the various software issues they had:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yUMOK9dOQc
Obviously they're publicly committed to staying with it, but some of the issues they had were sort of oof.

I believe someone on here also had a bad experience with AMD drivers. Was it silentcircuit ? I don't remember. Either way this is all just reputational, but you're claiming that people care about price to performance. Is the reputation of possible daily annoyance simply just a nonfactor? I guess that varies person to person so that's a fair take, but some of the above advantages (DLSS and current RT) don't change. AMD does have supposedly good performance in Nanite Ray Tracing games, but... that's not really a factor right now. No one can put value on something that doesn't exist much.


UnknownSouljer said:
And to reiterate what I was saying, it’s not just about pure performance here. The reasons why 7900XTX’s have sold and 4080’s have not has come down to not just performance; it’s price to performance. And I illustrated that with talking about benchmarks and the $300 price disparity.
Click to expand...

You know I was idly looking at whether I wanted a 7900XTX myself, right? I've seen multiple 7900XTX's on sale open box at Microcenter for 850 or less, some from good manufacturers. Heck there's one nearby right now. They take a while to sell. Your claim is quite bold here, and empirically inaccurate in my experience.

The price disparity simply isn't $300 right now. It's <= $200. Sometimes less because I have seen 4080s that were open box for considerably less. Gamers certainly do care about price to performance, but I believe you're too dismissive of RT performance in current games and also upscaling performance (and to a lesser extent software stability reputation, which the Counterstrike fiasco certainly did not help). Because upscaling performance is becoming a serious deal. I've used FSR in Starfield, and it was a light flickering mess. I had never seen anything like that with DLSS. Upscaling is only going to become more important going forward.

Finally, if you want actual numbers:
https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#g=548
https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#g=542

You can quickly see that there are more 4080s out in the wild on PCPartpicker than 7900XTX's. It's either not selling as much of a landslide as you think it is, or I guess you can claim that PCPartpicker is just not a representative population. If you have actual concrete numbers to combat that, fine. But either way your claim that they just aren't selling is false.



UnknownSouljer said:
You are aware they have other cards in the stack right? The 7800XT is a sales darling. And it has everything to do with price to performance and positioning. It’s this that nVidia is trying to combat. As well as being cast in a more favorable light.
Click to expand...

Honestly we can speculate all we like about what Nvidia is doing and why. I do agree that the 7800XT is doing great. Even the video I linked up there rated it as currently the second best GPU. Perhaps that's actually mainly what Nvidia is targeting. Who knows? This isn't about speculative fiction and nonfiction. It's just about the current situation and then the hypothetical about what happens if the 4080 drops in price. Personally I think if the 7900XTX drops to 800 and the 4080 drops to 999 or something, not much will actually change. I think the 7900XTX needs to be about 750 to really start flying off shelves. Otherwise it's just status quo but at a lower price. But the problem is that if the 4080 Super at 1200 actually offers really good performance, the 7900XTX becomes even less compelling in my opinion, because there are quite a few people that were willing to stretch their budget even to the 4090 (and trust me on this; I've been watching my local Microcenter 4090s like a hawk: those things are selling). Give them a middle option that's clearly way better than the 7900XTX and not quite as expensive as the 4090, I think that's a serious value proposition. I'm kind of curious as to where the 4070 Super will try to cut into AMD's sales and whether it will succeed, but that's another topic. Now, if the 7900XTX drops in price enough, you could be right.... but then the whole product line starts collapsing in value.

Anyway that might be enough walls of text on this subject; that's about all I actually wanted to say, time to go actually... use my GPU instead lol.
 
Last edited:
I agree it's a 'fail' if the "new" 4080 Super doesn't have 20gb of vram. I think, they must! be thinking - a 20gb 4080 Super will sell better than either 7900 XT or XTX - having the same 20gb of the 7900 XTX and enough vram to go against the 24gb 7900 XTX with 'nvidia features' - the vanilla 4080 that isn't selling well gets a price reduction to help it sell and the 4080 Super just slots in at the same price the 4080 Super was - thereby - (in their hope) sparking sales.
Right???? :)
It's a major fail to not 'up' the vram though, right? There's the 320-bit bus and the AD102 stuff, too????

https://www.techradar.com/computing...he-biggest-complaints-about-the-existing-4080
 
StoleMyOwnCar , the price disparity is BOTH. It's only $200 for perhaps, a couple of cards - at a $200 gap, there's only two 7900 XTX cards to choose from (Pulse and XFX) and a couple of 4080s to choose from - Zotac and Gigabyte cards. The price disparity increases from there. I would describe it as such in my country, at least. :)
There's even some XTX cards that are at 4080 prices.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
So HardwareUnboxed are just Nvidia fanboys?


View: https://youtu.be/YbKhxjw8EUE?t=1478

This video they're referencing was on the news page, I believe. They did a price to performance evaluation on the two cards, and even before it went down further, the 4080 was in their opinion just giving the 7900XTX a run for its money or beating it, especially when software and RT is factored in. A big part of that was DLSS. They did a full video on DLSS vs FSR, too. Is talking about DLSS just a fanboy thing?

Here's another one from LinusTechTips where they talked about the various software issues they had:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yUMOK9dOQc
Obviously they're publicly committed to staying with it, but some of the issues they had were sort of oof.

I believe someone on here also had a bad experience with AMD drivers. Was it silentcircuit ? I don't remember. Either way this is all just reputational, but you're claiming that people care about price to performance. Is the reputation of possible daily annoyance simply just a nonfactor? I guess that varies person to person so that's a fair take, but some of the above advantages (DLSS and current RT) don't change. AMD does have supposedly good performance in Nanite Ray Tracing games, but... that's not really a factor right now. No one can put value on something that doesn't exist much.




You know I was idly looking at whether I wanted a 7900XTX myself, right? I've seen multiple 7900XTX's on sale open box at Microcenter for 850 or less, some from good manufacturers. Heck there's one nearby right now. They take a while to sell. Your claim is quite bold here, and empirically inaccurate in my experience.

The price disparity simply isn't $300 right now. It's <= $200. Sometimes less because I have seen 4080s that were open box for considerably less. Gamers certainly do care about price to performance, but I believe you're too dismissive of RT performance in current games and also upscaling performance (and to a lesser extent software stability reputation, which the Counterstrike fiasco certainly did not help). Because upscaling performance is becoming a serious deal. I've used FSR in Starfield, and it was a light flickering mess. I had never seen anything like that with DLSS. Upscaling is only going to become more important going forward.

Finally, if you want actual numbers:
https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#g=548
https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/#g=542

You can quickly see that there are more 4080s out in the wild on PCPartpicker than 7900XTX's. It's either not selling as much of a landslide as you think it is, or I guess you can claim that PCPartpicker is just not a representative population. If you have actual concrete numbers to combat that, fine. But either way your claim that they just aren't selling is false.





Honestly we can speculate all we like about what Nvidia is doing and why. I do agree that the 7800XT is doing great. Even the video I linked up there rated it as currently the second best GPU. Perhaps that's actually mainly what Nvidia is targeting. Who knows? This isn't about speculative fiction and nonfiction. It's just about the current situation and then the hypothetical about what happens if the 4080 drops in price. Personally I think if the 7900XTX drops to 800 and the 4080 drops to 999 or something, not much will actually change. I think the 7900XTX needs to be about 750 to really start flying off shelves. Otherwise it's just status quo but at a lower price. But the problem is that if the 4080 Super at 1200 actually offers really good performance, the 7900XTX becomes even less compelling in my opinion, because there are quite a few people that were willing to stretch their budget even to the 4090 (and trust me on this; I've been watching my local Microcenter 4090s like a hawk: those things are selling). Give them a middle option that's clearly way better than the 7900XTX and not quite as expensive as the 4090, I think that's a serious value proposition. I'm kind of curious as to where the 4070 Super will try to cut into AMD's sales and whether it will succeed, but that's another topic. Now, if the 7900XTX drops in price enough, you could be right.... but then the whole product line starts collapsing in value.

Anyway that might be enough walls of text on this subject; that's about all I actually wanted to say, time to go actually... use my GPU instead lol.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm going to say it very simply because you're missing the point:

7900XTX's are selling and 4080's aren't.

So throwing more reviews at me, and talking about software advantages is ignoring what is happening in the market.
All I'm doing is explaining (or trying to give plausible explanation to) what is already occurring. And my other points were simply that all AMD has to do is maintain that price difference in order to keep selling cards.

Now, if you want to deny that 7900XTX's are selling and 4080's aren't, that's a different discussion. But then you have to explain why bother with Super's in the first place. It's just more work to make more product when they're "already selling cards". I also more or less trust the data coming out of MLID and GN, etc about lack of sales. For instance the 7900XT hasn't really sold well at all, until it started having models that went below $750. Again illustrating the point that it's about price to performance; and perhaps also customers are significantly more price sensitive than you want to give credit for.

nVidia for whatever reason hasn't wanted to drop pricing to levels that make sense for consumers apparently until making a refresh. Though through soft controls 4080's that finally make it to around the $1000 do actually sell. Everything else to me in this discussion is moot. I'm strictly only talking about what is selling and what isn't and how AMD can continue to sell cards even under Super pressure and price drops. That's it.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
I'm strictly only talking about what is selling and what isn't and how AMD can continue to sell cards even under Super pressure and price drops. That's it.
Click to expand...

I didn't get that impression at all with our discussion direction earlier, but.. okay.

UnknownSouljer said:
Now, if you want to deny that 7900XTX's are selling and 4080's aren't, that's a different discussion.
Click to expand...

I gave you some PCPartpicker links that clearly showed the 4080 having more completed builds than a 7900XTX. There are also plenty of users of 4080s on this very forum. Now, you can indeed claim that those are non-representative sources, as I said, but they are still very much real people with real cards, showing the end result on at least one enthusiast community website. Either way, you're going to have to provide your sources as well. They should also be recent, because I believe the 4080 price drops are also fairly recent. The 7900XTX's release price wasn't exactly glamorous either. It dropped because it needed to. The reason I'm giving these reviews to you is because they're approaching it from a consumer standpoint, ie what factors are going into people making their decisions when deciding which to buy within the current market. You can view it as a projection of future sales numbers based on perceived value of featuresets, should the Super line not have been announced at all... which I thought is what our original discussion specifically dealt with...

UnknownSouljer said:
But then you have to explain why bother with Super's in the first place. It's just more work to make more product when they're "already selling cards".
Click to expand...

There are any number of multitudes of reasons. To begin with, Nvidia isn't known to just sit on their laurels even when they do have an advantage. Maybe they finally finished focusing on the AI space their corporate structure is turning around more to focus on some of the negative reputation they have in the consumer space (which, many people think everything below the 4090 has been disappointing; that doesn't mean they didn't buy it, but it certainly cause many to not do it)? Maybe their manufacturing processes are just mature enough to where they feel comfortable releasing this? Maybe they just want to chip at AMD further (I'm pretty sure their CEO is known for "make it bleed" or something or other, some quote from a long time ago)?

I'm not privy to their exact finances or leadership directives.

If I had to take a stab at it, if the 4070 Super releases at a good price and fills in where the 7800XT is currently winning, that may actually be their primary reason. The 4070 Ti, despite its decent effective real world performance, is just a garbage card IMO, and it has quite a bad reputation. They know this, because originally it wasn't even the 4070 Ti. So I think part of the reason may be reputational. The 4070 is weaker than the 7800XT while being the same price. There's the DLSS and software, but the 7800XT and 4070 (and Ti) RTX aren't at a price point where the consumers buying them would necessarily be the best informed about such differences, I think. At best they'd just look at benchmarks, which show this:
1698529445956.png


As far as the 4080 and Super, I really do think it's just about providing a better range of compelling options to the 7900XTX. As you said the 7900XTX does often beat the 4080 in pure raster. So people weighing that may see that they don't have any options at that range except a 4080 and a 4090 on Nvidia side, and felt that the 4080 software and RT advantages (combined with less VRAM) just weren't good enough, but weren't willing to pay the 4090 premium, so they may have just said "screw it" and went with a 7900XTX. The Super is probably there to catch those "screw it"s, and the 4080 price drop is to further make it less compelling to go AMD, along with needing to happen because of the target price point of the 4080 Super being $1200 (doesn't make sense to have them that close together). This gives them a better-rounded product stack.
 
In the extremely unlikely scenario that the RTX 4080 Super is somehow more powerful than a 4080 with 20GB of VRAM and significantly cheaper than a 4090 (Under $1000) it's tempting. I could use the VRAM.
Still likely just gonna hold out for the 5000 series at this rate though.
 
Well it does make sense. If the 4070 Super, 4070 Ti Super (lol?), end up replacing the 4070 and 4070 Ti respectively, that's a good opportunity to price correct those segments.

As for 4080 Super, I don't see much use for it if its staying on AD103, unless its to also drastically lower the price. And by drastically, I mean $1k is not good enough. I'd love to see sub $800. Then put the 4070 Ti super at $600, 4070 Super at $500.
 
Sir Beregond said:
Well it does make sense. If the 4070 Super, 4070 Ti Super (lol?), end up replacing the 4070 and 4070 Ti respectively, that's a good opportunity to price correct those segments.

As for 4080 Super, I don't see much use for it if its staying on AD103, unless its to also drastically lower the price. And by drastically, I mean $1k is not good enough. I'd love to see sub $800. Then put the 4070 Ti super at $600, 4070 Super at $500.
Click to expand...
I can't help but chuckle at any notion of Nvidia being benevolent by updating the current product stack that lowers the price. Those days are long gone.

Introduction of Super variants is nothing but pure marketing. If anything it is designed to further confuse the customer. There are already enough options out there to overwhelm them. Do you think the average customer truly understood the differences between a 20 series non-Super and Super? It's going to be even more confusing than back then.

I'm getting the impression 40 series aren't flying off the shelves as much as Nvidia planned on. We're a year after 40 series launch. If anything, this is an attempt to stir the pot. Push some units onto media sites, make some marketing hooplah, and get people excited or at least talking about Nvidia products.

Improved chip yields also enables them to have more bins. So it's possible for a Super to co-exist with the current stack without a direct replacement.
 
Absalom said:
'm getting the impression 40 series aren't flying off the shelves as much as Nvidia planned on.
Click to expand...
Which is the reason there rumours of a more agressive performance-price reshuffle, like we saw on the 2060-2070-etc... super.

This as nothing to with benevolence (and they are not selling child medication, how-why anyone would think about benevolance for Ferrari selling car or Nvidia selling toys to rich adults)
 
Last edited:
Absalom said:
I can't help but chuckle at any notion of Nvidia being benevolent by updating the current product stack that lowers the price. Those days are long gone.

Introduction of Super variants is nothing but pure marketing. If anything it is designed to further confuse the customer. There are already enough options out there to overwhelm them. Do you think the average customer truly understood the differences between a 20 series non-Super and Super? It's going to be even more confusing than back then.

I'm getting the impression 40 series aren't flying off the shelves as much as Nvidia planned on. We're a year after 40 series launch. If anything, this is an attempt to stir the pot. Push some units onto media sites, make some marketing hooplah, and get people excited or at least talking about Nvidia products.

Improved chip yields also enables them to have more bins. So it's possible for a Super to co-exist with the current stack without a direct replacement.
Click to expand...
Rumors about the others have been less specific. But, the 4070 Super is heavily rumored to be tuned so that it doesn't ever lose to the 7800 XT in Raster, will also have 16GB of VRAM, and will be officially lower price. Not just a couple of AIB with the smallest/cheapest coolers. Nvidia doesn't like how well the 7800 XT has been selling. And they are reportedly tired of hearing about "VRAM".
 
chameleoneel said:
Rumors about the others have been less specific. But, the 4070 Super is heavily rumored to be tuned so that it doesn't ever lose to the 7800 XT in Raster, will also have 16GB of VRAM, and will be officially lower price. Not just a couple of AIB with the smallest/cheapest coolers. Nvidia doesn't like how well the 7800 XT has been selling. And they are reportedly tired of hearing about "VRAM".
Click to expand...
Cool, and while speaking for "myself" I think it's fair to say we're all tired of talking about it too.
 
chameleoneel said:
Rumors about the others have been less specific. But, the 4070 Super is heavily rumored to be tuned so that it doesn't ever lose to the 7800 XT in Raster, will also have 16GB of VRAM, and will be officially lower price. Not just a couple of AIB with the smallest/cheapest coolers. Nvidia doesn't like how well the 7800 XT has been selling. And they are reportedly tired of hearing about "VRAM".
Click to expand...
When will the 4070 super be released ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top