Stryker7314
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 870
4090 super or riot
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
4090 super or riot
What about the 4090 Super Max Riot Edition?
Man, why does everyone have to pick on the stylish jacket always?If you got one share of Nvidia stock with every 4090 leather jacket edition I'd buy it
Man, why does everyone have to pick on the stylish jacket always?
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.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?!?
The 3080 cooler, two slot would work well on the 4080 and down in my opinion.
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.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.
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.
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.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?
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).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.
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.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.
The issue there being the bus.Massive fail if the 4080 Super stays with 16gb instead of upgrading to 20gb.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
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.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...
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.
I'm a bit skeptical about this, I think it could affect both.AMD has good margins. It just will affect margins, not sales.
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...
That literally doesn’t make sense. If you could buy a 7900XTX today at $800, it would sell out.I'm a bit skeptical about this, I think it could affect both.
The issue there being the bus.
I’m not opposed to them putting 32gb on the card. But something tells me nVidia has a problem there.With the amount of money Nvidia charges it should have had a wider bus to begin with.
So HardwareUnboxed are just Nvidia fanboys?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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.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.
Which is the reason there rumours of a more agressive performance-price reshuffle, like we saw on the 2060-2070-etc... super.'m getting the impression 40 series aren't flying off the shelves as much as Nvidia planned on.
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".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.
Cool, and while speaking for "myself" I think it's fair to say we're all tired of talking about it too.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".
When will the 4070 super be released ?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".
Early next year. Maybe even in January.When will the 4070 super be released ?
Shame. Not that "we care" but missing Black Friday is a bad move.Early next year. Maybe even in January.