I really need to see AMD's frame gen to see if it's any good.
(Rumor) RTX 4070 to be priced at $600. Mid April Release
- Thread starter nsilvias
- Start date
The difference between 3x and 2x is massive...... Also from your own chart the 4080 isn't 3x a 5700xt, more like 2.4x - 2.8x, which when we're dealing with multipliers, is significant.
Only the 4K results are relevant as the other resolutions are limited by CPU bottlenecks. The 5700XT is showing as 33% of the 4080 in that chart, it's almost exactly 3x faster.
4070 should land a clear 2x faster in raster, so you're in the region of 3-4x in ray tracing and you can double that again if you want to account for frame gen. It's a very significant leap over the PS5 GPU, completely different performance tier.
My mistake, 4k results didn't load for me for some reason. 3-4x is a little nuts though. That's a massive margine to expect it to land in, I'm not super familiar with these GPUs, but from the specs we can assume it's around a 3080 12gb, and the 6650 xt is almost spot on for a ps5, so how do those to compare in ray tracing, asking cause I really haven't payed attention to that differential.
I mean, I have a 4090, but I wouldn't claim that it's 8x as powerful as a PS5 when discussing value.
See above post.
Last edited:
Dang I haven't built a computer in yeaarss. Wouldn't even know how to do it now. What websites do people order their parts on? I should upgrade...
Nvidia realized that the people who buy the high end cards and want the best graphics will pay whatever it costs.
MSRPs went up in response to the inflated prices and inflation. Everything is more expensive now, and it's unlikely to ever go down significantly.
In RT heavy scenes it absolutely is, and much higher than that if we're talking full path tracing. This is all without adding in the performance multipliers of DLSS super resolution and frame gen.
This generation of PC GPUs have eclipsed consoles faster than ever, the problem is that performance has been locked behind higher prices, low VRAM pools and buggy ports. A $600 4070 with 12GB VRAM will go a long way to correcting that.
Yep, it should make 4K/120hz output (DLSS Performance + frame gen) with RT effects enabled a reality. It's a big step forward for the $600 price point. The reaction here is completely baffling.
It's a far better product than the highly compromised 3070 ever was.
Nah it's justified to an extent. Not the worst but could be better(not to mention the AIBs so most will be above 600). I now probably won't get a 4000 series gpu at this rate!
I'd still happily be on my 2080 Ti if I didn't need the HDMI 2.1 port that came with the 3xxx series. I don't feel a temptation with the 4xxx series at all purely because of the price-performance ratio this generation. I'd wait until whenever Nvidia announces their 5xxx series and hope they come back down to earth on pricing.
Yea I get the feeling I should wait too. I'm kinda good right now, but I can tell my old card is starting to get a little sweaty sometimes with the newer releases. DLSS2.0/fsr 2.0 has been a huge boon for me.
Ideally I'd like to spend less than 1k but I want something that'll last as long as this 1080ti did tbh.
If it launches at $600 then it will be the best value GPU with a decent amount of VRAM and strong RT performance. Definitely the best value Nvidia card. It would be an absolutely gigantic upgrade from a 1070, I don't think there's anyway you could come away disappointed with the performance and features.
The 6700XT will still have it beat in price: performance in raster but that's very much a budget card at this point and it's ray tracing support is more of a tick box exercise than something you'd ever actually use.
Oh. I thought we don't compare TFs across architectures anymore.
if it's just less than 1k on a gpu then you'll want something stronger than a 4070!
For the record; the 7900XT has better RT performance in UE5 so far than the 4070 ti.
View: https://youtu.be/q3fLCxFb8a0?t=138
Even at 1080p it's got significantly better 1% lows... At 4K the 4070 ti is ever so slightly faster, but realistically neither card will be running RT without upsampling so it's a moot point.
Nvidia is ripping us off. The uplift of the 4070 Ti over prior gen should have it labeled as a 4070 instead of a 4070 Ti, but Nvidia wanted to charge $800 and felt it couldn't do so if they called it a 4070......
But really this entire gen should have been:
4090 - $1600
4080 Ti - $1200 (card doesn't exist yet but huge performance gap between 4080 and 4090)
4080 - $800-900
4070 (what Nvidia is calling a 4070 Ti) - $600
4060 Ti (what Nvidia is calling a 4070) - $500
4060 (a 12-16GB card using slower memory, instead of possible 8 GB card that is rumored...) - $400
I might end up with the rip off released 4070 because 8 GB isn't cutting it anymore (I have a 3070). And I have no idea how long it will take for the 4070 Ti to get a $100+ price drop....
The RT heavy benchmark in that video is Cyberpunk with RT Ultra where the 7900XT is 86% of a 3080, meaning it will be behind the 4070. A $900 card that falls below a $600 card in the most demanding games isn't a great product.
You're ignoring the point; UE5 is going to be what most games run on going forward, and we have UE5 RT running bang on the same between RDNA3 and RTX 4xxx cards in the same price bracket. Unless there's a specific RT title you want to play now I wouldn't necessarily buy a 4070 ti over a 7900xt specifically for RT performance alone.
Yeah, no. If I'm going to toss money at a GPU to upgrade above the 3060 12GB tier, I'll wait until the 5070 or something, which gives Intel enough time to get an Arc out that competes even more at this range and isn't a paycheck.
As long as it is a high quality PSU and you're not running a heavily overclocked 13900K pulling 400w, then, yes, it shouldn't be a problem.
A ran a 3070 with increased power target and a PBO 3700x on a 550w PSU for a couple of years without issue and this will have lower power draw than a 3070.
Any 3000 or 4000 series card would be a giant leap ahead of what you have but you could likely be bottenecked depending on the processor you are running now so it wouldn't be recommended to just do a card swap.
Last edited:
Yeah these prices would had made a lot more sense(and would make me buy one of these gpus). I was able to see through their naming schemes once they canceled that 4080 12GB which was just a 4070 Ti in disguise.
AMD cards are great if you're just a bog standard gamer who wants to play AAA console ports. Great performance. It's all the other stuff (that makes PC gaming great) where the wheels fall off.
As far as I'm concerned I would have only mildly considered the 7900XT at 600 vs the 800 I paid for the 4070 ti. I heavily mod. I love tweaking (so things like DLSS is important). And most of all, I do this stuff for VR. And the 4070 ti is way better for that. And way more efficient.
Also the 1% bit seems cherry picked. Because this is where the gap really closes in the benchs I've seen. Even when AMD was ahead. And there are some games where the AMD was just inexplicably bad.
AMD is a very solid Chevy. Been they need to price their cards like a Chevy. Which they refuse to do.
A benchmark of RT performance should be a title that most heavily relies on RT hardware, so ideally we'd be using a path traced title but absent of that Cyberpunk is the best current benchmark. Otherwise you're primarily just benchmarking raster performance.
Fortnite is primarily targeting software lumen and while I appreciate there's the option to enable hardware accelerated ray tracing on PC, I don't think it's necessarily the most RT heavy title out there. There'll be UE5 titles that lean much more heavily into hardware RT.
Oh yeah if you're at all into VR, AMD is a complete non-starter. Not to mention that DLSS is a much stronger upscaler than FSR. All I was saying is that I'm not sure if the RT performance gap is exactly a perfect argument when there are suggestions that the difference might be far more minimal going forward.
