![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
RTX 4080: Countdown To Second-Best™
- Thread starter DPI
- Start date
undertaker2k8
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,970
Biggest question is how much of a perf increase over 3090/Ti? If less than 20% then those will make more sense given prices and higher VRAM capacity.
Have we told you about the new DLSS 3?
Last edited:
This is a graph I made showing the percentage of a full die’s cores Nvidia SKUs have had historically.
The 4080 is seriously cut down. I’d imagine it was cut down to the point of where it has a minor performance bump over the 3090 Ti. I’d bet it has worse performance with DLSS3 disabled.
The 4080 is seriously cut down. I’d imagine it was cut down to the point of where it has a minor performance bump over the 3090 Ti. I’d bet it has worse performance with DLSS3 disabled.
Seem contracdictory a bit ? Cannot have minor performance bump and worst performance at the same time:
Enough directly from NVIDIA numbers got out:
https://videocardz.com/newz/geforce...b-version-according-to-nvidias-new-benchmarks
To be almost certain of it being the minor performance bump optin in regular 4k raster no ?
NattyKathy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 1,384
Yeah, still not regretting picking up a 3090Ti on Micro Center clearance in September when prices bottomed out. In fact I regret it less and less every time I hear someone other than NV discuss 4080 performance!
IMO only way 4080 makes sense is for those who are playing at 120hz+ and can make use of DLSS3 frame-doubling... The mediocre perf bump over 3080/90(Ti) would be ok if the price was more like $900 max, but $1200 for 0-30% more than a 3090? At the same power levels? And the memory bandwidth is much less than GA102 cards, forcing the 4080 to lean on the increased cache at high-rez? Gtfo.
IMO only way 4080 makes sense is for those who are playing at 120hz+ and can make use of DLSS3 frame-doubling... The mediocre perf bump over 3080/90(Ti) would be ok if the price was more like $900 max, but $1200 for 0-30% more than a 3090? At the same power levels? And the memory bandwidth is much less than GA102 cards, forcing the 4080 to lean on the increased cache at high-rez? Gtfo.
Not at all contradictory, I was speculating that Nvidia cut the 4080 down enough to outperform the 3090 Ti when using DLSS3, but that the 4080 would fall behind with DLSS3 disabled.
If those charts you linked are accurate it means the 4080 outperforms the 3090 Ti by 10-20% with DLSS3 disabled in those three games.
That’s a modest performance uplift with DLSS disabled, so I guess you can give them credit for not cutting the die down as much as I thought they would.
The 4080 makes a lot of sense if they can get people to pay $1200 for a card that would’ve been a XX70 in any other generation. The 4080 12GB was a xx60 tier card they wanted $900 for and they are getting credit for un-launching it.
They have set up for a repeat of Kepler. They have left themselves enough gap in the AD102 die to double-dip with the 5000 series using Ada as well.
Many generation xx70 card did not beat the previous xx80 by 45% like maybe the cherry-picked limited benchmark seem to indicate, the 2070 was what 17-20% above a 1080, 3070 around 25%-30% above a 2080, Pascal 1070 was about what 30% above the 980.
Would it be xx80 priced and not almost 2080TI level, it could have been an excellent 80 to 80 generational jump in performance and performance per watt (one of the best ever ?)
Yes they achieved that massive jump while cutting down the die because of making 2 solid node jump in a single generation, but at a massive cost has well.
Trouble is, if you believe AMD's own marketing, then the 4080 will still be faster than the $999 7900 XTX which worries me quite a bit re: the pricing of the dang thing at $1200.
The 3090 is going to sit around $900-$1000 and just eat up all the 4080 sales because $1200 is stupid expensive for second best.
The 3090 is going to sit around $900-$1000 and just eat up all the 4080 sales because $1200 is stupid expensive for second best.
jobert
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,455
What? The 7900xtx should only be about 15% slower than the 4090 in rasterization making it quite a bit faster than the 4080. Now if you are talking about ray tracing then yes the 4080 will be well ahead of the 7900xtx.
The other issue is the $999 7900XTX is fantasy pricing for a reference model that will be somewhere between hard and impossible to buy, unless AMD somehow produced mass quantities of them. AIB versions will likely be in the $1100-$1350 range. And if there's somehow an abundance of base model AIB 7900XTX cards for $999, the secondary market (scalping) will equalize that against demand and we'll see $1400-$1500+ 7900XTX on ebay for at least a few months.
pippenainteasy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,142
Maybe if you are comparing results with DLSS3 on.
Indeed, I did accidentally compare the RT Cyberpunk 2077 results at 4k, and AMD's marketing only says that it is 1.7x faster with RT off - so that is my bad. I did not look at any DLSS results for relevance. I dont really care about or use DLSS.
I just worry that 7900XTX which is at best - again according to marketing - 1.5x a 6950xt at $999 is just overall bad for the future of this and all generations to come. How much will NV's 2024 flagship cost? $1999 with the bargain AMD x900 XTX at *only* $1499?
I just worry that 7900XTX which is at best - again according to marketing - 1.5x a 6950xt at $999 is just overall bad for the future of this and all generations to come. How much will NV's 2024 flagship cost? $1999 with the bargain AMD x900 XTX at *only* $1499?
Considering that just 6 month ago the 6950xt launched at $1100, how a 50% more performance for a 9% rebate would be worrying ? Say it is 60% better than the $1000 in 2020 dollars 6900xt, that would be Pascal generation type of boost, I feel CPU-GPU advancement are going particularly well lately.
The $600 1080 was what 50% more performance above the 980 $550 and that was a legendary launch.
How 50% for less money became nothing else than a la Pascal one of the best generation leap ever type of talk, warranted or not. Would it be leakers talking about 2x-2.x type of game changing leap forward that create incredibly high expectation ?
You make a really great point. I would complain more about AMD charging 2.5x the price of a 5700XT for only 80% performance gain with the 6900XT than I am mad about the 7900XTX cost, to be honest.
From Nvidia:
1080 being 50% faster than 980 for $50 more bucks is great.
2080 being 25% faster than 1080 for $100 more bucks is acceptable.
3080 being 50% faster than the 2080 for $0 more bucks (MSRP) is great.
4080 being 50% faster than the 3080 for $500 more bucks is the problem.
Onto AMD - not as simple to track but:
Vega 64: 60% faster than RX 580 (MSRP was $229) for $170 more is acceptable, as they were starting to price their cards as a % of Nvidia's performance per dollar.
RX 5700 xt: 20% faster than Vega 64 for $0 more bucks is good.
6900 XT: 80% faster than 5700 xt for $600 more (2.5x MSRP) is a problem.
RX 7900 XTX: 60% (?) faster than 6900XT for $0 more is legendary gain in performance for price. but the baked in inflation from 6900xt really harms the proposition for value.
At some point in the last two years, both brands stuck us with five hundred dollar price increases for performance over previous generation which used to be baked into a 0-$100 price increase.
From Nvidia:
1080 being 50% faster than 980 for $50 more bucks is great.
2080 being 25% faster than 1080 for $100 more bucks is acceptable.
3080 being 50% faster than the 2080 for $0 more bucks (MSRP) is great.
4080 being 50% faster than the 3080 for $500 more bucks is the problem.
Onto AMD - not as simple to track but:
Vega 64: 60% faster than RX 580 (MSRP was $229) for $170 more is acceptable, as they were starting to price their cards as a % of Nvidia's performance per dollar.
RX 5700 xt: 20% faster than Vega 64 for $0 more bucks is good.
6900 XT: 80% faster than 5700 xt for $600 more (2.5x MSRP) is a problem.
RX 7900 XTX: 60% (?) faster than 6900XT for $0 more is legendary gain in performance for price. but the baked in inflation from 6900xt really harms the proposition for value.
At some point in the last two years, both brands stuck us with five hundred dollar price increases for performance over previous generation which used to be baked into a 0-$100 price increase.
Yes comparison on perf-dollar need to be made relative to 3080, 6800xt in mind has well, it is easy to look good relative to the 900 and up series of both company, has you said using 3090-6900 or even Turing is using easy to beat intergenerational gain by dollar. That why the 4090 look so good and why the pricing of the 4080s was even attempted.
By how much, the $1000 7900xtx beat the $650 6800xt ($750 after inflation) and $700 3080 ($800).
If it beat the 6800xt by 72.5% (1.15*1.5, it could end up between 65% and 85% ) for 33% more real dollars, that still an excellent deal, specially that value usually goes down in that tier, I think we can be quite optimistic for how much the 7800xt will give for it's price relative to the 6800xt.
The chiplet design presented here, is a potential way for price-power to stop to creep up and the early week announcement, increase the confidence in that imo.
Yep really important to remember that value tends to go out the window at this tier, but it seems lately that tier is widening. It used to be the highest end GPU alone was 10% faster for 40-50% higher price. Now its pricing by the most expensive (see also; low value tier), and then down from there by % of performance loss. In that way, the manufacturers are setting their own price vs performance value benchmarks. 4080 sales arent cannibalized by other nvidia offerings if its exactly 70% as fast as a 4090 and costs exactly 70% as much.
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 3,455
What? Now 50% performance increases at the same price point is a negative? Am I missing something here?
I mean, 1k in general is too much for me to go blowing on a gaming GPU, but people have been so eager to normalize that over the past few years so whatever.
Nah you are right - I clarify in my later post that the 7900XTX generation over generation is a great jump in performance especially since there's a $0 price increase. But I cant justify the price hike of the 6900XT over the 5700XT. 80% uplift (Good) but pricing went from $399 to $999 (bad).
When for a decade or so we have become used to seeing generational uplifts of 25-50% for a $0-$100 MSRP increase, seeing the 5700XT (AMD's best card at the time) go from $399 to 6900XT's $999 is just insane. So insane, that I don't think the 7900XTX is a great value. And moreso, that the 4080 is a terrible value. And we only used to have to sacrifice value on the absolutely top cards. Now its the top what, 4-5 cards now that are extremely overpriced?
Again, this new tactic of the manufacturer just releasing their top performance tier (lowest value tier) first, at a horrible value price, then pricing down based on a % of performance, makes the entire lineup of cards poor values, or at least worst values than cards of similar lower tiers used to be.
Last edited:
NightReaver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2017
- Messages
- 3,455
Agreed to the last point especially. But consoomers gonna consoom.
Pricing I just don't understand with Nvidia.
RTX 3090 at launch $1499
RTX 4090 at launch $1599
RTX 3080 at launch $699
RTX 4080 at launch $1199
So the 3090 to 4090 price difference isn't even 10% but the 3080 to 4080 is a 75% price increase, WTF
Why is the 4090 just a little bit of a price difference over the 3090, but the 4080 is crazy higher than the 3080.
And then performance difference, the 4090 is a beast and significantly faster and better than the 3090 by about 75% or more, but they share very similar pricing. Yet the 4080 is showing to be only like 50% faster than the 3080, but costs a ton more than the 3080.
Makes no sense.
MY POINT:
Why is the 4090 just a little bit more more expensive than the 3090, but there's a massive performance difference, major upgrade in the 4090. But then nVidia is asking a super premium price for the 4080 over the 3080, and the performance difference between the two is much smaller.
RTX 3090 at launch $1499
RTX 4090 at launch $1599
RTX 3080 at launch $699
RTX 4080 at launch $1199
So the 3090 to 4090 price difference isn't even 10% but the 3080 to 4080 is a 75% price increase, WTF
Why is the 4090 just a little bit of a price difference over the 3090, but the 4080 is crazy higher than the 3080.
And then performance difference, the 4090 is a beast and significantly faster and better than the 3090 by about 75% or more, but they share very similar pricing. Yet the 4080 is showing to be only like 50% faster than the 3080, but costs a ton more than the 3080.
Makes no sense.
MY POINT:
Why is the 4090 just a little bit more more expensive than the 3090, but there's a massive performance difference, major upgrade in the 4090. But then nVidia is asking a super premium price for the 4080 over the 3080, and the performance difference between the two is much smaller.
See my above post where I mention that the new tactic appears to be releasing the highest performance (lowest value) tier, then pricing based on % of performance. % of price based on performance is good, unless the benchmark price is terrible value from which the rest of the prices are set. We need a Gamers Nexus video on this.
It’s not just Nvidia. I go into that in my earlier post too.
I thought the answer was pretty clear: A 'reasonably' priced 4080 would negatively impact sales of 3070 to 3090 parts which the channel is stuffed with and struggling to clear through. Nvidias position is essentially "please help us clear the channel but if you really really want a 40x0 we're going to bleed you through the nose for it".
That strategy holds up for the 4090 obviously because nothing can touch it. But I am skeptical it will work for the 4080 given the 7900XTX. But then rumors are that nvidia isnt producing a lot of 4080's anyways soooo....
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 54,837
True dat.
I think there were multiple different aspects going on for AMD-Nvidia.
There was maybe not predictable when, stocks of older card would be an issue, maybe AMD to not even release the RDNA 3 in 2022 without Nvidia announcement for that reason and maybe in part the jump in the 7800xt named and priced has a 7900xt is for letting the RDNA 2 sell continue.
An other aspect would be that because of the chiplet and old by now 5nm success rate-yield 2 things happen
1) Older generation 6900xt-6950xt had little value over the 6800xt and there was a correction made
2) They save little money and will have little volume of the 7900xt outside saving a bit on ram and ram-bus because of the excellent yield on the 7900xtx, so no need to try to sell them anyway (they made it so irrelevant that no one care they did pretty exactly the same than nvidia with the 4080 12gb, both in naming trick and pricing).
4080 outside the not hitting the 3080-3090 sales is less obvious, they want to give really good value to the 4090 over the 4080 vs the 3090 having almost none over the 3080 for gaming, but the difference in performance was already doing that, no need to have that much of a price jump, I imagine they got surprised by AMD pricing.
One major thing, previous generation MSRP diid not made much sense:
Cost per frame of a 3090 was double the 3080, 6900xt 42% more than the 6800xt, so much that there was talk of the death of the concept of MSRP and actual price of sold cards had little to do with it, would we look at the average price of xx80 named cards during the time price decision were made it would make more sense than using 2020 announced virtual price.
So any comparison that take the 2020 MSRP listing, is bound to look strange has it was that listing that was not sustainable and did not happen in store.
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 21,030
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=4080+nvidia
Scalpers keep all the cards until they become outdated. That is why Scalpers are scum then they scalp Motherboards but just MSI and Asus and only Asus on Amazon cause they hang out there with fake Storefronts. Then Ram scalpers they jack the price up 40.00 hoping nobody will notice.
Scalpers keep all the cards until they become outdated. That is why Scalpers are scum then they scalp Motherboards but just MSI and Asus and only Asus on Amazon cause they hang out there with fake Storefronts. Then Ram scalpers they jack the price up 40.00 hoping nobody will notice.
Last edited:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/rtx-4080-gpus-are-just-as-large-as-rtx-4090s
4090 did feel a bit overkill when going "only" at 450, on stock 320watt 4080 it seem ultra ridiculous.
4090 did feel a bit overkill when going "only" at 450, on stock 320watt 4080 it seem ultra ridiculous.
that sound like a terrible strategy, you would make much more money to sell them during their peak value (i.e. when they are far to be outdated), it is probably/maybe a running joke that I am missing.
Still feeling lucky I side-graded from the 3080 to 3080 Ti for now when the prices bottomed out. I'll take the small 4k bump and forget this hot mess of a launch and walk away with my wallet intact.
The 4090 although overpriced actually does deliver good performance.
The problem is that Nvidia has bumped the prices massively gen on gen since the 1000 series cards. The GTX 970 and 980 were $329 and $550 MSRP at launch and you could find cards near that price.
You could argue that the higher end card, the GTX 980, has only gone up about $200 MSRP to the 3080, but it's climbed $650 to the founder's MSRP of the 4080 16GB. The 70 series is what people NEED in the $300-$400 range but that's now $800.
Somewhere in the last six years, the prices have increased to the point that we have paid for more than one whole generational performance increase in the form of a permanent price increase.
So I wouldn't consider anyone here, even the [H]ardest of die hard enthusiasts to be any less [H] if they started always skipping the current gen of cards and picking up a good deal on the last.
It's not like game developers are actually going to release games where you are going to miss out on anything major because you don't have a $1500 video card. Think about that for a while. A few halo features and gimmicks but no one is going to base their bottom line on how many sales of a game go to people with $1500-2000 video cards. It's not even going to get more than 15 minutes of time at one design meeting during development.
The 4090 although overpriced actually does deliver good performance.
The problem is that Nvidia has bumped the prices massively gen on gen since the 1000 series cards. The GTX 970 and 980 were $329 and $550 MSRP at launch and you could find cards near that price.
You could argue that the higher end card, the GTX 980, has only gone up about $200 MSRP to the 3080, but it's climbed $650 to the founder's MSRP of the 4080 16GB. The 70 series is what people NEED in the $300-$400 range but that's now $800.
Somewhere in the last six years, the prices have increased to the point that we have paid for more than one whole generational performance increase in the form of a permanent price increase.
So I wouldn't consider anyone here, even the [H]ardest of die hard enthusiasts to be any less [H] if they started always skipping the current gen of cards and picking up a good deal on the last.
It's not like game developers are actually going to release games where you are going to miss out on anything major because you don't have a $1500 video card. Think about that for a while. A few halo features and gimmicks but no one is going to base their bottom line on how many sales of a game go to people with $1500-2000 video cards. It's not even going to get more than 15 minutes of time at one design meeting during development.
xDiVolatilX
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2021
- Messages
- 1,859
I agree the prices since over the last 5 years or so have been going up astronomically high. With my 3080Ti hydrocopper I am absolutely skipping this scalping & inflated price nonsense for the 4 series card I will get a 4090 waterblocked when the 5 series releases for a good amount less money but with all the same beastly performance of the 4090 still there just much cheaper cause I wait what 10? or 15 months? Worth it to me. Same with the cpu I'm on the 12700kf I'll be skipping the 13 series intel altogether also not worth the trouble.
jobert
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,455
Even at 4k your 3900x would have you missing out on 30% of what a 4090 can offer at times. The 4090 ONLY makes sense for those at 4k and with the very best cpus yet I have seen idiots with completely outdated cpus even such as a 2600k buying them though. Imagine how stupid you have to be to buy the fastest gpu made when your cpu does not even meet requirements for most modern games. And many of these idiots are playing at 1440p or lower.
riev90
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 333
I know that it would probably a big mistakes pairing old cpus with modern gpus but you will still have your message delivered to them without having to use "idiots" or other name calling.
jobert
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,455
I'm not referring to anyone specifically. Most these people that are stupid enough to do this are actually bragging and don't even see what they're doing wrong so maybe ignorant would be a better word for them.
riev90
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2022
- Messages
- 333
That I can agree with.
spine
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,708
I can only conclude the cost of modern GPUs is just so damn high these days, for whatever reasons. If nvidia could pump these out dirt cheap, why not sell 'em cheaper?
Low volume expensive parts is not something you would choose to do if you could just as easily do high volume lower prices.
I'm guessing component shortage is a major factor here.
Low volume expensive parts is not something you would choose to do if you could just as easily do high volume lower prices.
I'm guessing component shortage is a major factor here.
KickAssCop
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 7,911
Looks like this card has decent performance on top of a 3090 Ti. Quite excited to see what it brings to the table.
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 21,030
Scalpers think the card is worth as much as the 4090. Think I'll wait for the 4070ti just because the price is hard to swallow. If there is a flood of these cards I might reconsider.
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with the pricing on the 4090 @ $1600 bucks, because the RTX 3090 originally launched at $1499 back in Fall 2020, so the new card is only $100 bucks more or 6% price difference.
But for the life of me, I can't understand this pricing on the 4080 at $1200 bucks when the original RTX 3080 launched at $699 back in Fall 2020. That's a 75% increase in price.
How come the 4090 is only $100 more than the 3090, but the 4080 is $500 more than the 3080. Makes zero sense.
Plus, the 4090 is a big performance upgrade over the 3090 for only $100 more, yet the 4080 is a whopping $500 higher priced.
But for the life of me, I can't understand this pricing on the 4080 at $1200 bucks when the original RTX 3080 launched at $699 back in Fall 2020. That's a 75% increase in price.
How come the 4090 is only $100 more than the 3090, but the 4080 is $500 more than the 3080. Makes zero sense.
Plus, the 4090 is a big performance upgrade over the 3090 for only $100 more, yet the 4080 is a whopping $500 higher priced.