4090 Reviews are up.

V

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
10,813
Get it from your favorite YouTuber. TLDR it is a monster in Ras and DLSS performance.

 
Last edited:
Looks to be a solid 50 percent in raster 4k or more at tech power up, sometimes hitting 80(!) percent, and nearly double in raytracing. Dlss 3 sounds like it is easy to implement and works very well in actual gameplay if it's starting at 50 to 60fps, making smooth 120hz gameplay at 4k easy. I am darn impressed, but I'll have to pass for now due to some unexpected bills.

This is undoubtedly a 4k monster and 1440p is irrelevant for buyers of this range anyway. I mean really, I gamed at 2560x1600 in 2008 and have been on 4k since 2014. I'm ready for 4k120 once I buy one! Over my 3080 10gb it is 90 percent faster per tpu. Not needed if you don't want the latest visual goodies which you should if you're spending for this high end.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-founders-edition/
 
Last edited:
If I'm reading his benchmarks correct, @ 1440p gaming the 4090 is 28% faster than the 3090 Ti, and @ 4k gaming it's 33% faster than the 3090 Ti. The rumored RTX-4090 being 60% faster, I think was meant in reference to the RTX-3080

 
So from what I have read quick this morning, the 4090 is anywhere from 30% to 50% better performance than the 3090 Ti. @ 4k is a good 50% and better performer, @ 1440p is about 33%
 

Attachments

  • average-fps_3840-2160.png
    average-fps_3840-2160.png
    84.3 KB · Views: 1
Zorachus said:
If I'm reading his benchmarks correct, @ 1440p gaming the 4090 is 28% faster than the 3090 Ti, and @ 4k gaming it's 33% faster than the 3090 Ti. The rumored RTX-4090 being 60% faster, I think was meant in reference to the RTX-3080

Click to expand...

In quite a few different videos it shows between 30% and 80% faster, depending on game. If that isn't impressive, I don't know what to tell you.
 
DLSS doesn't seem as impressive, but really impressed about the pure rasterization improvement. While I wouldn't want to swap from my 3080 Ti... But, if I come across one in the store.... Who knows.
 
auntjemima said:
In quite a few different videos it shows between 30% and 80% faster, depending on game. If that isn't impressive, I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

No, it is impressive. But it better for a whopping $1600 and a power draw like a space heater.

I'll wait for the RTX-4080 16GB price drop next year and grab one when pricing is back to reality

I'm not a 4k gamer I play at 34"Ultrawide 120hz refresh, so I don't need a card that gives more than 120fps @ 3440 X 1440
 
Seems like a monster. I'm still in no rush to get one (and I might not ever until some newer games hit), but the numbers it's pushing are impressive. The caveat is that in almost all of the benchmarks, the #'s are above what most people's monitors can push. We aren't limited by hardware, we're limited by a pile of AAA titles getting delayed by 12-24 months.
 
Zorachus said:
No, it is impressive. But it better for a whopping $1600 and a power draw like a space heater.

I'll wait for the RTX-4080 16GB price drop next year and grab one when pricing is back to reality

I'm not a 4k gamer I play at 34"Ultrawide 120hz refresh, so I don't need a card that gives more than 120fps @ 3440 X 1440
Click to expand...
The power draw is the same, and sometimes lower, than the 3090ti. As seen in the hardware unboxing video.

The $1600 price tag is nuts, I agree, but the power isn't worth mentioning.
 
Watching some more videos. Definitely seems like an under-promise and over-deliver situation. I'm curious how the 4080's will perform. With games being a limiting factor, these 4090's might end up being overkill for their entire lifespan as the top dog. It's a pretty small niche of people pushing more than 100fps at 4K.
 
Zorachus said:
For 34" Ultrawide gamers the RTX-4090 seems overkill. I don't need 200fps
Click to expand...
Definitely overkill for most things... Honestly with the games on offer right now I sort of agree with Domingo too. We need harder games to run to really stretch this thing's legs.

DLSS 3's frame generation sounds very promising from the tpu page... I'm interested in seeing more titles and impressions with it soon.
 
auntjemima said:
The power draw is the same, and sometimes lower, than the 3090ti. As seen in the hardware unboxing video.

The $1600 price tag is nuts, I agree, but the power isn't worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

The 3090 Ti was ridiculed and knocked because of it's crazy power draw.

So the RTX-4090 being similar is not a good thing.

I thought hardware was supposed to progress to smaller and more efficient and still have faster performance.
 
Zorachus said:
The 3090 Ti was ridiculed and knocked because of it's crazy power draw.

So the RTX-4090 being similar is not a good thing.

I thought hardware was supposed to progress to smaller and more efficient and still have faster performance.
Click to expand...
Being similar and producing 30% @ 1440p and 50+% @ 4k would actually mean it uses less power than it's predecessor to do the same amount of work.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Noticed tech power up only used a 5800x cpu (non 3d). I'd imagine there are cpu bottlenecks in play there too :eek:.
Click to expand...
All of the HWUB tests were with a 5800X3D and he had cpu bottlenecks on all of the 1440p tests. Without that bottleneck, who knows how far it could have gone. Still, 30% difference even with the bottleneck? Yikes.
 
I'm a bit disappointed in the performance as reviewed, but that's because this is now the 3rd gen we've gotten 30-50% at 1440p/2160p over previous gen flagship where we used to get north of 60% typically. A lot of that disappointment is due to the huge increase in shaders along with the node transition from Samsung 8nm to TSMC 4nm, I guess I was expecting gains more like Maxwell 28nm > Pascal 16nm which did a lot more with just clockspeed uplift and very little in terms of shader increase. Ada has both, which makes me wonder why its only seeing 30-50%. Honestly I'd expect to see 30-50% just from the increase in shaders from 10K to 17K at the same clocks, or just die shrinking GA102 to 4nm and increasing clocks from 2GHz to 3GHz.

I'm guessing there's a big difference due to the clockspeeds being tested at. AD102 was reported to boost to 3000MHz relatively easily on even stock cooling with 2520MHz default boost clocks, but in the few reviews that show sustained clocks its only getting 2400-2500MHz? I wonder if that's because AD102 can't sustain those Boost/Power Draw figures or it was mandated by Nvidia to not emphasize overclocking?

There's a lot to like about the 4090, like the temps, power draw, performance at 4K with or without DLSS, but it'll probably still be a game time decision for me. Not going to line up or anything, if I happen to see one online and available I'll probably snag it but I can't say I'm not a little disappointed and expected more.

Anyone see a review that shows sustained benchmark clocks at stock vs. overclocked? The only one I saw cite their clocks was TPU at 2400MHz which seems really low, and the "overclocking" coverage is basically non-existent, which makes me wonder if this is an Nvidia embargo on top of the embargo that was lifted (also heard no AIC reviews).
 
chizow said:
I'm a bit disappointed in the performance as reviewed, but that's because this is now the 3rd gen we've gotten 30-50% at 1440p/2160p over previous gen flagship where we used to get north of 60% typically. A lot of that disappointment is due to the huge increase in shaders along with the node transition from Samsung 8nm to TSMC 4nm, I guess I was expecting gains more like Maxwell 28nm > Pascal 16nm which did a lot more with just clockspeed uplift and very little in terms of shader increase. Ada has both, which makes me wonder why its only seeing 30-50%. Honestly I'd expect to see 30-50% just from the increase in shaders from 10K to 17K at the same clocks, or just die shrinking GA102 to 4nm and increasing clocks from 2GHz to 3GHz.

I'm guessing there's a big difference due to the clockspeeds being tested at. AD102 was reported to boost to 3000MHz relatively easily on even stock cooling with 2520MHz default boost clocks, but in the few reviews that show sustained clocks its only getting 2400-2500MHz? I wonder if that's because AD102 can't sustain those Boost/Power Draw figures or it was mandated by Nvidia to not emphasize overclocking?

There's a lot to like about the 4090, like the temps, power draw, performance at 4K with or without DLSS, but it'll probably still be a game time decision for me. Not going to line up or anything, if I happen to see one online and available I'll probably snag it but I can't say I'm not a little disappointed and expected more.

Anyone see a review that shows sustained benchmark clocks at stock vs. overclocked? The only one I saw cite their clocks was TPU at 2400MHz which seems really low, and the "overclocking" coverage is basically non-existent, which makes me wonder if this is an Nvidia embargo on top of the embargo that was lifted (also heard no AIC reviews).
Click to expand...
The OCing by HU was unimpressive to say the least. Much more power draw for very little performance increase.

I'm also very interested to see how much actual stock there is on release. If the rumors are true, there will be a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top