GeForce RTX 4070 Ti vs. GeForce RTX 3080: 50 Game Benchmark

[Steve]

Following up to our last mega benchmark, today we're comparing the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti to the RTX 3080 10GB, a previous-gen GPU which is now two and a half years old. The results may surprise you.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2643-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-vs-geforce-rtx-3080/

 

[KofeViR]

~20% is not huge but still very noticable, and 4070 Ti does it with less power and heat too + 2GB more VRAM. 3080 is still good enough for most at 1440p. Even 3070 and 6700XT handles 1440p just fine and will continue to do that for a long time. Especially if you play eSport games where CPU/MEMORY often is the bigger bottleneck anyway.

The difference between medium and ultra preset in many games, is small. Fps hit is huge tho. I always tweak games myself, presets mostly suck. Ultra often looks less sharp than medium too; More fog, vaseline AA and garbage effects.

Hell in many games Ultra even includes stuff like motion blur, dof etc.

 

[Beerfloat]

Still surprising how they went from a 320-bit bus down to a 192-bit one, and yet there isn't a single test where this prevents the 4070 Ti from getting the higher score, even at 4K.

The 4070 Ti is just a great all-rounder GPU. And as an aside I should mention I'm pleased to see the new Gigabyte Eagle bring the GPU to a more reasonable 261mm length form factor.

 

[mdenigma]

I find it quite difficult to compare products without a TDP. Bringing down the TDP of the 3080 the a 4070 Ti compareable level, there should be around 5% additional increase.

Frankly speaking a 4070 Ti is about 25% faster than a 3080.

 

[KofeViR]

Still surprising how they went from a 320-bit bus down to a 192-bit one, and yet there isn't a single test where this prevents the 4070 Ti from getting the higher score, even at 4K.

The 4070 Ti is just a great all-rounder GPU. And as an aside I should mention I'm pleased to see the new Gigabyte Eagle bring the GPU to a more reasonable 261mm length form factor.

Well neigher cards are very good for 4K gaming but extra 2GB VRAM might help in some games now. I think memory compression is improved too.

3080 generally needs to be undevolted to be efficient and people lose around 5% perf here. 4070 Ti has much better perf per watt.

Personally I would get 16GB minimum for 4K gaming. Meaning 4080 and up or 7900XT as bare minimum. Last gen cards with 16GB might work but GPU seems too weak to utilize the VRAM anyway, a 3090 Ti and 6950XT can easily be brought to its knees in demanding games at 4K when fps goal is more than 30-60 fps. Personally I want at least 100 fps when gaming on PC.

4070 Ti and 3090 Ti performs almost identical at 1440p, but when you move to 4K, 3090 Ti tends to perform 10% better. This is probably a result of bandwidth bottlenecking and OCing the memory on 4070 Ti should help some. I still think 4070 Ti is for 1440p high refresh gaming over 4K. 12GB VRAM won't age well here. Games already started to use way more memory (both system and VRAM). Games that only comes to PS5 and XSX that is. "Next Gen Games" bumps PC requirements up fast, now 16GB RAM is bare minimum but 32GB is preffered and delivers higher minimum fps in ALOT of games now + System is generally much smoother without using pagefile all the time.

 

[nnguy2]

Hell in many games Ultra even includes stuff like motion blur, dof etc.

Those are first 2 options I look for to disable lol

 

[envirovore]

Being well aware of it's pros and cons and expected performance at the time I got it, I've been quite satisfied with my 3080 10G over the last year and half plus and feel I got my money's worth even if I did end up paying over MSRP for it at the time.

That said, they certainly are starting to show their limitations far more now, and indeed if I could afford it currently would be considering an upgrade. Until then though I at least have the option of playing in a lower resolution window, dropping in game settings, or a combination of the two to hold me over.

Thank you for the work you put into this comparison as well.

 

[Julio Franco]

Same comment I made a month ago on a different thread, but is suiting to mention again in this comparison. I decided to experiment on myself and bought an RTX 3080 for $520 on eBay. So far, so good, but I understand the risk is there and it's not for everyone.

Still, it's 70% faster than my previous GPU that I spent $800 for new. In other words, instead of waiting what the RTX 4070 or 4060 will eventually bring and at what prices, I probably have the same kind of performance today for ~$500 (on a used GPU).

 

[Lounds]

If you was lucky enough to get a 3080 at MRSP then it was a good deal. Otherwise you overpaid for what is now essentially a 1440p or lower graphics card down to the small amount of VRAM. I'd be more interested in a 3080 Vs 6800XT showdown.

 

[poshflamingos]

Still surprising how they went from a 320-bit bus down to a 192-bit one, and yet there isn't a single test where this prevents the 4070 Ti from getting the higher score, even at 4K.

Ada also had a tenfold increase in L2 cache, which mitigates the need for memory bandwidth.

Smaller buses and bigger caches is the exact same (successful) approach AMD used with RDNA 2, where the 128-bit 6600 XT outperforms the 192-bit 3060, the 192-bit 6700 XT outperforms the 256-bit 3060 Ti and is close to the 3070, and the 256-bit 6900 XT outperforms the 320-bit 3080 and is competitive with the 384-bit 3080 Ti and 3090.

 

[PEnnn]

All things considered, and if I were looking to buy, it seems that the Radeon RX 7900 XT is really the best card and best value!! Cheaper and beats the other 2 handily.

 

[poohbear]

Love these comparison articles, so thank you! W/ a 20% performance difference between the 4070TI & 3080, then it's safe to assume that the 4070 will be on par in performance with the 3080 for cheaper, so wooooot!

 

[scavengerspc]

"Still, many gamers did purchase a 10GB GeForce RTX 3080, and many are probably considering the upgrade to an RTX 40 series product, but of course, the problem is that pricing... it's gone up, by a lot! The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti starts at $800 (MSRP), with most models going for $850 or more at retail. Worse still, if you want the more desirable RTX 4080, those cost $1,200 -- they are supposed to cost that, but in reality they are closer to $1,300 -- ouch."

I'm surprised more people don't just save gaming for consoles.

 

[Stingy McDuck]

Ultra often looks less sharp than medium too; More fog, vaseline AA and garbage effects.

It's either TAA or a pixel-shimmer fest, pick your poison.

 

[doolybird]

"Still, many gamers did purchase a 10GB GeForce RTX 3080, and many are probably considering the upgrade to an RTX 40 series product, but of course, the problem is that pricing... it's gone up, by a lot! The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti starts at $800 (MSRP), with most models going for $850 or more at retail. Worse still, if you want the more desirable RTX 4080, those cost $1,200 -- they are supposed to cost that, but in reality they are closer to $1,300 -- ouch."

I'm surprised more people don't just save gaming for consoles.

Im hearing you. During the price craziness 12 months or more ago I sold my RTX 3080 5950x based rig for a silly price. Bought a PS5, XBOX series X, a laptop to cover the PC stuff...and now a steam deck....I game more than ever now. I guess ive gone to the dark side....or seen the light depending on perspective. This is coming from a previously rusted on PC gamer.

 

[scavengerspc]

The difference between medium and ultra preset in many games, is small. Fps hit is huge tho. I always tweak games myself, presets mostly suck. Ultra often looks less sharp than medium too; More fog, vaseline AA and garbage effects.

Thank You! For years, I thought I was the only one that thinks High\Very High almost always looks better than Ultra.

 

[brucek]

I'm surprised more people don't just save gaming for consoles.

I've been doing a fair bit of both lately and it's amazing in how many ways my cheaper and far less powerful XBox Series X outperforms my high end PC. The console launches itself and games faster, has a handy resume feature, is far less fussy in many ways (updates, glitches, settings to tune), and some games are less buggy in console form then on PC.

What keeps me coming back to PC is for some games there is keyboard & mouse support only on PC. If every game had it on console I'd probably be doing most of my gaming there.

 

[Khamul]

Not surprised he didn't choose a 12GB 3080 to compare.

 

[KofeViR]

It's either TAA or a pixel-shimmer fest, pick your poison.

DLSS2/FSR2 often beats alot of built in AA and gives more perf on top, including TAA. Depends on implementation.

And no, it does not make the image blurry. If it does, it's a bad implementation, or you have to change dll file. I use DLSS and FSR whenever I can, unless its is crap. Mostly its good.

 

[KofeViR]

Not surprised he didn't choose a 12GB 3080 to compare.

Why would he, 99% of 3080 sold were 10GB and 12GB version was way more expensive (in reality, not MSRP) + Nvidia stopped production of it sooner than 3080 10GB.

3080 12GB is closer to 3080 Ti in terms of perf and price, HOWEVER it would have been fun if he included it, so VRAM was identical, but pointless since the card is rare.

It does not change the fact that Ada is way more efficient than Ampere, mostly because of TSMC 4nm vs Samsung 8nm.

 

[KofeViR]

I'm surprised more people don't just save gaming for consoles.

Well, I use both and PC will always be my primary platform. I like freedom and performance, I also prefer to not pay subscription for multiplayer etc.

With a console, you get hardware cheaper but getting milked everywhere else. Locked ecosystem. No comparison at all. With a PC I can play all my 1000+ games, going 20+ years back -and- do other stuff than gaming -or- emulate other consoles.

Console Cons;

- Subscription for online play and unlock of features (cloud storage etc).
- Huge premium on games in general (Sony and MS needs a big cut for every sale). PC games are almost half the price on average. Especially if you use keyshops. Often games are 1/3 the price on PC.
- Not much option for tweaking, if you don't like the settings -> Forced 30 fps is already a thing in several PS5/XSX games. However they are generelly better at delivering a 60 fps mode now. I prefer 100+ fps tho.
- Accessories break more easily. Most people destroy many controllers during a console lifetime, especially with heavy usage and the console itself might also break, they are not made to last an entire generation and only has 1-2 years warrenty, including the console itself. My PC parts generally have 3 years minimum, often 5-7 years and some have 10+ or limited lifetime warranty. No comparison. Cheap hardware vs expensive hardware.
- Mod support is very limited and often sucks, or cost money.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Not surprised he didn't choose a 12GB 3080 to compare.

Just tack on about 5% performance gains for the 3080 12GB over the 10GB model. If you want to envision this review being against a 3080 Ti, add on another 3-5% over the 12GB.

 

[poohbear]

Well neigher cards are very good for 4K gaming but extra 2GB VRAM might help in some games now. I think memory compression is improved too.

3080 generally needs to be undevolted to be efficient and people lose around 5% perf here. 4070 Ti has much better perf per watt.

Personally I would get 16GB minimum for 4K gaming. Meaning 4080 and up or 7900XT as bare minimum. Last gen cards with 16GB might work but GPU seems too weak to utilize the VRAM anyway, a 3090 Ti and 6950XT can easily be brought to its knees in demanding games at 4K when fps goal is more than 30-60 fps. Personally I want at least 100 fps when gaming on PC.

4070 Ti and 3090 Ti performs almost identical at 1440p, but when you move to 4K, 3090 Ti tends to perform 10% better. This is probably a result of bandwidth bottlenecking and OCing the memory on 4070 Ti should help some. I still think 4070 Ti is for 1440p high refresh gaming over 4K. 12GB VRAM won't age well here. Games already started to use way more memory (both system and VRAM). Games that only comes to PS5 and XSX that is. "Next Gen Games" bumps PC requirements up fast, now 16GB RAM is bare minimum but 32GB is preffered and delivers higher minimum fps in ALOT of games now + System is generally much smoother without using pagefile all the time.

What games are you playing that require 16gb system ram?

 

[KofeViR]

What games are you playing that require 16gb system ram?

Hogwartz Legacy, FS 2020 etc.

Next Gen games are coming; 16GB is the new 8GB.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

"Still, many gamers did purchase a 10GB GeForce RTX 3080, and many are probably considering the upgrade to an RTX 40 series product, but of course, the problem is that pricing... it's gone up, by a lot! The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti starts at $800 (MSRP), with most models going for $850 or more at retail. Worse still, if you want the more desirable RTX 4080, those cost $1,200 -- they are supposed to cost that, but in reality they are closer to $1,300 -- ouch."

I'm surprised more people don't just save gaming for consoles.

Well, until consoles can run third party stores, games from the last three decades, give me local access to files, and do all the other things PCs can do, it a bit like comparing apples and apaches.