Nvidia launches the $1,000 RTX 4080 Super, $800 RTX 4070 Ti Super, and $600 RTX 4070 Super
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
People were happy to buy 4080 for 1200 dollars.
They will be happy to get better cards for less money.
I think super series will be a hit.
I am only curious to see something like say the sales of rtx3060 vs rtx4060
because I keep thinking about something they said. They said they will be limiting
sales at some point when 4000 were not selling as fast as they wished.
I would like to see what gen sold more, 3000 or 4000.
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,058 +1,903
Huh, 4080 sales were abysmal and people were clearly not happy spending that sort of money at all. AMD's 7900's outsell it easily and are doing very well. 4070 Ti Super will take further chunk out of the still stupidly priced 4080 Super sales too. Only the 4070 Ti Super is interesting as I would never drop $600 on a 12GB card in 2024.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,449 +10,228
4080s regularly go out of stock on newegg. People are still buying them, anyone who wants 7900xtx raster performance AND RT will buy a 4080, and the super being slightly faster and $200 cheaper will attract sales.
The only one that's "pointless" is the 4080S. The other two have their merits with VRAM and a decent upgrade for the TI, and a more substantial performance upgrade for the 4070S, but it will suffer with the bus and lower VRAM. But I wouldn't put any of these cards as attractive buys, pice points are still really high. A 4060S with 12GB and a 25% performance upgrade for $329 or less is what Nvidia needed to make.
I think the problem is that you can’t easily find an Nvidia card that is selling at MSRP. So while I think the RTX 4070 Ti Super is a decently valued card at MSRP, I think most will still have to pay a premium for it because Nvidia and partners know that there is a strong demand for it, while at the same time, there may not be enough supply since most fab allocation is given to the highly profitable AI chips.
It makes no sense if you are upgrading for example from a RTX 4070 Ti to a 4070 Ti Super. But for someone waiting for a better card to replace a RTX 1080 for example, the RTX 4070 Ti Super is much better in value than the overpriced RTX 4080. In any case, regardless of whichever GPU you get now, most new AAA games are still too demanding to run without software assistance.
Beerfloat
Posts: 848 +1,573
Do you have a source for that claim?
The latest Steam survey suggests that there are twice going on two and a half times the number of 4080s out there compared to even the 7900 XTX, while the ugly stepchild of the family, the 7900 XT, has not even earned a separate listing yet.
AMD's GPU sales, tepid as they are, are mostly comprised of heavily discounted previous generation models.
Colorful iGame RTX 4070 Ti Super Ultra W Advanced OC
I'm gon a stop you right there. The Steam survey shouldn't be used for any inferences on gaming/pc population until they release their sampling methodology.
Beerfloat
Posts: 848 +1,573
Please provide a source that is more accurate, contradicts Steam's numbers, and supports the poster's outlandish assertions about 7900 sales figures.
ScottSoapbox
Posts: 1,048 +1,824
Which could as easily mean they are making fewer 4080s or selling them primarily through OEMs systems (where discounts aren't visible).
Steam contradicts steam's numbers. Regularly.
The amount of confirmation bias is always high in these my GPU brand is the best threads.
ScottSoapbox
Posts: 1,048 +1,824
The 4070 TI Super seems the best bang for your buck, but I'm just not that excited any more.
Back when my 3080 was struggling (<100 fps) to play Spider-Man with RT at 4K, I'd probably have jumped at it. But now I'm playing strategy games and Metroidvanias and such... often on my Ally. By the time I swing back around to the latest greatest game that needs more muscle I can probably wait a few months and get the 5070/5080.
I think the 5000 series is going to be first cards to not tank fps when switching on RT where the 4000 series are more of an incremental improvement on the 3000 (other than the 4090 beast).
Back when my 3080 was struggling (<100 fps) to play Spider-Man with RT at 4K, I'd probably have jumped at it. But now I'm playing strategy games and Metroidvanias and such... often on my Ally. By the time I swing back around to the latest greatest game that needs more muscle I can probably wait a few months and get the 5070/5080.
I think the 5000 series is going to be first cards to not tank fps when switching on RT where the 4000 series are more of an incremental improvement on the 3000 (other than the 4090 beast).
Beerfloat
Posts: 848 +1,573
Yeah. What made you put a like on that original post? It made a strong claim while offering no source or data at all.
I've read countless complaints about Steam. Would be really cool if some of that energy went to highlighting better sources!
ScottSoapbox
Posts: 1,048 +1,824
A) It didn't need a source as the poor sales of the 4080 were widely reported on this site and many others.
B) It's not everyone else's job to make researching things easier for you.
plenty of PC component market research companies that publishes their methodology. However they cost money and aren't free like Mercury Research(http://www.mercuryresearch.com) but their reports sometimes get reported on by
Tom's Hardware (https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...s-market-share-in-laptops-pcs-and-server-cpus)
or JPR (https://www.jonpeddie.com) that even this site reports on
Intel might be catching up to AMD's discrete GPU market share
Correction (March 5): Our original story based on JPR's report, indicated Intel was capturing as much as 9% of the discrete GPU market with their Arc offerings, but...
www.techspot.com
brucek
Posts: 1,729 +2,696
If you're genuinely interested in understanding what's going on at retail, Mindfactory in the EU publishes sales statistics, and @MooresLawIsDead is a YouTube streamer who claims to have sources in major retailers and their distributors and often gives specific numbers as to sales, inventory, and allocation.
Of course like others have said, OEM / pre-builts are a separate and important channel; and not all GPUs are purchased just or primarily for gaming, which complicates understanding who is buying what and why.
I tend to discount any of this as being relevant to what model I should buy for my own purposes though so not sure what the point is really.
Of course like others have said, OEM / pre-builts are a separate and important channel; and not all GPUs are purchased just or primarily for gaming, which complicates understanding who is buying what and why.
I tend to discount any of this as being relevant to what model I should buy for my own purposes though so not sure what the point is really.
Beerfloat
Posts: 848 +1,573
What is 'widely reported' is almost always anecdotal information. Some dealer said this about some week of some month. Some unnamed source said that. It is noise.
The only thing close to data that the public has to go on seems to be JPR and the Steam survey, warts and all. If you have better information, share it.
And if you're going to make bold claims about sales figures, back them up or get called out.
Beerfloat
Posts: 848 +1,573
Thank you for making an effort. I was aware of those and I think you recognize that they do not speak to this particular claim at all.plenty of PC component market research companies that publishes their methodology. However they cost money and aren't free like Mercury Research(http://www.mercuryresearch.com) but their reports sometimes get reported on by
Tom's Hardware (https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...s-market-share-in-laptops-pcs-and-server-cpus)
or JPR (https://www.jonpeddie.com) that even this site reports on
Intel might be catching up to AMD's discrete GPU market share
Correction (March 5): Our original story based on JPR's report, indicated Intel was capturing as much as 9% of the discrete GPU market with their Arc offerings, but...
Beerfloat
Posts: 848 +1,573
I think you appreciate that it is really hard to extrapolate global trends from the figures of one retailer in the EU.
And I'm quite familiar with MLID's output. I wouldn't necessarily agree that the genuinely interested should be thinking about something like that as non-opinionated data.
The one standout for me, seeing forums and threads all over this of late is this...
So many ppl assuming that MSRP means what it says... and how, well... it never does.
Sure, IF you're getting a ref or near ref card you might see close to MSRP... maybe £100 more in a leap year. But when the more desirable, premium, bells and whistles 4080's hit some £300 and more than the lower (not even ref) 4090's. Oddly, I've seen far more 4080's hit 2 grand than I have 4090's tip 2.5 though when generally the split like for like is around £500. And it's not like all that hasn't happened before, at launch or a year and more after, like every gen back to Maxwell or Pascal that I personally witnessed. Hell, I actually bought into a worse situation in 2021 but a £500 difference now vs a £1000 one then isn't quite the same. I mean, at least the 4080's have 16Gb VRAM vs the og 3080's 10Gb though neither cut my mustard then or now.
Now add in the evils of scalping, possibility of lower availability at and immediately post launch (whether engineered or otherwise) and 'shortages' arising thereof etc...
I'm not saying they won't ever be MSRP where applicable on the nose, maybe it will and if so colour me holy heck is Jensen feeling ok after that street food binge? Just that I'm not in denial re how this all works. Nm Nvidia fans still believing things are in their favour after every bad reading of the room (or worse) by Nvidia but... yeah, AMD are bad cos something happened once around the time when everybody realised 3.5Gb isn't 4. Whatever.
Still, higher end 7900XTX models down to £8-900 already happened once so more of that to match on a permanent basis can't be a bad thing (as long as ppl actually buy what many see for some reason as akin to a decade old choice) but we'll see.
So many ppl assuming that MSRP means what it says... and how, well... it never does.
Sure, IF you're getting a ref or near ref card you might see close to MSRP... maybe £100 more in a leap year. But when the more desirable, premium, bells and whistles 4080's hit some £300 and more than the lower (not even ref) 4090's. Oddly, I've seen far more 4080's hit 2 grand than I have 4090's tip 2.5 though when generally the split like for like is around £500. And it's not like all that hasn't happened before, at launch or a year and more after, like every gen back to Maxwell or Pascal that I personally witnessed. Hell, I actually bought into a worse situation in 2021 but a £500 difference now vs a £1000 one then isn't quite the same. I mean, at least the 4080's have 16Gb VRAM vs the og 3080's 10Gb though neither cut my mustard then or now.
Now add in the evils of scalping, possibility of lower availability at and immediately post launch (whether engineered or otherwise) and 'shortages' arising thereof etc...
I'm not saying they won't ever be MSRP where applicable on the nose, maybe it will and if so colour me holy heck is Jensen feeling ok after that street food binge? Just that I'm not in denial re how this all works. Nm Nvidia fans still believing things are in their favour after every bad reading of the room (or worse) by Nvidia but... yeah, AMD are bad cos something happened once around the time when everybody realised 3.5Gb isn't 4. Whatever.
Still, higher end 7900XTX models down to £8-900 already happened once so more of that to match on a permanent basis can't be a bad thing (as long as ppl actually buy what many see for some reason as akin to a decade old choice) but we'll see.
Similar threads
