Alleged RTX 4090 Ti specs leak: powerful, hungry, and likely very expensive

Also, I think this needs to be said, no Nvidia fan on here was promoting this rumoured GPU. Literally not a single Nvidia shill in the comment section.

AMD fanboys though, all over it. They supposedly don't care and like to remind everyone how much better they are yet, here we are, in a world where AMD's market is actually shrinking.

"AMD's market share within the discrete GPU market has dropped to 10% in Q3 2022, representing a new low for the company. AMD acquired ATI back in 2006, and AMD has never seen its discrete GPU market share dip this low."

Such greatness yet, couldn't convince the vast majority of the world to actually buy their products.
 
So depending on the game, nvidia will have the first, second, and maybe third most powerful GPU on the graph.

OOF. Were back to the polaris days.

AMD won't be losing sleep over something that will sell in the hundreds globally. AMD can release a 7950XTX any time if they feel the need. 99.9% of people would prefer they focused on improving the 7900XTX before worrying about ultra-niche and frankly ultra stupid cards in the 4090 Ti class. The 4090 Ti would only make sense as a Pro card which had much stronger fp64 performance. It should be released as a Quadro only.
 
AMD fanboys though, all over it. They supposedly don't care and like to remind everyone how much better they are yet, here we are, in a world where AMD's market is actually shrinking...."AMD's market share within the discrete GPU market has dropped to 10%...
I think it's more accurate to say that AMD's revenue is growing in the gaming segment, but the "discrete GPU" market is today about far more than videogames, and NVidia is capturing nearly all that additional growth.
 
The RTX4090 it's way ahead of current CPU's and looks to me that it still need a better CPU.

CP2077-p.webp


As we can see here it scales up without hitting top performance wall.
We shall see with Intel 14k and AMD 8K series if this is the thing or not.
 
And first, second, and third most expensive, too. With a high enough price tag, any company could claim the crown.
Then why doesn't AMD do it? Or is it because their architecture simply doesn't scale to that sort of performance regardless of money, power or heat.
 
Hasn't that always been the way? :laughing:
definitely, it's just that pricing now it's completely insane. What the Fury was worth (AMDs highest end at the time) you can't even buy a RTX 4070 for, maybe a RTX 4060 once it comes out. Might be 4050 Territory, the very bottom of the stack.

Half-Jokes aside, history shows us that people don't seem to like video cards that are liquid-cooled. The R9 Fury-X didn't sell well because most people just want to slot their video cards in without having to think about routing coolant hoses. It's stupid but true.
I can think of some other reasons it didn't sell well.
Performance wasn't that impressive at launch
The price was rather high
It only had 4GB of memory
It's AMD (the much much much smaller player)

It was however a card that aged extremely well performance wise. It started out rather underwhelming but many driver updates later it was a beast only held back by the small amount of (but dang fast) memory it had.

I replaced my GTX 970 with a Fury non-x after finding a very good deal on the used market and that was an amazing upgrade.
 
definitely, it's just that pricing now it's completely insane. What the Fury was worth (AMDs highest end at the time) you can't even buy a RTX 4070 for, maybe a RTX 4060 once it comes out. Might be 4050 Territory, the very bottom of the stack.
I couldn't agree more but the problem isn't so much nVidia as the people who buy their cards without a second thought. I still see people posting here, who should know better, still referring to cards in terms of RTX 30-this or RTX 40-that. If their brains are so hard-wired as to only think in terms of nVidia part numbers, they're screwed. They have to use a Jedi mind trick on themselves?

I had to train my brain to be able to hold two sets of numbers in the same stack for both CPUs and GPUs because I started to fall into that category myself with FX, Ryzen and Radeon numbers. I started to lose track of where Intel CPUs and nVidia GPUs fell into the stack and when I realised this, I stopped treating the two number sets differently. Instead of "AMD Numbers" and "Intel Numbers" I trained my brain to call that category "CPU Numbers". In the same way I trained my brain to have "GPU Numbers" that simply treated Radeon and GeForce numbers equally. That way of thinking made it easy to keep track of two stacks without having to think about flipping back and forth.

It's like, take this number: 67245691
Is it easier to remember six, seven, two, four, five, six, nine, one or is it easier to remember sixty-seven, twenty-four, fifty-six ninety-one?

The human brain is indeed a crazy device.
I can think of some other reasons it didn't sell well.
Performance wasn't that impressive at launch
The price was rather high
It only had 4GB of memory
It's AMD (the much much much smaller player)

It was however a card that aged extremely well performance wise. It started out rather underwhelming but many driver updates later it was a beast only held back by the small amount of (but dang fast) memory it had.
You're preaching to the choir here. I have two of these beauties still and their longevity has been nothing less than spectacular.
97b3bdc641b027f511889c2ba9541c552.jpg

The R9 Fury truly was the GTX 1080 Ti of its day.
I replaced my GTX 970 with a Fury non-x after finding a very good deal on the used market and that was an amazing upgrade.
I believe it. I actually got mine six years ago during the mining boom of 2017. Back then, the RX 580 was over $700CAD, a price that I was not willing to pay for that card. However, out of nowhere, Newegg suddenly had brand-new Sapphire Radeon R9 Fury Nitro+ OC for about $350CAD. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

I remember feeling a bit trapped because I had twin HD 7970s in crossfire but crossfire stopped being a real thing around that time. This meant that I was stuck with a card that was pretty badly outdated at the time but there was no chance that I was going to spend that much money on a Polaris card and I'd rather play on a console than buy a GeForce card. I remember spending hours researching it, because it seemed way too good to be true. I knew that this card was faster than the RX 580 so why was it half the price and why were new ones suddenly available years after production ended? Nevertheless, I pulled the trigger and got one.

The relief I felt that I was going to have a card that was usable again was palpable because I honestly thought that I was screwed. A couple of weeks later, I saw this video from Greg Salazar:
I actually bought a second, refurbished model for about $150CAD from Newegg about six months later to use as a backup card. To this day, these things can both still game. I've played games like Godfall, AC: Odyssey and Far Cry 6 on an R9 Fury while my XFX RX 5700 XT was gone for RMA (twice). I was in no hurry to pop it back in when it finally arrived because the R9 Fury just worked and I was still having a blast gaming with it. I'm actually curious to see what effect FSR will have on it because that 4GB of HBM makes hi-res gaming impossible.
 
Then why doesn't AMD do it? Or is it because their architecture simply doesn't scale to that sort of performance regardless of money, power or heat.
Why do they need to? As a recent article that just came out said, AMD has, like other companies, cut their supply of GPUs and CPUs to keep profit margins up. I don't know what the economics are at the highest end of the GPU market, but perhaps they decided it's just not worth it? Perhaps the line of thinking is that most people buy cheaper cards, and they can save their best chips for the very high margin server/data center market.

Regardless of the reasons, they left room in their naming convention to release a more powerful chip. Whether they will or not this generation, only time will tell. I'm certain they can do it, it's just a question of do they want to.
 
Why do they need to? As a recent article that just came out said, AMD has, like other companies, cut their supply of GPUs and CPUs to keep profit margins up. I don't know what the economics are at the highest end of the GPU market, but perhaps they decided it's just not worth it? Perhaps the line of thinking is that most people buy cheaper cards, and they can save their best chips for the very high margin server/data center market.

Regardless of the reasons, they left room in their naming convention to release a more powerful chip. Whether they will or not this generation, only time will tell. I'm certain they can do it, it's just a question of do they want to.
Let's quote your comment again:
And first, second, and third most expensive, too. With a high enough price tag, any company could claim the crown.
If that's the case, and Nvidia have proven you can sell £2k graphics cards quite well. Why won't AMD do it? Massive profit margins and they get to claim to have the most powerful graphics card.

Even AMD's own marketing points to the 7900XTX being bad value just like all other halo products, so why not beat Nvidia if they, as you put it:
With a high enough price tag, any company could claim the crown.
 
Why do they need to? As a recent article that just came out said, AMD has, like other companies, cut their supply of GPUs and CPUs to keep profit margins up. I don't know what the economics are at the highest end of the GPU market, but perhaps they decided it's just not worth it?
And they would be correct. For them, it's not worth it because all of the fools who are looking to spend their life's savings on a video card want a green card. It's stupid to invest resources in a market segment that has ZERO demand for your products so I'm not surprised that AMD doesn't bother.
Perhaps the line of thinking is that most people buy cheaper cards, and they can save their best chips for the very high margin server/data center market.
I would say that's very rational thinking. Save your best products for your higher-margin commercial customers. Those top chips would make a much bigger difference in a data centre or supercomputer than they would in some gamer's desktop.
Regardless of the reasons, they left room in their naming convention to release a more powerful chip. Whether they will or not this generation, only time will tell. I'm certain they can do it, it's just a question of do they want to.
I don't get that guy. Unless he has an RTX 4090 Ti, what difference should it make to him which brand has "the fastest card"? It doesn't even really matter though because if he does have an RTX 4090 Ti, why should he care about what comes out of ATi? There's nothing more pathetic that someone who has an RTX 3070 Ti and crows about halo-level GeForce cards. I only care about what is available at the price point that I'm willing to pay and that's only when I'm actually interested in buying a card.
 
And they would be correct. For them, it's not worth it because all of the fools who are looking to spend their life's savings on a video card want a green card. It's stupid to invest resources in a market segment that has ZERO demand for your products so I'm not surprised that AMD doesn't bother.
That is, and I must stress, completely and utterly false.
If AMD produced a product that performed better than the 4090 and priced to be, it would sell, easily, Nvidia have shown there is a market for ultra high end GPU's.
I don't get that guy. Unless he has an RTX 4090 Ti, what difference should it make to him which brand has "the fastest card"? It doesn't even really matter though because if he does have an RTX 4090 Ti, why should he care about what comes out of ATi? There's nothing more pathetic that someone who has an RTX 3070 Ti and crows about halo-level GeForce cards. I only care about what is available at the price point that I'm willing to pay and that's only when I'm actually interested in buying a card.
So what you're effectively saying is, AMD just doesn't compete, we'll let Nvidia take all the high margin, high performance GPU market because AMD hates making money?

It's ok, you can admit AMD simply don't have the architecture to compete, but this delusion that AMD could compete but ultimately doesn't want to for some arbitrary reason is just fanboyism at best.

The reason I'm here arguing about it? Because I would love to hand AMD my money if they produced something better than Nvidia. I'm lucky in life and I can afford to buy the best, I buy AMD CPU's now because they're the best, If they could produce the best GPU, I would buy it. Based on the latest Steam survey and the 4090 making quite a big showing, it's clear there's more people like me than even I realised.
 
Nobody is saying it but I think the only reason ppl are annoyed with this is because we're waiting on the 4070/4060, and I suspect there's a lot of us. We're sick of waiting and seeing more overpriced high-end GPUs geared to media content creation..
 
Back