Nvidia benchmarks show the RTX 4070 taking on the RTX 3080

[midian182]

Something to look forward to: Nvidia's next entry in its Ada Lovelace line, the RTX 4070, looks set to launch in two days with a $599 MSRP. Now, what appears to be the first benchmarks for the card have arrived, and they put the RTX 4070's performance on par with the RTX 3080 when DLSS is enabled.

Videocardz has posted leaked Nvidia marketing materials showing the RTX 4070's April 13 launch date along with some (admittedly fuzzy) benchmark slides. These appear to be the typically vague ones Nvidia likes to show off, so there's the usual reminder to take them with a grain of salt.

According to team green, the RTX 4070 offers the same performance as the RTX 3080 at 1440p with ray tracing enabled. However, this is without frame generation and with both cards using their own version of DLSS.

The RTX 4070 will be 1.2x faster than RTX 3070 Ti and 1.3x faster than RTX 3070 (when DLSS2 is used). However, the addition of frame generation makes the RTX 4070 performance 1.4x, 1.7x, and 1.8x faster, respectively, than the Ampere-generation cards.

Another chart allegedly shows how the RTX 4070 stacks up again the RTX 3070 Ti and the RTX 2070 Super in several games at 1440p resolution with and without frame generation. Again, this is with DLSS and RT enabled in games that support it.

It's estimated that the RTX 4070 will be around 15% slower than the RTX 4070 Ti when it comes to games, though that figure could vary greatly depending on resolution and several other factors.

Nvidia is really pushing the RTX 4070's ability to reach 100fps@1440p with RT and DLSS 3 at a $599 price. However, as we've seen before, AIB cards are likely going to be a lot more expensive; Tom's Hardware reports that a Vietnamese retailer's prices for RTX 4070 partner cards start at $800 and go all the way up to $916. But unlike the RTX 4070 Ti, this non-Ti version will have a Founders Edition.

In related news, a recent Geekbench listing confirmed that the RTX 4070 would pack 5,888 CUDA cores and feature 12GB of memory. It's also said to consume just 186W while gaming.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/98270-nvidia-benchmarks-show-rtx-4070-taking-rtx-3080.html

 

[Vulcanproject]

In Techspot's published test the 4070Ti beats the 3080 by 21 percent at 1440p. I would expect the 4070 to at least match the 3080 blow for blow without any Nvidia proprietary gymnastics.

The extra 2GB of memory over the 3080 and TDP reduction might actually make the card somewhat attractive in the Nvidia line up. If the touted 4060Ti ships with only 8GB of memory then this card will probably prove to be more popular, with good reason.

 

[yannus]

Lol Games with frame gen WOW, games without frame gen WHAT?! This DLSS thing is starting to look pathetic. Just stop buying, people.

 

[kira setsu]

Lol Games with frame gen WOW, games without frame gen WHAT?! This DLSS thing is starting to look pathetic. Just stop buying, people.

why buy these cards when you can just switch your tv's settings to smooth, same thing!

 

[llamapanda]

Using different versions of your smoke and mirrors DLSS tech to try and upsell your new kit versus the old? Guess it's not that much better in terms of raw horsepower then, even if it does pull less juice from the wall to do it. But of course it'll review well and sell like the proverbial because hey, it's 30% cheaper than the next model up, right?

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Eh. That's about all I have to say for this 4070.

I would like to say this, though: Good for you, EVGA, for getting away from this dumpster fire of Nvidia GPUs.

 

[letsgoiowa]

Is this the worst generational improvement ever? The 4070 is the same price as a 3080 but basically the exact same performance. Turing disaster 2.0.

 

[EdmondRC]

The 3080, 3070, and 3060 Ti seemed like good values at the time that they launched, but all of them are suffering now from lack of VRAM. I would be hesitant now to buy anything under 16 considering that in many titles, even 12 GB seems to be lacking. To me, the entire 40 series, with the exception of the way out of my price range 4090 are very bad values. I just don't trust that 12GB is going to be enough for 4K and maybe not even for 1440p. The 4080 is just a bad deal, even if it has adequate VRAM. Seems like the 7900's might age better with 20+ GB and FSR 3.0 on the horizon.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Is this the worst generational improvement ever? The 4070 is the same price as a 3080 but basically the exact same performance. Turing disaster 2.0.

RTX 3080 10GB MSRP: $700
RTX 3080 Ti 12GB MSRP: $1200
RTX 4070 Ti 12GB MSRP: $800
RTX 4070 12GB MSRP: $600

 

[VoidTheWarranty]

So when's the one with the scaled back 10GB coming out?

 

[letsgoiowa]

RTX 3080 10GB MSRP: $700
RTX 3080 Ti 12GB MSRP: $1200
RTX 4070 Ti 12GB MSRP: $800
RTX 4070 12GB MSRP: $600

Real price for both: $650
MSRP is a lie

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

The 4070 looks like one of the better deals on paper this generation, but one needs to look at recent history for the full picture.

Consider that when the 3070 ($499 MSRP) was released its performance was roughly on par with the 2080Ti ($1199 MSRP). Unless you count the crazy RTX Titan ($2499 MSRP) the 2080Ti was the prior generation’s top tier. Using this precedent, it would have been reasonable to expect this generation’s xx70 to match or at least be closer to the 3090 (MSRP $1499) in raw performance (not VRAM) for substantially less money. Granted, Turing was a ridiculously overpriced generation, but you get the idea.

Add in the fact that you basically could have bought this level of performance several years ago for only $100 more at MSRP, and this looks extremely unimpressive.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Real price for both: $650
MSRP is a lie

Both the 4080 and 4070 Ti can be had for MSRP in the US.

 

[EdmondRC]

The 3080 was clearly more powerful that it was supposed to be and I think that is what is messing up Nvidia's plans here a little. The 3080 was originally supposed to be GA103 with 7680 cores, about 12% less than the GA102 3080. This would have made the 3080 25% slower than the 3090 and only about 18-20% faster than the 3070 (instead of 30%). The 3080 is always the reference for the outrageous pricing, it was only $699 and only 10-15% behind the 3090, it also had only slightly worse price to performance as the $500 3070, and it was 30% faster than the expensive 2080 Ti. The 3080 was likely closer to what they wanted the 3080 Ti to be, which ended up being only 2-3% slower than the 3090 in order to justify its price compared to the 3080.

Nvidia obviously did not make that "mistake" again this generation. However, they would have been much better off calling the 4090 the 4090 Ti, slotting in whatever the 4080 Ti will be as the 4090 and then the 4080 16GB the 4080 Ti and the 4070 Ti the 4080. If they had done that, despite the modest gains, the whole lineup would have seemed to make more sense pricing wise. Not saying it would be worth it, just that the perception and reception likely would have been a lot better. The way they did it though makes it feel as it the 4070 ti is a downgrade if you are used to 80 series cards, but the 4080 is just too expensive to justify an 80 series without a Ti after it. I know it doesn't change the performance at all, but I bet the 4080 would be selling right now if they had called it Ti, without any other changes... Same for the 4070 Ti if it had just been the 4080.

 

[gigantor21]

The 3080 was clearly more powerful that it was supposed to be and I think that is what is messing up Nvidia's plans here a little. The 3080 was originally supposed to be GA103 with 7680 cores, about 12% less than the GA102 3080. This would have made the 3080 25% slower than the 3090 and only about 18-20% faster than the 3070 (instead of 30%). The 3080 is always the reference for the outrageous pricing, it was only $699 and only 10-15% behind the 3090, it also had only slightly worse price to performance as the $500 3070, and it was 30% faster than the expensive 2080 Ti. The 3080 was likely closer to what they wanted the 3080 Ti to be, which ended up being only 2-3% slower than the 3090 in order to justify its price compared to the 3080.

Nvidia obviously did not make that "mistake" again this generation. However, they would have been much better off calling the 4090 the 4090 Ti, slotting in whatever the 4080 Ti will be as the 4090 and then the 4080 16GB the 4080 Ti and the 4070 Ti the 4080. If they had done that, despite the modest gains, the whole lineup would have seemed to make more sense pricing wise. Not saying it would be worth it, just that the perception and reception likely would have been a lot better. The way they did it though makes it feel as it the 4070 ti is a downgrade if you are used to 80 series cards, but the 4080 is just too expensive to justify an 80 series without a Ti after it. I know it doesn't change the performance much, but I bet the 4080 would be selling right now if they had called it Ti, without any other changes... Same for the 4070 Ti if it had just been the 4080.

We're probably never getting a value as good as the 3080 again, and I hate it.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

We're probably never getting a value as good as the 3080 again, and I hate it.

Good value?

RTX 3080 10GB MSRP: $700
RTX 3080 Ti 12GB MSRP: $1200
RTX 4070 Ti 12GB MSRP: $800
RTX 4070 12GB MSRP: $600

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

Good value?

RTX 3080 10GB MSRP: $700
RTX 3080 Ti 12GB MSRP: $1200
RTX 4070 Ti 12GB MSRP: $800
RTX 4070 12GB MSRP: $600

I get what you’re saying, if you’re looking purely at the performance uplift, where the 4070 Ti is clearly higher performing than the 3080 / 3080 Ti (in most cases). But we expect that to be the case 2.5 years later.

Also, there’s more to the value complaints many of us are levying. First, the 3080 Ti came at the height of the crypto boom and its MSRP can basically be ignored (Late in the life of the 30 series, you could find the 3080 Ti for $100-$150 more than the 3080). Second, think about the fact that $700 in late 2020 bought you a card that at its release was second only to the 3090 (in NV’s stack), whereas the $800-$850 for a 4070Ti is buying you the third level card 2.5 years later. This isn’t any kind of deal; it’s just a linear progression on the same price/performance curve.

I’m not saying the 4070 isn’t a capable card in its own right, just that the value isn’t what we should have received at this price point.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

I get what you’re saying, if you’re looking purely at the performance uplift, where the 4070 Ti is clearly higher performing than the 3080 / 3080 Ti (in most cases). But we expect that to be the case 2.5 years later.

Also, there’s more to the value complaints many of us are levying. First, the 3080 Ti came at the height of the crypto boom and its MSRP can basically be ignored (Late in the life of the 30 series, you could find the 3080 Ti for $100-$150 more than the 3080). Second, think about the fact that $700 in late 2020 bought you a card that at its release was second only to the 3090 (in NV’s stack), whereas the $800-$850 for a 4070Ti is buying you the third level card 2.5 years later. This isn’t any kind of deal; it’s just a linear progression on the same price/performance curve.

I’m not saying the 4070 isn’t a capable card in its own right, just that the value isn’t what we should have received at this price point.

It's 2023 and the 4070 Ti 12GB stomps the 3080 and does it for less money while using less power.

 

[EdmondRC]

It's 2023 and the 4070 Ti 12GB stomps the 3080 and does it for less money while using less power.

Obviously you bought a 4070 TI, but let's put this in perspective, it's 18% more for 15% more money 2.5 years later. That is not stomping, by that logic the 5070 Ti could be priced at 950 as long as it's 20% faster than the 4070 Ti. Bad logic is bad logic.

 

[yannus]

It's 2023 and the 4070 Ti 12GB stomps the 3080 and does it for less money while using less power.

It's 2023 and there's no hope for competitive graphics card. It's been like this for years. As soon as Nvidia dominated the market, competition died. The same could have been said of CPUs before Ryzen, Intel was killing the market. The sad thing is that AMD doesn't care about GPU market and the sadder thing is that it will only end when Chinese products will destroy the last western markets that are basically computer related. But the people should always be the one to blame because we are passive.

 

[daffy duck]

Nvidi0ts rejoice, a whole 12GB ram and fake frames to boot all in a super affordable package

 

[brucek]

"Similar deal to the 3080" 2+ years later is not a motivational rallying cry for anyone who doesn't need to purchase a GPU this generation.

The 3080 at original MSRP at launch was a very attractive upgrade for everyone who was still on their Pascal card and had sat out the Turing generation. That's how you create purchase and brand enthusiasm.

I guess if there are people who never did get their 30xx card this is another chance, but personally I'm already looking out to the next generation. Maybe the 5080 will be to the 4080 what the 3080 was to the 2080.

 

[Beerfloat]

It's interesting to see the shortsightedness of those who scoff at 'fake frames'. I'm sure AMD is quite content to let you people handle the pooh-poohing while they are working on their own knock-off version, slowly, as usual. Because they at least recognize a competitive disadvantage when they see it.

I'm sure the 4070 will sell quite well at this price. Cue more wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[KofeViR]

The 3080, 3070, and 3060 Ti seemed like good values at the time that they launched, but all of them are suffering now from lack of VRAM. I would be hesitant now to buy anything under 16 considering that in many titles, even 12 GB seems to be lacking. To me, the entire 40 series, with the exception of the way out of my price range 4090 are very bad values. I just don't trust that 12GB is going to be enough for 4K and maybe not even for 1440p. The 4080 is just a bad deal, even if it has adequate VRAM. Seems like the 7900's might age better with 20+ GB and FSR 3.0 on the horizon.

Yeah, not really; https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4080-noctua-oc/35.html

3080 10GB beats 6800XT 16GB by 5% in 4K 1% low fps.

3070 Ti 8GB performs on par with 6800 16GB.

However none of these cards are good for 4K without DLSS/FSR and DLSS is superior to FSR.

Maybe you should start looking at the performance in games that people actually play, instead of cherrypicking numbers in rushed console ports like TLOU where developer officially said the game has issues with Geforce cards. It is one of the worst console ports ever made according to several reviews.

7900XT won't age better than 4080 because it has 4GB more VRAM. The GPU itself is much weaker than 4080. VRAM won't matter when GPU is the bottleneck.

FSR 3 is going to be what? It will be inferior to DLSS 3 just like FSR 2 is inferior to DLSS 2. DLSS 1 and FSR 1 both sucked.

AMD is struggling in many areas. RT perf is bad. Features are lacking and pretty much every feature is worse than the Nvidia counterpart. This is why AMD is doing worse than ever in terms of GPU sales. Go look at steam hw survey and you will see that AMD is now below 11% GPU marketshare (March 2023 numbers).

AMD seriously need to release 7800 series with very good performance per dollar to get back in the race. Nvidia is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[EdmondRC]

Yeah, not really; https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4080-noctua-oc/35.html

3080 10GB beats 6800XT 16GB by 5% in 4K 1% low fps.

3070 Ti 8GB performs on par with 6800 16GB.

However none of these cards are good for 4K without DLSS/FSR and DLSS is superior to FSR.

Maybe you should start looking at the performance in games that people actually play, instead of cherrypicking numbers in rushed console ports like TLOU where developer officially said the game has issues with Geforce cards. It is one of the worst console ports ever made according to several reviews.

7900XT won't age better than 4080 because it has 4GB more VRAM. The GPU itself is much weaker than 4080. VRAM won't matter when GPU is the bottleneck.

FSR 3 is going to be what? It will be inferior to DLSS 3 just like FSR 2 is inferior to DLSS 2. DLSS 1 and FSR 1 both sucked.

AMD is struggling in many areas. RT perf is bad. Features are lacking and pretty much every feature is worse than the Nvidia counterpart. This is why AMD is doing worse than ever in terms of GPU sales. Go look at steam hw survey and you will see that AMD is now below 11% GPU marketshare (March 2023 numbers).

AMD seriously need to release 7800 series with very good performance per dollar to get back in the race. Nvidia is laughing all the way to the bank.

What we are seeing is that newer games are pushing beyond the 8/10GB and even the 12GB in resolutions 1440p and above. This does seriously impact the value of these cards that are meant for 1440p and 4K resolutions. I am a 3080 owner and what I am saying is that I will not purchase a GPU upgrade to the 3080 with less than 16GB of VRAM. I probably am not buying 40 series or 7000 series anyway, but I certainly wouldn't settle for 12GB at this point if I'm upgrading from 8 or 10. That's not to say 12 GB is not enough for mid-range cards, it is, but it's not enough for high-end cards at the moment.