Nvidia could launch the RTX 4070 in just over four weeks

[midian182]

Rumor mill: Following last month's news that Nvidia seems likely to launch the RTX 4070 (non-Ti version) in April, a new leaker with a good record has narrowed down the date to April 13. While some of the card's specs seem pretty much locked in, we still don't know the all-important price, though it will probably be more expensive than you'd expect.

It was last month when alleged embargo documents from Nvidia revealed that the RTX 4070 was dropping in April. It never gave an exact date, but according to hardware leaker hongxing2020 (via VideoCardz), who has been accurate with previous RTX 30xx and RTX 40xx reveal dates, April 13 will be the day the card arrives.

3.11 update
4070 --->4/13

— hongxing2020 (@hongxing2020) March 11, 2023

Like the RTX 4070 Ti, the RTX 4070 is set to come with 12GB of GDDR6X memory across a 192-bit interface for 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The upcoming card is also based on the AD104 GPU (AD104-250-A1 variant).

Being lower down the Ada Lovelace hierarchy, the RTX 4070's number of CUDA cores is cut from 7,680 in the Ti version to 5,888. Some believe that the TDP will drop from 285W to 200W, though that's not universally agreed, as others claim both cards will have a 285W TDP.

The big question is how much Nvidia will charge for the RTX 4070. The Ada Lovelace series has faced plenty of criticism over its high prices, but team green is unlikely to go against the trend here. The RTX 3070, for comparison, arrived with a $499 starting price. That almost certainly won't be the case with the RTX 4070, which many suspect will have a $699 MSRP. That's $100 less than the RTX 4070 Ti (formerly the 12GB RTX 4080), though most cards cost more than the recommended price.

Despite their wallet-busting nature, the RTX 4000 series is proving popular enough to break into the Steam survey. Both the RTX 4070 Ti and the RTX 4080 made it into the main GPU chart in February, joining the RTX 4090 that arrived a month prior.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97908-nvidia-could-launch-rtx-4070-over-four-weeks.html

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Sounds awful.

If this card comes in priced under $699, I'd be surprised.

Considering the 4080 12GB (a.k.a 4070Ti) is on par in that 3090/90Ti range which only lands about 15-20% faster than the 3080 I'd in terms of performance I venture to guess that the 4070 be around 5% faster than a 10GB 3080. I say this because Nvidia needs to leave a gap there to fill with the future 4070 Super that'll release just before they drop their 5090 at $2100.

 

[KofeViR]

Might be a hit because of 200 watt TGP but will depend on price. I doubt it will be 200 watt, more like 225. They are upping the clockspeed slightly compared to 4070 Ti - meaning less headroom for OC and higher watt usage @ stock, core for core.

At least they are not gimping bus to 160 bit and put 10GB on it.

I expect 3080 perf from 4070 but at much lower watts with slightly more VRAM. It will sell just fine at 499-599 dollars in this market. $499-549 would actually be great compared to what you can get for this money today... (Last gen and powerhungry cards)

AMD, where is 7800 series...? Do you want to compete or not?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Sounds awful.

If this card comes in priced under $699, I'd be surprised.

Considering the 4080 12GB (a.k.a 4070Ti) is on par in that 3090/90Ti range which only lands about 15-20% faster than the 3080 I'd in terms of performance I venture to guess that the 4070 be around 5% faster than a 10GB 3080. I say this because Nvidia needs to leave a gap there to fill with the future 4070 Super that'll release just before they drop their 5090 at $2100.

Link please to the 3070 Super.

 

[Avro Arrow]

"How much will it cost? A lot, probably"
- In other news, the sky is blue.

I have to hand it to nVidia, the rollout of their RTX 40-series has been an order of magnitude better-executed than AMD's rollout of the RX 7000-series. AMD's rollout has been a complete joke in comparison. Sure, their cards are the better buy in 90% of cases but the availability hasn't been there and they've still only released two cards. Of those two cards, neither of them is worth buying at the prices they're at. Until last week, the RX 7900 XT specifically, seemed like nothing more than a bad joke. Now that AMD dropped the price on it by $100, it is the better buy compared to the RTX 4070 Ti overall but AMD really shot themselves in the foot by asking $900 for it and in the process guaranteed that it would be panned by reviewers for that reason.

Despite all of this crap, the Radeon cards are still better purchases compared to their GeForce counterparts as the RX 7900 XT is faster than the RTX 4070 Ti and has a 67% VRAM advantage (20GB vs 12GB). That's even larger than the already-huge advantage that the RX 6800 XT had over the RTX 3080. Meanwhile, the RX 7900 XTX is still the better choice over the RTX 4080 with it also being faster and also enjoying an 8GB VRAM advantage over the RTX 4080 despite being $200 less expensive.

Yeah, one of the best things about being a Radeon user is the fact that I'm immune from nVidia's pricing "strategies" (most of the time). I honestly don't even know what the prices on GeForce cards are most of the time but every time I check what they are my brain says:
"Yeah, there's no way I'm paying that much money for that card."

Over the years, nVidia's prices have only served to solidify my desire to never own a GeForce card because at the same price point (the one that I was willing/able to pay), the Radeon card was always a good deal faster. Since I'm just a gamer and do nothing with a card but gaming, CUDA offers me nothing and so far, neither does DLSS or RT.

 

[Blqckout]

Nvidea should just stop making gpus
its terrible, how many more will come out till they learn that their gpus are only good for anything NON GAMING

 

[Jarvi5]

Nvidea should just stop making gpus
its terrible, how many more will come out till they learn that their gpus are only good for anything NON GAMING

Er, their GPUs are great for gaming. The issue is they are disproportionately expensive at the moment.

 

[Blqckout]

Er, their GPUs are great for gaming. The issue is they are disproportionately expensive at the moment.

their gpus arent catered to gaming anymore, just ai and 3d modeling and such, but still get "recomended" for gaming, even tho AMD's GPU's are MUCH better in that aspect, they should step down from gaming and just go full on into the work and 3d modeling space since they are going slowly into it

 

[Avro Arrow]

Sounds awful.

If this card comes in priced under $699, I'd be surprised.

I don't think that surprised is the word... "shocked" would be more my reaction to it.

Considering the 4080 12GB (a.k.a 4070Ti) is on par in that 3090/90Ti range which only lands about 15-20% faster than the 3080 I'd in terms of performance I venture to guess that the 4070 be around 5% faster than a 10GB 3080. I say this because Nvidia needs to leave a gap there to fill with the future 4070 Super that'll release just before they drop their 5090 at $2100.

Only $2100??? What a BARGAIN!

Might be a hit because of 200 watt TGP but will depend on price. I doubt it will be 200 watt, more like 225. They are upping the clockspeed slightly compared to 4070 Ti - meaning less headroom for OC and higher watt usage @ stock, core for core.

I don't think that anyone actually cares about power draw anymore. Just look at the people who bought RTX 30-series cards despite the higher power draw compared to the RX 6000 cards. Hell, just look at the people buying Intel 13th-gen CPUs despite some of them drawing more power than video cards!

Just being 200W won't be enough to sell this card. Fortunately for nVidia, the fact that it's in a green box is enough for a lot of clueless noobs to buy it.

At least they are not gimping bus to 160 bit and put 10GB on it.

Sure, but the 12GB still not enough though. A level-7 of this generation should have 16GB because, as we've seen, GPUs with RTX 3080/RX 6800 XT-levels of performance can use 16GB of VRAM and will surely need to in the future. Putting 12GB on a level-7 card in the RTX 40 generation is just nVidia's way of saying "LOOK, we're putting more VRAM!" and people will fall for it simply because the level-7 of the last generation had set the bar so low with only 8GB (the same as an RX 6600). It is already generally accepted that 10GB was nowhere near enough VRAM for the RTX 3080 and I honestly believe that 12GB on this card will still be a limiting factor in the mid-to-long term. Sure, it will outlive the RTX 3080 but will still not live as long as an RX 6800 XT, despite being newer and more expensive.

However, I can't really fault nVidia for doing it because if people were dumb enough to buy a level-8 card with 10GB of VRAM, they'll certainly clamour to buy a level-7 card with more. After all, a lot of these clueless noobs don't realise that as GPUs get faster, they need more VRAM to ensure that the end user can leverage said speed for as long as it's usable. We've already seen that the effects of insufficient VRAM can be catastrophic, especially when trying to use RT, something that nVidia pushes like crazy.

I expect 3080 perf from 4070 but at much lower watts with slightly more VRAM.

I agree and while it will look much better on paper to the clueless noobs, its longevity will still be severely hampered. Of course, since these noobs who buy this stuff won't know that cards like the 6800 XT will still be viable when their card is finally unusable so they won't have learnt anything.

It will sell just fine at 499-599 dollars in this market. $499-549 would actually be great compared to what you can get for this money today... (Last gen and powerhungry cards)

I have a term for the thought of nVidia selling the RTX 4070 for $500-$600 and that term is "PDP" or "Pipe Dream Pricing" because I 100% expect that it will have an MSRP of no less than $700USD, count on it!

AMD, where is 7800 series...? Do you want to compete or not?

Yeah, it's just insane what has been going on at AMD. The releases of Zen1-3 and RDNA1-2 were incredibly well-done. Sure, Zen3 and RDNA2 got ruined by all the crap that followed but that wasn't their fault. Their marketing was honest, forthcoming and amazingly transparent. I truly believe that the trust they built led to far more success than they ever would have achieved by over-hyping and under-delivering like they did with Bulldozer and RDNA3. Don't get me started on their decision to have R9 X3D CPUs while not having an R5 X3D CPU.

However, when I think of the current conduct of AMD executives, I keep getting videos like this in my head:

 

[Jarvi5]

their gpus arent catered to gaming anymore, just ai and 3d modeling and such, but still get "recomended" for gaming, even tho AMD's GPU's are MUCH better in that aspect, they should step down from gaming and just go full on into the work and 3d modeling space since they are going slowly into it

Why are AMD’s better? Surely what makes a good gpu is a combination of performance, features, power consumption and cost. I’ve just bought a Radeon RX 6700XT which I believe is the best value gpu around my budget, but if you take price out of the equation is it ‘much better’ than Nvidia’s equivalents?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Avro Arrow]

Er, their GPUs are great for gaming.

Yep, there's no question about that.

The issue is they are disproportionately expensive at the moment.

What do you mean "at the moment"? You must be new or something because nVidia has been disproportionately expensive since 2006. That's one hell of a loooong "moment", eh?

While working at Tiger Direct between 2007 and 2008, I'd learnt that Intel and nVidia were just not worth it for people who primarily used their PCs for gaming. Every rig that I've build since then has either had a Phenom II, FX or Ryzen CPU coupled with a Radeon GPU. It wasn't because I "loved" AMD (Although they treated consumers far better than the other two, that's for sure) but because the numbers just didn't add up.

Having an all-AMD build maximised every dollar that I spent which means that for the same price, I always got a better machine if there are no Intel or nVidia parts in it. Since I never had a halo-level build budget (and let's be honest, how many people do?), I had to look at what combination of parts would give me the best gaming experience, because all CPUs already run Windows at breakneck speed.

Without having a budget for the most exorbitant parts, the best that I could get was always an all-AMD build. It's something that most people hadn't managed to get through their skulls. One thing is for sure though, "at the moment" is not an accurate way to describe nVidia's predatory pricing schemes.

their gpus arent catered to gaming anymore, just ai and 3d modeling and such, but still get "recomended" for gaming, even tho AMD's GPU's are MUCH better in that aspect, they should step down from gaming and just go full on into the work and 3d modeling space since they are going slowly into it

There's not a chance that nVidia will leave the gaming space while they can still rake in record profits through the ignorance of their customers. They're like Apple that way and leaving the gaming space would make no sense to them.

It doesn't matter if a Radeon would serve a gamer better than a GeForce if the gamers themselves are too ignorant and/or lazy to realise it. All that matters is the fact that green cards sell just because they're green cards.

 

[Jarvi5]

Yep, there's no question about that.

What do you mean "at the moment"? You must be new or something because nVidia has been disproportionately expensive since 2006. That's one hell of a loooong "moment", eh?

While working at Tiger Direct between 2007 and 2008, I'd learnt that Intel and nVidia were just not worth it for people who primarily used their PCs for gaming. Every rig that I've build since then has either had a Phenom II, FX or Ryzen CPU coupled with a Radeon GPU. It wasn't because I "loved" AMD (Although they treated consumers far better than the other two, that's for sure) but because the numbers just didn't add up.

Having an all-AMD build maximised every dollar that I spent which means that for the same price, I always got a better machine if there are no Intel or nVidia parts in it. Since I never had a halo-level build budget (and let's be honest, how many people do?), I had to look at what combination of parts would give me the best gaming experience, because all CPUs already run Windows at breakneck speed.

Without having a budget for the most exorbitant parts, the best that I could get was always an all-AMD build. It's something that most people hadn't managed to get through their skulls. One thing is for sure though, "at the moment" is not an accurate way to describe nVidia's predatory pricing schemes.

There's not a chance that nVidia will leave the gaming space while they can still rake in record profits through the ignorance of their customers. They're like Apple that way and leaving the gaming space would make no sense to them.

It doesn't matter if a Radeon would serve a gamer better than a GeForce if the gamers themselves are too ignorant and/or lazy to realise it. All that matters is the fact that green cards sell just because they're green cards.

By ‘at the moment’ I was referring to the current pricing, particularly of the 30s and 40s series. I‘ve always bought what offered best performance/£, also taking power consumption into consideration. Recently, that’s included an RX 580, a GTX 1070 and an RTX 3050 before my current RX 6700XT. Maybe it’s different in other regions, but in the UK neither AMD or Nvidia are ALWAYS the best value.

 

[Avro Arrow]

By ‘at the moment’ I was referring to the current pricing, particularly of the 30s and 40s series. I‘ve always bought what offered best performance/£, also taking power consumption into consideration. Recently, that’s included an RX 580, a GTX 1070 and an RTX 3050 before my current RX 6700XT. Maybe it’s different in other regions, but in the UK neither AMD or Nvidia are ALWAYS the best value.

Yeah, it's weird how that works, eh? I honestly could never understand how something could be a better deal in one market while being worse in another.

You'd think that the price is the price and the differences would be the same no matter where you are. Somehow reality manages to circumvent simple logic like that.

 

[EdmondRC]

My guess is that it will be $599 and they'll act like that's a deal. It will be 20-25% slower than the 4070 Ti, so that's a full performance tier lower. The 4060 Ti will be $499 and the 4060 will be $399. I bet the 4080 will get a price cut to $1099 or $999, but likely the former. I think they'll make this change during the announcement for the 4070. The 4080 Ti will release later for $1299, the 4080 will need to be reduced before then because it would make it all to obvious how overpriced it really is.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

their gpus arent catered to gaming anymore, just ai and 3d modeling and such, but still get "recomended" for gaming, even tho AMD's GPU's are MUCH better in that aspect, they should step down from gaming and just go full on into the work and 3d modeling space since they are going slowly into it

Do tell.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/kV...-ti-12-gb-video-card-tuf-rtx4070ti-12g-gaming
Asus TUF GAMING RTX 4070 Ti 12GB Video Card $799.99

 

[DukeJukem]

To be fair these prices are the fault of the consumers for buying cards at insane prices during the shortages when all the mining was happening. You've let nVidia know you'll pay and now look what's happening. What's even worse is that you'll continue to pay even though inflation is literally to the heavens right now for literally everything. Thanks consumers.

 

[Blqckout]

Do tell.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/kV...-ti-12-gb-video-card-tuf-rtx4070ti-12g-gaming
Asus TUF GAMING RTX 4070 Ti 12GB Video Card $799.99

meanwhile the 7900xt is 800 bucks here too

 

[CMP01]

"How much will it cost? A lot, probably"
- In other news, the sky is blue.

I have to hand it to nVidia, the rollout of their RTX 40-series has been an order of magnitude better-executed than AMD's rollout of the RX 7000-series. AMD's rollout has been a complete joke in comparison. Sure, their cards are the better buy in 90% of cases but the availability hasn't been there and they've still only released two cards. Of those two cards, neither of them is worth buying at the prices they're at. Until last week, the RX 7900 XT specifically, seemed like nothing more than a bad joke. Now that AMD dropped the price on it by $100, it is the better buy compared to the RTX 4070 Ti overall but AMD really shot themselves in the foot by asking $900 for it and in the process guaranteed that it would be panned by reviewers for that reason.

Despite all of this crap, the Radeon cards are still better purchases compared to their GeForce counterparts as the RX 7900 XT is faster than the RTX 4070 Ti and has a 67% VRAM advantage (20GB vs 12GB). That's even larger than the already-huge advantage that the RX 6800 XT had over the RTX 3080. Meanwhile, the RX 7900 XTX is still the better choice over the RTX 4080 with it also being faster and also enjoying an 8GB VRAM advantage over the RTX 4080 despite being $200 less expensive.

Yeah, one of the best things about being a Radeon user is the fact that I'm immune from nVidia's pricing "strategies" (most of the time). I honestly don't even know what the prices on GeForce cards are most of the time but every time I check what they are my brain says:
"Yeah, there's no way I'm paying that much money for that card."

Over the years, nVidia's prices have only served to solidify my desire to never own a GeForce card because at the same price point (the one that I was willing/able to pay), the Radeon card was always a good deal faster. Since I'm just a gamer and do nothing with a card but gaming, CUDA offers me nothing and so far, neither does DLSS or RT.

Yeah, Nvidia's been tripping for a couple of years now but AMD just turned up to this party like Oliver Reed turning up drunk to that live TV interview in the 80's.

Still, also being a gamer only I know where my better, cheaper choice for much the same lies.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Why are AMD’s better? Surely what makes a good gpu is a combination of performance, features, power consumption and cost. I’ve just bought a Radeon RX 6700XT which I believe is the best value gpu around my budget, but if you take price out of the equation is it ‘much better’ than Nvidia’s equivalents?

I see what you're getting at but the logic is completely broken. If you take price out of the equation, then there aren't any "equivalent" nVidia cards because no two cards have the exact same performance. What could be a performance equivalent in one game wouldn't be in another. The selling prices are what make products "equivalents" in the first place. This is because it's the price that says who a product is aimed at.

It's like, sure, the RTX 4090 is the fastest card so I guess that one could say that the RTX 4090's "equivalent" is the RX 7900 XTX. The thing is, there's a significant performance gulf between them and without price being in the mix, the comparison lacks vital context.

However in the real world, there's a little matter of a $670 price difference so it would be like comparing the RX 7900 XTX to the RTX 3060 in absolute dollars or the RTX 3070 Ti in percentage delta. Of course, these comparisons are absurd but they could be done if the context given to the equation by price was removed.

I don't care which cards are "performance-equivalents" and never have. I consider what my desires are and what I can afford to form a budget. Theoretically, whichever card gives me the best performance within the constraints of my budget is the card that I buy. That's not entirely true because I refuse to buy nVidia. However, I can honestly say that even if I didn't hate the nVidia corporation, I still would've ended up with the exact same Radeon cards from 2008 to today.

Any time I hear someone (in the North American market) say that they buy the best bang-for-the-buck but have a GeForce card, I call them a liar and an ID10.T straight to their face because GeForce cards never give the best bang-for-the-buck and few things piss me off more than grown adults who tell lies.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Yeah, Nvidia's been tripping for a couple of years now but AMD just turned up to this party like Oliver Reed turning up drunk to that live TV interview in the 80's.

Still, also being a gamer only I know where my better, cheaper choice for much the same lies.

Yup, with the drunk guy who arrived late. You're A LOT wiser than most people who only game because they like to pay extra for things like CUDA or RTX then never use either of them.

 

[Q Wales]

Wouldn't pay $500 for it

 

[Jarvi5]

I see what you're getting at but the logic is completely broken. If you take price out of the equation, then there aren't any "equivalent" nVidia cards because no two cards have the exact same performance. What could be a performance equivalent in one game wouldn't be in another. The selling prices are what make products "equivalents" in the first place. This is because it's the price that says who a product is aimed at.

I don’t think my logic is broken. I wanted to roughly double the performance of my previous card to allow me to play some games that I’d held off from because they were too demanding. That led me to the RX 6700 XT, the RX 6750 XT, the RTX 3060ti and the RTX 3070. In Steve’s reviews the average performance of each of these was in a range close enough to consider equivalent. I then chose based on best price.

”I consider what my desires are and what I can afford to form a budget. Theoretically, whichever card gives me the best performance within the constraints of my budget is the card that I buy.”

So fairly similar then. My desire was to roughly double performance, which gave me the ‘equivalents’.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I don’t think my logic is broken. I wanted to roughly double the performance of my previous card to allow me to play some games that I’d held off from because they were too demanding. That led me to the RX 6700 XT, the RX 6750 XT, the RTX 3060ti and the RTX 3070. In Steve’s reviews the average performance of each of these was in a range close enough to consider equivalent. I then chose based on best price.

”I consider what my desires are and what I can afford to form a budget. Theoretically, whichever card gives me the best performance within the constraints of my budget is the card that I buy.”

So fairly similar then. My desire was to roughly double performance, which gave me the ‘equivalents’.

The broken logic was the removal of cost from the equation. You just said yourself:

I then chose based on best price.

My point was that you can't remove price from the equation because that's as significant an aspect of a product as anything else, often even more so. Price gives context to every other feature or flaw that a product has. Sure, the RTX 4090 is impressive but it would be a lot more impressive if it were half the price, so impressive that people would be going nuts to get their hands on one.

When it comes to commerce, "Great" is inferior to "Great for the price" because the latter is far more likely to succeed than the former.

Great = Lamborghini
Great for the Price = Toyota

Which of those two companies is the most successful?