Nvidia GeForce RTX 4080 Review: Fast, Expensive & 4K Capable All the Way

EdmondRC

Posts: 447   +655
It's really a great generational uplift over the 3080, but that's a moot point when it is priced completely out of the same tier. To put this in perspective the 3080 ($700) trounced the 2080 Ti ($1100) by about 15-20% and more when RT was factored in. The 3080 surpassed the previous generation's top-tier GPU and maintained its price point. The 4080 generationally is about the same, it surpasses the 3090 Ti, but it does so without any attempt at maintaining the price point, not even the MSRP of the 12GB 3080 at $899. There is nothing to be excited about here, if every new more powerful GPU is going to cost proportionally more money, then you might as well go for the 4090, why purchase a $1200 4080 when the 5080 is going to be about the same price as the 4090 with about the same performance?

It's no wonder so many are considering AMD's 7900 XTX, at the very least it represents a more sustainable pricing model. A 60-70% generational increase without a price increase at all (really a price decrease since the 6950 XT was $1100). And it will outperform the 4080 here in all but RT (though that is disappointing).
 
Last edited:

letsgoiowa

Posts: 115   +218
It's an interesting thought experiment, but there's not many people who should practically buy one of these in a global recession unless you're single and making 6 figures. That's kind of the baseline target demographic here.
Really interesting how if you have $600 to spend, you went from getting THE BEST to their entry level stuff.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,234   +3,898
90/100???
This card is atrocious value for money but you guys gave it 90! Even Tom's hardware who have been 'associated' with Nvidia gave it a 3.5* I.e. 70/100. I wonder what is going on.

What ? You get 52% better performance vs a 3080 for only 71% more money. That‘s clearly worthy of 100%.

It‘s good to see reviewers praising products that continue the trend of offering better value for money.

(sarcasm alert)

Oh, and anyone want to take bets if the $1,000 RX 7900XTX gets a lower score even if it beats the $1,200 RTX 4080 in raster by a good margin ?
 

emmzo

Posts: 813   +1,251
I won't hold my breath for 7900xtx. It will probably trade blows with this 4080 monster in rasterization, but RT is again, dead for team red. Latest benchmark 4k max setting RT enabled, for Dying Light 2 and Cyberpunk, the games are unplayable on 7900xtx without FSR and the results come from AMD themselves. The performance difference in RT is becoming enormous for Nvidia. On one hand few people will pay that much extra for RT, on the other, AMD needs to catch up or be left in the dust in a couple generations.
 

kira setsu

Posts: 447   +434
What ? You get 52% better performance vs a 3080 for only 71% more money. That‘s clearly worthy of 100%.

It‘s good to see reviewers praising products that continue the trend of offering better value for money.

(sarcasm alert)

Oh, and anyone want to take bets if the $1,000 RX 7900XTX gets a lower score even if it beats the $1,200 RTX 4080 in raster by a good margin ?
yeah it'll get a lower score.

it could beat the 4080 in raster but if it loses to raytracing and AI/driver features then it makes sense.

in my eyes once you pass a grand of cash on these toys, tossing another hundred or so on top doesnt mean much if you get the best "overall" package and imo all of the features get weighed, I used an amd card awhile back and sold it for an nvidia card because they have better features for my uses although the choice of card was slightly weaker, it was still better.

with the money these companies want you better pay for the best all-around performance you can afford, thats what nvidia is leaning on.
 

nnguy2

Posts: 649   +1,488
yeah it'll get a lower score.

it could beat the 4080 in raster but if it loses to raytracing and AI/driver features then it makes sense.

in my eyes once you pass a grand of cash on these toys, tossing another hundred or so on top doesnt mean much if you get the best "overall" package and imo all of the features get weighed, I used an amd card awhile back and sold it for an nvidia card because they have better features for my uses although the choice of card was slightly weaker, it was still better.

with the money these companies want you better pay for the best all-around performance you can afford, thats what nvidia is leaning on.

Ray-tracing and upscaling are features in the same bucket as Depth of Field and Motion Blur: stuff that is on permanent off. For me looking for best raster performance that doesn't burn down my PC without paying for fluffy junk features I don't use.
 

jonny888

Posts: 167   +320
Ray-tracing and upscaling are features in the same bucket as Depth of Field and Motion Blur: stuff that is on permanent off. For me looking for best raster performance that doesn't burn down my PC without paying for fluffy junk features I don't use.
I think many people would say that they're features they don't personally care about enough to want to pay extra for. I currently have no intention of buying any 4xxx cards myself. But it seems unreasonable to cast the tech itself as irrelevant.

Upscaling is one of the best technologies/techniques to come out in a long time to help drive higher frame rates without having to sacrifice too much in the way of perceived image quality. If you're running on a low res monitor, sure it won't matter to you. For anyone running a high-refresh 4k monitor, it's fantastic and absolutely could be a deciding factor in which card you buy.

Ray-tracing *was* "fluffy junk" when the performance hits weren't worth the visual trade off. When (some) cards are now able to combine technologies to allow ray tracing and still produce great frame rates, why wouldn't you turn it on if you could? (assuming you place enough value on how pretty things look).

So yeh. I wouldn't write-off technologies that *both* companies are actively pursuing and improving upon. Just don't spend outside of your own needs/means/wants when weighed against what's available.
 

nnguy2

Posts: 649   +1,488
I think many people would say that they're features they don't personally care about enough to want to pay extra for. I currently have no intention of buying any 4xxx cards myself. But it seems unreasonable to cast the tech itself as irrelevant.

Upscaling is one of the best technologies/techniques to come out in a long time to help drive higher frame rates without having to sacrifice too much in the way of perceived image quality. If you're running on a low res monitor, sure it won't matter to you. For anyone running a high-refresh 4k monitor, it's fantastic and absolutely could be a deciding factor in which card you buy.

Ray-tracing *was* "fluffy junk" when the performance hits weren't worth the visual trade off. When (some) cards are now able to combine technologies to allow ray tracing and still produce great frame rates, why wouldn't you turn it on if you could? (assuming you place enough value on how pretty things look).

So yeh. I wouldn't write-off technologies that *both* companies are actively pursuing and improving upon. Just don't spend outside of your own needs/means/wants when weighed against what's available.
Good point. And as you'll notice, I did predicated "For me" in my response. RT without upscaling isn't there yet for my needs. Does RT improve some games? Sure. Does RT improve every game experience where it's implemented? No. Does upscaling improve the experience for me with my 144hz 4k montior (P32UQX)? No. I do not like upscaled images.
You make a good point about not speaking for everyone. People who talk about these features as make or break cases for everyone need to remember these aren't strong selling points for some people.
 

MarcusNumb

Posts: 108   +179
We can't deny that this is a very good GPU in term of performance, power consumption and cooling. If you are a fan of NVIDIA with a proper 4k monitor, go for it. For me, simply I can't digest the price for the beast. I mean 1200 is the minimum, and AIB cards will be around 1250 to 1500 for a 4080, not too insane but clearly not a reasonable price.

Cheers for NVIDIA fans for a good GPU to buy, I'm waiting for the 7900XTX. I'm not gonna upgrade my 3070ti GPU but watching this competition is something like a hobby for spare time.
 

kira setsu

Posts: 447   +434
Ray-tracing and upscaling are features in the same bucket as Depth of Field and Motion Blur: stuff that is on permanent off. For me looking for best raster performance that doesn't burn down my PC without paying for fluffy junk features I don't use.
understandable, in my case I play on pc because I want every bell and whistle in a game flicked on(and trainers)

to each their own.
 

MasterMace

Posts: 241   +184
16 Pin 12vhpwr can do a maximum of 600 watts
Don't worry, the graphics card has an adapter! It can connect 3 - 8pin PCIe plugs
which put out 150W each... 3x 150 = 450 watts... ... ... the adapter needs to be 4 - 8pin PCIe plugs
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 1,094   +2,001
"31% faster than the Radeon 6950 XT"

AMD will have a comfortable lead outside of RT with the 7900xtx. And even the RT performance didn't impress that much (although I would like AMD to at least match the 3090ti).

The RT performance shouldn't impress you, Nvidia has made no ground on the performance hit for RTing. Ada cards still take a 40-45% hit in performance when you enable RT when compared to Ampere that also takes a 40-45% hit in performance.
 

Pastuch

Posts: 151   +167
All this showed me is that dollar per dollar, AMD's cards looked the best. I am NOT spending that kind of money on a GPU.
All this showed me is that dollar per dollar, AMD's cards looked the best. I am NOT spending that kind of money on a GPU.
All this showed me is that dollar per dollar, AMD's cards looked the best. I am NOT spending that kind of money on a GPU.

R290
1080ti
3080
7900xtx is next.
 

brucek

Posts: 1,348   +2,023
"Cost per frame" is an interesting metric but to me not all frames are worth the same. Frames that push average fps from say sub-30 to 60 are pretty valuable. I'm still reasonably motivated up through 75, maybe to 90. As we get to frames 100-120, my wallet is closing.

I realize this is a highly subjective area and each buyer will have their own profile.

Anyway, for me at 5120x1440 max resolution the 4080 is looking like a low value upgrade from 3080. I am also reasonably confident that RT will not go from gimmick to must have during this generation (or ever, until it is present in vastly greater capacity on a future console generation; until then the main priority of developers will still have to be making it look good on raster.)