GeForce RTX 4070Ti Super Reviews

LukeTbk said:
Seem to have the smae perf by dollar than a msrp 4070 super / 4060ti at 1440p, that quite something from AMD

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7600-xt-pulse/34.html

View attachment 629909
Click to expand...
The problem is they didn't need to make a new card.

The 6700XT already exists, cost the same amount, performs better, and is therefore better dollar per value than the 7600XT.

The only reason for this card to exist is essentially for when the 6700XT sells out. I figured you already knew this, because of this:
LukeTbk said:
In that in a world of nothing launch..... how much the 7800xt changed things price-performance over the real world 6800xt price of the time.... or the 4060/4070, lot of launch were we update to a cheaper to make card to be able to offer the same performance at the same price without hurting the margin in a inflationary world type.
Click to expand...
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The problem is they didn't need to make a new card.
Click to expand...
Maybe more we did not needed it, more than them not needing it.

7600xt is 204mm of TSMC 6 with a 128 bit bus, must be quite cheaper to make than 335m of TSMC 7 with a 192 bit bus like a 6700xt, the reason that card exist is indeed to create a cheaper to make 6700xt replacement
 
LukeTbk said:
Maybe more we did not needed, more than them.

7600xt is 204mm of TSMC 6 with a 128 bit bus, must be quite cheaper to make than 335m of TSMC 7 with a 192 bit bus like a 6700xt, the reason that card exist is indeed to create a cheaper to make 6700xt replacement
Click to expand...
Sure, but if it doesn't cost any less for the consumer, then we don't care - costing less for AMD (or nVidia for that matter) is quite possibly the least important metric to point out. And it performs worse. Look at the chart you posted. The 6700XT is "126%" vs the 7600XT's 100% in terms of performance per dollar.

EDIT: If they wanted to justify this card to us as buyers, then it should have had at least the same PPD as the 6700XT. Which means it should cost significantly less than it does. Either that or perform significantly better than it does. Either way it's a bad buy and a price to performance regression.

It is the definition of a crap card. It doesn't matter if it's AMD or nVidia are doing it, they're both guilty of this BS and either way it's bad.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Sure, but if it doesn't cost any less for the consumer, then we don't care - costing less for AMD is quite possibly the least important metric to point out. And it performs worse. Look at the chart you posted. The 6700XT is "126%" vs the 7600XT's 100% in terms of performance per dollar.
Click to expand...
That would be hard to know, if they would try to make large volume of 6700xt to sell at what price point would it make sense and does the launch (and rest of 2024 price) of the 7600xt not under it.

Could be hard to judge using fume of old stock that need to be sold price.

It is true that it is not an important metric for us customer that want to see a pressure on the price per frame to go down, just meant in term of the statement that AMD did not needed to make a 6700xt replacement at that price point, hard to know without knowing the present and expected future bom cost, maybe they did or maybe it is pure just going from good to better margin (something you always should try to do even if you do not need to).
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
That would be hard to know, if they would try to make large volume of 6700xt to sell at what price point would it make sense and does the launch (and rest of 2024 price) of the 7600xt not under it.

Could be hard to judge using fume of old stock that need to be sold price.
Click to expand...
Again, as consumers we don't care about any of this stuff.

If I was in this situation of wanting a card that costs $300 +/-$50, there is no way I would consider this card. It would make far more sense to get a 4060 8GB over this. Literally why bother? Either make it price competitive or it's not going to sell. To think that it is important or will sell when it offers nothing is basically an insult to the consumer base. This card deserves to die on the vine until they put it at a price that actually makes sense.

The irony is that AMD understands this in the mid to top end (or mid-high if you want to argue that because they don't have a 4090 competitor they don't have a high end card, though I would say that's ultra high end or Titan level etc). They have strategically priced the 7800XT, 7900XT, and 7900XTX so that the price class makes sense. And equally so the RDNA2 cards like the 6700xt, 6800, 6800XT, 6900, 6900XT, and 6950XT all line up incredibly competitively vs nVidia's options.

I would rather have AMD stop selling cards <$400 than this. Just make APU's then that perform the same because it's a waste of silicon at best and insulting to buyers at worst.
LukeTbk said:
It is true that it is not an important metric for us customer that want to see a pressure on the price per frame to go down, just meant in term of the statement that AMD did not needed to make a 6700xt replacement at that price point, all to know without knowing the present and expected future bom cost, maybe they did or maybe it is pure just going from good to better margin (something you always should try to do even if you do not need to).
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be rude, but again, we don't care about AMD's margins.

If they want higher margins then they need to compete at every level vs the nVidia offerings. Like it or not, where AMD wins is by offering better dollar value. If they price their cards with the same margins in terms of dollar per performance vs an nVidia card, guess what everyone will do?: Buy the nVidia card. Even if you're a person that would "never buy green", you have to concede that that is what the general consensus and general consumers will do. I basically said as such above. For the price of the 7600XT, you may as well get a 4060 8GB, and that's with 8GB of less RAM.
 
Last edited:
 
DogsofJune said:
Wonderful if your needs require a 1080p card.
Click to expand...
Even then the big selling point I imagine would be the 16GB of vram, how often will it ever be a nice plus at 1080p ?

16GB for a weaker side game card tend to be nice for non gaming workload, could less common here than on the nvidia side of things.

UnknownSouljer said:
I don't mean to be rude, but again, we don't care about AMD's margins.
Click to expand...
Well not need to be rude but it is you that started a conversation about needing or not to make a cheaper 6700xt replacement.

Maybe they did not needed to make the 7800xt and could have easily eat the cost of just making way more expensive 6800xt sold at that price, but maybe not, need being a bit of a fuzzy word.
 
OKC Yeakey Trentadue said:
What are you trying to show (or say for that manner??)
Click to expand...
1) That it is rare for a card of a lower performance class to not have a better price-performance than the higher performing class, you usually pay more for the extra frame as they go.
2) That it is rare for an AMD card to not have better performance per dollars than Nvidia.

In both aspect it is quite something from them.
 
LukeTbk said:
Well not need to be rude but it is you that started a conversation about needing or not to make a cheaper 6700xt replacement
Click to expand...
If that's what you've gathered then you've missed the point.

If AMD wants to make a new card then it needs to better than the card it replaces in either performance or value or both. If they are unwilling or unable to do that basic thing, then there is no reason to make a different card.

Cheaper for AMD is irrelevant. If it's not price competitive then people won't buy it. 100% of 0 is still zero. Simply 'making a card' doesn't mean it's a replacement that anyone will buy.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
1) That it is rare for a card of a lower performance class to not have a better price-performance than the higher performing class, you usually pay more for the extra frame as they go.
2) That it is rare for an AMD card to not have better performance per dollars than Nvidia.

In both aspect it is quite something from them.
Click to expand...

AMD generally does better in performance/$ in rasterization but worse in rt and efficiency.

This has been the case for the last few generations so nothing new.
 
OKC Yeakey Trentadue said:
This has been the case for the last few generations so nothing new.
Click to expand...
But here it does not do better performance/$ in rasterization not even compared to higher performing NVIDIA card, that seem new and due to a bit of a mismatch of vram amount vs its usefulness at that level of power.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
If AMD wants to make a new card then it needs to better than the card it replaces in either performance or value or both. If they are unwilling or unable to do that basic thing, then there is no reason to make a different card.
Click to expand...
I told you a possible reason, the new card with the same performance and price cost them less to make, which is not a reason for anyone to buy it, but an obvious reason for AMD to make it.

UnknownSouljer said:
Cheaper for AMD is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Not for them when talking from their point of view (when used they, in the sentence need or not), should we care about what best for them (if you are not a stockholder outside a tiny exposition via S&P500 and other index) different, I have been clear in all my message that different and it is hard to know for the information, would a large volume of new 6700xt able to stay at that price point....
 
LukeTbk said:
I told you a possible reason, the new card with the same performance and price cost them less to make, which is not a reason for anyone to buy it, but an obvious reason for AMD to make it.


Not for them when talking from their point of view (when used they, in the sentence need or not), should we care about what best for them (if you are not a stockholder outside a tiny exposition via S&P500 and other index) different, I have been clear in all my message that different and it is hard to know for the information, would a large volume of new 6700xt able to stay at that price point....
Click to expand...
It's like you don't understand or refuse to understand that offering lower value means people will not buy their product.

Okay, AMD's "margin is better". But Zero out of zero is still zero. Having a higher margin but then not selling that product at all means losing money. I don't know how to explain this any simpler.

Everything I've been saying this entire time is in context of that. In order for "higher margins" to work, they still have to actually sell the thing, which in this case has worse value and no competitive performance advantage versus their competitor that has brand recognition.

Again, how this affects the consumer is the relevant part. If it's all about margin and the consumer's desire to purchase it means nothing: then they should just price the 7600XT at $1000 or $2000. Why stop at the price they did? It's higher margin then right? I don't see how you don't understand this.
 
Last edited:
4070 Ti Super is not bad but a bit dissapointing. Not only it is a card that 4070 Ti was supposed to be ALMOST A YEAR AGO, it also just managed to make 7900XT look very good now that its price has dropped. And make no mistake, at ~800€ 7900XT IS fantastic as long as you do not care about Ray tracing. At this level DLSS is irrelevant as this is a 4K card and at 4K there is very little difference between FSR and DLSS in Quality setting.
 
Dying light 2 seems to be one of the most bandwidth heavy games while being able to leverage L2 cache of the AMD and RTX 40 Series. Green being better than average bandwidth or cache for that price with orange being lower.
Screenshot_20240125-173853_Excel.jpg


A 3060 8GB basically becomes a 3050 and the 2060 matches a 3060 12gb. The 4070tiS is no better than a 4070ti.
20240125_115306.jpg
20240125_113654.jpg
20240125_115355.jpg


Would love to see how a 3060ti gddr6x does in that game :p
 
There is something going on with the 4070 TI super. There are cases where the 4080 is over 20% faster than the 4070 TI super which makes zero sense based on the specs difference. And really if you look at reviews performance is all over the place.
 
jobert said:
There is something going on with the 4070 TI super. There are cases where the 4080 is over 20% faster than the 4070 TI super which makes zero sense based on the specs difference. And really if you look at reviews performance is all over the place.
Click to expand...
Feels like Nvidia intentionally nerfed the 4070 Ti Super because they were afraid it would cut into their nearly non-existent 4080 sales! :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top