If true, my RTX 4090 ain't going anywhere.One nice thing I found out is the 4000 series will support DLSS 4 and enhanced Frame generation, it makes keeping my 4080 even more appealing.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If true, my RTX 4090 ain't going anywhere.One nice thing I found out is the 4000 series will support DLSS 4 and enhanced Frame generation, it makes keeping my 4080 even more appealing.
That's a bit disingenuous. A LOT of people here (a forum for hardware enthusiasts, at a bare minimum SLIGHTLY more savvy than the average joe-consumer) are believing that the 5070 is just as powerful as a 4090, only to find out that is not true when others here point out the fine print.I don't see how he hide it? We all immediately know it so seems above board?
Jensen literally spoke about dlss and how they made it and then introduced the 5070 as performant as it is only because of dlss. What is he supposed to do?That's a bit disingenuous. A LOT of people here (a forum for hardware enthusiasts, at a bare minimum SLIGHTLY more savvy than the average joe-consumer) are believing that the 5070 is just as powerful as a 4090, only to find out that is not true when others here point out the fine print.
That chart shows that dlss4 multigen will not be available on the 4xxx series.
Thats fine, I don't have it now, but the DLSS 4 and Enhanced Frame generation will be available. Best of all it's free!That chart shows that dlss4 multigen will not be available on the 4xxx series.
Glad I sold mine last month for more than I bought it.Huh, maybe I should just get a panic-sale 4090, then...![]()
No multi frame gen correct, yes enhanced frame gen and DLSS4No, the chart says it won't be. Dlss4 yes, multigen enhanced frame gen no.
Uhh because it’s not new? 40 series has itHow do you know that?
Since you’re all in on the 5070 being just as powerful as a 4090.. is it safe to assume if both were offered to you for free but you could only pick one, you’d select the 5070 since it’s “just as powerful” but you’ll have the benefit of lower power consumption?Jensen literally spoke about dlss and how they made it and then introduced the 5070 as performant as it is only because of dlss. What is he supposed to do?
His point was to introduce the dlss model frame gen as a feature.
I don't know how I would say it differently given that i can ONLY put positivity on my words (else your shareholders will skin you alive).
I can also play my stereo louder from a cassette player than from my high-end turntable.lol, if people really think the 5070 will be as fast as a 4090 they got another thing coming. Remember the 4070 being as fast as a 3090ti? Yeah with dlss.
Its all marketing with DLSS 4.0. What DLSS 4.0 does achieve is getting closer to 4k 240hz with down sampling "quality" and better frame gen...
Cannot wait to snag a 5090 on the 30th.
Yea DLSS4 is basically just 4x frame gen from lossless but more AI based so more polished. Probably going to be about half the 4090 in raster. The 5080 I would expect to be slower than the 4090 in raster and only matching it with pathtracing on.lol, if people really think the 5070 will be as fast as a 4090 they got another thing coming. Remember the 4070 being as fast as a 3090ti? Yeah with dlss.
Its all marketing with DLSS 4.0. What DLSS 4.0 does achieve is getting closer to 4k 240hz with down sampling "quality" and better frame gen...
Cannot wait to snag a 5090 on the 30th.
100% agree. Too many people like lowering their image quality for framerates. I for one try not to use dlss if I have the horsepower for it. But, dlss also lets me have longevity with my GPU. Case in point my 3090 has lasted me 4 years and dlss let it last longer than it normally would.I can also play my stereo louder from a cassette player than from my high-end turntable.
Better frames for downgraded image quality and fluidity. We really need a reviewer to take [H]'s old approach of focusing on quality and overall experience.
Far Cry 6 is the raw performance numbers without trickery, but it is with RT enabled so we probably will see even less gain in raw raster. Looks like it will probably be in the 15-40% uplift in most games over the 4080 when the game world is synced between rendering and calculated physics/object positions, basically FG disabled.In every one of their 1st-party benchmarks, they use 4x FG (1FPS->4FPS) and every other trick in the book to boost the FPS on the 50 series.
In terms of raw actual compute performance the 5080 isn't even close to the 4090, let alone the 5070.
View attachment 702248
Yea seems so. I'll wait for 60xx gen I suppose, hopefully I can get a 480hz oled monitor I like by then.Far Cry 6 is the raw performance numbers without trickery, but it is with RT enabled so we probably will see even less gain in raw raster. Looks like it will probably be in the 15-40% uplift in most games over the 4080 when the game world is synced between rendering and calculated physics/object positions, basically FG disabled.
Yeah the hype train is all ramped up for sure. The marketing crap they put out, and the lack of good new games lately it makes me glad I won't be upgrading.If anyone is super worried about the 5070 matching their 4090, I'll happy buy your 4090 from you at the 5070's MSRP, infact, I'm such a swell guy I'll cover the shipping.
No games are interesting now.Yeah the hype train is all ramped up for sure. The marketing crap they put out, and the lack of good new games lately it makes me glad I won't be upgrading.
Agreed.
Frame Gen isn't "Trash" per-se, but it is a feature and not performance. It has positives and negatives: it and can ruin some experiences and enhance others.
It is not a 1-to-1 substitute for actual performance and advertising a 5070 to be "as fast as a 4090" but hiding the subtext that such equivalence is ONLY in games where 4x FrameGen is used is disingenuous.
Pending actual rasterization performance improvements, I would expect 4080s to be around $500 or less. Def not 4090s, as there's no substitute for 24GB VRAM and I would expect actual rasterization (and even DLSS 2/3) performance to be in line with the $750 5070 TI at least, if not the 5080.This.
Thank you.
So yeah a 5070 for $550 bucks isn't the same performance as as the $1,500 4090.
Curious if the 5070 is on par with the 4090 will the Marketplace be dumping 4090's for under $500 now? I highly doubt it.
5070 won't be on par with 4090 in "real" performance (not counting the 1/2 VRAM) -- it's not even nearly possible. It's more likely close to 4080/Super in actual rasterization.This.
Thank you.
So yeah a 5070 for $550 bucks isn't the same performance as as the $1,500 4090.
Curious if the 5070 is on par with the 4090 will the Marketplace be dumping 4090's for under $500 now? I highly doubt it.
No games are interesting now.
Exactly.That's the key problem. The 5090 is impressive, but what would I do with it? Things dried up in terms of games that would tempt me to upgrade.
Far Cry 6 is an outlier that performs poorly on NVIDIA hardware, so I don't know why NVIDIA chose to use it as an example.Far Cry 6 is the raw performance numbers without trickery, but it is with RT enabled so we probably will see even less gain in raw raster. Looks like it will probably be in the 15-40% uplift in most games over the 4080 when the game world is synced between rendering and calculated physics/object positions, basically FG disabled.
I don't know how it's outlandish when the 4070 Ti was as fast as the 3090 Ti without DLSS.5070 won't be on par with 4090 in "real" performance (not counting the 1/2 VRAM) -- it's not even nearly possible. It's more likely close to 4080/Super in actual rasterization.
The 5070=4090 performance statement made by nVidia is outlandish, and borderline deceptive, even with the "only possible with AI" addendum. Let's just please stop and throw this out the window.
That's the key problem. The 5090 is impressive, but what would I do with it? Things dried up in terms of games that would tempt me to upgrade.
Gotta get that dopamine hit from the shiny new thing, bruh! That's why anyone buys an overpriced luxury toy like these!That's the key problem. The 5090 is impressive, but what would I do with it? Things dried up in terms of games that would tempt me to upgrade.
4070 base clock = 1.9 GHzNo mention on improvements in IPC and the clocks speeds are down. Just count the cores and you'll see no way a 5070 will come close to a 4090. And on a 192-bit bus?! No way. A 5080 will struggle against a 4090 on raw raster.
The only new tech here apparently is an improved way to create extra between frames, which is just pure gimmick imho, and we've had this technology for years AND with zero latency, it's called motion blur. What they've done to reduce the latency is admirable, but it's still fundamentally a no go feature for feature for me. I've tried it with Alan Wake with low fps and F1 2024 with high fps and in either case I found it better with it off.
It'll look amazing if you're standing over someone's shoulder playing Cyberpunk though.
That's a 32.8% increase in cores over the 4090.Only 5,000 added cuda cores? Piss off Nvidia. This card sucks ass for my 3d rendering needs. Like another said 28 months for this shit?
The 5070=4090 performance statement made by nVidia is outlandish, and borderline deceptive, even with the "only possible with AI" addendum. Let's just please stop and throw this out the window.
That's the key problem. The 5090 is impressive, but what would I do with it? Things dried up in terms of games that would tempt me to upgrade.
Still is apples to apples as they don't have access to DLSS or FG there. It does give some indication about the generational leap when they are doing raw raster or RT without frame generation. Most of their examples is more about how many frames they can synthesize, not how much faster the game world runs. You typically want 60 fps or more due to mouse input latency etc. in FPS games so I value game world ticks more than synthesized frames results.Far Cry 6 is an outlier that performs poorly on NVIDIA hardware, so I don't know why NVIDIA chose to use it as an example.
I understand that but I run 2 cards and they are water cooled. It has to be in the 40%+ to make it worth it. I know it has more V ram but I don't go over that. Just not worth it for me at this time.That's a 32.8% increase in cores over the 4090.