4080 Review

[GotNoRice]

Fr fr, no cap... does everyone here really upgrade constantly? Once cards started reaching 600+ I greatly slowed down the rate at which I upgrade. The only graphics card release I have even gotten excited about was the latest intel offerings, and they ending up being meh at best. If I ever have time to game more then maybe I will update my system more often.

People need to make the decisions that make the most sense for their individual situation. If you don't game that much, and are happy with the performance that you are already getting, then that's great. Given the amount of time that I spend on my computer, it's easy to justify an expensive GPU purchase. Just think about the people who spend a TON of money to buy an expensive boat just to only use it once or twice per year, or the people who buy an expensive car when the farthest they drive is the grocery store. In contrast, my computer is something that I use for 8+ hours every single day. It's the first thing I use when I wake up in the morning and the last thing I use before I go to sleep at night. I find it very easy to justify spending money on something that I use so much. Gaming is my primary form of entertainment, often playing as part of a team that plays together on a set schedule multiple times per week.

Even something like a Satellite/Cable TV subscription can easily cost over $1600 per year whereas something like a 4090 should be good for several years at least.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if everything was cheaper, but it doesn't mean that the people buying cards like the 4080 and 4090 are crazy.

 

[Lakados]

I don’t disagree with this sentiment either. The question there becomes whether or not they’re a top end GPU buyer or if they want another card in the 1660Ti or GTX1060 range which is still the most popular card on Steam survey (at 7% or so).

4080 availability means nothing to those buyers if they only want to spend $300 and not $1200. AMD and nVidia are mostly behind at selling good bang for your buck mid and low range cards that normal consumers actually can afford. As much as I’m looking forward to the 7900XTX eating the 4080’s lunch at the top, most people won’t own either of those cards.

GotNoRice is clearly a top end GPU buyer. I just think he may also be in the minority on that point.

Given Steam shows something like 50% of users are running something that is of a 1080TI or lower in performance and more than 60% running at 1080p this is 100% the case, right now the current consoles are capable of higher performance metrics than half of Steam users.
This is a problem for Nvidia, because where is the cutoff point, where do they say OK we want to put out this card that is compelling enough for users to choose to build a system based on this card instead of buying a console? What CPU's are currently out there that currently support this?
It really comes down to what is Nvidia willing to give up to compete with Consoles.

 

[GDI Lord]

Personally, I've had my past two systems for roughly eight years each. I've bought the odd SSD here or there, 3TB HDD.

 

[GotNoRice]

Given Steam shows something like 50% of users are running something that is of a 1080TI or lower in performance and more than 60% running at 1080p this is 100% the case, right now the current consoles are capable of higher performance metrics than half of Steam users.

One huge factor here is that people often have multiple computers. Many people with a gaming desktop computer also have a laptop, and the GPU in their laptop is probably slower than the GPU in their desktop. When they take the steam survey on both computers, even though they mainly game on their desktop, what does that say about the survey results?

I had the steam survey pop up on my HTPC which has an ancient Radeon 7700. I basically never game on there. I've had it pop up on old laptops including one that has a slow and old GT630M. I had it pop up on my retro-gaming PC which runs dual Radeon 6870 cards in Crossfire. I had it pop up on my backup system which is still running 3x GTX680 in SLI. So out of the 6 or so computers that it ran the survey on, 5 of them have GPUs that are slower than a 1080Ti but my fastest computer is the one that I spend 98% of my time gaming on. How is that affecting results?

I think it's important to understand the distinction between computers that ran the survey, and computers that are actually used for frequent gaming. Reading data from the former and assuming the latter would not produce useful conclusions.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Fr fr, no cap... does everyone here really upgrade constantly?

No everyone does not, it's just those that do are the ones who tend to talk the most because they actually have something to talk about I mean I'm not exactly going to gush about how my frames I'm getting in FC6 with my 970gtx.

I usually skip at least a generation, and/or buy the previous gen stuff just to get a better deal on things. I skipped the 20 series because I felt it was just too much, and well COVID & mining kind of ruined my bid for the 30 series of cards, I may still get a 30 series card if they ever get cheap enough for me, or perhaps a similar priced AMD card, but if the 4080 pricing is in any way a reflection of what 4060 & 4070 pricing will be yeah no way I'm picking up that shit. I think the performance jumps that are relevant that you get are getting at each generation are getting smaller and smaller, I mean if you play Fortnight (I don't) and get 180fps are you really going to care that much if you upgrade and get 300fps? Most people won't at all.

 

[Armenius]

Fr fr, no cap... does everyone here really upgrade constantly? Once cards started reaching 600+ I greatly slowed down the rate at which I upgrade. The only graphics card release I have even gotten excited about was the latest intel offerings, and they ending up being meh at best. If I ever have time to game more then maybe I will update my system more often.

I did since Kepler, but I bought a 3090 fully believing that I would not need to upgrade for at least on generation, if not two. That is how I justified the purchase. It looks that it will hold me over at least one generation. We'll see what happens with Blackwell in a couple years.

 

[Lakados]

I did since Kepler, but I bought a 3090 fully believing that I would not need to upgrade for at least on generation, if not two. That is how I justified the purchase. It looks that it will hold me over at least one generation. We'll see what happens with Blackwell in a couple years.

Until I upgrade from 1440p there isn't exactly a lot the 4000 series is giving me that is worth the $1600 + CAD to get there that isn't already delivered by the 3000 series.
Lots of people waiting on the reviews and availability of the AMD offerings before making any decisions though.

 

[ChadD]

I did since Kepler, but I bought a 3090 fully believing that I would not need to upgrade for at least on generation, if not two. That is how I justified the purchase. It looks that it will hold me over at least one generation. We'll see what happens with Blackwell in a couple years.

Your probably good for a 2-3 generations at least.
It doesn't matter how great a GPU anyone releases if games don't push them anyway. I guess it depends a ton of your target resolution. IMO 1440 140hz is going to look great for a long time yet... and a 3090 shouldn't falter there for 3 or 4 generations yet.
I know technically 4k, more pixels, better image. For the most part though imho the difference between a good 1440 monitor and a decent 4k monitor just isn't a big enough jump to make me want to dish out flagship pricing very often.

 

[next-Jin]

If you don’t care about RT you’ll probably be able to last 2-3 generations easily even at 4k. In my case I run a 3080Ti on a 77” 4kOLED but I sit 10ft away and can’t tell when RT is on/off or the difference between ultra or high usually.

 

[Lakados]

If you don’t care about RT you’ll probably be able to last 2-3 generations easily even at 4k. In my case I run a 3080Ti on a 77” 4kOLED but I sit 10ft away and can’t tell when RT is on/off or the difference between ultra or high usually.

I can't see the difference between my 1440p and most 4K screens, and the 4K screens I can see the difference in cost much more than I feel like spending, because then I would need the 4090, and then that's a whole new rabbit hole.
Talking with a few artists I know who still work in gaming they tell me that many of their new tools have a function where they can essentially run a report on an asset it then takes the object ray traces it in advance and stores a bunch of that data through some form of mystical arcane voodoo on the texture so when you are using normal methods it is close, not as good but close enough. It cuts down on the manual process that he used before, and replaces it with an automated one that takes less time but results in larger file sizes, so you need more VRam and storage, and adds to load times significantly unless you are using one of the GPU to Storage APIs. But he was saying around the office there it's a 50/50 split between those who can and can't see the difference between the ray-traced or pre-rendered version, and then a further divide on whether or not they feel the improvement is worth the trade-off. He did mention that at 4K the difference is more noticeable that almost everybody can see the difference then, but then by the time you add DLSS and the other jazz, it's right back to being a 50/50 split.

 

[kac77]

 

[Lakados]

And this surprises exactly nobody, Nvidia priced this stupidly intentionally to appease the AIBs so they can sell off their 3000 series cards, anybody who would be interested in the 4080 is actively waiting for 7900xtx reviews.
I would be very interested to know how many 4080s Nvidia has actually sold to AIBs to release and what they actually charged them for it.
Announce the price high, and direct sales to the 3000s, once those are sufficiently cleared out of the retail channels drop the price on the 4080 and below to make them more attractive so they start moving again.
Really until AMD puts their cards on the market and gets them into the retail channels it's Nvidia's game.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

AMD is looking like the correct buy for 95% of the market. Unless you're buying a 4090 (or 4080 until the 7900XT/XTX drops), you can buy an equivalent AMD card at every performance tier for less money.

 

[GDI Lord]

Your probably good for a 2-3 generations at least.
It doesn't matter how great a GPU anyone releases if games don't push them anyway. I guess it depends a ton of your target resolution.

If you don’t care about RT you’ll probably be able to last 2-3 generations easily even at 4k.

+1. And it also depends on the games that one plays.

 

[FrgMstr]

https://twitter.com/KyleBennett/status/1595238985861066753

 

[polonyc2]

NVIDIA's RTX 4080 Problem: They're Not Selling & MSRP Doesn't Exist

 

[tybert7]

NVIDIA's RTX 4080 Problem: They're Not Selling & MSRP Doesn't Exist

I just bought a 4080 at msrp on antonline. You can get them for under 1300 dollars now. Granted mine was a pny which based on some internet chatter will spit in your face if you have a warranty issue, but it was msrp.

I suspect nvidia ramped up production of 4080s based on amds inability to deliver 7900 xtx models in abundance, and of the 4 new card releases, the 7900 XT is the least desired.

I wanted a red devil 7900 xtx or nitro+, I would have settled for a reference model. But did not want to play the waiting game anymore with empty carts. This is like back in the day when I wanted a vega 64 but it was delayed/hard to get, and performed similar to or worse than a 1080 at the time while using more power. I just said eff it and went with the 1080.