• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Poll: BROWSE THE NVIDIA RTX 4000 SERIES AT OcUK !!

Are you buying 4000 series, if so which one?

  • YES: 4090 24GB

    Votes: 153 19.4%
  • YES: 4080 16GB

    Votes: 23 2.9%
  • YES: 4080 12GB

    Votes: 7 0.9%
  • NO: 3000 SERIES

    Votes: 55 7.0%
  • NO: SKIPPING THIS ROUND!

    Votes: 550 69.8%

  • Total voters
    788
I am now gaming at 4k 144hz and have a 3080 10GB. Ignoring DLSS, I get 90-144 FPS on all the games I play with no compromises to the graphics settings. I haven't seen any games where RT makes a material difference to the visuals that I would care to enable it.

Given all of the above, what would even be the point of the 4090 for someone like me? Assuming the true 4080 offers a 50% performance increase, that pretty much guarantees maximum performance on all games and is arguably still excessive, even with undervolting.

If your at 1440p, then the whole 4000 series becomes pointless since the 3080 delivers more or less 144 FPS in all games and is now available at very reasonable prices.
 
Last edited:
I am now gaming at 4k 144hz and have a 3080 10GB. Ignoring DLSS, I get 90-144 FPS on all the games I play with no compromises to the graphics settings. I haven't seen any games where RT makes a material difference to the visuals that I would care to enable it.

Given all of the above, what would even be the point of the 4090 for someone like me? Assuming the true 4080 offers a 50% performance increase, that pretty much guarantees maximum performance on all games and is arguably still excessive, even with undervolting.

If your at 1440p, then the whole 4000 series becomes pointless since the 3080 delivers more or less 144 FPS in all games and is now available at very reasonable prices.

Just thought I would mention it. There are folk on here with your card that swear by ray tracing. As this tanks the performance and constantly reminded any ampere gpu "runs out of horsepower" before anything else, it seems this is the debate. :)
 
Last edited:
That's quite unreal. Look at the size of the shroud to the bracket.

gv-n4090aorus-m-24gd-5.jpg
gv-n4090aorus-m-24gd-8.jpg

 
Just thought I would mention it. There are folk on here with your card that swear by ray tracing. As this tanks the performance and constantly reminded any ampere gpu "runs out of horsepower" before anything else, it seems this is the debate. :)
I'm aware of those RT folk (and would love some examples of those games that look better, and I meant gameplay not screenshots). But as I said in my post, what is the point of these cards for the majority of people who don't care for RT at this stage in its life?
 
I'm aware of those RT folk (and would love some examples of those games that look better, and I meant gameplay not screenshots). But as I said in my post, what is the point of these cards for the majority of people who don't care for RT at this stage in its life?

Agree. The same folk are the ones who larp on about "turning down a setting" so the irony is boundless. Glad to see another user on the forum who sees it in a similar fashion.
 
Agree. The same folk are the ones who larp on about "turning down a setting" so the irony is boundless. Glad to see another user on the forum who sees it in a similar fashion.
I can understand the irony of lowering the graphics quality in order to increase the graphics quality, but I guess it depends on whether you get more for what you sacrifice.

But if you put RT to one side, and I think you must because it's still a limited technology only present in a minority of modern games, then who actually *needs* these cards? The amount of people gaming at 4k 144hz and/or care about RT has to be an incredibly small part of the market.

I'm fixed on this simply because the value proposition is so terrible. Once you go past 1440p, 90 FPS, High non-RT graphics settings, the graphics and performance returns diminish at an increasing rate. And that 1440 et al. bar I mention is absolutely achievable by the high-end 3000 series cards. This is the first time a new GPU series could be argued to offer nothing for the average gamer as GPUs have outpaced the needs of modern games.
 
Last edited:
I can understand the irony of lowering the graphics quality in order to increase the graphics quality, but I guess it depends on whether you get more for what you sacrifice.

But if you put RT to one side, and I think you must because it's still a limited technology only present in a minority of modern games, then who actually *needs* these cards? The amount of people gaming at 4k 144hz and/or care about RT has to be an incredibly small part of the market.

I'm fixed on this simply because the value proposition is so terrible. Once you go past 1440p, 90 FPS, High non-RT graphics settings, the graphics and performance returns diminish at an increasing rate. And that 1440 et al. bar I mention is absolutely achievable by the high-end 3000 series cards. This is the first time a new GPU series could be argued to offer nothing for the average gamer as GPUs have outpaced the needs of modern games.

Well you basically have Jensen admitting raster is almost done so his vision (salesperson aside and science hat on) is probably sensible, however from a 'gamer' perspective where 90% of games have no RT and the immersion comes from other sources too (good sound, realistic AI which depends largely on the other game development) you can still get the experience from the traditional settings per your example.

Yes the new top trump played from the latest game appears to be a bit 'meh', but its the overall price that even the diehards are not swallowing now. If you weren't a diehard you could see this after Pascal where they blatantly changed course from gamer to industry/ai/compute but its hard to get unblinkered for some.
 
Well you basically have Jensen admitting raster is almost done so his vision (salesperson aside and science hat on) is probably sensible, however from a 'gamer' perspective where 90% of games have no RT and the immersion comes from other sources too (good sound, realistic AI which depends largely on the other game development) you can still get the experience from the traditional settings per your example.

Yes the new top trump played from the latest game appears to be a bit 'meh', but its the overall price that even the diehards are not swallowing now. If you weren't a diehard you could see this after Pascal where they blatantly changed course from gamer to industry/ai/compute but its hard to get unblinkered for some.
The only thing I can see changing raster needs is a mass wave of games pushing the UE5 engine to its max. But for now, I would say that the 3080 gives the average gamer 95% of what they need from a GPU, and whilst a 4070 (4080 12GB) would get them to 100%, that extra 5% costs £300 which is just ridiculous for an average gamer.

As for improvements in visuals, I'm all for what UE5 engine is doing and what RT can bring in the future, but animations and in particular facial animations and general body movements need to improve significantly. No amount of graphics will save you from the immerson-breaking experience of unrealistic human beings. Once we have faces where every muscle moves, perfect lip syncing, non-repeating movement patterns etc. then games will take a leap forward for me. The fact that the ancient game of GTV5 is still the only game using decent rag-doll physics still astounds me.
 
Last edited:
That's quite unreal. Look at the size of the shroud to the bracket.

gv-n4090aorus-m-24gd-5.jpg
gv-n4090aorus-m-24gd-8.jpg

Been keeping my eye on this one. It’s the most expensive non-liquid cooled GPU and aside from being massive has a pretty useful display on the side of the card for GPU temps etc and it has a 4 year warranty which is the longest I have seen so far.
 
Last edited:
Been keeping my eye on this one. It’s the most expensive non-liquid cooled GPU and aside from being massive has a pretty useful display on the side of the card for GPU temps etc and it has a 4 year warranty which is the longest I have seen so far.

I'm interested to see temps on these

Most of the 4090 cards are using between 7 and 9 heatpipes but the gigabyte is using 13
 
£1000 for the 4080 12gb. wow..

Exactly and its not smashing the readily available 30 series in fact losing to the top end which makes it laughable. I guess if there was no Ampere stock abundance they might have msrp'd it at £800 but its still a flop in anyones eyes no matter which way you spin it.
 
I'm interested to see temps on these

Most of the 4090 cards are using between 7 and 9 heatpipes but the gigabyte is using 13
Yeah hoping we get some in depth testing and review on the cards pre-release and looking forward to seeing this one and the strix put through its paces.
 
Interesting to see 77% of the votes is skipping 4000 series lol. I wonder how many of those will be following through on that and actually skipping and not giving into temptation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom