The 5800X3D +4000 would then be the 'cheaper' option although you very likely need a PSU too.
-
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.
NVIDIA 4000 Series
- Thread starter MrClippy
- Start date
Hi lads, I need some advice. Current PC is verrrry old (970 gtx old) and I don't' really game on it anymore. I was going to buy a new PC a while ago when I managed to get my hand on a 3070 but decided to return it as I had bought a 48" oled as a third monitor for my set up and the 40 series weren't that far away. Currently I have x2 24" 1080p lcd monitors that's mostly for work and a third 48" oled (not currently connect to my pc though it is on my desk) that's for media and consoles. I really do want to start playing PC games again but on the oled in 4k. My 2 options are buy a 3090 now or wait for a 4080 for my new build. I keep flipping between the 2. My impulse side says get a 3090 and start playing asap but my sensible side says 4080 would be better. What do you guys think?
Side note, I'm not looking to replace the x2 1080p monitors as they are perfect in size and usability for my current layout and so want to keep them for now.
Cheers
Side note, I'm not looking to replace the x2 1080p monitors as they are perfect in size and usability for my current layout and so want to keep them for now.
Cheers
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2019
- Posts
- 1,002
4080 is likely to be 50% faster and significantly cheaper than a 3090, I'd wait a few months for the 4080.
It depends if you want to start playing games now or in 6 months (or more if the card supply is hoovered up by scalpers). The more affordable the card, the more competition there will be for the initial launch supply.
Yeah thought as much, the 4080 be the best option. My impulse side wants to play now but the ps5 and Xbox can keep me busy for 6 months, so the 4080 it is. Well, I say that but if the 3090 drops lower....I have very poor impulse control. Cheers for the advice.
Yeah, it’s a tough decision tbh. I’ll probably wait for September 15th and see what sort of IPC increase we can expect. I would ideally like to fully upgrade to next gen, but as said, depends on a few things
Either way, I’ll be going for 4090 or AMD equivalent. Hopefully we’ll have those in October, fingers crossed
The other thing to consider is that I only have a B450 Tomahawk Max. Not sure how much the next gen will saturate the PCIE, but that’s another factor to consider. Plus it only has 1 NVME slot.
I think it’s very likely I’ll full upgrade to AM5 and 4000/7000, unless the availability is shocking (shouldn’t be) or there isn’t a worthwhile IPC increase. Even if the latter happens and I stay AM4, I’m still stuck with PCIE3 lanes and a dead end socket. So I’d be trading a lower upgrade cost ‘now’ with another cost later when I have to upgrade to DDR5 etc later anyway.
My setup (3600 and 5700xt) is a tricky position because it’s just in the middle of mid range and approaching lower end. An upgrade to 5800x3D is tempting as a result, but is it ‘enough’ when we are approaching next gen? Debatable.
If you go lower end like the poster above, the decision is much simpler. Going from a 970, I’d just upgrade now as the uplift in performance would be massive
I think it’s very likely I’ll full upgrade to AM5 and 4000/7000, unless the availability is shocking (shouldn’t be) or there isn’t a worthwhile IPC increase. Even if the latter happens and I stay AM4, I’m still stuck with PCIE3 lanes and a dead end socket. So I’d be trading a lower upgrade cost ‘now’ with another cost later when I have to upgrade to DDR5 etc later anyway.
My setup (3600 and 5700xt) is a tricky position because it’s just in the middle of mid range and approaching lower end. An upgrade to 5800x3D is tempting as a result, but is it ‘enough’ when we are approaching next gen? Debatable.
If you go lower end like the poster above, the decision is much simpler. Going from a 970, I’d just upgrade now as the uplift in performance would be massive
Ahh. Didn’t see you want to do 4K. If that’s the case, like me, you’re probably better off waiting for the next gen. 3090/3090TI are capable of 4k60 on most titles, but if like me you have a 4k120 OLED, even the 3090Ti won’t push that frame rate in nearly all titles
I think we’re probably looking at another two gens before we see 4K being pushable with midrange setups, but I would hope the 4000/7000 series gpus will be able to push 4K 120 in ‘most’ titles with the highest sku’s (4080/4090 and 7900xt/7950xt) etc
My estimates around 15% higher than 30 series on that climate.
4080 = £750 especially after they downgrade to make more room for Ti
4090 = £1600
Hope 4070 wont be the new 3080 for waiting times..
Nvidia have competition can't just price what they like , my guess 4080 £700-£750 can tag me if I'm wrong
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,758
Nvidia have competition can't just price what they like , my guess 4080 £700-£750 can tag me if I'm wrong
What do you mean? Nvidia ALWAYS price what they like and the consumer ALWAYS chooses Nvidia over the competition. Nvidia currently have 83% market share I believe, despite being more expensive. The majority clearly dont watch benchmarks or read reviews, otherwise there wouldn't be that much of a disparity between the two company's. The 4080 probably will cost around £750 but the competition will be less. The consumer doesn't want value, they want an Nvidia GPU.
AMD will offer better pricing next gen, yet I guarantee Nvidia will get more sales. The same will happen with the 50 series and the 60 series etc.
Last edited:
Pretty sure the 6800XT was about the same price as the 3080FE at launch, no?
I would have opted for an AMD card if their RT had been up to scratch but it wasn’t as good so went for Nvidia.
If a like for like product, like those two examples, are priced the same then most would have gone for the card with the better feature set, e.g. RT. AMD shot themselves in the foot this gen as their raster performance was very good, and in the odd instance superior, if RT had been level too then they would have sold far more IMO. I would have taken a punt at least.
Well said.
IIRC, 6800xt was £590-600? IMO, the extra £50 for a 3080 was well worth it, getting similar raster (win some, lose some) but much better RT as well as DLSS.
Having no dlss competitor either didn't help and arguably fsr 2 is still playing catchup and possibly will be for another few months imo.
This is the first time I have gone with nvidia in years, since the 8800 days, everything since then had been amd as they simply were the kings for bang per buck but nvidia in the last few years have been leading the way with some game changing tech imo, at least getting there "first", enthusiast pc gamers don't want to be waiting months/years for said tech., which imo is why nvidia largely have the market by the balls, that and unfortunately amds "bad driver" days still tarnish them even though their drivers have been very good for the past 4-5 years imo.
Na the 6800xt was cheaper look at the MSRP £599.99. not it mattered when AMD didn't do UK drops
AMD made great improvement in getting close to Nvidia in performance, what did they have before 5700xt which was at best competing with 2070 ? They have to maintain the gains gen by gen
We just have to hope AMD can continue to make gains will only help the consumer
3080fe £60 over 6800xt was ok for me with it having better RT performance and DLSS when AMD had nothing
How much can Nvidia get away with charging more if AMD are getting close ? So they can't just price what they like
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,758
History shows that the cut-off point is around double the price before Nvidia looses sales. The 290X was faster than the titan and half the price. During that time, AMD manage to get 36% more sales than Nvidia. If people care more about benchmarks and less about the brand, then AMD should have had 100% more sales.
Soldato
GPU's aren't printing money like they used too. The tanking prices (now that profitability has fallen off) show that there is a limit to what gaming performance sells at what price. -even for Nvidia.
Where are you getting this "cut-off" point from and Where are you getting that figure for 36% more sales from? That doesn't show up in the either the total graphic sales or the discrete graphic sales.
The Titan was released in February 2013, the 290x came out in October and was really competing against the 780Ti which was released just a couple of weeks later. And there is another thing you are forgetting. There was a mining boom at the start of 2014. It was extremely difficult to buy any AMD GPU back then. In fairness to AMD it came out of the blue and there was no way they could have expected that much demand. The big problem for AMD was they put a big push on production. However, the mining bubble had burst by April/May. Leaving AMD with a lot of GPUs to sell that nobody really wanted as rumours of Maxwell were starting to appear. Nvidia released them in September.
That was a terrible couple of year for AMD and it wasn't entirely there fault, the short mining boom really messed them up. They actually had more market share before the Hawaii cards came out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,504
Yeah right. Nvidia posted profits up 46% from last year at $8.3bn. We pay, they plunder.
Associate
Aye the missus will be over the moon when I get a 4090 and give her asda smart price beans for 6 months.