• 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

Raiden85 said:
Good god that AMD performance :cry:
Click to expand...

FC 6 except for amd..... :cry: :D I think portal rtx still takes the cake though :p

But in all seriousness I am surprised as the RT isn't that intensive and I don't think this is nvidia sponsored is it? Raster performance looks about right though.

Patch for PC due tomorrow isn't it? Hopefully that will resolve the issues as do want to get this.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TNA
Nexus18 said:
Yeah same here, until now there hasn't really been anything to justify the cost, with dlss and some settings sacrificed, 3080 still doing pretty well at 4k and 3440x1440, if more and more games end up performing like deliver us mars, hogwarts, forspoken then there isn't much choice but to buy something to be able to power its way through the ****** optimisation, that and having FG is a nice pro to have when so many games appear to have rubbish cpu utilization too :(



www.techpowerup.com

Hogwarts Legacy Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis Review - VRAM Usage Record

Hogwarts Legacy lets you relive the steps of Harry Potter and is a fantastic adaptation of the books. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, differences between the graphical setting presets, VRAM usage, and performance on a selection of modern graphics cards.
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

3QkieNi.png

6GS2AJz.png

326lIeh.png

f4BdEXi.png

GLKyd9z.gif
Click to expand...

Im looking forward to Starfield and be interesting to see how that runs when its released, hopefully be a lot more optimised but im not hopeful at this point.

The dreadful performance we see here might be a good indicator of whats to come though...
 
Do they include upscaling? I'd guess not. Haven't read the article, only looked at the posted graphs, but I'm not quite sure the gif of celebratory man having a drink applies when the highest 4k fps on a card under a grand is 20fps...

Pretty depressing, actually.
 
Bill Turnip said:
Do they include upscaling? I'd guess not. Haven't read the article, only looked at the posted graphs, but I'm not quite sure the gif of celebratory man having a drink applies when the highest 4k fps on a card under a grand is 20fps...

Pretty depressing, actually.
Click to expand...

Guessing you haven't read all the posts before, if you had, you would get the gif :p :D Also, not sure I would say that is a "celebratory" drink :cry:



No upscaling perf. but see my post here:

NVIDIA 4000 Series

Yup like I said a few times now, the ones that we all should be blaming is ultimately game devs. a 4090 should not be the minimum required to get good performance in newer titles.... 4090 is a fantastic gpu, only gpu were you could say it is worth the price but that still doesn't change the fact...
forums.overclockers.co.uk forums.overclockers.co.uk

gZAEh7r.png

Helps somewhat but obviously there are some improvements to be made elsewhere.....
 
Jay85 said:
Im looking forward to Starfield and be interesting to see how that runs when its released, hopefully be a lot more optimised but im not hopeful at this point.

The dreadful performance we see here might be a good indicator of whats to come though...
Click to expand...
Why would hogwarts (UE) be any indication of what Starfield (NetImmerseGameByroCreationEngine2) will perform like? We know it'll be unoptimised but basically fine on consoles (30fps) and PCs as long as you don't go mad with shadow settings/ini file changes.
 
Last edited:
Raiden85 said:
Good god that AMD performance :cry:
Click to expand...

Something really weird going on

With RT off the AMD GPUs perform better than expected you might even say the game favours AMD. But as soon as RT is engaged, every high end AMD GPU gets trounced by a $250 Intel GPU. It would be funny if that was because Intel's $250 GPU is just better than AMD's $999 GPU but it doesn't look like that in other games

I wonder if the AMD GPUs are also experiencing the low GPU usage issues
 
Last edited:
Still going on about a Harry Potter game? Who cares, can hardly judge performance of old or new cards on a single game that isn't out until Friday.

Turning of RT should be standard procedure for new games (or just any) by now, unless you can already hit a steady 60 FPS.

min-fps-2560-1440.png


Looks fine to me at 1440p. Just needs a little optimisation and driver polishing, but the RTX 4070 TI performance looks like it can handle the game at this resolution, just disable RT.

The RTX 3090 TI does well too, but it did launch with an MSRP of $1,999!

Nice to see that Techpowerup is finally including Min. FPS in their benchmarks.

Admittedly, the VRAM usage of >10GB at 1440p with RT off is slightly concerning.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
Still going on about a Harry Potter game? Who cares, can hardly judge performance of old or new cards on a single game that isn't out until Friday.

Turning of RT should be standard procedure for new games (or just any) by now, unless you can already hit a steady 60 FPS.

min-fps-2560-1440.png


Looks fine to me at 1440p. Just needs a little optimisation and driver polishing, but the RTX 4070 TI performance looks like it can handle the game at this resolution, just disable RT.

The RTX 3090 TI does well too, but it did launch with an MSRP of $1,999!

Nice to see that Techpowerup is finally including Min. FPS in their benchmarks.

Admittedly, the VRAM usage of >10GB at 1440p with RT off is slightly concerning.
Click to expand...

Technically it’s been out since the 7th for preorders. Even now it’s the second most played game on Steam with 363,000 concurrent players 469,000 peak and it’s showing as number 1 in the Steam top seller at the moment.

And it’s not even officially out yet so expect far more players. So these benchmarks are extremely relevant.
 
Last edited:
I think the debate that needs to be had in the industry is - Is RT really worth it (yet)?

Does it actually make games more enjoyable? Or, just look different (prettier)?

When time and money could be spent developing other features instead.

Many of the best scoring PC games on metacritic have no ray tracing support at all (except for rereleases like Portal RTX).

When RT was new to games (RTX 2000 series), overall graphics performance seemed to be improving at steady pace with each new generation. The RTX 2080 TI coped well in many games with RT disabled.

Hardware ray tracing was little more than an experiment.

What we are seeing now, is that with each new RT game, overall performance is lower when compared to most games released 1-2 years ago.

Game developers are increasing the quality (and amount) of ray tracing, but the hardware is not improving fast enough to keep up.

The obvious thing, is for developers to invest little in RT effects, when so many cards barely support them. Use it sparingly.

In reality, I think it is being driven by ray tracing in console games, where they target ~30 FPS. So, they push the effects as far as they will go, with little regard for performance.

Eventually, there will be consoles that can hit 60 FPS with RT on - so I think it will be several years before developers really focus on maximizing performance with RT enabled.

AMD's RT tech. needs to catch up first...

The PC probably needs a separate hardware device just to render ray tracing effects (there's clearly a market for this now), so that people who want them can invest in a powerful, dedicated RT device. But this would deny card makers like Nvidia from selling top tier graphics cards for $2,000.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
I think the debate that needs to be had in the industry is - Is RT really worth it (yet)?

Does it actually make games more enjoyable? Or, just look different (prettier)?

When time and money could be spent developing other features instead.

Many of the best scoring PC games on metacritic have no ray tracing support at all (except for rereleases like Portal RTX).

When RT was new to games (RTX 2000 series), overall graphics performance seemed to be improving at steady pace with each new generation. The RTX 2080 TI coped well in many games with RT disabled.

Hardware ray tracing was little more than an experiment.

What we are seeing now, is that with each new RT game, overall performance is lower when compared to most games released 1-2 years ago.

Game developers are increasing the quality (and amount) of ray tracing, but the hardware is not improving fast enough to keep up.

The obvious thing, is for developers to invest little in RT effects, when so many cards barely support them. Use it sparingly.

In reality, I think it is being driven by ray tracing in console games, where they target ~30 FPS. So, they push the effects as far as they will go, with little regard for performance.

Eventually, there will be consoles that can hit 60 FPS with RT on - so I think it will be several years before developers really focus on maximizing performance with RT enabled.

AMD's RT tech. needs to catch up first...

The PC probably needs a separate hardware device just to render ray tracing effects (there's clearly a market for this now), so that people who want them can invest in a powerful, dedicated RT device. But this would deny card makers like Nvidia from selling top tier graphics cards for $2,000.
Click to expand...
Or the game devs should step up and optimize their work properly which is the actual problem, not the tech itself (at least on the Nvidia side).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom