• 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

mrk said:
No depression here, just amusement that we live in a time where a GFX card costs more than the entire cost of the average full gaming system lol. I suppose that is depressing to think about...
Click to expand...

Similar performance will be half price in around 18 months time (and time flies). It will run cooler, quieter and need less juice. Will grab it then probably. In the meantime most my games are running 5160x2160 anyways so no issues.
 
Can we be confident that the prices will be half though, well comparing against a 4090 especially. The 4090 is cheaper than the 3090/Ti were, whilst offering 2-3x better performance and better efficiency/thermals. But can we expect the same again with the 5090? I fully expect anything below the 5090 to continue the pricing trend set by the 4080/4070 range as Nvidia have stated as such that lower prices are now off the table.

A used 4090 in 18 months time however, now that would be a juicy buy assuming used prices do come down.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
Can we be confident that the prices will be half though, well comparing against a 4090 especially. The 4090 is cheaper than the 3090/Ti were, whilst offering 2-3x better performance and better efficiency/thermals. But can we expect the same again with the 5090? I fully expect anything below the 5090 to continue the pricing trend set by the 4080/4070 range as Nvidia have stated as such that lower prices are now off the table.

A used 4090 in 18 months time however, now that would be a juicy buy assuming used prices do come down.
Click to expand...

We will see I guess. Maybe they will want to shift more volume this time and if so they will need to do a lot better.

If they carry on like this many will go console route. I won't, but it just means they won't see as much of my money.
 
lsg1r said:
Bit weird, I've been hearing all this stuff about av1 being the 'saviour' for low files sizes etc keeping good quality but to me at least it's the worst one of the two at the same file size/bitrate....based on your images (and I'm sure there will be others with different outcomes) the marketing is more about saving money from paying royalties...

Was there a difference in the amount of time it spent encoding?

You're right in the fact it could be down to the hardware/software integration at this point with everything being quite new (think it was similar with nvenc when first added) but considering how hard it's being pushed you'd have thought it would be fairly far along before being added... although I did read av1 is only now being added to ffmpeg etc which might be part of it.
Click to expand...
AV1 was 89fps and HEVC was 50fps. I noticed AV1 doesn't slow down with the slowest preset so it might not be working correctly and could be why HEVC was better. When I lowered the bitrate to 10 Mb/s it was hard to choose between AV1 and HEVC so it's not all bad, and both were clearly better than NVEnc h264.
 
TNA said:
Similar performance will be half price in around 18 months time (and time flies). It will run cooler, quieter and need less juice. Will grab it then probably. In the meantime most my games are running 5160x2160 anyways so no issues.
Click to expand...

But leather jacket man has warned us Moore's law is dead so to be ready for more price increases or less uplifts in performance... :cry:
 
mrk said:
Can we be confident that the prices will be half though, well comparing against a 4090 especially. The 4090 is cheaper than the 3090/Ti were, whilst offering 2-3x better performance and better efficiency/thermals. But can we expect the same again with the 5090? I fully expect anything below the 5090 to continue the pricing trend set by the 4080/4070 range as Nvidia have stated as such that lower prices are now off the table.

A used 4090 in 18 months time however, now that would be a juicy buy assuming used prices do come down.
Click to expand...

55-65% better depending on the game from a 3090 (TPU average increase was 55% from a 3090), not 2-3x unless you are classing DLSS3 as a real performance increase which it is not. Also 4090 is not cheaper than a 3090. 3090 FE £1400 msrp and 4090 FE £1600 a £200 increase and missing NVLINK, so a downgrade on pooling VRAM and CUDA cores and the games that actually support SLI native mGPU on 3090/ti's (not many but another loss for people that enjoy them games).
 
Last edited:
Alt0153 said:
3x the fps but most of them are fake and the msrp isnt real (for 3000 series)
Click to expand...

Don't worry by the time 50xx series comes out they will have DLSS4 or some other tech name that adds more fake frames so they can say they are 10X faster than 40xxx series. Nvidia's reveal of the 40 series was disgusting and the performance claims were total BS in real world and very cherry picked with titles they sponsor or have a hand in. Real world uplift was really 55% on average from a 3090 to 4090.
 
Last edited:
Purgatory said:
Don't worry by the time 50xx series comes out they will have DLSS4 or some other tech name that adds more fake frames so they can say they are 10X faster than 40xxx series. Nvidia's reveal of the 40 series was disgusting and the performance claims were total BS in real world and very cherry picked with titles they sponsor or have a hand in. Real world uplift was really 55% on average from a 3090 to 4090.
Click to expand...
yeah you never pay attention to 1st party numbers cause they are always hand selected to show things inn their best light
 
Purgatory said:
55-65% better depending on the game from a 3090 (TPU average increase was 55% from a 3090), not 2-3x unless you are classing DLSS3 as a real performance increase which it is not. Also 4090 is not cheaper than a 3090. 3090 FE £1400 msrp and 4090 FE £1600 a £200 increase and missing NVLINK, so a downgrade on pooling VRAM and CUDA cores and the games that actually support SLI native mGPU on 3090/ti's (not many but another loss for people that enjoy them games).
Click to expand...

That TPU relative perfromance figure is an odd one. When I bought the 4090 I compared at the resolution I played at (4k) and over my 3080 it was x2 as fast in most WORKING games. Seeing as the 3090 isnt much faster than a 3080 I consider it at 4k to be nearly x2 of a 3090. Dunno what TPU's average is made up from but not solely 4k averages, maybe 1440 too, and 1080p if used will drag it down fruther where it's CPU bottlenecked.

The 3090 is consistently 55-57%% OF a 4090 when looking at 4k figures. 3080 is 50% of a 4090. Games like FC6 the 3090 does better vs the 4090. ~73%. Even 8packs 4090 launch vid said - twice as fast.
 
I think they (TPU) did initial reviews with a 5800X which was less than ideal for the lower resolution results. A more recent 4090 review with 13900K put the 3090 at 59% and the 3080 at 52% relative performance of the 4090 at 2160p
 
JediFragger said:
Less than ideal for everything now tbf, bottlenecking all the latest gen cards. They lasted well then :D :p
Click to expand...
Haha yeah well they look poor on benchmarks sure but still not exactly bad for gaming if you are happy with 100-200fps depending on the game. Mine was a lemon though and glad to have replaced it with the 5800X3D :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom