• 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

In same boat. Got a 5600x which does the job pretty well tbh but 1 and 0.1% lows could be better especially when I'm pushing for high refresh rate gaming. Could drop in a 5800x3d on my b450 but fancy a new MB (current one is 4 years old). What I do, will largely depend on on how RDNA 3 does, if great then I'll stick with amd but if poor, think I might go back to intel with the 13600 (continue to use dd4 ram until ddr 5 prices come down) as seems nvidia prefer intel cpus again now, at least the 4090 does, I suspect be the same when the inevitable 4080ti arrives.....


Q8qz4bz.png

Not in any rush though.



True that, I think portal rtx will be the new main title for the most RT effects so it will be interesting to see how it does but it still seems a bit tacked on when compared to metro ee.
That chart is rendering at 720x1080 which is good to compare CPU usage but for usage in vr or 4k it's going to be much less in differences.
 
Also, does anyone know when those thin sleek 4090 4x8 pin cable will be available? the 4090 current cable is very fat n big, and really destroys the look on a clean managed system.
 
AD103 is not a new gpu sku, we had it with ampere too GA103 they ended up as 3080ti laptop gpus, but of course they were planned to be 3080s originally and then AMD threw a spanner into their plans with the 6000 series so every sku had to be moved up a tier to compete. Things have just gone back to plan now as Nvidia clearly knows AMD has nothing this time to compete or AMD have done a better job at securing their data on the 7000 series, we have to wait and see.

If AMD has something and Nvidia didn't know that then just wait and see how quickly the AD102 becomes a slightly higher end 4080 again and also a 4080ti in time and a 4090ti.

I forgot about that - I think the only chance we have is for people to not buy these products until price/performance gets better. Although FOMO is a big problem with PCMR.
 

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 24GB Content Creation Review​





Test Setup​

Benchmarks
PugetBench for After Effects 0.95.2
(After Effects 22.4)
PugetBench for Premiere Pro 0.95.5
(Premiere Pro 22.6.1)
PugetBench for DaVinci Resolve 0.93.1
(DaVinci Resolve Studio 18.0.2)
Unreal Engine 4.26
OctaneBench 2020.1.5
Redshift 3.5.08
Blender Benchmark 3.3.0
V-Ray Benchmark 5.02.00


How Well Does the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Perform for Content Creation?​


NVIDIA tends to give us great performance gains whenever they launch a new series of GPUs, and the new RTX 4090 is no different. It may not have more VRAM than the previous generation (24GB), but for applications that can benefit from having a more powerful GPU, the RTX 4090 can give you a massive boost to performance.


For video editing, the big winner is DaVinci Resolve Studio, as it makes more use of the GPU (and multi GPU configurations) than any other NLE currently on the market. In the instances where the GPU is the primary bottleneck (OpenFX and noise reduction), the RTX 4090 is around 40% faster than the previous generation RTX 3090, or just over 2x faster than the older RTX 2080 Ti. This isn't quite enough for a single RTX 4090 to match a dual RTX 3090 setup, but it does bring it to within a very respectable 10%.


Resolve is also one of the few video editing applications that can take advantage of multiple GPUs, and we found that going from one RTX 4090 to two gave us a 55% increase in performance. This is right in line with what we see from previous generation cards like the RTX 3090, so it is good to see that we are not yet hitting any sort of CPU bottleneck.


Unreal Engine, being a real-time engine, benefits even more from powerful GPUs. Testing across a variety of scenes, from basic game environments to high-end Virtual Production sets, with and without ray tracing, the RTX 4090 averaged around 85% higher FPS. For those in ArchViz, that translates to faster render times, or smoother VR experiences. Users in Virtual Production who are capped at 30 or so FPS will be able to do more on-screen, making their sets even more realistic.


GPU rendering in Octane, Redshift, V-Ray and Blender sees nearly a doubling in performance over the RTX 3090 and 3090 Ti. All of these renderers also benefit from using multiple GPUs, and it is typical to see an 80-90% speed up by adding a second video card to a renderer. We would see even more performance by using more than two GPUs, but you will almost always be limited to just 1-2 cards due to the massive size and power constraints of these new cards.


A big concern for this generation is the lack of NVLink. With it, GPU rendering would use this feature to pool the VRAM of two video cards to be able to hold larger, more complex scenes. Exceeding the VRAM of a GPU would fall back to the system RAM, dramatically decreasing performance, or crashing the system. Without NVLink, VRAM pooling isn't even an option.


This missing NVLink is going to be an even bigger concern for many in Virtual Production, especially those filming on large LED volumes. Currently, they use multiple GPUs so one video card can be dedicated to the inner frustum, and then transfer that frame to the other GPU to display on the wall. Not everyone in this space opts for this workflow, as it can be tricky to get set up, but when it works, it allows for much better performance. There are other options on the horizon, but nothing concrete at the time of writing. Not many users of this workflow would use a GeForce card anyway due to its lack of Quadro Sync support, but it is worth being aware of ahead of the RTX 6000 refresh.


Beyond NVLink, another concern we have about the RTX 4090 is simply how much power it demands (and how much heat output that will translate to). The physical design of the card is going to make using more than two RTX 4090 cards impossible without liquid cooling, but even then, you will find yourself to be power limited very quickly. The Founders Edition cards we are using straight from NVIDIA required a total of four(!) 8-pin PCIe plugs, which combined with the one plug required for our WRX80 motherboard, meant that we were using every single available PCIe power cable from our 1600W power supply in order to test dual RTX 4090 cards.


NVLink and power concerns aside, however, there is no question that the GeForce RTX 4090 24GB is an extremely capable GPU. Anytime we see performance gains of 2x over the previous generation cards, even in just a few workflows, it is hard not to be impressed. In the end, whether the RTX 4090 is going to be worth the investment for you is going to come down to your individual workflow, and what kind of ROI (return on investment) you might expect given the time savings it would be able to give you. But, if you are often limited by the performance of the GPU in your system, the RTX 4090 is almost certain to be a solid investment.
 
Last edited:
So as it stands its a complete and utter waste of money to get DDR5 Ram for 4K Gaming - From the results below it doesn't make any difference and in fact some games run faster on DDR4

 
Last edited:
Dam, so you saying my old intel 6700K aint going to get the best out of a 4090 :) i got a 2080 super at the moment.
i've paired a 4090 with a 7700K. i've been reading around a lot and comparing fps with others with similar setups apart from cpu (they have newer cpu's), the data is mixed. they're usually getting 0-25% extra fps in 4k and above games (the higher the res, the lower the gains). i've done an 8k benchmark today and i scored just under 10% more than someone with a 9900K. i play cyberpunk in vr and i'm getting about 5% less fps than someone with a 12900K. then i see patryks result which has made me go :eek:

Yess it's actually a crazy boost 40-120fps gains across anything I was thinking I had a faulty 4090 but my gpu scores all lined up just the CPU.. wow what a difference
that's fantastic really pleased for u, ru gaming at 4k? i must admit i'm being swayed to upgrade now, i was going to try to hold out until ryzen x3d or 13900KS but i could play that waiting game waiting for the next thing till i'm old n grey.
 
Last edited:
i've paired a 4090 with a 7700K. i've been reading around a lot and comparing fps with others with similar setups apart from cpu (they have newer cpu's), the data is mixed. they're usually getting 0-25% extra fps in games. i've done an 8k benchmark today and i scored just under 10% more than someone with a 9900K. i play cyberpunk in vr and i'm getting about 5% less fps than someone with a 12900K. then i see patryks result which has made me go


that's fantastic really pleased for u, ru gaming at 4k?
1440p ultra wide 21:9 , gains of X2 I'd say and at 4k@120hz on my sony a90j I'd say it's about 30-50% faster than my 3900x its crazy
 
1440p ultra wide 21:9 , gains of X2 I'd say and at 4k@120hz on my sony a90j I'd say it's about 30-50% faster than my 3900x its crazy

Something was off then if you were seeing 50% jumps at 4k gaming from a 3900x to a 5800x3d.

1440p I can understand that as the cpu will be bound before the gpu.

Maybe you had vsync on ? when testing at 4k before ?
 
Something was off then if you were seeing 50% jumps at 4k gaming from a 3900x to a 5800x3d.

1440p I can understand that as the cpu will be bound before the gpu.

Maybe you had vsync on ? when testing at 4k before ?
I'm not sure but the 3900x ran sluggish in a lot of places could have been its own problems tbh, pairing it with last gen 3090 didn't really notice it until now
 
i've paired a 4090 with a 7700K. i've been reading around a lot and comparing fps with others with similar setups apart from cpu (they have newer cpu's), the data is mixed. they're usually getting 0-25% extra fps in 4k and above games (the higher the res, the lower the gains). i've done an 8k benchmark today and i scored just under 10% more than someone with a 9900K. i play cyberpunk in vr and i'm getting about 5% less fps than someone with a 12900K. then i see patryks result which has made me go :eek:
I play at 4K so should still see a good improvement over my 2080 until i can get all the other new parts.
 
Dunno how reliable synthetic benchmarks are. I mostly play F1 22 and if I turn off RTX then my fps with a 4090 & 3900x sky rockets. So dont think much cpu bound.
Also DLSS3 frame generation gives huge frame rates and looks/plays fine to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom