• 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

Nexus18 said:
Agree I wouldn't be spending 4 figures on a "monitor" though, thankfully the AW qd-oled is/was a very reasonable price (especially considering first monitor with qd-oled tech), most got it for £750-900, mine cost me about £630 after all the discounts and cashback, cheaper than any other high end true HDR freesync or gsync monitor.
Click to expand...

Haha. You over paid, I got it for much cheaper :cry::p:D;)
 
I've seen a few outlandish predictions posted online as I cant see this being true for example:

4090 to be 1.8-2.0x faster than a 3090.

4080 to be 1.5x a 3090.

4070 to match or beat a 3090.

The strange one is a 4060 getting close to a 3080. (A 3060 is near half the speed of a 3080 so nvidia going to nearly double the performance for this tier?)

I think a gain of around 25-40% for each tier to more resonable.
 
Richdog said:
Monitors are one of the most historically overpriced and underperforming pieces of equipment you can buy with £1000 monitors often performing little better than ones costing half or even a third of the price. Also you do not really have a monitor, you have an OLED TV you are using as a monitor, and it is way too big for comfortable use on most peoples desks. ;)
Click to expand...

Wall mounted it's perfect however :D
 
Marak said:
Really? Of all the computer bits and pieces you can buy the monitor is the thing you spend the most time looking at. They last multiple GPU and CPU refreshes, very often over 5 years of life in them, sometime more than 10, occassionally over 20 (my brothers old Amiga 1024 monitor from 1986 lasted well into the late 2000's/early 2010's). Bad ones can give you eyestrain and often have dead pixels in the worst places.

A monitor is the one thing you should spend big on above all others. Writing this on my gorgeous LG CX 48" OLED right now (£1,500 new in summer 2020 I think) and loving it.
Click to expand...

100% agree that the display is the most important part, I'm just referring to the "monitors" industry in general, when you compare it to the "TV" market, they are a rip off for what you are getting in terms of size and tech. Them LG 48" and 42" displays are an exception and even then I think they (at least the 48" models) are still advertised as "TVs" e.g. I would not be paying £1+k for a 27-32" HDR LCD monitor when I could buy a 55" oled display for £900-1000
 
Marak said:
Really? Of all the computer bits and pieces you can buy the monitor is the thing you spend the most time looking at. They last multiple GPU and CPU refreshes, very often over 5 years of life in them, sometime more than 10, occassionally over 20 (my brothers old Amiga 1024 monitor from 1986 lasted well into the late 2000's/early 2010's). Bad ones can give you eyestrain and often have dead pixels in the worst places.

A monitor is the one thing you should spend big on above all others. Writing this on my gorgeous LG CX 48" OLED right now (£1,500 new in summer 2020 I think) and loving it.
Click to expand...

A decent display will do fine. For $2000 I would rather have 3-4 GPUs as it will provide a better experience with a cheaper display than one GPU with an "overly expensive" monitor.

G J said:
I've seen a few outlandish predictions posted online as I cant see this being true for example:

4090 to be 1.8-2.0x faster than a 3090.

4080 to be 1.5x a 3090.

4070 to match or beat a 3090.

The strange one is a 4060 getting close to a 3080. (A 3060 is near half the speed of a 3080 so nvidia going to nearly double the performance for this tier?)

I think a gain of around 25-40% for each tier to more resonable.
Click to expand...

In RT could happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G J
G J said:
I've seen a few outlandish predictions posted online as I cant see this being true for example:

4090 to be 1.8-2.0x faster than a 3090.

4080 to be 1.5x a 3090.

4070 to match or beat a 3090.

The strange one is a 4060 getting close to a 3080. (A 3060 is near half the speed of a 3080 so nvidia going to nearly double the performance for this tier?)

I think a gain of around 25-40% for each tier to more resonable.
Click to expand...
Not sure about the top 2 but I'd expect a 4070 to atleast match a 3090, the 3070 after all does match a 2080ti while having slightly better RT performance.

The 4060ti would probably match 3080 while a 4060 would hopefully come in around 3070ti performance, the 4060 should get a decent bump in performance especially given that the 3060 was barely any faster than a 2060 super while the 3060ti was faster than a 2080 super.
 
The naming scheme should be taken with a grain of salt because the manufacturer can scribble anything they want on the side of the cards they produce.

I think the question we should ask is how much performance will we get at each of the price points.
 
I find it hard to believe that the 4090 is going to have 60% more Cuda cores than the 4080...has there ever been such a huge delta between the two cards before?
 
Marak said:
Wall mounted it's perfect however :D
Click to expand...
So that rules out being able to take advantage of the superior ergonomics of a standing desk unless you have some clever wall mount which the desk's motor can also control.
Cooper said:
I find it hard to believe that the 4090 is going to have 60% more Cuda cores than the 4080...has there ever been such a huge delta between the two cards before?
Click to expand...
You would think that unless the two are based on different chips that this is very unlikely.
If they are meant to be based on the same chip then the only way it makes sense is if the die is so large that they expect poor full yields. Segmentation by disabling large chunks of the die makes little sense.
 
Cooper said:
I find it hard to believe that the 4090 is going to have 60% more Cuda cores than the 4080...has there ever been such a huge delta between the two cards before?
Click to expand...
Didn't the 2080Ti have a ton more cuda cores vs the 2080? it certainly had a lot more silicon. It was also the only part in the entire Turing generation that gave a meaningful performance uplift over Pascal imho.
 
My guess, nice performance boost in each of the new 4000 series cards, but I think the RRP for the higher tier cards will be eye wateringly expensive (4080,4090) a cut down 3090 style card perhaps the 4070, will be close to £800, I'd be happy with that kind of performance at that kind of price, or pick up a use 3090 for around £600.
 
KompuKare said:
So that rules out being able to take advantage of the superior ergonomics of a standing desk unless you have some clever wall mount which the desk's motor can also control.

You would think that unless the two are based on different chips that this is very unlikely.
If they are meant to be based on the same chip then the only way it makes sense is if the die is so large that they expect poor full yields. Segmentation by disabling large chunks of the die makes little sense.
Click to expand...
Yeah I also have a sit and stand desk for my home office so wouldn't work for me either. It's on my desk or nothing.
 
Sparx said:
4090 50% faster than a 3090 supposedly.

videocardz.com

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 to feature 2520 MHz boost clock, almost 50% higher than RTX 3090 - VideoCardz.com

GeForce RTX 4090 with 2520 MHz boost clock Kopite7kimi has an update on RTX 4090 specs. According to the leaker, NVIDIA RTX 4090 now apparently has a base and boost clocks. It is revealed that RTX 4090 has 2235 MHz base and 2520 MHz boost with 2750 MHz actual clock (such as in-game clock). Those […]
videocardz.com videocardz.com
Click to expand...

Rumours change from day to day. One minute 100% next minute 50%. Tomorrow will be 150%. Need them clicks ya’ll :cry:
 
TNA said:
Rumours change from day to day. One minute 100% next minute 50%. Tomorrow will be 150%. Need them clicks ya’ll :cry:
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

I'm still expecting:

4070 to match 3090 but be better in RT by at least 30% for £550-600
4080 to be about 30% better than the 3080 for £700-750
4090 to be about 30% better than the 3090 for £1500-1600

Anything less/worse = meh
Anything better = bonus
 
I think they'll keep the 4070 at £650, same price as the 3080, now that people have had a taste for higher prices. Like the 3070 vs 2080ti, it'll get a tiny performance bump to match its tiny power drop (leaks say 300W vs the 3080's 320W, so the same as 3070's 220W vs 2080ti's 250W). Everything else is up in the air, although I'm looking forward to seeing if that 600W card is true. I expected better from 5nm power-wise. I suppose 3080-class cards are just doomed to use 300W+.
 
Nexus18 said:
Pretty much.

I'm still expecting:

4070 to match 3090 but be better in RT by at least 30% for £550-600
4080 to be about 30% better than the 3080 for £700-750
4090 to be about 30% better than the 3090 for £1500-1600

Anything less/worse = meh
Anything better = bonus
Click to expand...
With them numbers RDNA3 is gonna eat it alive...

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom