Soldato
Agree, but we are also witnessing upgraders jumping to a newer/better model yet referencing their old model which was supposed to have no issues right?
It just highlights users being selective with their information.
-
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.
RTX 4070 12GB, is it Worth it?
- Thread starter Author_25
- Start date
- Status
Agree, but we are also witnessing upgraders jumping to a newer/better model yet referencing their old model which was supposed to have no issues right?
It just highlights users being selective with their information.
Soldato
You would think the relatively tight amounts of vram on the 4000 series compared to AMD would swing a percentage of sales towards AMD.
Plus you get more raw performance at the same price point with Radeon. (From benchmarks I saw yesterday)
However Nvidia clearly feel no pressure as prices on the 4000 series remain at their elevated levels.
Plus you get more raw performance at the same price point with Radeon. (From benchmarks I saw yesterday)
However Nvidia clearly feel no pressure as prices on the 4000 series remain at their elevated levels.
Last edited:
Soldato
That is still a flawed comparison. Last years 3090 was pretty bad in terms of performance compared to this years 4090. Again, your argument leads to the fact that - if the 4090 wasn't as fast as it is - that would automatically make the 4070 a better product than it is.
Soldato
Nvidia has better upscaling, RT, frame gen, and vastly superior software support in apps, nevermind its huge brand pull. Some of the reasons radeon is in single digit market share.
If they wanted to gain more consumers, they would stop piggybacking the market leader with inferior features and undercut them by a big margin. Nvidia is under no pressure to reduce prices when its main competitor has no interest in competing.
If they wanted to gain more consumers, they would stop piggybacking the market leader with inferior features and undercut them by a big margin. Nvidia is under no pressure to reduce prices when its main competitor has no interest in competing.
Last edited:
I don't believe for a second that Radeon only has single digit market share. The 6000 series is selling like hot cakes at the moment due to the price cuts.
People are still parroting those Jon Peddie Research numbers from a while back, despite them being shipment figures for a single quarter (not sales), during a time when AMD admitted they'd been undershipping (which people got mad about then apparently forgot), as if they're an accurate representation of install base. They were also being used to point to how well Arc was doing, only for JPR to later admit they'd counted Intel GPUs inside supercomputers by accident and that their slice of the pie hadn't actually increased at all.
Last edited:
Even if AMD were not in single digits though, they are still under 20% imo which is very sad to see, but not surprising.
If that is to improve they either need to improve things like FSR and RT or cut prices to make the cards more competitive.
In my opinion the 7900XT only looks good because how stupid the 4070 Ti and 4080 are priced. Not because it actually priced well.
If that is to improve they either need to improve things like FSR and RT or cut prices to make the cards more competitive.
In my opinion the 7900XT only looks good because how stupid the 4070 Ti and 4080 are priced. Not because it actually priced well.
Caporegime
Jon Peddie himself from JPR in an MS Teams chat with Tom (MLID) said, with a completely straight face and such authority as if to say "How can this not be obvious" that people will buy Intel GPU's on mass just because its Intel, that Intel will take AMD's marketshare just because its Intel.
This is the same company that counts Intel CPU's as "GPU's" in gaming graphics marketshare because they have iGPU's, but wont count gaming consoles.
I don't know if these people are trying to drive an agenda due to their own vested interests or if they are so deluded that they just don't bother to check the data properly. Because of course whatever Intel say or just on the face of it its right because Intel can do anything, look how well the i5 2500K did, see.....
Last edited:
Caporegime
Intel are a mere shadow of what they used to be, these day's AMD are more Goliath to the David that is Intel.
That should be obvious to anyone even remotely analytical to this segment, never mind thie proclaimed "Experts" I think there are some very sour people with very comfortable retirement plans ruined by David, and some of them are tech journalists.
That should be obvious to anyone even remotely analytical to this segment, never mind thie proclaimed "Experts" I think there are some very sour people with very comfortable retirement plans ruined by David, and some of them are tech journalists.
Last edited:
That is not relevent in this case, because the total memory bandwidth is higher than the RTX 3070, which used GDDR6 VRAM, rather than GDDR6X used in RTX 4000 series cards.
Last edited:
Caporegime
He's not wrong...
RTX 3070: 448GB/s
RTX 4070: 504GB/s
And that's all that matters, it can have a narrower bus but much faster Memory IC's, if the result is a higher Memory bandwidth (Gigabytes Per Second) then its faster.
Last edited:
yeah, tbf it stands up less well in memory bandwidth vs the RTX 3070 TI (FE) which had a memory bandwidth of 608 GB/s, but that was priced at £525 anyway...
and was crippled somewhat by 8GB capacity. I'd rather have lots of GDDR6, e.g. 16GB.
and was crippled somewhat by 8GB capacity. I'd rather have lots of GDDR6, e.g. 16GB.
Last edited:
Caporegime
The only difference between these two GPU's is one has 18GB/s Memory IC's vs 16GB/s on the other.
RX 6750XT: 432GB/s
RX 6700XT: 384GB/s
RX 6750XT: 432GB/s
RX 6700XT: 384GB/s
Last edited:
.
The graphical artifacts in a game like Diablo 4 with frame gen is going to probably be HORRIBLE, given the amount going on all at the same time on screen with many bright colours, not to mention its an action RPG, meaning you interact with spells and hotkeys a lot and movement, the reduced latency is going to SUCK hard. Why bother when a decent gpu can get you high fps anyways, or just use DLSS2/FSR2, no need for silly DLSS3/fake frames. Oh and that game LOVES Vram btw, so Id go with the 7900xt 100% if that was your main game, much more longevity and probably more performance over time in the drivers.
Last edited:
They are still indicative numbers though, which can be combined with other sources (Steam, etc.) to get a reasonably accurate picture.
AMD cards are already using over 15GB of vram, https://youtu.be/ddyxpThjj5k?t=667
The 4070 will be ok with reduced settings & dlss/fsr for years, the thing is how many people want to spend around £600 and play at reduced settings. I suspect that is part of why the 4070 is a slow seller. That and many people bought 3000/6000 series and don't see it as a great upgrade for the price
Soldato
^^That great port Jedi survivor.
Last edited:
£30 under the already £200 overpriced MSRP, sounds like a steal....
- Status