Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Thankfully for me, while I can appreciate the extra smoothness that comes with 240 Hz in games, going from 120 Hz to 240 Hz isn't nearly as dramatic as going from 60 Hz to 120 Hz. I think 120 Hz might be good enough for me as a lower bound with 240 Hz being something nice I can dream about but it's not quite into the "must have" territory that 120 Hz represents.
As soon as I had a taste of 120 Hz on my friend's rig, I couldn't wait to get rid of 60 Hz gaming. I don't have the same feeling after trying 240 Hz and higher.
Regards,
SB
Feel free to apply that logic to AMD. The 7900xt is over priced. They just followed Nvidia with the price gouging. That card should be like $600 max. With regards to the '70' class gpus, what Nvidia calls it doesn't matter. It's what they charge for it. The 4070 for example should actually be the 4060 or 4060ti at worst. Nvidia and Amd are out here price gouging and we have folks in here applauding it. It's very sad.
davis.anthony
Veteran
I dissagree, it's still a 1440p class GPU no matter how people try to swing it.
The high prices have just made people expect them to perform above their class (which I can kind of understand) but it's a 1440p card.
It doesn't matter what the excuse is, bad ports, etc. Those will always exist. Nvidia's job is to deliver value with their products and so far, the whole Ada line fails to deliver much value. If you purchase a graphics card for $800 USD in the case of the 4070ti, the card should be designed with longevity in mind. The 4070ti is not.
The real question is why are you defending the card so strongly? Most people look at the ada line up and think it's a bad deal all around. I don't know why you have a vested interest in defending Nvidia.
Since when is 30% far faster? I chose the bus to highlight the stagnation that's occurring with the 4070. The whole card is bad, I could have chosen the lack of change in cuda cores or other specifications.
That's really not the point. Nvidia went 7 years or 3 architectures(1070 -> 2070 -> 3070) and delivered no improvement in memory capacity while increasing the price significantly. 16gb is the base expectation at the prices they're charging for a "70" class gpu which is really a 4060 in disguise. We know they're playing funny games as they tried to pass of a 4070 as a 4080 but got caught red-handed. They then successfully passed off a 4070 as a 4070ti and people lapped it up claiming Nvidia had self corrected. What a joke.
Who says the redesigned architecture has anything to do with it? They went from Samsung's bad 8nm process to TSMC's "4N" process. If you just put ampere architecture on that process, you'd have gotten a huge boost in performance simply by doing nothing. All the things you're talking about are process related. Like I said, when i see evidence that Ada is actually significantly faster clock for clock than Ampere, then I'll gladly give credit where credit is due. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of that at all.
Last edited:
It really isn't but, lets just agree to disagree.
davis.anthony
Veteran
In that particular result? Dog shit.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
With respect with 'longevity' in mind, it's very bad, but with some pretty significant caveats that are dependent on a number of potentialities:
1) FSR 3.0 sucks or has poor dev uptake.
2) Cyberpunk's path tracing become more commonplace outside of one game, and if it does, other devs are as good at vram management as CD Projet is so the 12GB of a 4070TI doesn't also become a bottleneck.
51 fps avg is a hell of a lot better than 24 btw - but it also low enough that I would probably not be using overdrive on a 4070ti either. Overdrive at this point is a nice look into the future, but whether that 'future' means within the next 2 years we have a substantial amount of games that will be utilizing similar tech is the question.
There will be enough new games with old school Raytracing which be running worse on a 7900XTX than on a 12GB nVidia card like the 4070TI. This ARK remake has been announced with UE5 and RTXDI...
But this wasnt my point. VRAM is not the only part of a new GPU. And there are already enough games available in which the 7900XTX isnt better than a 4070TI:
www.pcgameshardware.de
Not everyone plays in 4K, not everyone cares about the latest AAA games.
But this wasnt my point. VRAM is not the only part of a new GPU. And there are already enough games available in which the 7900XTX isnt better than a 4070TI:
Nvidia Geforce RTX 4070 im XXL-Test: Der neue Effizienzmeister [Update]
Nvidias Geforce RTX 4070 im Spieletest mit zahlreichen Raytracing-Benchmarks in vier Auflösungen. Und als Bonus: Das bringt DLSS 3.
Not everyone plays in 4K, not everyone cares about the latest AAA games.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yup, and not everyone cares about the current state of RT. If nothing except the 4090 is fast enough in RT, which is the case for me and even then not all games are fast enough for me with RT on the 4090, then RT just plain doesn't matter. In which case the 7900 XT/X outside of it's absurd price (just like the 40xx series) is pretty good.
Since RT doesn't matter to me, I'm more concerned with memory amount and non-RT performance still. For some people RT is the only thing that matters, and so, perhaps they are fine with paying more for less memory and less non-RT performance. And that's fine as well.
Regards.
SB
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Speaking of Capcom's QA issues, saw a ~300mb update for both RE2 and RE3 on Steam, so went to the Steam forums to see if there were any changes as no patch notes (per usual), and apparently this patch removed RT options. Tested both and can confirm, no more RT.
Sure this is a bug, but lol.
Sure this is a bug, but lol.
It runs at a pretty consistent and very smooth (I.e no stutters) 60fps at 3840x1600 max settings DLSS Auto on my system. I'm not sure anyone can reasonably say those are unplayable settings.
As to playing it without PT just to get a few extra fps or a slightly sharper image, that would be a huge waste IMO. Hell I played through Crysis at something like 720p/30 because I wanted to experience the new pinnacle of graphics, and now I can do that at something resembling 4k at a pretty decent 60fps. Why on Earth would I drop that back to 'current gen' graphics just for that?
davis.anthony
Veteran
For some people RT is the only thing that matters, and so, perhaps they are fine with paying more for less memory and less non-RT performance. And that's fine as well.
Regards.
SB
This is me
Really? You're using the DX12 versions and not the Beta no RT DX11 versions right?
Why would they remove RT from the game?
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
I wouldn't say those are 'unplayable' settings either, but I'm going by the chart provided which has it at 51fps at 1440p - is that with native but no DLSS2, but with just frame gen? Or do you have a 4080/4090?
Yes it's the DX12 version, everyone is getting it. As to why, it's a shitty QA system - assuming it's not intentional, which I don't know why it would be after all this time.
Last edited:
davis.anthony
Veteran
Actually you can. It automatically turns on DLSS if you turn on frame-gen, but if you turn dlss off again after that and apply, then it will be native+FG.
- Status
Similar threads
