Nvidia GeForce RTX 50-series Blackwell reviews

[digitalwanderer]

The drama has already started. Reviewers are accusing Nvidia of being salty about poor coverage of the 50 series and withholding 5060 review cards/drivers until cards go on sale. Those same reviewers are trying their hardest to convince us that they're not salty about receiving the cold shoulder because they still make money from their youtube videos even if they come out a week late. They want us to believe that they're upset cause they really care about the hordes of people who will buy a 5060 on day one without reading a review first. I'm not sure who buys that nonsense but It's hilarious.

That's why my interest! They're launching the day before Computex when most reviewers will be on their way to or in Taipei then. Very outside their usual strategy of seeding cards early so reviewers have time to review them. Sort of like when a game won't release review copies before launch, never a good sign.

Now AMD is supposedly launching the 9060 during Computex which is the same strategy, try and bury any bad reviews in the mass of stories coming out of Computex. Doesn't give me a lot of hope for the "low-end" cards coming out but this whole generation hasn't really brought much good with it. Just seems like way overpriced stuff on both sides if you want a card with enough memory.

Your point about reviewers being salty about it makes me think you watched Jay's video about it since he abused that word. Yeah there's a lot of reviewers who nVidia might not want to seed but there are tons of smaller reviewers who would gladly agree to any terms to get a card. The fact that there are no early samples out definitely means something we just don't know what it is yet.

 

[homerdog]

I don't see why NVIDIA cares what reviewers think. They're not having any trouble selling cards lol.

 

[trinibwoy]

That's why my interest! They're launching the day before Computex when most reviewers will be on their way to or in Taipei then. Very outside their usual strategy of seeding cards early so reviewers have time to review them. Sort of like when a game won't release review copies before launch, never a good sign.

Now AMD is supposedly launching the 9060 during Computex which is the same strategy, try and bury any bad reviews in the mass of stories coming out of Computex. Doesn't give me a lot of hope for the "low-end" cards coming out but this whole generation hasn't really brought much good with it. Just seems like way overpriced stuff on both sides if you want a card with enough memory.

Your point about reviewers being salty about it makes me think you watched Jay's video about it since he abused that word. Yeah there's a lot of reviewers who nVidia might not want to seed but there are tons of smaller reviewers who would gladly agree to any terms to get a card. The fact that there are no early samples out definitely means something we just don't know what it is yet.

Yeah Jay, Daniel Owen and HUB all claimed they're not concerned about losing click revenue. I see no other reason for them to be upset. The 5060 will be on sale for several years. Reviews dropping one week after retail availability will have no bearing on its long term success or people's ability to make informed decisions. The vast majority of 5060's will ship in pre-builts anyway.

I think Nvidia is absolutely salty about the negative coverage and is basically giving these guys the finger. The coverage of the 5060 will be just as brutal whether reviews drop on day 1 or day 10. So the only losers in this situation are content creators who crave those day 1 clicks. Daniel admitted he's concerned about people rushing reviews in order to be "first". That tells me that click revenue is a real concern here.

 

[GhostofWar]

Hope the outrage click bait reviews for the previous cards got them money in the bank, once amd and nvidia could hardly get one positive comment in a review this was going to be the outcome. If a car reviewer turned off all aids and electronics and then shit all over a cars launch ability and cornering stability and then said it's too expensive because they don't even know what the improved electronics provided i'm sure they wouldn't be loaned or invited to press day again by Ferrari.

Hardwares hitting a wall, if the software or dedicated hardware given silicon real estate is of no interest to the reviewers well here we are. I'm a little disgusted with myself siding with hardware companies here because this traditionally is a cop out screw the consumer move, but the last round of reviews killed my interest in watching/reading so much i'd rather watch them cry about not getting free and/or early stuff and looking like the entitled nutjobs they've become.

 

[Sega_Model_4]

You can lower texture quality and use DLSS.

In the end these reviews are useless for everyone. Like companies not sending their lower tier products to reviewers (cars).

Even on Low, some games are close to the limit.

In others it is unfeasible...

 

[DegustatoR]

Even on Low, some games are close to the limit.

Testing done on a 24GB GPU doesn't tell us anything on how "close to the limit" a game would be on an 8GB one - or what hitting this "limit" actually means.

 

[Qesa]

In others it is unfeasible...

I'm sure this is borne out in the actual FPS charts in that same review right? You wouldn't just quote this chart without context and let people assume the 8 GB cards fall miles behind 16 GB variants if that wasn't really the case?



Oh, they're keeping up just fine even at 4k ultra. Guess the game must allocate much more VRAM than it actually uses.

 

[Sega_Model_4]

Testing done on a 24GB GPU doesn't tell us anything on how "close to the limit" a game would be on an 8GB one - or what hitting this "limit" actually means.

With a GPU with 8 GB of VRAM, the system will already be allocating RAM space when it reaches around 7 GB of usage. Depending on the scene, this can be exceeded and cause stutters.

 

[Sega_Model_4]

I'm sure this is borne out in the actual FPS charts in that same review right? You wouldn't just quote this chart without context and let people assume the 8 GB cards fall miles behind 16 GB variants if that wasn't really the case?

View attachment 13523

Oh, they're keeping up just fine even at 4k ultra. Guess the game must allocate much more VRAM than it actually uses.

You need to look at the 1%low to see if these games don't stutter. Just looking at the maximum FPS value doesn't mean anything. Frametime is much more important.

 

[Qesa]

You need to look at the 1%low to see if these games don't stutter. Just looking at the maximum FPS value doesn't mean anything. Frametime is much more important.

I linked the min FPS chart...

 

[T2098]

You need to look at the 1%low to see if these games don't stutter. Just looking at the maximum FPS value doesn't mean anything. Frametime is much more important.

The graph Qesa posted is the 1% lows for FFXVI, and the 4060Ti 8GB outperforms the 4060Ti 16GB, likely by virtue of slightly higher clocks due to some extra TDP room to boost higher, as it doesn't have to burn power keeping the extra VRAM chips powered up.

One interesting thing to note is the gap between the 16GB 7600XT and the 8GB 7600. Other than the VRAM capacity difference, the 7600XT should only be a single digit percentage faster than the 7600, but the 7600's minimum FPS are less than half. AMD seems to struggle more than Nvidia does in VRAM-bound situations, especially if RT is involved, as their BVH structure takes significantly more space in VRAM than Nvidia's does. (important for games like Indiana Jones and DOOM:TDA with mandatory RT)

 

[DegustatoR]

With a GPU with 8 GB of VRAM, the system will already be allocating RAM space when it reaches around 7 GB of usage. Depending on the scene, this can be exceeded and cause stutters.

We don't know what the game would be doing on an 8GB GPU. No one should be just assuming that VRAM usage strategies are the same on all VRAM sizes. Or that the game actually needs that much data in VRAM to render its frames without issues.

 

[techuse]

Hope the outrage click bait reviews for the previous cards got them money in the bank, once amd and nvidia could hardly get one positive comment in a review this was going to be the outcome. If a car reviewer turned off all aids and electronics and then shit all over a cars launch ability and cornering stability and then said it's too expensive because they don't even know what the improved electronics provided i'm sure they wouldn't be loaned or invited to press day again by Ferrari.

Hardwares hitting a wall, if the software or dedicated hardware given silicon real estate is of no interest to the reviewers well here we are. I'm a little disgusted with myself siding with hardware companies here because this traditionally is a cop out screw the consumer move, but the last round of reviews killed my interest in watching/reading so much i'd rather watch them cry about not getting free and/or early stuff and looking like the entitled nutjobs they've become.

A better analogy would be the aids and electronics being unusable in a variety of situations or requiring sacrifices that may result in an overall worse experience.

 

[Sega_Model_4]

We don't know what the game would be doing on an 8GB GPU. No one should be just assuming that VRAM usage strategies are the same on all VRAM sizes. Or that the game actually needs that much data in VRAM to render its frames without issues.

I speak from experience, as I use a 3060 Ti. At around 90~95% VRAM usage, the RAM footprint starts to climb faster. Whenever a game is at these levels, it starts to perform poorly, even when the GPU has plenty of processing power.

The graph Qesa posted is the 1% lows for FFXVI, and the 4060Ti 8GB outperforms the 4060Ti 16GB, likely by virtue of slightly higher clocks due to some extra TDP room to boost higher, as it doesn't have to burn power keeping the extra VRAM chips powered up.

One interesting thing to note is the gap between the 16GB 7600XT and the 8GB 7600. Other than the VRAM capacity difference, the 7600XT should only be a single digit percentage faster than the 7600, but the 7600's minimum FPS are less than half. AMD seems to struggle more than Nvidia does in VRAM-bound situations, especially if RT is involved, as their BVH structure takes significantly more space in VRAM than Nvidia's does. (important for games like Indiana Jones and DOOM:TDA with mandatory RT)

I'm telling you that you can't judge a game by charts alone, they don't tell the whole story. It's not uncommon for Digital Foundry to point out that a game has seemingly decent framerates, but the gameplay seems compromised by frametime instability.

 

[DegustatoR]

I speak from experience, as I use a 3060 Ti. At around 90~95% VRAM usage, the RAM footprint starts to climb faster. Whenever a game is at these levels, it starts to perform poorly, even when the GPU has plenty of processing power.

Again, you can't make an assumption about VRAM usage strategy on an 8GB GPU from figures you get on a 24GB one.

 

[Sega_Model_4]

Again, you can't make an assumption about VRAM usage strategy on an 8GB GPU from figures you get on a 24GB one.

Of course we can, wow, that's a completely unscientific answer. Statistics and probability are there for that. We don't always need to have precise data, but we can have an idea. And again, I talked about actually using an 8GB GPU, I'm speaking from personal experience.

Buy an 8GB GPU and test it for yourself.