Discussion Ada/'Lovelace'? Next gen Nvidia gaming architecture speculation

[TESKATLIPOKA]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1616102397901963264

Our leaker buddy seems to think the 4060 Ti is only 3070 performance. That'd be a tough sell if it's $600. I assume it will be $100 less than whatever the final price of the 4070 ends up being.

That looks about right. The question is at what resolution?
I think at 1080p It could do a bit better.
$449 MSRP. Can't go higher when RTX 3070's MRSP is $499.

 

[Aapje]

Still just horrible value. Anyone sane would get a 7600 XT for 1080p anyway, unless you are a pro-gamer, but then you get something better. Then again, sanity is in even shorter supply than good value on the GPU market, as we can see with how many people buy 3050's.

 

[Heartbreaker]

That looks about right. The question is at what resolution?
I think at 1080p It could do a bit better.
$449 MSRP. Can't go higher when RTX 3070's MRSP is $499.

No, but unfortunately it could start at $499. It's still hard to get a 3070 for it's MSRP, and don't forget NVida DLSS 3 False Advertising Marketing success... A 4060 Tie will perform up to 3X a 3070 Ti...

 

[blckgrffn]

lmao, can’t be higher than 3070 MSRP. It can be whatever price they choose 🤣. $100 cheaper than 4070ti? Sure! What a deal!

The 3070 MSRP was a fake made up number all along and it was essentially never obtainable for that price, even now that’s a “deal”, although I have to admit I don’t track it because I hate that much GPU harnessed to a tiny 8GB frame buffer.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I hate that much GPU harnessed to a tiny 8GB frame buffer.

I really hope someone comes up with a service to upgrade these cards to 16GB VRAM. Hate to see millions of them being scrapped for parts or ending up in landfills

 

[blckgrffn]

I really hope someone comes up with a service to upgrade these cards to 16GB VRAM. Hate to see millions of them being scrapped for parts or ending up in landfills

They will likely soldier on for a long time. Solid performance, especially at 1080 and probably in a couple years they’ll be $200 and a popular “uses power but the fps is good” option for many a budget build. The whole mining cards getting commingled into the retiring cards is of some concern but 🤷‍♂️

The right price will make them the right cards. I just bought a new/open box 2060 12GB for a friend of mine for $215 after tax. He keeps his hardware for years - coming from a FX CPU and a 460 - and he’s sorta cheap when it comes to this stuff which sounds bad but he wants bang for the buck - and I prioritized getting more than 8GB of frame buffer. A 6700XT was my preferred card but he understandably blinked at how it cost more than a series S.

In any case, a 12700K and a 2060 12GB is going to be a slight upgrade for him 😂

And I would have used a 3070 if I could have gotten it for the same price

 

[Heartbreaker]

They will likely soldier on for a long time. Solid performance, especially at 1080 and probably in a couple years they’ll be $200 and a popular “uses power but the fps is good” option for many a budget build. The whole mining cards getting commingled into the retiring cards is of some concern but 🤷‍♂️

Given that the top 5 GPUs on Steam HW Survey all have 6GB or less VRAM, it looks like it will be a LONG time before 8GB of VRAM will be a legitimate concern.

Sure if you are just going to max all settings blindly in every game you will run into problems occasionally, but a few setting tweaks will solve that.

 

[blckgrffn]

Given that the top 5 GPUs on Steam HW Survey all have 6GB or less VRAM, it looks like it will be a LONG time before 8GB of VRAM will be a legitimate concern.

Sure if you are just going to max all settings blindly in every game you will run into problems occasionally, but a few setting tweaks will solve that.

Yeah, if you sign into the nvidia app and let it "optimize" your games they'll work well for a long time. That said, I feel like texture quality is "free" so long as you just have enough memory for it and can make a big difference to the look of a game. So having the optimizer/game set textures to medium/low is a bummer even as most folks will never know that's happening. Obviously MMO's and MSFS tend to be outliers as they can spike vram usage hard.

So to me, it's a personal standards thing! I have a juiced/premium 980Ti and a 1660S that I know the non-mining history of that I could have dropped into this build, but their 6GB buffers helped make a new 6600 or a 2060 12GB feet like the better choice given I really like this guy The 12GB card got the nod given the essentially same price of the two of them. 12GB and (ugh) DLSS will be the right answer for him to make his card last for 7-10 years should it survive that long.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Yeah, if you sign into the nvidia app and let it "optimize" your games they'll work well for a long time

Why would you need a NVidia App to change game settings, just tick down from Ultra to High in the specific game that causes an issue. Chance are you would never even notice the visual difference if someone changed it without telling you.

I'll never get the obsession with running every setting on Ultra/Max.

 

[blckgrffn]

Why would you need a NVidia App to change game settings, just tick down from Ultra to High in the specific game that causes an issue. Chance are you would never even notice the visual difference if someone changed it without telling you.

I'll never get the obsession with running every setting on Ultra/Max.

Part of the Nvidia value prop for most people is that they have a one click optimizer for nearly all games. You can ignore it if you want, but I know plenty of gamers who swear by it in IRL, owning 3090’s to old slow stuff.

They come for the games, not for forking out a huge range of options.

Who is saying ultra is the only way to play?

 

[Heartbreaker]

Who is saying ultra is the only way to play?

Whenever I see someone "proving" that 8GB is not enough, they are using Ultra/Max settings.

 

[blckgrffn]

Whenever I see someone "proving" that 8GB is not enough, they are using Ultra/Max settings.

I am setting up friends with rigs to play for years. Five years or so from now I doubt it will be hard to “prove” that all of these cards are slow, and maybe 12 GB will be undersized but given a choice of two fairly equal cards at about the same price now, I’ll take more memory. And I’ll rib my buddy for not investing into his rig and he’ll laugh me off.

I am not here to change anyone’s mind, just sharing my own take.

 

[MrTeal]

Still just horrible value. Anyone sane would get a 7600 XT for 1080p anyway, unless you are a pro-gamer, but then you get something better. Then again, sanity is in even shorter supply than good value on the GPU market, as we can see with how many people buy 3050's.

Hell, you don't even need to wait. You can buy an MSI 6700XT on Newegg right now for $350 with two free games and get basically 3070 performance.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I am setting up friends with rigs to play for years. Five years or so from now I doubt it will be hard to “prove” that all of these cards are slow, and maybe 12 GB will be undersized but given a choice of two fairly equal cards at about the same price now, I’ll take more memory. And I’ll rib my buddy for not investing into his rig and he’ll laugh me off.

I am not here to change anyone’s mind, just sharing my own take.

Every time over the years, that we have had debates about if a card has enough ram, the side saying it doesn't, have been proven correct. Same for features like Vulcan an DX version. Certainly, there is the point that for much of our crowd i.e. forum dwellers, that by the time it matters it is irrelevant. But then again, none of these guys are buying those cards. Easy to recommend a card that is going to age like warm milk, to someone else, when you won't be the one stuck with it. Or buying it for way too much money for 2yrs of complete insanity in the market.

The lower the settings talking point is fine. That is, when all other things being equal, the buyer could not have bought a different card where that isn't necessary. Textures have become a great visual without big performance penalty. Being forced to lower those on a card otherwise plenty powerful enough to run the game, is a major bummer. Especially when the guy that bought a card with more ram for the same or less money, doesn't have to do it.

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

Given that the top 5 GPUs on Steam HW Survey all have 6GB or less VRAM, it looks like it will be a LONG time before 8GB of VRAM will be a legitimate concern.

Sure if you are just going to max all settings blindly in every game you will run into problems occasionally, but a few setting tweaks will solve that.

Whenever I see someone "proving" that 8GB is not enough, they are using Ultra/Max settings.

So what settings should they use to prove that?
Should they simply lower settings and act like 8GB Vram is enough for everything?

I could still accept 8GB for the weaker cards like ADA107 costing <=$329, but not for Ada106. N33 with 8GB Vram also doesn't look very appealing.

It looks like Vram is not that expensive. Arc770 8GB 16gbps costs $329 and the version with 16GB 17.5gbps is only $20 more expensive.
Then we have RTX 4060Ti with 8GB Vram, which will cost $429-449 or possibly more.
This is simply ridiculous.

If I can choose between cards with similar performance and not much higher price, then I would rather choose one with more Vram.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Every time over the years, that we have had debates about if a card has enough ram, the side saying it doesn't, have been proven correct. Same for features like Vulcan an DX version. Certainly, there is the point that for much of our crowd i.e. forum dwellers, that by the time it matters it is irrelevant. But then again, none of these guys are buying those cards. Easy to recommend a card that is going to age like warm milk, to someone else, when you won't be the one stuck with it. Or buying it for way too much money for 2yrs of complete insanity in the market.

The lower the settings talking point is fine. That is, when all other things being equal, the buyer could not have bought a different card where that isn't necessary. Textures have become a great visual without big performance penalty. Being forced to lower those on a card otherwise plenty powerful enough to run the game, is a major bummer. Especially when the guy that bought a card with more ram for the same or less money, doesn't have to do it.

GTX 1650 4GB - "The safe choice". Prove me wrong? Not like that GPU has enough gusto to even handle more VRAM.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

If I can choose between cards with similar performance and not much higher price, then I would rather choose one with more Vram.

This. I think recent polls have shown most gamers don't care about ray tracing either. Linus had almost 87k votes, and the number of gamers that used RT in the last week was a small percentage. Even votes for having used it or caring about it were a minority. Something like 67% didn't even care about it. There was another site with similar results, but I don't recall which one.

Frame generation is a neat feature. Linus blind tested some of his employees from seasoned eye candy vets to n00bs, and most didn't even know it was turned on. Some even preferred it I think. So far the 30 series isn't getting it, hence not a selling point. The last selling point is DLSS, which is not fair compensation for having less ram.

 

[blckgrffn]

GTX 1650 4GB - "The safe choice". Prove me wrong? Not like that GPU has enough gusto to even handle more VRAM.

lmao, yeah, I mean they could get a GTX 960. Plenty of vram on that card for the core it has too, right?

Yeah, a GTX 980 or a 1650 can play all the games you want but what kind of Master Race approach is that?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

GTX 1650 4GB - "The safe choice". Prove me wrong? Not like that GPU has enough gusto to even handle more VRAM.

That is the old mantra, that a card isn't powerful enough to need the extra ram. What has been borne out over time, is that is incorrect. A quick example, The 960 4GB holds up much better in newer titles than the 960 2GB.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

@blckgrffn

I did this with @GodisanAtheist last week. Both of us were thinking the exact same thing. Welcome to the sick minds think alike club.

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

GTX 1650 4GB - "The safe choice". Prove me wrong? Not like that GPU has enough gusto to even handle more VRAM.

I actually have GTX 1650M 4GB in my laptop.
I tried the inbuilt battle benchmark in Warhammer III a few days ago. Had to lower settings from high to medium, because of insufficient Vram! Parts of scenery were blank or missing.
My card managed >60FPS at medium settings, so even at high settings should manage >30 FPS.

The campaign map bench didn't have such a problem, and It managed ~34FPS at high settings.

P.S. I pity the f*ols who bought a laptop RTX 3050(Ti) with only 4GB Vram. They can't play this game at higher settings because of insufficient Vram.
The worst thing is that GA107 has 128bit bus unlike N24, so Nvidia could have used 8GB Vram, but didn't do It.

And that wasn't the worst of It, MX570 is a 64bit RTX3050 with cut ROPs and only 2GB Vram. It looks like there could be also a 4GB version.

 

[Mopetar]

No, but unfortunately it could start at $499. It's still hard to get a 3070 for it's MSRP, and don't forget NVida DLSS 3 False Advertising Marketing success... A 4060 Tie will perform up to 3X a 3070 Ti...

The sad part is that while you may be joking you're not lying. I won't be at all surprised when it gets released with performance claims of 2x 3080 performance due to DLSS3 being used.

Also, JHH should put anyone at NVidia who pronounces it as "tie" to the sword. Or better yet throw them in a scorpion pit. After they've been flayed of course. Then set the whole pit on fire. And while I don't think they could afford to do it more than twice, even with their enormous profits, dropping a tungsten rod on the blazing pit as a coup de gras. I'd imagine the message would be sent after the first, but always good to have an extra. As they say, spare the rod and spoil the child idiot-that-doesn't-know-how-pronounce-things-and-not-sound-like-a-complete-nob-head. Odd saying, but definitely appropriate.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Part of the Nvidia value prop for most people is that they have a one click optimizer for nearly all games. You can ignore it if you want, but I know plenty of gamers who swear by it in IRL, owning 3090’s to old slow stuff.

They come for the games, not for forking out a huge range of options.

Who is saying ultra is the only way to play?

Is that optimizer any good now? I remember GeForce Experience used to try to get me to run my games at way higher than native resolution with everything maxed out when it would get me like 35 fps on my GTX 970, stupidest thing I'd ever seen but I imagine they just wanted me to think my 970 sucked so I'd buy a 980 Ti.

 

[DeathReborn]

lmao, yeah, I mean they could get a GTX 960. Plenty of vram on that card for the core it has too, right?

Yeah, a GTX 980 or a 1650 can play all the games you want but what kind of Master Race approach is that?

Surely we need to wait for the AnandTech review of a 960 before pulling that trigger.

 

[blckgrffn]

Is that optimizer any good now? I remember GeForce Experience used to try to get me to run my games at way higher than native resolution with everything maxed out when it would get me like 35 fps on my GTX 970, stupidest thing I'd ever seen but I imagine they just wanted me to think my 970 sucked so I'd buy a 980 Ti.

I don’t use it because my personal gaming PC is Radeon and I’ve only had short stints with a 1070 recently and before that a 7900 GTO. Also, I refuse to login to get the control panel so I haven’t seen it for a bit. I imagine in the last few years it had a chance to get better.

That said, I guess so?

@DeathReborn that will never, ever get old. As Jared Walton is at Tom’s now, does it count if he revisits it there?