• 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

TNA

TNA

Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
21,635
Location
London
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.

Haha. You over paid, I got it for much cheaper :cry::p:D;)
 

G J

G J

Associate
Joined
3 Oct 2008
Posts
1,190
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.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Mar 2017
Posts
288
Location
Lincoln
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. ;)

Wall mounted it's perfect however :D
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,872
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.

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
 
Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Posts
1,507
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.

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.

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.

In RT could happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G J
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2019
Posts
8,644
Location
Uk
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.
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.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Aug 2019
Posts
2,172
Location
SW Florida
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
2,976
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?
 
Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
1,634
Location
Sussex
Wall mounted it's perfect however :D
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.
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?
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.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Apr 2007
Posts
2,073
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?
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.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Oct 2011
Posts
663
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.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
26,881
Location
Utopia
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.
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.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2007
Posts
4,947
Location
Lincolnshire

TNA

TNA

Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
21,635
Location
London
4090 50% faster than a 3090 supposedly.


Rumours change from day to day. One minute 100% next minute 50%. Tomorrow will be 150%. Need them clicks ya’ll :cry:
 
Caporegime
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,872
Rumours change from day to day. One minute 100% next minute 50%. Tomorrow will be 150%. Need them clicks ya’ll :cry:
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
 
Associate
Joined
5 Feb 2022
Posts
112
Location
Knowhere
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+.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
26,465
Location
y0 Mommas a**
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
With them numbers RDNA3 is gonna eat it alive...

:D
 
Top Bottom