News Alleged Nvidia RTX 40-series Super GPU specs and launch dates leaked

[Admin]

Nvidia rumored to unveil GeForce RTX 40-series in early January, then gradually roll them out later in the month.

Alleged Nvidia RTX 40-series Super GPU specs and launch dates leaked : Read more

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

This whole super refresh makes the prices all a lot more bearable, even if I still think they are on the high end. Especially the potential 16GB RTX 4070ti super. The potential MSRP drop for the RTX 4080 super is also a nice update to compete on a price level with AMDs generally cheaper flagships.

 

[Jagar123]

No thanks Nvidia

 

[valthuer]

GeForce RTX 4070 Super? Seriously Nvidia?

With just 12 GBs of VRAM, i'm telling you, there's nothing super about this thing!

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

GeForce RTX 4070 Super? Seriously Nvidia?

With just 12 GBs of VRAM, i'm telling you, there's nothing super about this thing!

There's nothing wrong with 12GB, and at least it has a 192-bit interface. The RTX 4070 is effectively tied with the RTX 3080 10GB. RTX 4070 Ti effectively ties the RTX 3080 Ti, despite having half the interface width. A new RTX 4070 Super will have both enough capacity and bandwidth (factoring in the L2 cache) to provide good performance. There will be edge cases where you can exceed 12GB, but do people really expect to run 4K with maxed out settings (including RT) in every game on a ~$600 GPU? If so, good luck!

Most games will probably do just fine and break 60 fps, particularly with DLSS upscaling plus the potential for Frame Generation (if you want to count that). But there will always be exceptions to the rule, and in such cases, stepping down the settings a notch should suffice.

If you want more than 12GB from Nvidia, you'll need to pony up for the 4080 Super.

 

[valthuer]

There's nothing wrong with 12GB, and at least it has a 192-bit interface. The RTX 4070 is effectively tied with the RTX 3080 10GB. RTX 4070 Ti effectively ties the RTX 3080 Ti, despite having half the interface width. A new RTX 4070 Super will have both enough capacity and bandwidth (factoring in the L2 cache) to provide good performance. There will be edge cases where you can exceed 12GB, but do people really expect to run 4K with maxed out settings (including RT) in every game on a ~$600 GPU? If so, good luck!

Most games will probably do just fine and break 60 fps, particularly with DLSS upscaling plus the potential for Frame Generation (if you want to count that). But there will always be exceptions to the rule, and in such cases, stepping down the settings a notch should suffice.

If you want more than 12GB from Nvidia, you'll need to pony up for the 4080 Super.

Sorry Jarred.

It's just that i had a terrible experience from 4070 Ti, so i'm not expecting the Super version to be any better.

For the past 12 years or so, i had been a 1080p gamer and, believe it or not, i was determined to stay that way.

I live in Greece, and, back in early 2023, i bought 4070 Ti for approximately 1,000€.

Combined it with a 13900K CPU, an ASROCK Z790 PG Lightning Motherboard, 32 GBs of XPG Lancer modules... The whole shebang.

At first, i thought it was impressive.

That was until i saw games like Resident Evil 4 remake, Atomic Heart and Far Cry 6, CTD repeatedly at 1080p, with Direct3D fatal errors, due to 4070 Ti's insufficient VRAM.

That's what got me disappointed, or rather enraged, considering the fact that i had just spent my money on a new generation GPU.

If a card like 4070 Ti can't handle Full HD, i realised it was rather improbable it could handle all the AAA games that were gonna be released during the next few months.

I wouldn't dare to have 4K Ultra aspirations with a 4070 Ti. But, at 1080p, and with a high-end rig, i demand nothing less than playable framerates at max settings.

So, in June, i pulled the trigger, got rid of my 4070 Ti and bought the 4090 - which, in turn, made me buy a 4Κ monitor.

Cards like 4070 Ti and Super, COULD have been great, HAD Nvidia taken things seriously and equipped them with 16 GB.

But, at 12 GB, they are just a pathetic GPUs, not worthy of their money.

I know i sound demanding, but, in reality, i'm not: the games i try to play are!

I mean, what can i really do about a title like Resident Evil 4 remake, when it needs no less than 14 GBs of VRAM at 1080p Ultra? What margin of choice does that leave me?

Having a brand new, expensive product, that makes you lower game settings right off the bat, is not something i intend to settle for.

P.S. Knowing what i know now, i'm not sure why anyone would even consider 12GB VRAM in 2023. 1080 Ti from 2017 had 11GB for crying out loud.

Nvidia must be drunk. Even if the 4090 had 30% less performance I'd still buy it for the 24GB VRAM alone.

 

[thisisaname]

There's nothing wrong with 12GB, and at least it has a 192-bit interface. The RTX 4070 is effectively tied with the RTX 3080 10GB. RTX 4070 Ti effectively ties the RTX 3080 Ti, despite having half the interface width. A new RTX 4070 Super will have both enough capacity and bandwidth (factoring in the L2 cache) to provide good performance. There will be edge cases where you can exceed 12GB, but do people really expect to run 4K with maxed out settings (including RT) in every game on a ~$600 GPU? If so, good luck!

Most games will probably do just fine and break 60 fps, particularly with DLSS upscaling plus the potential for Frame Generation (if you want to count that). But there will always be exceptions to the rule, and in such cases, stepping down the settings a notch should suffice.

If you want more than 12GB from Nvidia, you'll need to pony up for the 4080 Super.

The 1080 was good for 1080 gaming does that mean that4 generation later the 4070ti is still only a 1080 card. If that is so then there has been little progress since then.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Sorry Jarred.

It's just that i had a terrible experience from 4070 Ti, so i'm not expecting the Super version to be any better.

For the past 12 years or so, i had been a 1080p gamer and, believe it or not, i was determined to stay that way.

I live in Greece, and, back in early 2023, i bought 4070 Ti for approximately 1,000€.

Combined it with a 13900K CPU, an ASROCK Z790 PG Lightning Motherboard, 32 GBs of XPG Lancer modules... The whole shebang.

At first, i thought it was impressive.

That was until i saw games like Resident Evil 4 remake, Atomic Heart and Far Cry 6, CTD repeatedly at 1080p, with Direct3D fatal errors, due to 4070 Ti's insufficient VRAM.

That's what got me disappointed, or rather enraged, considering the fact that i had just spent my money on a new generation GPU.

If a card like 4070 Ti can't handle Full HD, i realised it was rather improbable it could handle all the AAA games that were gonna be released during the next few months.

I wouldn't dare to have 4K Ultra aspirations with a 4070 Ti. But, at 1080p, and with a high-end rig, i demand nothing less than playable framerates at max settings.

So, in June, i pulled the trigger, got rid of my 4070 Ti and bought the 4090 - which, in turn, made me buy a 4Κ monitor.

Cards like 4070 Ti and Super, COULD have been great, HAD Nvidia taken things seriously and equipped them with 16 GB.

But, at 12 GB, they are just a pathetic GPUs, not worthy of their money.

I know i sound demanding, but, in reality, i'm not: the games i try to play are!

I mean, what can i really do about a title like Resident Evil 4 remake, when it needs no less than 14 GBs of VRAM at 1080p Ultra? What margin of choice does that leave me?

Having a brand new, expensive product, that makes you lower game settings right off the bat, is not something i intend to settle for.

P.S. Knowing what i know now, i'm not sure why anyone would even consider 12GB VRAM in 2023. 1080 Ti from 2017 had 11GB for crying out loud.

Nvidia must be drunk. Even if the 4090 had 30% less performance I'd still buy it for the 24GB VRAM alone.

If you were crashing to desktop regularly, that sounds like something other than insufficient VRAM. I can only point to Hogwarts Legacy as a game I’ve seen in the past year or so where 12GB on an Nvidia GPU had problems, and then only at 4K and max settings. 8GB cards had issues at 1440p as well, but IIRC they still did fine at 1080p.

And like I said, a few exceptions where you need to run High instead of Ultra settings is hardly the end of the world. The whole situation with people raging about lack of VRAM has gotten quite ridiculous.

4070 Ti was not a great card because it was $800 for a card that replaced a $600 model. 4070 at $600 was far more reasonable, so a faster 4070 Super for the same price would be even better. But the 4070 Super won’t match the 4070 Ti in performance either, it will just be cheaper.

 

[valthuer]

If you were crashing to desktop regularly, that sounds like something other than insufficient VRAM. I can only point to Hogwarts Legacy as a game I’ve seen in the past year or so where 12GB on an Nvidia GPU had problems, and then only at 4K and max settings. 8GB cards had issues at 1440p as well, but IIRC they still did fine at 1080p.

And like I said, a few exceptions where you need to run High instead of Ultra settings is hardly the end of the world. The whole situation with people raging about lack of VRAM has gotten quite ridiculous.

No, trust me: it WAS a VRAM only problem, whenever i tried to raise the settings over a specific limit.

It happened on certain games and i was able to trace the error codes. Each and every time, i would find users facing the exact same issues, the only solution being... lower the settings and everything will be fine! And every time i read that, i was like: "how come I didn't think of that?"

The proposed "solution", worked for me as well, but, as you can imagine, i wasn't very satisfied.

My rig, was otherwise performing as expected.

I could live with frame rate drops: i have experienced them repeatedly and it's no big deal.

I could easily stomach stuttering: not the end of the world, as far as i'm concerned.

However, i will not/i shall not/i cannot accept CTDs at 1080p, from a latest generation 1,000€ GPU.

This is where i personally drew the line.

The whole situation with people raging about lack of VRAM, is a real problem. I just had to pay dearly before i realise how big it is.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

No, trust me: it WAS a VRAM only problem, whenever i tried to raise the settings over a specific limit.

It happened on certain games and i was able to trace the error codes. Each and every time, i would find users facing the exact same issues, the only solution being... lower the settings and everything will be fine! And every time i read that, i was like: "how come I didn't think of that?"

The proposed "solution", worked for me as well, but, as you can imagine, i wasn't very satisfied.

My rig, was otherwise performing as expected.

I could live with frame rate drops: i have experienced them repeatedly and it's no big deal.

I could easily stomach stuttering: not the end of the world, as far as i'm concerned.

However, i will not/i shall not/i cannot accept CTDs at 1080p, from a latest generation 1,000€ GPU.

This is where i personally drew the line.

The whole situation with people raging about lack of VRAM, is a real problem. I just had to pay dearly before i realise how big it is.

Was this a quick CTD after launching, or something that only happened after playing for a while? Because I’m serious when I say I almost never see CTD that I’d place the blame on VRAM. And if it happens after 30 or more minutes, that again implies poor coding. Maybe it’s coding related to VRAM management, but lack of VRAM is either a fast CTD or you get page swapping. 🤷‍♂️

 

[CelicaGT]

No, trust me: it WAS a VRAM only problem, whenever i tried to raise the settings over a specific limit.

It happened on certain games and i was able to trace the error codes. Each and every time, i would find users facing the exact same issues, the only solution being... lower the settings and everything will be fine! And every time i read that, i was like: "how come I didn't think of that?"

The proposed "solution", worked for me as well, but, as you can imagine, i wasn't very satisfied.

My rig, was otherwise performing as expected.

I could live with frame rate drops: i have experienced them repeatedly and it's no big deal.

I could easily stomach stuttering: not the end of the world, as far as i'm concerned.

However, i will not/i shall not/i cannot accept CTDs at 1080p, from a latest generation 1,000€ GPU.

This is where i personally drew the line.

The whole situation with people raging about lack of VRAM, is a real problem. I just had to pay dearly before i realise how big it is.

I actually looked this up, it seems that D3D crash in RE4 was likely due to a bad RT implementation, and it was crashing 4080's and 4090's too. The tie in with VRAM was because people mistook allocated VRAM with VRAM usage. You can actually exceed your physical VRAM size but it may behave as Jarred explained, textures will simply be streamed into the buffer as required which can cause hitches, stutters, and blurred or unloaded textures. Or sometimes nothing, it really depends on the game. If you had crashes in other games then indeed, you had either a hardware issue with that specific card, or a software issue elsewhere.

 

[valthuer]

Was this a quick CTD after launching, or something that only happened after playing for a while? Because I’m serious when I say I almost never see CTD that I’d place the blame on VRAM. And if it happens after 30 or more minutes, that again implies poor coding. Maybe it’s coding related to VRAM management, but lack of VRAM is either a fast CTD or you get page swapping. 🤷‍♂️

In Resident Evil 4 remake, the CTDs would always occur at the same exact part of the game, each time i tried it, with graphic settings exceeding the 4070 Ti's physical VRAM. At the time, i was gaming at 1080p.

The problem, was almost identical at Atomic Heart.

Both of these games, would perform well on settings within the card's limitations, with CTDs no longer being a problem.

I actually looked this up, it seems that D3D crash in RE4 was likely due to a bad RT implementation, and it was crashing 4080's and 4090's too.

So far, i have yet to encounter a CTD, or any other issue for that matter, with my 4090. Now gaming at 4K Ultra.

 

[plusev]

The NVidia GPU market is over saturated.

So... a paper launch during CES, followed by something more tangible by early March? A 4090s/ti would complement my recently acquired 14900K wonderfully. Not that I'm complaining, my 3090 still performs admirably at 3440x1440, but I'd like to make the transition to 4K more permanent.

 

[rabbit4me2]

Nvidia rumored to unveil GeForce RTX 40-series in early January, then gradually roll them out later in the month.

Alleged Nvidia RTX 40-series Super GPU specs and launch dates leaked : Read more

I don't see what the big deal is ooh another GPU coming out Nvidia always as they're low in first then all of a sudden they make the plus of the super then the TI blah blah Come on people get with a program

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

The NVidia GPU market is over saturated.

So... a paper launch during CES, followed by something more tangible by early March? A 4090s/ti would complement my recently acquired 14900K wonderfully. Not that I'm complaining, my 3090 still performs admirably at 3440x1440, but I'd like to make the transition to 4K more permanent.

Looks like an announcement of the specs, maybe even pricing, and then a staggered rollout over the rest of the month. Which makes sense to me. Everything is supposedly going to be available by the end of January, and it's interesting that Nvidia is rumored to be going in reverse order (4070 Super, the 4070 Ti Super, and finally 4080 Super).

This is perhaps as much for the reviewers, PR people, and distribution as for any reason. If Nvidia were to launch three different GPUs at retail on the same date, that would absolutely suck from my standpoint. I'd either need to do one major article trying to talk about all three cards, or kill myself to try and put together three separate reviews.

And the PR people would be fielding questions and doing shipping of three times as much stuff at once, while the suppliers and AIB partners are all trying to get everything lined up as well.

Staggered rollouts are easier to pull off, logistically, is what I'm saying.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

If the price of the 4070 Ti Super is true, I'm very excited about this!
I actually feel lucky that some more urgent expenses prevented me from getting a new video card this year. I was originally willing to spend $800 for a new card, but the 4070 Ti just felt really underwhelming for that price. But with the bump in cores, the increased memory size and bandwidth, and at the same(ish) price - the the 4070 Ti Super is finally compelling enough to become my next card.

 

[Aurn]

If VRAM is often a limiting factor for game performance nowadays, couldn’t we say that the 4070 Super is a more unbalanced card than the 4070 since it has more computing power but the same amount of RAM ? I also don’t like the increased TDP on the 4070 Super

 

[KyaraM]

No, trust me: it WAS a VRAM only problem, whenever i tried to raise the settings over a specific limit.

It happened on certain games and i was able to trace the error codes. Each and every time, i would find users facing the exact same issues, the only solution being... lower the settings and everything will be fine! And every time i read that, i was like: "how come I didn't think of that?"

The proposed "solution", worked for me as well, but, as you can imagine, i wasn't very satisfied.

My rig, was otherwise performing as expected.

I could live with frame rate drops: i have experienced them repeatedly and it's no big deal.

I could easily stomach stuttering: not the end of the world, as far as i'm concerned.

However, i will not/i shall not/i cannot accept CTDs at 1080p, from a latest generation 1,000€ GPU.

This is where i personally drew the line.

The whole situation with people raging about lack of VRAM, is a real problem. I just had to pay dearly before i realise how big it is.

What a bunch of nonsense. I play on a 4070Ti almost since release, in 1440p, and several of the games I played are considered heavy on VRAM, like HL for example. RE4 was horribly optimized and doesn't really count for anything, and even then, everyone seemed to agree that 12GB was fine; especially in 1080p. I had NO issues whatsoever, and as Jarred said, crashing to desktop sounds like something else anyways. Did you try removing OC, factory or manual? Because an unstable OC is literally the only reason my card crashes, except Jedi Survivor on Jedha because Respawn can't program for Nvidia apparently. And that isn't VRAM, either, the game makes a bad call according to the error log. This error can also appear on any Nvidia card invluding the 4090, further excluding VRAM as the issue.

So, no. It's not a VRAM issue you had. End of story and discussion.

 

[valthuer]

What a bunch of nonsense. I play on a 4070Ti almost since release, in 1440p, and several of the games I played are considered heavy on VRAM, like HL for example. RE4 was horribly optimized and doesn't really count for anything, and even then, everyone seemed to agree that 12GB was fine; especially in 1080p. I had NO issues whatsoever, and as Jarred said, crashing to desktop sounds like something else anyways. Did you try removing OC, factory or manual? Because an unstable OC is literally the only reason my card crashes, except Jedi Survivor on Jedha because Respawn can't program for Nvidia apparently. And that isn't VRAM, either, the game makes a bad call according to the error log. This error can also appear on any Nvidia card invluding the 4090, further excluding VRAM as the issue.

So, no. It's not a VRAM issue you had. End of story and discussion.

Sorry man, i have put way too much money and time into this, to have my comments dismissed as "a bunch of nonsense".

The only thing "horribly optimised", is 4070 Ti.

I respect both your personal experience and the fact you bought this particular GPU.

But I don't recall ever addressing you in this manner.

I already know i'm right, 'cause, whenever i tried lowering the settings, i encountered no issues at all.

I also know other users who have encountered the exact same problems, so i don't put too much stock into the possibility of "something else" being the problem.

You seem to be satisfied with 4070 Ti and i'm happy for you.

We can definitely agree to disagree.

Have a good one.

 

[KyaraM]

Sorry man, i have put way too much money and time into this, to have my comments dismissed as "a bunch of nonsense".

The only thing "horribly optimised", is 4070 Ti.

I respect both your personal experience and the fact you bought this particular GPU.

But I don't recall ever addressing you in this manner.

I already know i'm right, 'cause, whenever i tried lowering the settings, i encountered no issues at all.

I also know other users who have encountered the exact same problems, so i don't put too much stock into the possibility of "something else" being the problem.

You seem to be satisfied with 4070 Ti and i'm happy for you.

We can definitely agree to disagree.

Have a good one.

And I know of no other owner with this card having your problems, plus the backing of people testing cards for a living. I would imagine Jarred, for example, agreeing with you if VRAM actually was your issue, yet he doesn't. and no, lowering settings doesn't prove it was VRAM that was the issue. That lowers stress on the card in general, not just on VRAM. Yeah, we disagree, but I hate disinformation with a passion and this is just that. The issue is something else, probably a bad OC from the issues described. That's it.

You already sold your card, though, so whatever. Just please don't dismiss the experience of actual long-time owners with actual experience with the cards telling you they have no issues just because you are a fringe case that had some for whatever reason. Thanks. At best, long-term experience is worth more than a short stint; at worst, both our accounts are anecdotal and then it defaults back to professional testers; who don't seem to report these crashes. And if they report crashes, it's usually bad programming at fault.

 

[jeffy9987]

if the 4080 super atleast matches the xtx for 999 id jump ship

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

If VRAM is often a limiting factor for game performance nowadays, couldn’t we say that the 4070 Super is a more unbalanced card than the 4070 since it has more computing power but the same amount of RAM ? I also don’t like the increased TDP on the 4070 Super

The increased TGP makes sense, though: It's the same chip as 4070 and 4070 Ti, with compute that lands in between the two. Ergo, TGP should land between the two as well!

The worst thing about the 4070 Ti, IMO, was it's price. If it were a $600 card, it would have been awesome (and that would have pushed the 4070 to being a $500 card, which would have also been awesome). As an $800 card, it was overpriced and the use of 12GB on a 192-bit interface was part of the problem. So now we're supposedly getting:

4070 Super, replacing 4070, with higher performance for the same $599 price point hopefully. That's good — it's precisely what a mid-cycle refresh should do.

4070 Ti Super, replacing 4070 Ti, with higher performance and 16GB VRAM on a 256-bit interface, for potentially the same $799. It's better than the 4070 Ti, clearly, so that's a good thing, though it still feels overpriced. $699 would be much better and I'd be genuinely excited for the card if that happened.

4080 Super seems like the least enticing of the upgrades, depending on final specs. A VRAM speed upgrade of 7%, and 5% more GPU shaders? That's a yawn-fest. Bringing the MSRP down to $999 is the only good news, and that was much needed. 4080 never should have been a $1200 card, not if Nvidia wanted people to be excited about it. If this had 20GB on a 320-bit interface, using AD102 instead of AD103, this would have been so much better.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

The 4080 Super looks interesting. The problem I have with it, aside from the exorbitant price, is the 16GB VRAM, moreso because it's $1000 than the fact it's 16GB. With modern GPU prices most people aren't replacing them every generation, and to copy a chart from Techspot, current games can already push past 12GB and breathe against 16GB. What's it going to be like in 5 years?

Game (RT enabled)	Average VRAM use (GB)	Peak VRAM use (GB)
Dying Light 2	7.4	8.2
Doom Eternal	8.3	9.5
Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered	9.2	9.6
Resident Evil 4	9.0	9.7
Far Cry 6 (HD textures)	9.9	10.7
Cyberpunk 2077 (Overdrive)	12.0	13.6
Hogwarts Legacy	12.1	13.9

 

[valthuer]

The 4080 Super looks interesting. The problem I have with it, aside from the exorbitant price, is the 16GB VRAM, moreso because it's $1000 than the fact it's 16GB. With modern GPU prices most people aren't replacing them every generation, and to copy a chart from Techspot, current games can already push past 12GB and breathe against 16GB. What's it going to be like in 5 years?

Game (RT enabled)	Average VRAM use (GB)	Peak VRAM use (GB)
Dying Light 2	7.4	8.2
Doom Eternal	8.3	9.5
Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered	9.2	9.6
Resident Evil 4	9.0	9.7
Far Cry 6 (HD textures)	9.9	10.7
Cyberpunk 2077 (Overdrive)	12.0	13.6
Hogwarts Legacy	12.1	13.9

Exactly. And, as far as Resident Evil 4 is concerned, i'm afraid Techspot is being rather modest here, 'cause the game demands as much as 14.44 GBs of VRAM:



Forget about 5 years: as things stand right now, we 're not even sure 16 GB cards will be able to survive game releases in these next 5 months.

 

[Order 66]

Exactly. And, as far as Resident Evil 4 is concerned, i'm afraid Techspot is being rather modest here, 'cause the game demands as much as 14.44 GBs of VRAM:



Forget about 5 years: as things stand right now, we 're not even sure 16 GB cards will be able to survive game releases in these next 5 months.

At which resolution though?