News Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Specs Leak: AD104 Cut by a Quarter

[JamesJones44]

Comparing cards based solely on price and the name Nvidia gave it is an exercise in stupidity. Anyone with a brain isn't basing their purchase on the name of the card which is arbitrary and meaningless. Any purchase should be based on performance and features with price tied into that. No one is going to argue that a 4080 is a good value. It isn't, not even when compared to the only other 4000 series card currently available, the more expensive 4090. You also haven't adjusted prices for inflation. The 780Ti was a 3GB card that adjusted for inflation sold for over $900. The 4080 is a 16GB card currently selling for $1200. 10 years, more than 5 times the memory for 33% more money. Compare the performance between the two cards. Add ray tracing and DLSS, better encoders, etc and the value argument in favor of the earlier cards evaporates.

The issue with looking at inflation only is it doesn't account for reduction in component prices. 3 GB 10 years ago was fairly sizable and much more expensive in comparison, these days 16 GB is closer to the low end of mid size and cost less than the 3 GB of ram did even when adjusted for inflation.

The 780 is probably the wrong comparison given the age and technological differences. The 2080 is a better baseline and when you consider inflation rates of 2.5%, 1.8%, 1.25%, 4.7%, 8% (est for 22) (2018-2022) the cost of the 2080 inflation adjusted is $835, you still get a generation that is overpriced relative to itself.

 

[helper800]

The issue with looking at inflation only is it doesn't account for reduction in component prices. 3 GB 10 years ago was fairly sizable and much more expensive in comparison, these days 16 GB is closer to the low end of mid size and cost less than the 3 GB of ram did even when adjusted for inflation.

The 780 is probably the wrong comparison given the age and technological differences. The 2080 is a better baseline and when you consider inflation rates of 2.5%, 1.8%, 1.25%, 4.7%, 8% (est for 22) (2018-2022) the cost of the 2080 inflation adjusted is $835, you still get a generation that is overpriced relative to itself.

We seem to agree here. I even gave my own example using the 780 ti as a baseline compared to its 10 year old predecessor using the same logic that spongiemaster used. I attempted to show how his comparison was a poor example of performance increase over time but also that it is arbitrary as a comparative piece of supporting evidence to his base argument.

 

[10tacle]

Non-sequitur; a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. So the determining factors behind buying power has no logical following in regards to graphics cards and their increasing prices, and decreasing performance gains gen over gen? When I made an argument you evaded my point by calling it non-sequitur but then followed it up with your own slippery slope argument. The cost correction for inflation that you bring up shows that you get less performance for more money, proving my point that in the past you got more value for the money

.

If that is your conclusion then I wasted a lot of time here using a waterline benchmark of a 980 Ti and its price in 2015 compared to a 4080 in 2015 dollars. And no, using buying power as an argument is moving the goal post. We are talking raw numbers, and raw dollars. Nothing else is an argument.

There is no reason that consumers should take this lying down just because the cards have technically better performance and features....[snip]If you look at the totality of what you are getting for the money, today is one of, if not the worst times to buy a graphics card new.

Then do what I stated and buy a console and get over it. Vote with your money and teach Nvidia and AMD a lesson. It's that simple. I assume you've already read Tom's RX 7900 XTX review that will set you back $1K - and which will be my next GPU since Nvidia ticked me off with the EVGA debacle. And again, I never hear anyone complaining about AMD "greed" like "Ngreedia" epithets tossed around here. That's all.

 

[helper800]

If that is your conclusion then I wasted a lot of time here using a waterline benchmark of a 980 Ti and its price in 2015 compared to a 4080 in 2015 dollars. And no, using buying power as an argument is moving the goal post. We are talking raw numbers, and raw dollars. Nothing else is an argument.

According to an inflation calculator 1200 dollars from 2022 is worth $954.39 in 2015. The 980 ti released in 2015 for 649 dollars. A 980 ti equivalent to today would either be an unreleased 4080 ti or the 4090. Please allow me to quantify this. The die size of the 980 ti is 601 mm² and the 4090 die size is 608 mm² while the 4080 die size is 379 mm². This method of comparing like for likes in cost of construction and performance tier is what most enthusiasts use when they compare same tier products. With this in mind the 4080 is not only a tier for tier equivalent to a 970 (398 mm²) of the same generation we are comparing against, but then you have to compare the 4090 to the 980 ti in the original comparison. The 4090 is worth 1,272.52 in 2015 dollars, nearly double the price of the 980 ti, the tier for tier equivalent card.

Then do what I stated and buy a console and get over it. Vote with your money and teach Nvidia and AMD a lesson. It's that simple. I assume you've already read Tom's RX 7900 XTX review that will set you back $1K - and which will be my next GPU since Nvidia ticked me off with the EVGA debacle. And again, I never hear anyone complaining about AMD "greed" like "Ngreedia" epithets tossed around here. That's all.

I bought a 3080 for its MSRP of 770 dollars 2 weeks after release. I will never buy a tier for tier card to a 3080 / 2080S / 1080 ti / 980 ti, et cetera for more than 700 dollars, the reference MSRP of that tier of card.

There are many games you cannot play on consoles depending on what one you get, little to no upgradability, largely lack reparability, people cannot use a console as a PC in regards to applications, and there are many upcharges to using a console instead of a PC to play similar games with other people. Consoles while a cheaper initial investment have many drawbacks and eventually over time are as expensive as lower mid range PCs.

I have regularly called out AMD with their CPUs and GPUs for being overpriced. Both entities are just businesses and neither one is your friend. All they want is to make a product compelling enough at a price point for you to buy it. Also RIP EVGA the best AiB.

 

[10tacle]

According to an inflation calculator 1200 dollars from 2022 is worth $954.39 in 2015. The 980 ti released in 2015 for 649 dollars. A 980 ti equivalent to today would either be an unreleased 4080 ti or the 4090. Please allow me to quantify this. The die size of the 980 ti is...

Now you are going to bring die size into this discussion? I'm just simply doing a dollar for FPS comparison on modern GPUs compared to predecessors. And if we really want to get into the mix, then we could bring up the increased GPU demand of 4K over 1080p and 1440 which were, and still are, the majority of gamer resolutions dating back from 2012. I've had just about every CRT and LCD resolution since the mid-1990s, from 800x600 to 4K. In 1999 my high resolution monitor was a 19" 1600x1200 Sony Trinitron.

The move up from previous 1280x1024 and 800x600 CRTs and GPU demand was nowhere even comparable to what we are dealing with today in gaming. If you ever played Quake 1 through Half Life 2 and other games like the the PC wrecking Crysis in that 10 year span, it will make sense. In that 10 years through three builds, I went from a Riva TNT to a GTX 280 (with an ASUS AMD Radeon 4870 in between that died an early death). After the 280 which I got a twin sister for SLI later, I got a 680 in 2011 which costed $525 (2GB version) which was the worst value in my life ($700 today). It became obsolete faster than grandpa's AM bathroom radio.

I bought a 3080 for its MSRP of 770 dollars 2 weeks after release. I will never buy a tier for tier card to a 3080 / 2080S / 1080 ti / 980 ti, et cetera for more than 700 dollars, the reference MSRP of that tier of card.

Then you'll get nothing and like it. We're in a different world now. I'll never pay $45K for a reasonably optioned pickup truck when I bought one some 20 years ago for $25K.

There are many games you cannot play on consoles depending on what one you get, little to no upgradability, largely lack reparability, people cannot use a console as a PC in regards to applications, and there are many upcharges to using a console instead of a PC to play similar games with other people. Consoles while a cheaper initial investment have many drawbacks and eventually over time are as expensive as lower mid range PCs.

I'm happy with my PS5 and 4K at 120Hz, thank you. Let's see - a $60 annual online fee and $499. Yep, that's a pretty good deal. Oh, and it also plays 4K Blu Ray movies and makes a great travel companion easy to tug around on work and family visit trips. And if you have an Xbox, there is not one game not available on PC that is not available on the MS Store for Xbox. Sony has a few proprietary games only available on it like Gran Turismo 7 which I'm enjoying the heck out of, but that's about it. Finally, if you have a PC for productivity apps, then you don't need a $1K plus GPU unless you are a serious video encoding professional (about .007% of the general PC population if I had to throw a number out there). That's where the console comes in.

Best of luck to ya....

 

[helper800]

Now you are going to bring die size into this discussion? I'm just simply doing a dollar for FPS comparison on modern GPUs compared to predecessors. And if we really want to get into the mix, then we could bring up the increased GPU demand of 4K over 1080p and 1440 which were, and still are, the majority of gamer resolutions dating back from 2012. I've had just about every CRT and LCD resolution since the mid-1990s, from 800x600 to 4K. In 1999 my high resolution monitor was a 19" 1600x1200 Sony Trinitron.

The move up from previous 1280x1024 and 800x600 CRTs and GPU demand was nowhere even comparable to what we are dealing with today in gaming. If you ever played Quake 1 through Half Life 2 and other games like the the PC wrecking Crysis in that 10 year span, it will make sense. In that 10 years through three builds, I went from a Riva TNT to a GTX 280 (with an ASUS AMD Radeon 4870 in between that died an early death). After the 280 which I got a twin sister for SLI later, I got a 680 in 2011 which costed $525 (2GB version) which was the worst value in my life ($700 today). It became obsolete faster than grandpa's AM bathroom radio.



Then you'll get nothing and like it. We're in a different world now. I'll never pay $45K for a reasonably optioned pickup truck when I bought one some 20 years ago for $25K.



I'm happy with my PS5 and 4K at 120Hz, thank you. Let's see - a $60 annual online fee and $499. Yep, that's a pretty good deal. Oh, and it also plays 4K Blu Ray movies and makes a great travel companion easy to tug around on work and family visit trips. And if you have an Xbox, there is not one game not available on PC that is not available on the MS Store for Xbox. Sony has a few proprietary games only available on it like Gran Turismo 7 which I'm enjoying the heck out of, but that's about it. Finally, if you have a PC for productivity apps, then you don't need a $1K plus GPU unless you are a serious video encoding professional (about .007% of the general PC population if I had to throw a number out there). That's where the console comes in.

Best of luck to ya....

I respect your opinions. I believe GPU prices will fall in the future eventually. I typically build a PC once every 6-10 years with storage upgrades in between with the rare GPU swap. I have plenty of time to die with my ideals of what a card on certain tiers cost. If I am wrong that they never come down then so be it, I will get a console, because by that time it will be more powerful than my PC. Cheers, I enjoyed the debate!