Review Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super review: Boosted clocks and core counts for the same $599 as the vanilla 4070

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Just enough of a difference to not feel too foolish for buying a 4070Ti on sale DAYS before the initial leak. If I bought today the 4070 Super would be a contender for sure.

Yeah, it's all about the price paid. The 4070 has been selling at $520~$540 (minimum price) for three or four months now. 4070 Ti has been in the $700~$750 range for a while, because everyone knew it was overpriced from the start. Even the 4080 dipped to under $999 in October/November, but prices are heading up as inventory gets cleared out to make room for the 4080 Super.

The 'corrected' (post-Super launch) prices are all a move in the right direction by Nvidia. I sure wish we had more of this back when the cards first launched, but profits would have been lower. What I feel the cards are really worth:

4060: $250 (should have been called 4050)
4060 Ti: $330 (should have been 4060)
4060 Ti 16GB: $380
4070: $500
4070 Super: $550
4070 Ti: $600
4080: $750
4080 Super: $800
4090: Hey, it's the halo part. Go ahead and sell it for $1600! Except it's now selling for $2000+ thanks to AI people snapping it up.

 

[Gururu]

While it doesn't feel great that a $600 card just now matches my $800 card from last generation it's certainly a move in the right direction. That being said I still feel bad for anyone who is looking to upgrade this generation (or needs to buy new). AMD has had better price v perf, but also comes with FSR being worse than DLSS (whether this is notable depends on title sadly) and RT performance that is basically a joke.

Here's hoping for Battlemage to reset the low-midrange market expectations since $600 is now apparently midrange otherwise.

Yes I was planning to buy a card in the 500-600 range after CES, but I can wait longer. Not happy at all with the updates. I don’t care who makes the card, I just want a fair deal.

 

[CelicaGT]

Yeah, it's all about the price paid. The 4070 has been selling at $520~$540 (minimum price) for three or four months now. 4070 Ti has been in the $700~$750 range for a while, because everyone knew it was overpriced from the start. Even the 4080 dipped to under $999 in October/November, but prices are heading up as inventory gets cleared out to make room for the 4080 Super.

The 'corrected' (post-Super launch) prices are all a move in the right direction by Nvidia. I sure wish we had more of this back when the cards first launched, but profits would have been lower. What I feel the cards are really worth:

4060: $250 (should have been called 4050)
4060 Ti: $330 (should have been 4060)
4060 Ti 16GB: $380
4070: $500
4070 Super: $550
4070 Ti: $600
4080: $750
4080 Super: $800
4090: Hey, it's the halo part. Go ahead and sell it for $1600! Except it's now selling for $2000+ thanks to AI people snapping it up.

I can get down with that price list. I paid just over 1100CAD (taxes inc) for my Asus 4070Ti OC (or whatever) which was about 100CAD more than I paid for my GTX1080FE when it released. I play very specific titles and that's not likely to change until my next upgrade cycle. I play at 1440p 60Hz and I have around 50% utilization headroom and VRAM usage (max) is around 10GB periodically. I'm happy with all this, but would have been happier at a lower price! The other card I considered was the 7900XT but pricing was farther out of line. RT is not a consideration for me, nor is DLSS/FSR. I bought this card to avoid using those technologies as they are not present in the one title, and poorly implemented in the other.

 

[Sleepy_Hollowed]

Jeez, I cannot believe this card has only 12 GB of RAM in 2024.

If I had money to burn, I'd get this one, but if I had money to burn, I'd get a better model.

I don't care about their internal product calculation, but buying one of these to have them struggle in games in the next 3-5 years (often more, this is a budget conscious segment, though more expensive), I'd be incredibly mad if they start chocking on games on the next 5 years due to VRAM usage.

But that's just me, I guess. I went through this with the GTX 970 previously, and I was extremely mad.

 

[ingtar33]

only in 2024 would out of touch journalists proclaim 600 for a 70 series rtx graphic card is a "deal".

half the price. then we talk. heck, they could just knock out 1/3 of the price bringing it down to 400, and we'd have a good conversation. but no... i think those days are long gone.

 

[Notton]

I'm not sure I want to spend $600+ on a 12GB VRAM card, even if it supports DLSS.

I say this even as I saw the benefits of running DLSS on a RTX2050 4GB.

I guess I will wait around and see what the 7600XT 16GB brings to the table. Hopefully FSR3 works a lot better by then.

 

[baboma]

@jarred

>The 'corrected' (post-Super launch) prices are all a move in the right direction by Nvidia. I sure wish we had more of this back when the cards first launched, but profits would have been lower. What I feel the cards are really worth...

You're missing the Time Value of Money (TVM) factor. If these (Super) prices were "corrected" now, then the OG 4K prices were correct for last year, as for tech products, price typically depreciates over time. And if we keep waiting, price will drop further still.

So, objectively, your judgment of the Supers' value now should be the same as for the OG 4K cards last year. But we aren't all Mr. Spock, and our judgment are normally based on emotions. You may feel better about the Supers' pricing, but that's because your notion of value (perf / price) is largely static and doesn't incorporate TVM.

Another factor that's missing is the difference in perspective. Your perspective on what are "ideal" prices is based from the consumer's (buyer) view, not from the vendor's view. What's "ideal" for the seller is to take the buyer's "wished for" price, and move it a bit higher, especially for a tight supply/demand market where AI gets the bulk of manufacturing resources. In essence, your (buyer's) price list validates the seller's price list.

 

[mhmarefat]

Yes, I know. I do care about RT, and would sooner turn down other graphics settings before turning off certain RT settings. I'm all for the combined chart.

(I'm not trying to be combative or anything. : P Just stating my taste.)

If you care about RT then this card must FRIGHTEN you as it can barely maintain 60 FPS of OLD RT games if it can even reach it, let alone future RT games which will use path tracing that bring 4090 to its knees:

Anyone who would consider paying extra $100 for 4070 Super over 7800 XT for "better RT performance", think again. Go straight for 4090 (to play current RT games).

 

[-Fran-]

Well, the conclusion is also "what the 4070 should have been originally".

AMD could do a price correction, but to be honest, just looking at the numbers and all the polls around RT preference in games, they don't need to. The 7800XT is plenty competitive in the performance/$ category. If you want to check RT, you can enable it and use FSR as well, then go back to higher FPS'es.

Also, the 16GB VRAM is just a better safe bet for upcoming games. I wish reviewers would check if the 12GB is causing texture loading issues in games, since just checking the numbers does not tell the full story anymore.

Thanks for the review as always Jarred.

Regards.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Yeah, it's all about the price paid. The 4070 has been selling at $520~$540 (minimum price) for three or four months now. 4070 Ti has been in the $700~$750 range for a while, because everyone knew it was overpriced from the start. Even the 4080 dipped to under $999 in October/November, but prices are heading up as inventory gets cleared out to make room for the 4080 Super.

The 'corrected' (post-Super launch) prices are all a move in the right direction by Nvidia. I sure wish we had more of this back when the cards first launched, but profits would have been lower. What I feel the cards are really worth:

4060: $250 (should have been called 4050)
4060 Ti: $330 (should have been 4060)
4060 Ti 16GB: $380
4070: $500
4070 Super: $550
4070 Ti: $600
4080: $750
4080 Super: $800
4090: Hey, it's the halo part. Go ahead and sell it for $1600! Except it's now selling for $2000+ thanks to AI people snapping it up.

Hey Jarred, I just want to say thanks for all your hard work, I always enjoy your articles, and I think it is awesome that you actively interact with your readers in the comments section! Bravo!

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Well, the conclusion is also "what the 4070 should have been originally".

AMD could do a price correction, but to be honest, just looking at the numbers and all the polls around RT preference in games, they don't need to. The 7800XT is plenty competitive in the performance/$ category. If you want to check RT, you can enable it and use FSR as well, then go back to higher FPS'es.

Also, the 16GB VRAM is just a better safe bet for upcoming games. I wish reviewers would check if the 12GB is causing texture loading issues in games, since just checking the numbers does not tell the full story anymore.

Thanks for the review as always Jarred.

Regards.

Agreed, 4 more GB and slightly less but similar raster performance for $100 less is reasonable deal in my opinion. I guess they could lower MSRP to $459-$479 if they really wanted to but, like you said, i don’t think it’s mandatory to prevent sales erosion.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

If you care about RT then this card must FRIGHTEN you as it can barely maintain 60 FPS of OLD RT games if it can even reach it, let alone future RT games which will use path tracing that bring 4090 to its knees:

Anyone who would consider paying extra $100 for 4070 Super over 7800 XT for "better RT performance", think again. Go straight for 4090 (to play current RT games).

Note that all of those tests were done without DLSS, which is very much a part of the Nvidia package. Typically, you can get 30~50 percent higher performance with DLSS Quality mode, and that puts most of these games above 60 fps. Some also have frame generation, though I feel that's far more "snake oil marketing" than upscaling.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

only in 2024 would out of touch journalists proclaim 600 for a 70 series rtx graphic card is a "deal".

half the price. then we talk. heck, they could just knock out 1/3 of the price bringing it down to 400, and we'd have a good conversation. but no... i think those days are long gone.

Sorry, but where did Jarred say it was a "deal" ?
Just 3 or 4 posts above you, he said he didn't think it was worth $600.

Personally, I think it's extremely out of touch to want a 70-class to be $300, which I don't think has happened in the history of the 70-class. And it's been 8 years since there was a 70-class under $400... times change.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

If you care about RT then this card must FRIGHTEN you as it can barely maintain 60 FPS of OLD RT games if it can even reach it, let alone future RT games which will use path tracing that bring 4090 to its knees:

Anyone who would consider paying extra $100 for 4070 Super over 7800 XT for "better RT performance", think again. Go straight for 4090 (to play current RT games).

Not at all. Those benchmarks are without DLSS. These charts below are from the OG 4070 review, with DLSS Quality mode on. Framerates nearly double for those games with DLSS turned on. (Personally, I play with DLSS Balanced, which looks just as good as native to my eyes.)

Besides, I'm perfectly alright with 40FPS. Sure, 60 or 90 is nice to have... but 40 doesn't ruin my enjoyment even a tiny bit.



** To everyone: For the record, I'm not trying to defend the 4070 Super, it's memory amount/bus, or its price. I think the 4070 Super should be $500, because the memory config feels so cheap. I'm not a fan of Nvidia, nor AMD. I'm not gonna buy this card. I'm just trying to live in reality, or as close to it as I can.

 

[btmedic04]

Nice and efficient card, but 12gb of vram at $600 is still planned obsolescence.

 

[mhmarefat]

Not at all. Those benchmarks are without DLSS. These charts below are from the OG 4070 review, with DLSS Quality mode on. Framerates nearly double for those games with DLSS turned on. (Personally, I play with DLSS Balanced, which looks just as good as native to my eyes.)

Besides, I'm perfectly alright with 40FPS. Sure, 60 or 90 is nice to have... but 40 doesn't ruin my enjoyment even a tiny bit.

** To everyone: For the record, I'm not trying to defend the 4070 Super, it's memory amount/bus, or its price. I think the 4070 Super should be $500, because the memory config feels so cheap. I'm not a fan of Nvidia, nor AMD. I'm not gonna buy this card. I'm just trying to live in reality, or as close to it as I can.

That's the point. This is a HARDWARE review. Brand new 2024 GPU is already at mercy of upscalers to reach 60 FPS running RT games of years ago and is asking extra $100 for that. And if you think 60 FPS is fine for a $600 GPU in 2024 you are as close to reality as Nvidia is when it launches $500 GPU aimed at 1080p gaming in 2024.
Nvidia has truly lost its mind.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

AHHHH!!

And if you think 60 FPS is fine for a $600 GPU in 2024 you are as close to reality as Nvidia is when it launches $500 GPU aimed at 1080p gaming in 2024.

... I don't. I said in my post that you quoted: "I think the 4070 Super should be $500"

 

[Phaaze88]

The more you buy, the more you... buy..?

 

[-Fran-]

A thought just came to me...

-> FSR has small artefacts -> "FSR upscaling looks like crap, horrible, worst tech ever nVidia forevaaah"
-> nVidia has texture loading issues -> "that's ok; you still get the texture loaded at some point and you don't notice it when moving anyway! VRAM is enough; nVidia still king!"

Is that an accurate representation of the dicothomy?

Regards.

 

[logainofhades]

Sorry, but where did Jarred say it was a "deal" ?
Just 3 or 4 posts above you, he said he didn't think it was worth $600.

Personally, I think it's extremely out of touch to want a 70-class to be $300, which I don't think has happened in the history of the 70-class. And it's been 8 years since there was a 70-class under $400... times change.

Closest I remember, to a $300, 70 class card, is the GTX 970 with an MSRP of $329. Even with inflation, today's pricing is still more than it really should be. All those people paying scalper pricing, during the shortages, made both Nvidia an AMD want to get in on the action. AMD might be priced better, right now, but they aren't any kind of saint either.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Closest I remember, to a $300, 70 class card, is the GTX 970 with an MSRP of $329. Even with inflation, today's pricing is still more than it really should be. All those people paying scalper pricing, during the shortages, made both Nvidia an AMD want to get in on the action. AMD might be priced better, right now, but they aren't any kind of saint either.

Inflation alone would be about 1.3X in the US, depending on which statistics you want to reference. (That's the low-end of the scale, and some would argue it's more like 1.5X or more.) So $329 in 2014 would be the equivalent of $428.

The real issue isn't monetary inflation, though. The cost to design and manufacture modern chips has increased way more than 1.5X over the past decade. Granted, GM204 was a large chip in its time at 398mm^2, on TSMC 28nm. But that was very mature 28nm as well, with great yields and lower prices — probably in terms of cost it would have been the same as a 150~200mm^2 TSMC 16FF chip a couple of years later. (Note also that Nvidia did the lower tier Pascal parts on Samsung 14LPP just to save on costs.)

Going from TSMC 16/12 "nm" to Samsung "8nm" 8LPP, and from there to TSMC 4N, probably doubled the cost per chip. Even though AD104 'only' measure 295mm^2, I think it's a very safe bet that Nvidia pays TSMC more than twice as much as what it paid for GM204 back in the day, and the R&D costs of creating Ada Lovelace were probably closer to 4X what Nvidia spent when it designed Maxwell. Hence, higher prices.

 

[Moobear]

Mostly what I was expecting... but wow, those results against the 7800XT at 1440p are kinda crazy. +24% for the whole suite, and about +50% in the RT-only results? AMD really needs to rethink the price of the 7800XT.

Interesting results, and interesting article (so far. I look forward to the rest. Hope you get some good sleep until then, Jarred. )
I'm curious to know how well it overclocks. Can it match the 4070 Ti?

Amd needs to rethink the 7800XT price??? What about nvidia drop there prices the whole range please....un fecking believable what I reading here.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

Amd needs to rethink the 7800XT price??? What about nvidia drop there prices the whole range please....un fecking believable what I reading here.

That'd be ideal... but realistically, even if the performance is exactly the same, but the Nvidia card is 10-20% more expensive, most gamers are still going to go with Nvidia anyway - whether for the features, or simply brand recognition/loyalty and the "prestige". Not saying that's a good thing, but that's the way it is. Nvidia has something like 80% of the gaming market share, despite their higher prices.

But these cards aren't equal in performance. The 4070 Super is ahead of the 7800 XT (significantly ahead when including the ray-traced results, which I personally think is fair game to include in aggregate charts at this point.) I would bet that a majority of gamers who have $500 to spend would probably say "If I'm spending this much, I might as well spend $600 for the Nvidia card with extra performance and features." I would, if I were shopping at this tier. But if the 7800XT were only $450, that'd be a much more compelling option to me.

edit: whether or not AMD is even capable of lowering prices that much without taking a loss, I have no idea. I know very little about current manufacturing costs.

 

[thestryker]

Going from TSMC 16/12 "nm" to Samsung "8nm" 8LPP, and from there to TSMC 4N, probably doubled the cost per chip. Even though AD104 'only' measure 295mm^2, I think it's a very safe bet that Nvidia pays TSMC more than twice as much as what it paid for GM204 back in the day, and the R&D costs of creating Ada Lovelace were probably closer to 4X what Nvidia spent when it designed Maxwell. Hence, higher prices.

While I don't disagree regarding the pricing you also cannot ignore nvidia's increasing margins over the same period of time and longer time to market with new architectures. When you factor that in it becomes pretty obvious that the current pricing has more to do with they can get away with it than the increased costs.

edit: To anyone who's been watching the market for a long period of time this is fairly standard behavior for nvidia. They used to go back and forth on pricing between generations (and if you go back far enough dropped prices a lot as well), but with the current marketshare they don't need to. 10 -> 20 and 30 -> 40 are both very similar in that the 10/30 offered big $/perf increases and the 20/40 brought modest/no $/perf increase.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

edit: To anyone who's been watching the market for a long period of time this is fairly standard behavior for nvidia. They used to go back and forth on pricing between generations (and if you go back far enough dropped prices a lot as well), but with the current marketshare they don't need to. 10 -> 20 and 30 -> 40 are both very similar in that the 10/30 offered big $/perf increases and the 20/40 brought modest/no $/perf increase.

Additionally, 10 and 30 were both scalped like crazy during crypto booms. Which is probably why Nvidia thought they could get away with such high prices for 20/40; because they saw how much people were willing to pay for scalped cards. And when they priced the cards so high that sales didn't live up to their expectations, 20/40 both got Super refreshes.

The parallels between the 20 and 40 series make me feel like I've gone back in time 5 years.