Friday, November 22nd 2024

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Specs Leak: Same Die as RTX 5080, 300 W TDP

Recent leaks have unveiled specifications for NVIDIA's upcoming RTX 5070 Ti graphics card, suggesting an increase in power consumption. According to industry leaker Kopite7kimi, the RTX 5070 Ti will feature 8,960 CUDA cores and operate at a 300 W TDP. In a departure from previous generations, the RTX 5070 Ti will reportedly share the same GB203 die with its higher-tier sibling, the RTX 5080. This architectural decision differs from the RTX 40-series lineup, where the 4070 Ti and 4080 utilized different dies (AD104 and AD103, respectively). This shared die approach could potentially keep NVIDIA's manufacturing costs lower. Performance-wise, the RTX 5070 Ti shows promising improvements over its predecessor. The leaked specifications indicate a 16% increase in CUDA cores compared to the RTX 4070 Ti, though this advantage shrinks to 6% when measured against the RTX 4070 Ti Super.

Power consumption sees a modest 5% increase to 300 W, suggesting improved efficiency despite the enhanced capabilities. Memory configurations remain unconfirmed, but speculations about the card indicate that it could feature 16 GB of memory on a 256-bit interface, distinguishing it from the RTX 5080's rumored 24 GB configuration. The positioning across the 50-series GPU stack of this RTX 5070 Ti appears carefully calculated, with its 8,960 CUDA cores sitting approximately 20% below the RTX 5080's 10,752 cores. This larger performance gap between tiers contrasts with the previous generation's approach, potentially indicating a more defined product hierarchy in the Blackwell lineup. NVIDIA is expected to unveil its Blackwell gaming graphics cards at CES 2025, with the RTX 5090, 5080, and 5070 series leading the announcement.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

38 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Specs Leak: Same Die as RTX 5080, 300 W TDP

#26
Zazigalka
Prima.VeraMaybe you are to young to remember, but definitely nVidia wasn't always better.
Just for your homework, search for AMD Radeon HD 5870 card. It was so good, that it was almost beating the dual GPU card from nVidia, while wiping the floor with whole nvidia gen cards. Also the 5850 was a monster too, and could work in pair with the 5870. I remember that was my last SLI setup ever, but it was a blast. Good ol' times.
www.techpowerup.com/review/ati-radeon-hd-5870/30.html
While this is true, it was friggin ages ago. Reminiscing about what had been 15 years ago doesn't sell me cards worth buying.
3valatzyNothing too exciting except RTX 5090 which will be crazy expensive - maybe $4000 for the GB202 die that is 744 mm^2. That is at the reticle size limit! :kookoo:
$1999
Posted on Reply
#27
3valatzy
Zazigalka$1999
Even 4090 is not sold for this.


Posted on Reply
#28
Zazigalka
3valatzyEven 4090 is not sold for this.


Not the ROG/Suprim
5090 will sell for 2500 realistically, with that 1999 msrp. Still, not 4000. A 4090 equivalent will be around 1500.
Posted on Reply
#29
AnotherReader
Vayra86So pray tell where it went wrong then. They were 'beating' Nvidia with what? Tech that met the end of its dev cycle. They had every opportunity to obtain true leadership but AMD was thinking 'meh, we're good, this is fine, we don't need to chase the cutting edge continuously, 50% market is all we can do'? And then they thought, 'beating Nvidia': 'Let's release Nvidia's 970*(Edited) 2 years after the fact and kill this market!' I mean... what?! They weren't beating Nvidia at all. They traded punches, but never answered Nvidia Titan, and Hawaii XT failed miserably - a way too hungry dead end forcing them into Fury X and the capital loss against Maxwell. AMD's death of GCN happened somewhere between the great release of a 7970 and the birth of Tonga, which proved the arch was a dead end, but pushing out 290(x) anyway on a whoppin 512 bit bus. And then Fury had to happen, because how else do you above and beyond moar VRAM 512 bit? And then they got their 1000 bit hbm ass kicked by a 384 bit 980ti.

AMD made Mantle, which became Vulkan. And then what? What is the overarching strategy here, console access? We can applaud their many successes but the key to those events is that you use them to increase your market share and control, to the detriment of other key players. That's commerce.

Its one thing to make the occasional 'good card' (which is really nothing more than pricing a product correctly / in a way people buy it!) that sells, its another to actually execute on a strategy. Over several decades of AMD GPUs I haven't discovered what it is. If we go buy the marketing its some wild mix of making fun of the others while failing yourself (Poor Volta and a string of other events), going unified arch first and then not, and then yes, we might as well unify this again after dropping under 20% share convincingly; going 'midrange with Polaris' to lose key market share and brand recognition earned on GCN (which had a few 'good cards') only to claw back into the high end with RDNA2/3 and then back to midrange again?

There's just no rhyme or reason to it, and that is why it can't get ever get consistently good.


I had a console age in those years, for some reason it was PS3 at that point, not PC :D
The 290X was fine and, in fact, it was the last time that AMD beat Nvidia on the same node. The 512-bit bus is countered by the fact that its die was significantly smaller than the one used for the 780 Ti: GK110. It was Maxwell that took them by surprise and they never really recovered from that. In addition, it's clear that the gaming division doesn't get as much investment as the CPU divison. People think that RDNA is inferior as well, but RDNA is far more competitive than GCN was after Pascal.
Posted on Reply
#30
phints
300W TDP is quite high. Without knowing anything else you can tell the TSMC lithography jump is more minor this time :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#32
Visible Noise
closeOf course the competition committed suicide. Journalists and reviewers banged the drum of how much better Nvidia is in terms of performance even when just edging out AMD, banged another drum of how ray tracing is "the future" (TM). People gobbled that up, went for Nvidia even when AMD was a perfectly decent (almost equivalent) or cheaper alternative. The demand for either cheaper (at the mid/low end) or more efficient (at the high end) GPUs (I think AMD never had these together in a single product) dried up in favor of "Nvidia at every end".

Only now that Nvidia is squeezing every $ it can with last year's overclocked products from a market they ended up dominating have many of the same journalists and reviewers realized the consequences and I started seeing articles how "Nvidia's GPUs don't get better, they just trade more power for more performance", or users started voting in polls that they care about raster performance nor ray tracing.
Lol, it's never AMD's fault for having sub-par products, is it?
ThomasKWere you even around when the HD 5870 came out and Nvidia's answer was the Fermi toaster?
That was 15 years ago dude, and the 480 was still faster. You also seem to have forgotten the quick respin - 7 months - when Nvidia got power under control and crushed AMD to the point it took AMD two generations to reach parity.
Posted on Reply
#33
3valatzy
Visible NoiseThat was 15 years ago dude, and the 480 was still faster. You also seem to have forgotten the quick respin - 7 months - when Nvidia got power under control and crushed AMD to the point
AMD had dual-GPU solutions back then to combat Nvidia's cards. It had Radeon HD 5970 which was faster than GTX 580.
Visible Noiseit took AMD two generations to reach parity.


Two generations later, the 7970 smashed GTX 580.
Posted on Reply
#34
Baba
3valatzyEven 4090 is not sold for this.


Posted on Reply
#35
3valatzy
^^^ RTX 5090 will be $4000, maybe after discounts $3900..
Posted on Reply
#36
Marcus L
3valatzyAMD had dual-GPU solutions back then to combat Nvidia's cards. It had Radeon HD 5970 which was faster than GTX 580.





Two generations later, the 7970 smashed GTX 580.
Why are you lying through your teeth

Sorry reading comprehension on my part, ignore
Posted on Reply
#37
wheresmycar
ZazigalkaA 4090 equivalent will be around 1500.
Yep this seems likely. Perhaps less with the alluded MSRP with limited product launch and then post-launch price normalisation hitting 1500+.

Scarcity driven hype - Baarstids!!

I'm defo up for an upgrade - I’d be satisfied with a 4080S or 7900XTX equivalent/+ from the 50-series lineup, maybe a 16GB 5070 Ti/S in the ~$800 range. Alternatively, see if AMD 8000-series offers something more compelling. Worst case scenario, certainly not the worst outcome, might settle with a (hopefully) discounted 4080S to feed the dedicated GSYNC panel

The piss-take - every generation stubbornly pushing the envelope, not just in performance, but in how much these toss-pots can squeeze out of our wallets.
Posted on Reply
#38
Visible Noise
3valatzyAMD had dual-GPU solutions back then to combat Nvidia's cards. It had Radeon HD 5970 which was faster than GTX 580.





Two generations later, the 7970 smashed GTX 580.
Read what I said. The 7970 reached parity with the 680 two years later.

And are you really going to bring up janky crossfire on a single board? There’s a reason why that was quickly abandoned. But hey, if “Two AMD GPU’s beats one Nvidia GPU for a $200 price increase ($275 inflation adjusted)” works for you, I’m not going to say you’re wrong. But then we would bring up the GTX 690, which beat everything that AMD would produce for the next 5 years - probably a record.

Funny, inflation adjusted the 5970 was a $1K card, and nobody screamed about the price then.


Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 22nd, 2024 23:18 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts