NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Confirmed, Beats RTX 2080 SUPER

[Slizzo]

Where's your math for calculating that?
There's more than inflation at play here, they're not selling the same old product for higher prices.

A little known government agency by the name of the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistic.

You know, the agency that tracks U.S. inflation rates and such.

 

[medi01]

in every benchmark I have run.

Ungodly skilled statement.

 

[dirtyferret]

Consoles are sold at a loss, PC parts aren't.

It's not so much that consoles are sold at a loss as they are not sold for a profit like PC hardware.

Xbox One had a production cost of $471 for manufacturing and materials and a launch price of $499. PS4 cost $381 to make and launched at $399. Add in shipping (not as much as you think) and marketing cost (you can argue marketing also covers games) and they pretty much equal out. You hear a lot of console fan boys stating how they are getting $600 worth of hardware in a $400 consoles and that's hyperbole. If it was true, you would have people buying the consoles in droves, tearing out the hardware and selling it peace by peace on ebay.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm not sure what promises you read, but the 3070 is a 2080Ti with better perf/W. Anything in particular let you down?

Much like the promise that the 3080 was going to be faster than it turned out to be unless talking about raytracing with DLSS, Jensen claimed that the 3070 would be faster than the 2080Ti, not an equal as you're implying. Actual reviews paint the 3070 as not just slower, but also less consistent with a 10% lower minimums and 99th percentiles.

I'm not hating on the 3070 - it's more efficient and far cheaper than the 2080Ti whilst being pretty damn close in performance.
I'm hating on Nvidia's massaging of the truth and broken promises. When the competition is extremely close as it is this generation, saying it's ~10% faster than it really is is pretty disingenious.

 

[rtwjunkie]

nothing new, x060 always getting better than the previous sweetest x080

No. This is a relatively recent thing. It always used to be the xx70 that would beat the previous xx80. In any case, this is a xx60 Ti, which is a whole different matter.

 

[bug]

Much like the promise that the 3080 was going to be faster than it turned out to be unless talking about raytracing with DLSS, Jensen claimed that the 3070 would be faster than the 2080Ti, not an equal as you're implying. Actual reviews paint the 3070 as not just slower, but also less consistent with a 10% lower minimums and 99th percentiles.

I'm not hating on the 3070 - it's more efficient and far cheaper than the 2080Ti whilst being pretty damn close in performance.
I'm hating on Nvidia's massaging of the truth and broken promises. When the competition is extremely close as it is this generation, saying it's ~10% faster than it really is is pretty disingenious.

I'm guessing you just have a problem reading. The only "promise" Nvidia ever made was this: https://tpucdn.com/img/X5Mu3J6XD0MlSIrp_thm.jpg
3080 has a clear "up to" next to it. 3070 does indeed say "faster than 2070Ti", but you can notice it's actually on the same horizontal line. That translates to "a hair faster, under our own testing conditions".
Actual reviews paint the 3070 literally identical to 2080Ti: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3070-founders-edition/39.html

You're gonna have a sad life if you keep taking marketing material at face value.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm guessing you just have a problem reading. The only "promise" Nvidia ever made was this: https://tpucdn.com/img/X5Mu3J6XD0MlSIrp_thm.jpg
You're gonna have a sad life if you keep taking marketing material at face value.

You're trying to read ambiguity where there isn't any and thinking that one slide was all that was ever said about performance is just naïve.

Here is the first google result, literally highlighting Jensen's claim:

Introducing GeForce RTX 30 Series GPUs.

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang unveils the new GeForce RTX 30 Series graphics cards.

blogs.nvidia.com

If an auto maker claimed that they'd made the first sub-$50K 200mph sports car that actually cost $53K and only reached 195mph people would be calling them out.

There are a ton of reviews out there in different formats and the results range from almost 10% slower to a dead tie. The median result seems to be about 5% slower than a 2080Ti with some games in a dead-tie or claiming small wins at 1080p. For examples like that see GamersNexus, THG, DigitalFoundry, Guru3D etc. TPU's results aren't invalid, but that's a small cross section of games tested on just one platform, which is why you should never get your data from just one review.

 

[bug]

You're trying to read ambiguity where there isn't any and thinking that one slide was all that was ever said about performance is just naïve.

That's what I was saying. There's always ambiguity in marketing materials, but it seems it don't perceive it as such.
I'm also not sure what's supposed to be highlighted in there, I see no highlights. No performance claim, besides the "faster than 2080Ti", either.

And if you're so adamant about numbers, AMD also claimed 2x better performance over the 5700XT in BFV@4k and it didn't quite manage it: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-6800-xt/9.html
Do you have anything to say about that?

 

[Caring1]

A little known government agency by the name of the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistic.

You know, the agency that tracks U.S. inflation rates and such.

Why didn't you just say you didn't do the math, you read it on the internet.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm also not sure what's supposed to be highlighted in there, I see no highlights. No performance claim, besides the "faster than 2080Ti", either.

Weird, it was highlighted for me by default.



That is the claim I was talking about and I was only talking about it as you specifically asked me in the first place. That claim is a sweeping blanket statement, no caveats, no asterisks. The CEO of Nvidia said it would be faster, and in a majority of reviews I've seen it simply isn't.

And if you're so adamant about numbers, AMD also claimed 2x better performance over the 5700XT in BFV@4k and it didn't quite manage it: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-6800-xt/9.html
Do you have anything to say about that?

Well that's not particularly relevant to an Nvidia article is it, but since we're already getting off topic - sure, I'll bite. Google's not helpful in finding the claim you're talking about, so I'm going to have to guess that you mean this slide from the keynote:

I've highlighted three issues with your point:

1. "~" in front of a value means "approximately", not "exactly" (or, to quote Jensen, "faster than").
2. "Up to" is not the same as "average FPS" that you're comparing to in the 6800XT review you're linking.
3. This slide is for RDNA2, not specifically the 6800XT. Since the 5700XT is full silicon, the equivalent full RDNA2 silicon would be the 80CU 6900XT and not the 6800XT you're linking.

If you're goading me into taking fanboy sides in the AMD/Nvidia battle, I won't:

• Nvidia play dirty with their exaggerated claims and the way they bombard the press and vloggers with information to get more articles per week for the hype train.
• AMD have failed to impress by offering less than Nvidia for approximate price parity. Sure, they have comparable raster performance, but that's ALL they have.

I feel that the general raster performance of the 6800 matches Ampere in terms of performance/$ but RDNA2 is lacking in a whole bunch of other features like lower raytracing performance, no DLSS, an inferior encoder to NVENC, no tensor-core powered features like RTX Voice or the streamer tools included with the NV Broadcast suite. IMO AMD need to reduce prices by 10% until they can at least match the primary hardware stuff like DXR, DLSS and NVENC. Additional features are nice but less of a deal-breaker.

 

[Gwenved]

Every time a new console generation is released, PC gaming is declared dead. Mostly by people who don't understand the differences between platforms.

You're right, the same who complain about gpu's pricing at the same time they forget they're an evolution and building a gpu 10 years ago didn't had the same number of transistor, memory, size of the die etc, apart the cost of life who's increasing each day specially in Asia...if they can afford only 200$ gpus well they have choice at this price or going to the second hand market.

 

[RandAlThor]

To people saying that people looking for 200-300 EUR GPUs should stay on 1080p: Our 3 year old GPUs are enaugh for that, so no need to buy new ones for that. Why would we buy a new GPU for the same resolution and performance every x years ? Technology improves over time and people expect to get more for the same amount of money. And stop parroting inflation, because the inflation hasn't been as big as these price increases.

 

[bug]

To people saying that people looking for 200-300 EUR GPUs should stay on 1080p: Our 3 year old GPUs are enaugh for that, so no need to buy new ones for that. Why would we buy a new GPU for the same resolution and performance every x years ? Technology improves over time and people expect to get more for the same amount of money.

And you are getting more for the same amount of money. 1660 is faster than my 1060 for the same price. Not to mention faster than older FHD cards.

And stop parroting inflation, because the inflation hasn't been as big as these price increases.

And this is despite me posting a link that shows that it is
Of course, not all price hikes mirror inflation exactly, but humans have a special skill mentally blocking out inflation when looking at a price increase.

 

[Caring1]

Technology improves over time and people expect to get more for the same amount of money.

Technology improves over time, and stupid people expect to get more for the same amount of money.
Technological improvements cost money, that cost is passed on to the consumer.

 

[bug]

Technology improves over time, and stupid people expect to get more for the same amount of money.
Technological improvements cost money, that cost is passed on to the consumer.

R&D costs are included in the price of products being replaced as well
But yes, they're not a constant. Hell, with lockdowns and isolation in place not even the price of manufacturing and transport remain constant.

 

[TheDeeGee]

News also just got out that this is a damn good mining card.

F prices.

 

[rtwjunkie]

To people saying that people looking for 200-300 EUR GPUs should stay on 1080p: Our 3 year old GPUs are enaugh for that, so no need to buy new ones for that. Why would we buy a new GPU for the same resolution and performance every x years ? Technology improves over time and people expect to get more for the same amount of money. And stop parroting inflation, because the inflation hasn't been as big as these price increases.

You buy a new GPU for the same resolution because game technology increases. It becomes the newer games cannot be played at your resolution because they get too demanding. Wake up. Games aren’t stagnant either.

You don’t just buy hardware to go up in resolution. In fact, going higher means you become even more bound to upgrade at a faster rate. Hardware lasts even less time being relevant at 1440 than at 1080, so more frequent purchasing is in order.

 

[NoJuan999]

You buy a new GPU for the same resolution because game technology increases. It becomes the newer games cannot be played at your resolution because they get too demanding. Wake up. Games aren’t stagnant either.

You don’t just buy hardware to go up in resolution. In fact, going higher means you become even more bound to upgrade at a faster rate. Hardware lasts even less time being relevant at 1440 than at 1080, so more frequent purchasing is in order.

Exactly, I upgraded from a Ryzen 2600/1060 3 GB to a 2600/1660 Ti and then to a 3700x/2060 Super all at 1080p.
I mostly play single player AAA games and each upgrade helped with the (smoothness/fps/ability to use Ultra settings) of the newer games (Control, AC Odyssey, Metro Exodus, etc.).

 

[RandAlThor]

Maybe i'm getting old, but I don't see that many worthwhile new games to pay previous xx70/80 prices for a current gen xx60. I.E. Games with shit stories/gameplay but better graphics are not worth it in my opinion.

Where are the new Elder scrolls, Fallout, GTA, Medieval2: Total war, Neverwinter Nights 2 (yes i know Baldurs Gate 2 is in Early access - a.k.a. you pay to be their tester) ... ?

P.S. I am open to suggestions for new games which are like the above ones.

 

[dirtyferret]

Maybe i'm getting old, but I don't see that many worthwhile new games to pay previous xx70/80 prices for a current gen xx60. I.E. Games with shit stories/gameplay but better graphics are not worth it in my opinion.

Where are the new Elder scrolls, Fallout, GTA, Medieval2: Total war, Neverwinter Nights 2 (yes i know Baldurs Gate 2 is in Early access - a.k.a. you pay to be their tester) ... ?

P.S. I am open to suggestions for new games which are like the above ones.

Cyberpunk 2077, stalker 2, vampire masquerade 2 just to name a few

 

[Tomorrow]

Cyberpunk 2077, stalker 2, vampire masquerade 2 just to name a few

CP 2077 is an exeption likely. Stalker 2 and VM2 are stuck in development (hell). Aside from Doom 2016 and to an lesser extent Doom Eternal (that was not as good) i have to agree that there are barely any new AAA games worth playing these days. New GTA and TES are years away. Same with Mass Effect. Doom just came out last year. Quake is nowhere to be seen (aside from Quake Champions that's largery on life support).

 

[Gwenved]

Maybe i'm getting old, but I don't see that many worthwhile new games to pay previous xx70/80 prices for a current gen xx60. I.E. Games with shit stories/gameplay but better graphics are not worth it in my opinion.

Where are the new Elder scrolls, Fallout, GTA, Medieval2: Total war, Neverwinter Nights 2 (yes i know Baldurs Gate 2 is in Early access - a.k.a. you pay to be their tester) ... ?

P.S. I am open to suggestions for new games which are like the above ones.

In your opinion it could be true, but you can't talk for everybody. As example I prefer to play with very good graphic and it doesn't depend on the game, I'm replaying Crysis at the moment and with my new setup it is really nice. I would like to replay Far Cry to see it now. Assetto Corsa in high details and 4K, F1 2019, Dirt 2.0 and all the simulation races are better to play with high details so with the new graphic cards.... then you forget all the people who are playing in VR mode or multi screens.

 

[rtwjunkie]

CP 2077 is an exeption likely. Stalker 2 and VM2 are stuck in development (hell). Aside from Doom 2016 and to an lesser extent Doom Eternal (that was not as good) i have to agree that there are barely any new AAA games worth playing these days. New GTA and TES are years away. Same with Mass Effect. Doom just came out last year. Quake is nowhere to be seen (aside from Quake Champions that's largery on life support).

Also to @RandAlThor Why are you only looking at the bigest games, and then determining there is nothing worth playing? There are literally thousands of new games every year.

Most of the great gameplay or great stories (and many times both) are found in these smaller games. Frequently they cone from indies. There is so much out there worth playing you could bever even play through a third if it.

 

[Tomorrow]

Also to @RandAlThor Why are you only looking at the bigest games, and then determining there is nothing worth playing? There are literally thousands of new games every year.

Most of the great gameplay or great stories (and many times both) are found in these smaller games. Frequently they cone from indies. There is so much out there worth playing you could bever even play through a third if it.

And do you need the latest and greatest cards for that?

 

[Taraquin]

If performance is actually 10% lower than 3070 this will be a really good buy when it's available.