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

[Dawora]

Looks like the upper part of the line-up is coming into focus

5070 $600 250W Slightly higher perforamance than 4070 Super
5070 Ti $800 300W Slightly higher performance than 4070 Ti Super
5080 $1000 400W Slightly higher performance than 4080 Super
5090 $2000 600W 40% higher performance than 4090

Nothing too exciting given the same 4 nm die process except for the 5090. I have no idea how this thing is going to work at 600W if your rig isn't perfectly up to snuff.

As for the lower part of the line-up, Nvidia is definitely waiting to see how Battlemage and RNDA4 performs.

it seems u dont know much, u underate all the performance those cards will have? u trolling or serious?

Replace "slightly higher" with "same" and you will nail them.
Also add $100 to 5070 and $200 to 70ti and 80

More butthurt Amd fans, just like every Nvidia news/releases.

AMD was beating nVidia, since 4870 'till Polaris. Even the dumb GTX260 was a hot furnace. 5870 was the first DX11 card, and the first gen of HW tesselation. Also, the HW of AMD/ATi was much of higher quality. But drivers were hit-and miss, for decades- that's true. The picture quality was a bit better on AMD/ATi either, much like not gimping the colour preset like "green" company did since ever.
P.S.: AMD made Mantle, which became Vulcan. The SW RT back in 2016.

There was also the Radeon 9600 Pro. A great, affordable low end card. that made gaming possible for alot of people. And it had a quite nice OC room. It was like "2500+ Barton" of videocard.

And whole AMD community think Nvidia=rip because Mantle, it was so stupid..

Look now!
How did it go?

Nothing 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!

The good news is that AMD will have a chance to survive after this, because the RTX 5000 will be mostly not worthy to buy..

RTX 4070 - 5888 shaders RTX 5070 - 6400 shaders
RTX 4070S - 7168 shaders
RTX 4070Ti - 7680 shaders
RTX 4070TiS - 8448 shaders RTX 5070Ti - 8960 shaders
RTX 4080 - 9728 shaders
RTX 4080S - 10240 shaders RTX 5080 - 10752 shaders
RTX 4090 - 16384 shaders RTX 5090 - 21760 shaders

One Amd fan doing some more damage control..
There is no way to know is 5000 series worthy buy or not, But Nvidia know what they do so be ready to suprise.

And comparing shader count alone makes u look stupid

Even 4090 is not sold for this.

View attachment 372891
View attachment 372892

Nice cherry pic, how long did u try to find those

300W TDP is quite high. Without knowing anything else you can tell the TSMC lithography jump is more minor this time

OR TGP ?

^^^ RTX 5090 will be $4000, maybe after discounts $3900..

We hope so big price because what else we Amd fans can do, Amd cant compete so lets try to troll in forums and doing some damage control

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.


View attachment 372937

NoOne in AMD fans care prices not powerusage and not noise or heat because if AMD product

They only QQ if Nvidia

Seems really meh, won't be much generation increase. Pretty convinced the next gen cards are going to flop hard.

There just isn't the demand for ultra expensive cards anymore.

Compute is what's been driving Nvidia sales even for gaming division. People trying use consumer cards in their llms.

Without a massive breakthrough on the front end, it's going to end, very badly.

AMD fans wet dream right?
Keep hoping

RTX 5090 will cost $2500, RTX 5080 will cost $1400, RTX 5070ti will cost $1000, RTX 5070 will cost $800, RTX 5060ti will cost $500, RTX 5060 will cost $400.

AMD's line up will be: RX 8800XT will cost $600, RX 8700XT will cost $500, RX 8600XT will cost $400, RX 8600 will cost $300, RX 8500XT will cost $200.

There is no coming 8800XT

better to buy nvidia if u want faster GPU

 

[Craptacular]

I expect both to suck as well. AMD is distracted with AI and not focused on gaming, despite what they are saying, and Intel may *wish* to gain market share with Battlemage but they have no money left and Celestial looks dead in the water.

How are you coming to the conclusion that Celestial is dead in the water?

 

[tugrul_SIMD]

People should count power budget too. RTX5070 is said to have 250Watts. This is 25% higher than 4070 and more cores. So it can be way better than 4070, not an exact same thing. Also number of cores is multiple of 64. This makes it exactly match some calculations that do the work in chunks of 64 items. For example, 1440p has 40 times 64 pixels on each scanline. I guess 5070 will have some other architectural bonuses too. Something like lower cache latency, bigger cache, etc. In the end, it may even have 30% more performance compared to a 4070 that is limited to 200W like the ventus 2x.

There's also the 5070 ti vs 5080: 33% more power budget with only 15% more cores. So the power limit will give it an edge over 5070ti on per-core performance when algorithm is compute-bottlenecked and not bandwidth bottlenecked.

Even against 5090, the 5080 has 50% less cores but only 33% less power budget.

RTX5080 has the most power budget per CUDA core. <---- I think Nvidia is counting on RTX5080 most. It's cheaper than 5090, more power per cuda core, possibly with optimum memory size and perhaps with just enough memory bandwidth to balance with the compute performance (not unbalanced like a 660ti / etc).

 

[close]

There is no such consensus. There is too much sponsorship paid by Nvidia in the reviews which are misleading and lack true data.



Was more a matter of luck that they got the right man in the right place - his name is Jim Keller who designed the Zen architecture which for now saves AMD.
The thing is that Nvidia is focused in a market which made them a multi-trillion company, while AMD is nowhere near, especially with the today's threat to exit the GPU competition all together. One or two weak Radeon GPUs generations and AMD will be out of the business.
Which will be fatal for the company.

Keller was also at Intel and Tesla without managing the same miraculous turnaround for either of them. So I think it's uncharitable to say the success was just the result of luck and randomness, or even just one person (Zen wasn't a one person effort, nor relied *only* on Keller's genius for everything that mattered), putting AMD on an upward trend in the CPU business. Also Nvidia is 'almost' tied with Apple for the most valuable public company in the world. No other silicon related company is even close, not just AMD. But that's exactly my point, AMD chose a battle they had a better shot at fighting, not even talking about winning. I doubt Radeon failing would sink AMD, they'd most likely cut those losses and keep going with the CPU+APU business (so whatever integrated portfolio they need to keep going).

 

[Draconis]

(Zen wasn't a one person effort, nor relied *only* on Keller's genius for everything that mattered), putting AMD on an upward trend in the CPU business.

Agreed. It was a group effort but Mike Clark is acknowledged as the "Father of Zen". Quote from Jim Keller interview with Ian Cutress, link below.

I found people inside the company, such as Mike Clark, Leslie Barnes, Jay Fleischman, and others

his name is Jim Keller who designed the Zen architecture which for now saves AMD.

Keller's role was more managerial but he did have architecture input, interview here if you are interested.

 

[Random_User]

AMD had dual-GPU solutions back then to combat Nvidia's cards.

And they were absolute atrocity and hot garbage, much like Crossfire, which worked only half of the time (gaming). I've learned that the hard way.

So you are saying there will be a 100% increase in IPC going from Ada to Blackwell? That would mean the 5090 would be almost three times the performance of 4090.

By the way, the 4070Ti has over 50% clock increase over the 3090 which was possible going from Samsung 8LPP to TSMC 4N. Blackwell is the same node as Ada.

Just multiple CUDA cores times max clocks:

3090Ti: 10.7k cores times 1.86 Ghz = 19.44
4070Ti: 7.7k cores times 2.6 Ghz = 20.22

That’s why those two GPUs have the same performance. It was the node change. We don’t have that this time.

But just for fun, the 5070Ti would need 4.6 Ghz to match the 4090 at the same IPC. That’s not happening at 300W TSMC 4N.

Lol, so true. Even Ada had less than declared 30%, as native non-frame generated performance gains.

 

[mkppo]

But... Nvidia was always better. Simple as that. Even during GCN; AMD drew more power for a slightly better bang for buck, offered more VRAM for a slightly better bang for buck. And that's all AMD wrote. Not ONCE did they take the leading position, either in featureset or in software altogether. Driver regime has been spotty. GPU time to market has no real fixed cadence, its 'whatever happens with AMD' every single time and it never happens to be just a smooth launch. The list of issues goes on and on and on.

The only thing to applaud is AMD brought RDNA2/3 to a good, stable situation. Too bad the products don't sell. Because AMD chose to price them in parity with Nvidia... So at that point, they didn't have the consistency, nor the trust factor or brand image, nor the bang for buck price win.... and guess what. RDNA4 is a bugfix and then they're going back to the drawing board. Again: no consistency, they even admitted themselves that they failed now.

When GCN (HD 7970) came out, it was much faster than nvidia because the GTX 680 didn't come out yet.

When it did, it was barely faster with slightly lower power consumption. But all reviewers praised it to hell and back mentioning how it achieved the holy trifecta yada yada and I was sat thinking "isn't GCN just a superior architecture and overclocks much better, why is no one mentioning this?". Turns out I was correct, GTX 680 aged like shit and 7970 was so far ahead of it in a few years that it was in a different category altogether. 7970 was also just heavily downclocked.

There were other times too, 9700 Pro, 9800 Pro, 290X. Always isn't really correct here.

it seems u dont know much, u underate all the performance those cards will have? u trolling or serious?

Given just how terrible the low/midrange of 40 series was, it's easy to come to the conclusion that 50 series will be no different. How do you know that he's underrating the performance when you don't know it yourself?

 

[Vayra86]

When GCN (HD 7970) came out, it was much faster than nvidia because the GTX 680 didn't come out yet.

When it did, it was barely faster with slightly lower power consumption. But all reviewers praised it to hell and back mentioning how it achieved the holy trifecta yada yada and I was sat thinking "isn't GCN just a superior architecture and overclocks much better, why is no one mentioning this?". Turns out I was correct, GTX 680 aged like shit and 7970 was so far ahead of it in a few years that it was in a different category altogether. 7970 was also just heavily downclocked.

There were other times too, 9700 Pro, 9800 Pro, 290X. Always isn't really correct here.



Given just how terrible the low/midrange of 40 series was, it's easy to come to the conclusion that 50 series will be no different. How do you know that he's underrating the performance when you don't know it yourself?

I'm 100% in agreement when it comes to the 7970 and its budget sibling the 7950, which was the killer budget high end card to buy those days. Nobody bought a 680. Everyone bought 670 instead, or 7950. And everyone who bought a 660 and/or 660ti was screwed, because both GPUs were too weak in the VRAM department and there was an issue with a certain MSI Power edition. I did my stupid there and earned experience points putting two 660's in SLI Silly me - didn't work in half the games I played, and in the other half it was a stutter fest, 150 FPS notwithstanding

it seems u dont know much, u underate all the performance those cards will have? u trolling or serious?

It seems to me you're about 15-16 years old and have much to learn, young gwasshoppa.

You can use TPU to learn things, or you can keep going on your current trajectory, which is likely to result in a swift banhammer because this isn't a bottom-barrel Youtube chat or some social media feed. Try to discuss like a normal human being, using normal speech. People are supporting what they say (including myself) with factual arguments. You'd do well to try that too. And if you do, you will discover there's very few adamant 'fans' here of specific brands, and those types don't tend to survive here for very long either. Most people here have used and will keep using whatever brand is the best for them at any given time. People are individuals. Treat them as such

There is no way to know is 5000 series worthy buy or not, But Nvidia know what they do so be ready to suprise.

And comparing shader count alone makes u look stupid

This is the only real statement I could find in your posts besides flaming and its something I'll respond to, perhaps we can get to something meaningful that way?

Comparing shader count within the same gen/architecture update is reasonable. If the architecture doesn't change, those shaders are almost directly relative to the real performance gaps between those cards.

Now, for the 5000 series, we already know (because Blackwell for enterprise is already (pre-)released/ordered and in delivery soonish, starting this December in fact) there are little to no architectural changes compared to Ada. The nodes are also similar, 4nm on both, slight refinements in Blackwell. So its fair to compare shader count. Will Nvidia have an ace up their sleeve? Who knows, but so far all we've heard was pricing and product placement, no mention of a killer (software) feature or anything yet, and I think Nvidia also really doesn't have to, because everyone's screaming for chips and they'll sell them anyway.

So yes, 5000 series will look grim AF. Its not as if Ada was a fantastic thing to buy, you do it because you have to or don't care about money. RDNA3 was no different by the way, AMD priced it wayyy out of its league.

 

[Dawora]

I'm 100% in agreement when it comes to the 7970 and its budget sibling the 7950, which was the killer budget high end card to buy those days. Nobody bought a 680. Everyone bought 670 instead, or 7950. And everyone who bought a 660 and/or 660ti was screwed, because both GPUs were too weak in the VRAM department and there was an issue with a certain MSI Power edition. I did my stupid there and earned experience points putting two 660's in SLI Silly me - didn't work in half the games I played, and in the other half it was a stutter fest, 150 FPS notwithstanding


It seems to me you're about 15-16 years old and have much to learn, young gwasshoppa.

You can use TPU to learn things, or you can keep going on your current trajectory, which is likely to result in a swift banhammer because this isn't a bottom-barrel Youtube chat or some social media feed. Try to discuss like a normal human being, using normal speech. People are supporting what they say (including myself) with factual arguments. You'd do well to try that too. And if you do, you will discover there's very few adamant 'fans' here of specific brands, and those types don't tend to survive here for very long either. Most people here have used and will keep using whatever brand is the best for them at any given time. People are individuals. Treat them as such


This is the only real statement I could find in your posts besides flaming and its something I'll respond to, perhaps we can get to something meaningful that way?

Comparing shader count within the same gen/architecture update is reasonable. If the architecture doesn't change, those shaders are almost directly relative to the real performance gaps between those cards.

Now, for the 5000 series, we already know (because Blackwell for enterprise is already (pre-)released/ordered and in delivery soonish, starting this December in fact) there are little to no architectural changes compared to Ada. The nodes are also similar, 4nm on both, slight refinements in Blackwell. So its fair to compare shader count. Will Nvidia have an ace up their sleeve? Who knows, but so far all we've heard was pricing and product placement, no mention of a killer (software) feature or anything yet, and I think Nvidia also really doesn't have to, because everyone's screaming for chips and they'll sell them anyway.

So yes, 5000 series will look grim AF. Its not as if Ada was a fantastic thing to buy, you do it because you have to or don't care about money. RDNA3 was no different by the way, AMD priced it wayyy out of its league.

What u care how old random ppls are , i can be 10y, 20y,30y or 40y or 95y that should not matter.
I think u are around 13y max 14y old

Some ppls cant take it how badly AMD is doing in Gpus and how well Nvidia is doing, so they be very negative against Nvidia.

 

[Prima.Vera]

So do we have the exact specs of the 5070, 5070 Ti and 5080 cards yet?

 

[ToxicTaZ]

RTX 5000 Let's see how the more TDP Power and more expensive than the RTX 4000 series perform.

Let's see how they performed against my...

MSI RTX 4080 Super 16G SUPRIM X card.

Fully unlocked AD103
320w TDP
2640MHz
16GB GDDR6X 256-bit 24GHz
10240 Cuda Cores
320 Tensor Cores
230 TMUs Cores
80 RT Cores
80 SM

Hmm let's see how well the RTX 5000 series performs.

Cheers

 

[karomba]

I have my eye on the 5070Ti, however, if it arrives with 12GB VRAM, there is no way. Also, the MSRP should be reasonable, you can't just keep pushing prices up nVidia, the world doesn't work that way, salaries doesn't just go up ad-infinitum, eventually you will price yourself out of the tier/market you used to target.

Yeah, I might upgrade to a 5070Ti. But a 12 GB version would be impossible because Nvidia never downgrades VRAM (except the 4060) so it would be very safe to bet it would not have 12 GB of VRAM.

 

[Vayra86]

Yeah, I might upgrade to a 5070Ti. But a 12 GB version would be impossible because Nvidia never downgrades VRAM (except the 4060) so it would be very safe to bet it would not have 12 GB of VRAM.

Nvidia has downgraded VRAM several times between Pascal and Ada across the entire stack except x90, my friend. Either in capacity or bandwidth. You have wonderful cache now to fix all your problems. Except those that don't fit in the framebuffer.

 

[3valatzy]

A reason for not to buy

Whooping, prohibitive, hot, loud and large incoming ! 350 watts

Actually, must mean that the backport is a flop.

GeForce RTX 5070 Ti reportedly features 16GB GDDR7 memory and GB203-300 GPU - VideoCardz.com

GeForce RTX 5070 Ti to feature 16GB memory New rumor on NVIDIA’s next-gen Ti model. After two weeks of silence, new information regarding the GeForce RTX 50 series is now reaching the media. It is no secret that NVIDIA has already provided early data and samples to board partners, who should...

videocardz.com