Keep a 4080s or take a 5070ti?

[AndreX86]

I would say to get it if you can at MSRP. It's worth it for MFG IMO and you can likely sell your 4080s for the same price or more.

 

[dgianstefani]

If the difference is so little you would hardly notice or tell then I don't think it really matters. Power Efficiency simply doesn't really matter for this comparison in my opinion. Just because the 7900XTX is a smidge bit faster than the 4080S (usually only by 1% to 4%), suddenly didnt mean people were recommending the 7900XTX over the 4080S in raster. I think the same logic applies here.

Not to mention, OP mentioned overclocking a potential 5070Ti to beat a 4080 (which it already matches as is) which opens up another can of worms for power efficiency, and ATP if your gonna overclock power efficiency probably isnt your concern anymore. And even in this regard, an overclocked 5070Ti from what im reading is still well within 5% difference range. Cooler matters too in that regard but it seems pretty consistent across all the charts I saw for different models (avoiding FE for comparison due to no FE card for 5070Ti)

TL;DR, power efficiency, and by extension, other stuff such as raster, really dont matter in this arguement. I dont see a point in bringing them up. Your choice is gonna entirely hinge on the features. (and price, if you can get a good price of course.)

5070Ti if its at a price similar to a 4080S (which the cheapest ive seen are), if you already own a 4080S, you should pass unless you value the features exclusive to the 5070Ti and can actually get it. If you don't, and were considering getting a 4080S, then, in that specific instance, go ahead. Even more so if you can buy a 5070Ti at its actual MSRP. If your not an american thats a factor too, due to stuff like VAT, but thats getting into a whole other can of worms.

You're still missing the point.

7900XTX vs 4080 had pros/cons. 7900XTX ~5% faster in raster, bit more VRAM (debatable if a real positive beyond bigger number better, since no CUDA for professional applications and games don't use 24 GB), slightly better in Linux (at the time), 40% slower in RT, no DLSS, more power draw etc.

5070 Ti vs 4080, 5070 Ti wins or draws in every category. OK, it's only 5% more efficient than the previous most efficient card available. But again, doesn't matter if the win is small, there's no downside to going with the 5070 Ti for the same or less money.

OP is clearly OK with the hassle aspect, he's asking which is the better card, and the answer is obvious.

I would say to get it if you can at MSRP. It's worth it for MFG IMO and you can likely sell your 4080s for the same price or more.

He doesn't need to sell it, it's within return window.

 

[vacsati]

If the price is about the same, then easily the 5070ti, new tech with new features and it will be faster with newer drivers.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Have 4080S? Keep, unless;
Value DLSS4 and MFG? Get 5070Ti.

Return window open? If you have a guaranteed way of getting a 5070Ti, get 5070Ti. But do NOT pay more than 4080S MSRP. Ideally, pay less.
Don't have one but wanted it, now 5070Ti out? Get 5070Ti.

This is basically what I would recommend OP. 50 Series launch has been rough, just don't be a idiot when buying a 5070Ti and you should be okay if your doing that. OC, Power Effiency, Raster, etc are not what you should worry about. Just focus on the features, or other small things the 5070Ti has over the 4080 if it benefits you. Or if you already can get one for same / smaller price.

You're still missing the point.

7900XTX vs 4080 had pros/cons. 7900XTX ~5% faster in raster, bit more VRAM (debatable if a real positive beyond bigger number better, since no CUDA for professional applications and games don't use 24 GB), slightly better in Linux (at the time), 40% slower in RT, no DLSS, more power draw etc.

You are exactly highlighting more of what I'm talking about. Nobody bought a 7900XTX because its faster in raster. They bought it for other reasons. This comparison is no different, except its actually a very close comparison. So why should power efficiency even matter? Just because the 7900XTX on paper wins in raster doesn't mean it actually matters.. you can still value that small, microscopic win, that nobody will really realistically care about or even notice, but the comparison is so close here it doesnt matter.

I think we both are saying the same thing but just applying it in different ways. And for me, a microscopic win might as well be a draw.

 

[djsolidsnake86]

Have 4080S? Keep, unless;
Value DLSS4 and MFG? Get 5070Ti.

Return window open? If you have a guaranteed way of getting a 5070Ti, get 5070Ti. But do NOT pay more than 4080S MSRP. Ideally, pay less.
Don't have one but wanted it, now 5070Ti out? Get 5070Ti.

This is basically what I would recommend OP. 50 Series launch has been rough, just don't be a idiot when buying a 5070Ti and you should be okay if your doing that. OC, Power Effiency, Raster, etc are not what you should worry about. Just focus on the features, or other small things the 5070Ti has over the 4080 if it benefits you. Or if you already can get one for same / smaller price.

You are exactly highlighting more of what I'm talking about. Nobody bought a 7900XTX because its faster in raster. They bought it for other reasons. This comparison is no different, except its actually a very close comparison. So why should power efficiency even matter? Just because the 7900XTX on paper wins in raster doesn't mean it actually matters.. you can still value that small, microscopic win, that nobody will really realistically care about or even notice, but the comparison is so close here it doesnt matter.

I think we both are saying the same thing but just applying it in different ways. And for me, a microscopic win might as well be a draw.

well dlss4 is also on 4000 cards, what are the other features? mfg? i don't know if i ever will use, i have a 120hz oled tv for game
and a feature i will miss is physix

 

[steamrick]

If you're still within your return window and are *certain* you can get a 5070Ti for less money than the 4080S cost you, I guess you can consider switching them.

Advantages of the 5070Ti:
- barely more efficient
- more headroom for overclocking or undervolting due to 5nm process increment
- more memory bandwidth (if you're looking to run local LLMs and don't have the budget for 24GB+ VRAM)
- MFG, if you care about that
- supports newer features that may or may not become relevant in the future (neural rendering and textures)

Advantages of the 4080S:
- more mature drivers, proven hardware design
- very minor performance advantage on average and slightly less minor performance advantage in raytracing heavy workloads (in spite of the older gen RT units)
- lower chance of a 'dud' that has more units deactivated than it should
- you already have it in hand
- faster in compute heavy workloads such Stable Diffusion

Value DLSS4 and MFG? Get 5070Ti.

DLSS4 works just fine on a 4080S

 

[JustBenching]

"condoning such actions"

My dude it's 32 bit software for which a direct replacement has existed for more than 15 years, and this is 2025. Should hardware manufacturers keep supporting all standards for infinity? Seems like a waste of die space.

Besides, it's not like the game is unplayable without PhysX, or that it will magically make a 15 year old game look contemporary.

Seems like a very similar issue to how modern fast computers have problems running very old games, as framerate tied to physics etc and the sheer speed of modern hardware causes stuff to break. If turning on Physx on a game from the 2000s is critical, I'm sure there's millions of old GPUs/systems on Ebay or in your garage gathering dust.

Could NVIDIA write a translation layer similar to what Intel did for old DX games with their discrete GPU release? Maybe. Is it worth it? Unlikely.

My bet is this whole "issue" was the first time most people even remembered PhysX existed.

I'm guessing NVIDIA made this move to 64 bit only CUDA/PhysX for the same reason Apple went 64 bit only, Intel tried to, and Android is in the process of doing, it simplifies things and allows more focus on currently important things.

Correction, the newest ARM processors for Android already only support 64 bit code.

Started with the Pixel 7. I didn't hear much outcry then.

Pixel 7, the first 64-bit-only Android phone

With 64-bit-only devices now reaching users, developers should start paying extra attention to testing their apps and updates for 64-bit-only devices

android-developers.googleblog.com

But hey, NVIDIA bad right?

If I ever dared mentioned that I prefer nvidia over amd cards for the physX support at any point in the last 5 years in these forums, people would nail me on the cross. and would suggest that im just trying to find excuses not to buy amd. Now that nvidia removes support for it, it became a news worthy issue.

 

[Scattergrunt]

DLSS4 works just fine on a 4080S

well dlss4 is also on 4000 cards

To be fair ive heard back and forths on that, could be because MFG is often labeled as part of DLSS4 when it really isnt so.. yea. My fault there. In that case, even less reason to trade out a 4080S unless you like MFG.

 

[Vayra86]

It pretty much is, same perf, more features, better power efficiency. If he can get it cheaper too and return the 4080 what exactly is your problem?

Yes, and the featureset is slightly changed, you might miss some ROPs, and the driver branch is exhibiting major problems.

Its completely pointless to sidestep to a 5070ti at this point. Same perf - that really already sealed the deal. Early adopting hardware is never great, and this gen is exceptionally not great at that.

"condoning such actions"

My dude it's 32 bit software for which a direct replacement has existed for more than 15 years, and this is 2025. Should hardware manufacturers keep supporting all standards for infinity? Seems like a waste of die space.

Besides, it's not like the game is unplayable without PhysX, or that it will magically make a 15 year old game look contemporary.

Seems like a very similar issue to how modern fast computers have problems running very old games, as framerate tied to physics etc and the sheer speed of modern hardware causes stuff to break. If turning on Physx on a game from the 2000s is critical, I'm sure there's millions of old GPUs/systems on Ebay or in your garage gathering dust.

Could NVIDIA write a translation layer similar to what Intel did for old DX games with their discrete GPU release? Maybe. Is it worth it? Unlikely.

My bet is this whole "issue" was the first time most people even remembered PhysX existed.

I'm guessing NVIDIA made this move to 64 bit only CUDA/PhysX for the same reason Apple went 64 bit only, Intel tried to, and Android is in the process of doing, it simplifies things and allows more focus on currently important things.

Correction, the newest ARM processors for Android already only support 64 bit code.

Started with the Pixel 7. I didn't hear much outcry then.

Pixel 7, the first 64-bit-only Android phone

With 64-bit-only devices now reaching users, developers should start paying extra attention to testing their apps and updates for 64-bit-only devices

android-developers.googleblog.com

But hey, NVIDIA bad right?

You're comparing PC gaming to an Android phone. You don't get it at all.

Its the same reason Windows still has backwards compatibility.

 

[dgianstefani]

well dlss4 is also on 4000 cards, what are the other features? mfg? i don't know if i ever will use, i have a 120hz oled tv for game
and a feature i will miss is physix

To be clear, it still has PhysX, just not the 32 bit version that is only used in ~15 year old games.

You're comparing PC gaming to an Android phone. You don't get it at all.

Its the same reason Windows still has backwards compatibility.

Lol, I'm simply giving an example of why NVIDIA did this and how this kind of thing is completely normal. The card generation still has backwards compatibility, just not for a niche toggleable feature on a small set of games almost two decades old, which still run just fine without it and have a CPU fallback or processing on a second GPU if it's really so important to you (doubt.jpg).

If I ever dared mentioned that I prefer nvidia over amd cards for the physX support at any point in the last 5 years in these forums, people would nail me on the cross. and would suggest that im just trying to find excuses not to buy amd. Now that nvidia removes support for it, it became a news worthy issue.

Yes, when everyone remembered it existed since it's a vector to attack NVIDIA.

 

[Fouquin]

To be clear, it still has PhysX, just not the 32 bit version that is only used in ~15 year old games.

You keep mentioning the age of the games as if old games should not be playable due to their age, which I think is hilarious because some of the most played games in the world are 10-20 years old. WoW, Runescape, DOTA 2, GTA:V, etc.

Borderlands 2 is the worst case scenario here as it still gets around 5000 players each day on Steam and is quite frequently sold in the trilogy pack to new buyers who will probably want to play it. On the 50 series without a dedicated card for 32-bit PhysX it tanks into the single digit FPS range during combat. Not fun, and an 18 year old PhysX accelerator is faster and smoother. Mirror's Edge without PhysX is also an entirely different game. There's an entire physical interaction system with glass impacting the player which gets turned off entirely, but very few people still play that game and it is still playable in the 'PhysX off' mode without the extra gameplay variety.

Yes, when everyone remembered it existed since it's a vector to attack NVIDIA.

It's objectively a bad move to remove compatibility features without notice and without alternatives. Even the most hated company on this forum, Apple, made an effort with Rosetta to bring legacy functionality forward both times they dropped an enter architecture. NVIDIA could have, didn't, and it shows where they stand.

On topic for OP; keep the 4080 Super. It's a solid well understood and extremely compatible card. MFG is a meme and not worth worrying about.

 

[dgianstefani]

You keep mentioning the age of the games as if old games should not be playable due to their age, which I think is hilarious because some of the most played games in the world are 10-20 years old. WoW, Runescape, DOTA 2, GTA:V, etc.

Borderlands 2 is the worst case scenario here as it still gets around 5000 players each day on Steam and is quite frequently sold in the trilogy pack to new buyers who will probably want to play it. On the 50 series without a dedicated card for 32-bit PhysX it tanks into the single digit FPS range during combat. Not fun, and an 18 year old PhysX accelerator is faster and smoother. Mirror's Edge without PhysX is also an entirely different game. There's an entire physical interaction system with glass impacting the player which gets turned off entirely, but very few people still play that game and it is still playable in the 'PhysX off' mode without the extra gameplay variety.

So do any of these "most played" games in the world use 32 bit PhysX? Or have they, perhaps, been updated, and don't use the same engine they did 20 years ago. Making the argument that they're "20 year old" games a bit... forced. To my knowledge it's mainly singleplayer games that implemented PhysX, and I can't think of many singleplayer games from 15-20 years ago that have consistently high player counts.

Are the games truly "not playable" when you can play them just fine without PhysX, as all AMD and Intel GPU users have to anyway?

You mentioned Borderlands 2 because it's probably the single game that has daily player counts in the thousands. So I guess if you're one of those 5000 people don't buy a RTX 50-Series. For the rest it's realistically a complete non-issue.

It's objectively a bad move to remove compatibility features without notice and without alternatives. Even the most hated company on this forum, Apple, made an effort with Rosetta to bring legacy functionality forward both times they dropped an enter architecture. NVIDIA could have, didn't, and it shows where they stand.

An optional feature most devs didn't even bother to implement due to being vendor locked, that was completely replaced 15 years ago with a 64 bit version, is not comparable to a complete OS rewrite to a new architecture, requiring a translation layer without which literally all legacy apps would not work, at all.

NVIDIA not bothering to write a translation layer isn't ideal, but it's far from equivalent to if Apple didn't make Rosetta. It's more surprising considering NVIDIA software support is typically the benchmark.

Returning the 4080S he bought, presumably getting at least $1000 back if he bought a MSRP model, perhaps more, would allow him to buy a premium AIB 5070 Ti, or if he's lucky, a 5080 if one can be found at MSRP.

 

[Vayra86]

To be clear, it still has PhysX, just not the 32 bit version that is only used in ~15 year old games.


Lol, I'm simply giving an example of why NVIDIA did this and how this kind of thing is completely normal. The card generation still has backwards compatibility, just not for a niche toggleable feature on a small set of games almost two decades old, which still run just fine without it and have a CPU fallback or processing on a second GPU if it's really so important to you (doubt.jpg).


Yes, when everyone remembered it existed since it's a vector to attack NVIDIA.

Understood, and I don't think the comparison flies just quite so well, because legacy gaming is a thing, and keeping featuresets up for gaming is also a thing. So I view this as a loss, too. And no, a lot of older games do not get remade or updated to newer engines, and qpeople don't have that desire either. The precedent here is a dangerous one. Its crazy there is no backwards compatibility for something so simple.

This argument weighs more heavily too when you consider the supposed 'progress' is really not that desirable either. What do we gain, for Nvidia removing this? Tangibly? I don't see it - so its a net loss, in a world where GPUs get vastly more expensive. Bad.

 

[evernessince]

An optional feature most devs didn't even bother to implement due to being vendor locked, that was completely replaced 15 years ago with a 64 bit version, is not comparable to a complete OS rewrite to a new architecture, requiring a translation layer without which literally all legacy apps would not work, at all.

NVIDIA not bothering to write a translation layer isn't ideal, but it's far from equivalent to if Apple didn't make Rosetta. It's more surprising considering NVIDIA software support is typically the benchmark.

Yeah they aren't the same, translating 32-bit PhysX commands to 64 bit would be VASTLY easier to do than ensuring an entire prior app ecosystem is is compatible and translated to a new architecture. They don't need to it be that performant either given the power of modern graphics cards, they just need it to work.

Nice of you to point that out, only makes Nvidia look even lazier. They pretty much only had to spit out some unoptimized code that modern hardware can brute force that translates 32-bit PhysX to 64-bit and it would still be 60x faster than the CPU fallback. Couldn't even do that.