NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Founders Edition

[AusWolf]

So that's a $50 discount on a 4070 Super. Yay!

In all fairness, this is the first Blackwell card that isn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it's still far from being good.

Also, I thought there wasn't gonna be any x70-series FE card.

Edit: Also also, What's with the block diagrams not being provided by Nvidia anymore?

 

[3x0]

Edit: Also also, What's with the block diagrams not being provided by Nvidia anymore?

They're slowly normalizing the obfuscation of their architecture, which would allow them more "liberty" when it comes to hard numbers like 112 ROPs etc. /tinfoil hat

 

[Vario]

I believe one is best served getting a 4070 Ti Super instead of the 5070.

can't recall when was the last time a new gpu review was this lame... the rtx 5070 is being roasted across all channels
this feels like the 4060 8gb that alot of people didnt fancy....

3060 was a pretty lame launch too. Basically a sidegrade of a 2060 Super.

 

[AusWolf]

3060 was a pretty lame launch too. Basically a sidegrade of a 2060 Super.

At least you got more VRAM with that one.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Well, this was a disappointment. Looks like I'll be sticking with my 3080 for a while longer. What a pathetic showing from NVidia this round.

 

[AusWolf]

Well, this was a disappointment. Looks like I'll be sticking with my 3080 for a while longer. What a pathetic showing from NVidia this round.

They seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with their Turing refresh-refresh-refresh architecture.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Like I said, @lexluthermiester, 5070 doesn't beat 4070 Ti. 1% deficite in raster, 5% deficite in RT (4K for both).

Flows better than I anticipated though.

You were right, I did not see this coming. Not a good showing at all for NVidia. Piss poor would be another way of putting it.

They seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with their Turing refresh-refresh-refresh architecture.

Let us hope AMD and Intel have something competitive to offer as an answer.

 

[tpa-pr]

Well, this was a disappointment. Looks like I'll be sticking with my 3080 for a while longer. What a pathetic showing from NVidia this round.

Would you consider an AMD option or does the Nvidia software stack keep you on the 3080? Just curious.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Would you consider an AMD option or does the Nvidia software stack keep you on the 3080? Just curious.

I am not at all a fan of the AMD drivers & control panel, not enough fine-grained controls which is a deal breaker to me, so yes, NVidia software is a driving factor. Then there's the compute side of things, which NVidia has the advantage. So yeah, even though this release is an absolute crap show, NVidia still has the advantage in key areas for me personally.

Intel's ARC GPU's are coming up and are competing. The drivers are getting better and the performance is solid for 1080p/1440p gaming. However, they need to improve in compute and improve their fine-grained driver controls.

AMD's drivers are not there and their compute is ok but trailing behind.

The GPU market is in a weird state right now..

 

[AusWolf]

I am not at all a fan of the AMD drivers & control panel, not enough fine-grained controls which is a deal breaker to me,

What fine-grained controls does the NV control panel give you that AMD doesn't?

Personally, I've found AMD's software to be a lot more feature-rich and laid out than Nvidia's that they left for us from 1995.

Intel's ARC GPU's are coming up and are competing. The drivers are getting better and the performance is solid for 1080p/1440p gaming. However, they need to improve in compute and improve their fine-grained driver controls.

Since Intel ditched native DX support below version 12 (or 11, I'm not sure), it's a no-go for me, unfortunately.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Let us hope AMD and Intel have something competitive to offer as an answer.

They will (eventually), they dont need to bust out in the highend. Intel proved that theres always room for another 5700XT in the market, and AMD might deliver.. we'll see.

They seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with their Turing refresh-refresh-refresh architecture.

I wonder how much of this comment is true.. I took this as a joke but now I'm actually seriously thinking about it.

 

[AusWolf]

They will (eventually), they dont need to bust out in the highend. Intel proved that theres always room for another 5700XT in the market, and AMD might deliver.. we'll see.

Unfortunately, Intel is still plagued by availability issues and actual retail pricing.

I wonder how much of this comment is true.. I took this as a joke but now I'm actually seriously thinking about it.

Just look at the block diagrams, especially at the SM level. It's the same darn thing over and over again.

 

[Why_Me]

5090 / 5070 Ti = significant gains
5080 / 5070 = bust

Add to the fact the 50XX series is a paper launch =/

 

[AusWolf]

5070 Ti = significant gains

Over what?

 

[Macro Device]

Over what?

Over the competition's dead body.

 

[AusWolf]

Over the competition's dead body.

Wait with that comment until tomorrow.

 

[Macro Device]

Wait with that comment until tomorrow.

HD 7950/70: these 3 GB VRAM don't do anything at the launch and when they do, these GPUs run out of juice anyway.
R9 290/X: GTX 980 isn't slower and needs much less power.
R9 Fury: nuff said.
RX 480: doesn't even remotely come close to Pascal in energy efficiency, not to mention it doesn't do anything to segments above the very bottom.
RX 5000 series: "Maybe this time? Please! Eh, black screen and crashes, dang it!"
RX 6000 series: made of pure unobtanium and still don't outclass any of NVIDIA GPUs other than the very worst ones.
RX 7000 series: overpriced, underspecced, failed chiplet implementation, non-existent RT, obscenely worse upscaling.

There were absolutely ZERO successful launches since early 2010s. All AMD do is "NVIDIA minus 50 dollars" or "NVIDIA minus 50 features." Even if RDNA4 is awesome they're showing up for work that does no longer exist.

 

[Scattergrunt]

5090 / 5070 Ti = significant gains
5080 / 5070 = bust

Add to the fact the 50XX series is a paper launch =/

My summary of the 50 series so far;

5090: actual significant gen improvement, but really overkill. Still though, the best 50 series card... which is a really, really sad statement to make.

Both of these cards are completely gimped by scalping and paper launch, and are basically what ruins them (right now)
5080: just.. meh. Not great. Not much to say. Not really worth upgrading too if your already at a 4090 / 4080 or equivalent due to how close performance is. Consumes 40 more watts for maybe ~8 to 10 percent extra performance over 4080.
5070Ti: Pretty much a 4080, its 'more efficient' (by like maybe 10W ideally at 4k), WOULD be good if MSRP and stock existed. They dont.

5070: By far the worst 50 series card. I think we've already kicked this horse enough though.
5060Ti & 5060: TBD, but I expect them to be even worse than the 5070 in terms of gen uplift, or very similar.

Overall: 5090 is cool. the rest of the 50 series ranges from just fine to god awful, and even if MSRP and stock goes up I dont think this generation will be remembered fondly. Atleast ampere had good GPU's even if their effciency was questionable and their vram amounts a bit pitiful, but atleast the gen uplift was good. The 5080 / 5070Ti / 5070 are defined by have tiny gen uplift, some of the smallest we've ever seen from NVIDIA in a long time, ignoring the 5090.

I think the 5070Ti and 5090 will probably be the most popualr GPU's from the gen for enthuasists, 5080 and 5070 will be dependent on what person is upgrading from or if they're just getting into PC building. 5060 and 5060Ti.. obviously TBD.

 

[AusWolf]

HD 7950/70: these 3 GB VRAM don't do anything at the launch and when they do, these GPUs run out of juice anyway.
R9 290/X: GTX 980 isn't slower and needs much less power.
R9 Fury: nuff said.
RX 480: doesn't even remotely come close to Pascal in energy efficiency, not to mention it doesn't do anything to segments above the very bottom.
RX 5000 series: "Maybe this time? Please! Eh, black screen and crashes, dang it!"
RX 6000 series: made of pure unobtanium and still don't outclass any of NVIDIA GPUs other than the very worst ones.
RX 7000 series: overpriced, underspecced, failed chiplet implementation, non-existent RT, obscenely worse upscaling.

There were absolutely ZERO successful launches since early 2010s. All AMD do is "NVIDIA minus 50 dollars" or "NVIDIA minus 50 features." Even if RDNA4 is awesome they're showing up for work that does no longer exist.

You see failed launches, I see fine cards that don't qualify for people like you who expect an Nvidia logo on everything. Like I said, wait until tomorrow.

We can play the game backwards:
GTX 400: hot furnace,
GTX 500: nothing interesting,
GTX 6-700: got thrashed by GCN,
GTX 900: okay,
GTX 1000: this is what Nvidia is supposed to be,
RTX 2000: overpriced trash,
RTX 3000: nonexistent,
RTX 4000: overpriced trash,
RTX 5000: c'mon, you seriously expect me to write something here?

 

[Why_Me]

Over what?

I'm posting 1440P because that's what that card is meant for ... gaming at 1440.

 

[ExplodingCaps]

Another fictional product for fictional price and fictional frame that hardly competes with its predecessor, lmao. But seriously, I can't found any rtx 5000 on steam February hardware survey, am I tripping or something?

 

[AusWolf]

I'm posting 1440P because that's what that card is meant for ... gaming at 1440.

Yeah, that's like 7 FPS more than the 4070 Ti Super. Yay?

 

[Macro Device]

GTX 400: hot furnace,
GTX 500: nothing interesting,

That was the last time AMD GPUs looked more appealing.

GTX 6-700: got thrashed by GCN,

Only several years after when both architectures became obsolete.

GTX 900: okay,

Very good generation actually. At the time, these were crazy efficient GPUs unmatched by AMD offerings till 2019.

RTX 2000: overpriced trash,

Prices and faulty VRAM in early SKUs were the only bad things about this gen. AMD offered absolutely nothing that could compete with that anyway.

You see failed launches

Obviously! Single digit market share won't lie!

who expect an Nvidia logo on everything

No, I want AMD GPUs to do something useful that NVIDIA GPUs can't do. I want AMD to show character, not complacency.

 

[Scattergrunt]

GTX 400: hot furnace,
GTX 500: nothing interesting,
GTX 6-700: got thrashed by GCN,
GTX 900: okay,
GTX 1000: this is what Nvidia is supposed to be,
RTX 2000: overpriced trash,
RTX 3000: nonexistent,
RTX 4000: overpriced trash,
RTX 5000: c'mon, you seriously expect me to write something here?

HD 7950/70: these 3 GB VRAM don't do anything at the launch and when they do, these GPUs run out of juice anyway.
R9 290/X: GTX 980 isn't slower and needs much less power.
R9 Fury: nuff said.
RX 480: doesn't even remotely come close to Pascal in energy efficiency, not to mention it doesn't do anything to segments above the very bottom.
RX 5000 series: "Maybe this time? Please! Eh, black screen and crashes, dang it!"
RX 6000 series: made of pure unobtanium and still don't outclass any of NVIDIA GPUs other than the very worst ones.
RX 7000 series: overpriced, underspecced, failed chiplet implementation, non-existent RT, obscenely worse upscaling.

Theres a meme thats perfectly relevant for this;

Sorry, not sorry.

 

[AusWolf]

Obviously! Single digit market share won't lie!

I don't care about market share. I care about the cards and the value they represent.

No, I want AMD GPUs to do something useful that NVIDIA GPUs can't do. I want AMD to show character, not complacency.

Being cheaper at the same performance level is quite useful, imo.

Theres a meme thats perfectly relevant for this;
View attachment 387885

Sorry, not sorry.

Indeed. I don't intend to continue feeding this pointless bickering. I'm here to discuss the piece of yawnfest called the 5070.