NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER to Feature 20GB Memory, Based on AD102

[JustBenching]

1440p dlss quality is not 1080p btw, it's closer to 900p

Also, I am astonished to report that: they all look meh, I am a bit surprised actually, it's higher res sure, but it retains many weaknesses of the native 1080p image, such as this, which looks to be AO stairstepping View attachment 318756View attachment 318757
(see what I said about it making things not look that much better than you may think?) (dlss 4k perf on the left, 1080p on the right)
View attachment 318758View attachment 318759View attachment 318761
(1440p dlss q on left, native 1080p on the middle, 4k dlss perf on the right) I actually find this particle effect to look better on native 1080p than 1440p dlss quality because of what I mentioned before, it looks noticeably more blocky on dlss, it's also why the transparent window looks argueably nicer on native 1080p compared to dlss @1440p, and hell, I'd say it looks better than in the 4k dlss perf image because there it looks incredibly out of place, because it's trying to upscale an effect (the smudgyness of the window) that is dependent on the internal resolution, but still upscales it to 4k in the same way that the particles or ssr would be, so it looks jarring by comparison.

I guess the lines themselves are sharper, sure, but texture quality does not feel quite crystal 4k (which is a problem I've had in many games back when I ran dlss, textures never feeling quite right, now weather it's because of incorrect use of negative bias or just dlss, that's not my problem)
I'd also argue that Cyberpunk 2077 is not the best game to test this with, since that game has easily one of the worst TAA solutions I've seen any game have, spiderman might be a better go tbh, specially with SMAA

Anyway, I think I'll be sticking to 1080p thank you, low res, but not jarring (though the TAA is terrible, so I'll just not look at this game)

This was pointless

Yeah, 1080p native looks obviously better. LOL

 

[Random_User]

1440p dlss quality is not 1080p btw, it's closer to 900p

Also, I am astonished to report that: they all look meh, I am a bit surprised actually, it's higher res sure, but it retains many weaknesses of the native 1080p image, such as this, which looks to be AO stairstepping View attachment 318756View attachment 318757
(see what I said about it making things not look that much better than you may think?) (dlss 4k perf on the left, 1080p on the right)
View attachment 318758View attachment 318759View attachment 318761
(1440p dlss q on left, native 1080p on the middle, 4k dlss perf on the right) I actually find this particle effect to look better on native 1080p than 1440p dlss quality because of what I mentioned before, it looks noticeably more blocky on dlss, it's also why the transparent window looks argueably nicer on native 1080p compared to dlss @1440p, and hell, I'd say it looks better than in the 4k dlss perf image because there it looks incredibly out of place, because it's trying to upscale an effect (the smudgyness of the window) that is dependent on the internal resolution, but still upscales it to 4k in the same way that the particles or ssr would be, so it looks jarring by comparison.

I guess the lines themselves are sharper, sure, but texture quality does not feel quite crystal 4k (which is a problem I've had in many games back when I ran dlss, textures never feeling quite right, now weather it's because of incorrect use of negative bias or just dlss, that's not my problem)
I'd also argue that Cyberpunk 2077 is not the best game to test this with, since that game has easily one of the worst TAA solutions I've seen any game have, spiderman might be a better go tbh, specially with SMAA

Anyway, I think I'll be sticking to 1080p thank you, low res, but not jarring (though the TAA is terrible, so I'll just not look at this game)

This was pointless

The 4K dlss performance looks sharper. Dunno why but for me it also looks like the photo that has lost the focus during camera shot.

Sorry for my input. But...

There's no magic, or wonder. It's impossible to do the better picture with lower efforts/requirements. One can't substitute the original more demanding rendering with inferior upscaling, without additional workloads for "bettering" it afterwards. And yet to have the quality of native rendering.

Spoiler

The whole point of the high end videocards is to show the eye candy of graphics achievements/capabilities? Nope?

I can get if it is used for low end, but... This is ridiculous that newer generations of more powerful cards use upscaling in order to play current games.

Yes, when the Crysis was released back in 2007, there was no DLSS and FSR, as many would prefer these instead of stuttering. But the whole point of better graphics gets lost. Not to mention it requires the extra chip and power consumption, in order to run lower resolution, and then add a bunch of complicated stuff on top, just to see the inferior picture over native rendering.

One may argue, that muh DLSS3.5 looks better than native. But then again, it requires a ton of complicated stuff to run that for the price of more heat and significant latency. And the upscaled rendering loses the ability to load larger textures, which would otherwise be used with bigger native resolution. This is also stupid to upscale each frame real-time, instead of load the textures once per game/level launch.

Not to mention that all this upscaling would make the work of game devs moot, and make them lazier, as there will be no point to put more efforts.

I would rather play with better settings and lower resolution, than use upscaling.

 

[AusWolf]

The point isnt whether you are going to play at 1440p in a 4K monitor. The point is you can supersample and then use dlss. Say you have a 1440p monitor, you use dldsr to play at 4k and then upscale with dlss. Render resolution is still 1440p, which is your monitors native resolution, but the image quality is way above native.

You're deflecting the point. We were talking about DLSS, not DLDSR.

I can post you 2 screenshots running at similar framerate and you tell me which is the native on. Deal?

Also that's not what I said at all, read again. I said 4k dlss q looks better than native 1440p while it performs similarly.

I called bullshit on that once, and if you insist, I will again. With a 1440p monitor, I will not adjust my resolution to target X frame rate. I will target 1440p, and adjust graphics settings to achieve a desirable frame rate.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Nobody dies. It's just hurts your personal feelings. since you have too much entanglement with Nvidia corporate mentality. No offence. Nvidia won't cradle you before bed.
BTW. As you seems to be an avid NV fan, did you ever seen the Nvidia logo? At least one glance?

Spoiler

Not to rub your wounds, however... View attachment 318788 View attachment 318793

Spoiler

Now, here goes real punch

Unforgivable. Dell and Nvidia literally murder kittens.

But i'm far from an avid NV fan, I just had a bad lovers' breakup with AMD lol

 

[bug]

Well here you go, not a blind test since I have the names, but doesn't need a blind test. In my eyes the 4k DLSS performance is by far the best one but performance drops a bit, 1440p DLSS Q and native 1080p have same fps but the DLSS is apparently better. Retains more details on pretty much everything. Sadly even imgbb compressed them a bit, original images were 25mb, imgbb hosted them at 10mb.

https://i.ibb.co/swbznGb/4k-dlss-performance.png

https://i.ibb.co/M2RJqs6/1080p-native-1.png

https://i.ibb.co/JFztSLy/1440p-DLSS-Q-2.png

Ok, got to my PC to check these out on a proper monitor.
There isn't a lot of detail that doesn't change between those scenes, but the neon lights at least look clearly better in the image you labeled 4k DLSS performance.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Everyone who witnessed RTX 40 series cards' initial launch and seen that many of them are made of slightly cut down core complexes of their own full-core configs.
This road has been paved from the very start, really. Competition-less, NVIDIA is used to making 2 product generations out of 1 architecture.

Exactly! This not something people should be surprised about nor whine and complain about.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Isn't the RTX 50x0 gen supposedly to be launched next year??

 

[wNotyarD]

Isn't the RTX 50x0 gen supposedly to be launched next year??

Nope, as far as pretty much all reports point to. 2025 for Blackwell at the earliest.

 

[AusWolf]

The question that needs be asked is why is that. Why has Ryzen in the 5 years that it exists as a brand/product/series is considered to be positive and Radeon despite existing since 2000 isn't.

Definitely. All I'm saying is, that preconceived notion has little to do with reality since the RX 6000 series, yet, it still lingers on in the average gamer's mind.

Well here you go, not a blind test since I have the names, but doesn't need a blind test. In my eyes the 4k DLSS performance is by far the best one but performance drops a bit, 1440p DLSS Q and native 1080p have same fps but the DLSS is apparently better. Retains more details on pretty much everything. Sadly even imgbb compressed them a bit, original images were 25mb, imgbb hosted them at 10mb.

https://i.ibb.co/swbznGb/4k-dlss-performance.png

https://i.ibb.co/M2RJqs6/1080p-native-1.png

https://i.ibb.co/JFztSLy/1440p-DLSS-Q-2.png

Would you consider playing at 1080p on your 4K screen? Is that why you bought it, to play at 1080p on it with a 4090? I don't think so, that's why this kind of comparison is pointless.

Exactly! This not something people should be surprised about nor whine and complain about.

Agreed. If you buy a top-end graphics card that comes with a cut-down GPU, expecting it to be the flagship of the generation, don't be surprised when the refresh comes out with the fully enabled die and your "flagship" gets relegated to second place, or even worse, drops in value like a rock.

 

[JustBenching]

Would you consider playing at 1080p on your 4K screen? Is that why you bought it, to play at 1080p on it with a 4090? I don't think so, that's why this kind of comparison is pointless.

I have played on 1440p on my 4k screen and I have played on 1080p on my 1440p screen, back when I still had a 1080ti and DLSS didn't exist. Today no, I don't do that anymore cause I can use DLSS instead.

 

[theouto]

Yeah, 1080p native looks obviously better. LOL

Yes, and I mean it, sorry to disappoint, but you are wrong, I didn't pick the dlss image even when performance is very similar, but maybe this helps you to see why people might prefer native rendering, even at a lower resolution.

 

[JustBenching]

Yes, and I mean it, sorry to disappoint, but you are wrong, I didn't pick the dlss image even when performance is very similar, but maybe this helps you to see why people might prefer native rendering, even at a lower resolution.

Not going to argue, if you think the native looks better more power to you. You happen to disagree with every single reviewer who tested it (and not even with performance equalized) but okay, whatever.

It's very common for people with amd cards to not like dlss.

 

[theouto]

Not going to argue, if you think the native looks better more power to you. You happen to disagree with every single reviewer who tested it (and not even with performance equalized) but okay, whatever.

It's very common for people with amd cards to not like dlss.

Conveniently forget the fact where I mentioned that I have used dlss for years when I had a 2070, and yeah, I disagree with the reviewers, I don't need someone to tell me what to think, but agree to disagree man, we all have different reasons for liking and disliking things

 

[JustBenching]

Conveniently forget the fact where I mentioned that I have used dlss for years when I had a 2070, and yeah, I disagree with the reviewers, I don't need someone to tell me what to think, but agree to disagree man, we all have different reasons for liking and disliking things

Mentioning something I can't verify isn't a fact. The only fact right now is that every one who has tested it disagrees (violently I might add) with your opinion. Of course that doesn't mean you are wrong, but it's certainly an indication that you probably are.

Add in the fact that the 15-20% of amd owners dislike dlss for whatever reason...

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I am encouraged by the fact that there are still people who hold their own and do not accept unconditionally, or at all, the trends imposed by companies, some of which serve as justification for selling less real performance and less expensive to manufacture hardware to unreasonable prices.

 

[the54thvoid]

Not seeing much talk about the 4080 speculation. Nothing to contribute beyond what's been said? Then, please, feel free to leave the thread.

This is not about DLSS.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

unfortunatley as long as there are people who will pay the outlandish prices, it won't stop.

The prices are not "outlandish".

The raw reality is that the constant screaming for better graphics, physics, and more is the problem. To do that cards go up in cost massively. So each GPU itself is going to cost more each generation just for better graphics. Not only that but the cost of the PCBs and all the components on them are going up.

You want prices to drop? There's a good way to do that. No more graphics advances at all, ever again. Instead demand worse graphics in everything and no more physics at all. Scream at the companies that you want to go back to Doom 3 and Half Life to and never moved beyond that, ever again. Scream that 4k, high refresh, and all of that should go away and never come back. You'll get GPUs then that are super cheap to make!

GPU companies didn't do this. Gamers who care about graphics as the end all be all did this. It's all their fault.

 

[gmn17]

. I will use my brain instead and wait for the 50x0 series.

Yeah I'll do same as I don't like the 16 pin connector on the 40 series I hope they come up with a better power connector solution for the 50 series.

 

[bug]

The prices are not "outlandish".

The raw reality is that the constant screaming for better graphics, physics, and more is the problem. To do that cards go up in cost massively. So each GPU itself is going to cost more each generation just for better graphics. Not only that but the cost of the PCBs and all the components on them are going up.

You want prices to drop? There's a good way to do that. No more graphics advances at all, ever again. Instead demand worse graphics in everything and no more physics at all. Scream at the companies that you want to go back to Doom 3 and Half Life to and never moved beyond that, ever again. Scream that 4k, high refresh, and all of that should go away and never come back. You'll get GPUs then that are super cheap to make!

GPU companies didn't do this. Gamers who care about graphics as the end all be all did this. It's all their fault.

No more advances you say? Then what do we do with the billions of extra transistors we can fit within the same space with each node advance?
Of course there is room for improvement without getting overboard. There always was.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

Sure but market prices are dictated by sales. If nobody buys amd gpus of course prices will drop. That's not the point. If you want to compare greediness between companies, you have to compare msrps.

That is just not true. 10 years ago Radeon had over 40% of the marketshare. That's because they were making good cards. Now they arent

How is ryzen a highly esteemed name? It's a much newer brand than Radeon. Obviously because they made good products. Radeon has stopped doing that for many many years. Thinking that nvidia sells because of brand name is just full copium.

Starting from the pascal era (2015) amd has been nonstop failing. Too late to the market, not competitive with nvidias high end cards, exorbitant prices, very limited availability. They are not selling cause they are failing on multiple fronts

If it weren't for the fact that there are alternative rendering engines that do not rely on NVidia's iray, they would have a monopoly in the 3d rendering market. In some aspects, it is one of the more superior rendering engines, but more expensive & requiring more "horsepower"(either multi-GPUs or ass loads of CPUs). For now, NVidia has us by the balls.

 

[Why_Me]

Huh....

I can't honestly say that I know of anyone that's wandering around complaining of the lack of GPUs that are priced at over $1k and would be excited to have another one added to the list.

As of right now, locally, the cheapest 4080 I can get is $1200 and the cheapest 4090 is $1650. Probably going to see the current 4080 drop to $1100, the 4080 Super come in at $1399 while the 4090 maintains its even more outlandish price.

I miss the pricing of the good old days, I'll just have to keep those fond memories alive and avoid paying for this crap.....980Ti was only $650, I'm just saying.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/PGWzK8/gigabyte-eagle-geforce-rtx-4080-16-gb-video-card-gv-n4080eagle-16gd