Which is why that one guy at nvidia who says "tie" instead of "T I" is the only person in the industry pronouncing it correctly.
Accurate. Even I call it the 'Tea', but that's just because it better fits the narrative of my internal dialogue. Say it, doesn't it just phonetically and metaphorically fit nVIDIA better (much to their chagrin)?
Can you elaborate or trust me bro?
Trust us, bro. Or, you know, listen to/read any rational person that observes this industry.
all the more reason to not buy their products. Why do they even want to do this when clearly their AI accelerator cards, B.Vs and collabs with startup companies are raking in money? I seriously doubt anyone is going to buy a 4070 Super Ti. Even if there is, the performance won't be even close to a 4090 or even a 4080Ti coz if it does, no one will be buying those high end cards.
I think they will sell, because 4070 has that 'totally-not-planned-obsolescent' 12GB of ram (and a little bit too low compute for the long-term, just like 7800xt) so cheapest 16GB and nVIDIA for 1440p/4k balanced (1253p) upscaling longevity. I've covered in a unique post in the nVIDIA GPU section of this forum it is very much targeted toward 'balanced' in the long-term to preserve 4080 and probably GB205 stationing of 'quality'/4k. If they *really* wanted to compete with something special (super, even) it would be 68SMs (it's 66). It *should* be 68SMs; to fit directly in-between 4070 that but not this Ti and 4080, which should be a red flag it is indeed being positioned to be not quite what people want long-term. It's also a red-flag (for 4070 Ti 12 GeeBees) that performance is made up *through* that extra ram (so spread is >10% sometimes). It's very cute, nVIDIA's bullshit.
I will likely continue to direct people toward the 7900xt. While the price is currently bad; inflated to make Black Friday deals look good as Tech Jeebus himself has
mentioned in an extremely very badly-timed video (if early October prices [~$700] had stayed people would have expected $650 on BF, with current pricing a sale at $700 [which I think it will be the permanent price pretty soon] will still look good). Past that, with this nVIDIA refresh launch, as much as it sucks for AMD, I have no clue how they get away with anything less than competing in price with the remnants of 4070 Ti non Ti only one suffix edition (~$650-700?) if 4070 Ti Ti (Super) is ~$800 or even $850. Likewise, while I feel ~$700/850 are what I consider 'fair/realistic' prices for the 7900xt/x, I have to imagine 7900xtx will have to drop to compete with said 4070 Titanium 16GB Super Edition, if perhaps only the Founders Edition (JFC, ferreal). At those prices (650/800, maybe even slightly less to catch peoples' attention?) those products will be a killer deal and would already be priced to compete with freakin' Blackwell. I mean seriously, a N31 might be a similar price to GB205. We can revisit the pros/cons of each companies products when that time comes, but I have to believe 7900xtx is going to look comparably pretty good in raw perf unless nVIDIA gives us a great performing card and/or it is less than $800. (<- Lol, no). Same thing for 7900xt and whatever a cut-down product might be.
I think the thing I will say to people is to think about how 4070 Ti may not even net you 50TF (on purpose, hence 66SMs), and then ask them what they expect of a PS6. A 7900xt will easily overclock to 60TF+ (make sure to use the
bios repository 
, heck even for a
7800xt ). As I've said before, those are very important (market segmentation/resolution) metrics if you do not account for nVIDIA's tensor (rt) cores. Which, you know, I don't because planned obsolescence and/or resolution/FR concessions. Even if you do, they are likely VERY close in that situation where compute RT can be used to it's utmost capability vs those cores. When that's not a factor, it's perf should conceivably mean one resolution bump higher in certain situations. That's real performance for less price, Kyle. Not the same joke as 4070 earlier Ti vs 7900xt, but still a similarish card (all things considered) for less money.
The only way the 4080 Super makes any more sense than the vanilla 4080 is if it gets a price drop to $999.
Otherwise its just going to be as unappealing as always. People with that sort of cash will still just rather spend a bit more for the full fat 4090.
I think $1000 with 4080 drop to ~$900. JMO. nVIDIA will never make the 7900xtx NOT look like a good deal bc greed, and like-wise AMD will never let AD103 look like a good deal bc they have to do that. It's amusing when (hot take, I guess) N31 is a better chip than AD103. 7900xtx is just a better setup than anything AD103 can muster. 7900xt will always be a better card than a cut-down version bc nVIDIA refuses to give that ideal perf at a lower price. Used to be ~20% better perf for ~10% cheaper, nowadays it more like 20% better perf for 30% going-on 40% cheaper, literally cheaper than one whole segment down with potential to perform similar if not better to an nvidia card in a certain tier, which is absolutely nuts.
All pricing is bad right now. The difference is AMD probably will fall to realistic price/perf land...There is literally no hope for expecting that from nVIDIA. If something is a good price, they screwed you somewhere. If it has decent performance, it will be overpriced. It's unfortunate, but it's true. That's why Ti Super 16GB is such a nVIDIA play. 16GB looks good. AD103 *sounds* good. Then you realize the compute just isn't there for the money they're going to ask you to spend. Maybe people won't see it in games tested out the gate, but rest assured, just like 4070/Ti of old, those concessions will come around to very-intently bite you.
That's the fine wine, you see. Not screwing people any way conceivingly possible so they'll need to upgrade quicker at a certain expected perf level. People think RT is a feature, it's actually just another thing they can segment with FOMO; something to fall back on when generations of cards end up performing approximately the same in actual raster/compute.
