Is the RTX 4070 the new performance to watts card?

[ARF]

Hmmmmmm. I don't disagree but cherry picking won't help us

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. This is in fact, in theory and in practice - more VRAM is vital for a smoother gameplay.
If you say otherwise, no matter the example, you are wrong.

 

[Vayra86]

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. This is in fact, in theory and in practice - more VRAM is vital for a smoother gameplay.
If you say otherwise, no matter the example, you are wrong.

VRAM is a case of 'need enough'. More isn't vital. Enough is vital. More isn't smoother.

 

[ARF]

VRAM is a case of 'need enough'. More isn't vital. Enough is vital. More isn't smoother.

Here I disagree. The performance simply improves when you have more VRAM. There is no such thing "enough" because you can't define what "enough" actually means.
For me "enough" is when the allocated VRAM is 50% of the total available, so the graphics card operates at very far from its internal bottlenecks.

 

[Macro Device]

Here I disagree. The performance simply improves when you have more VRAM. There is no such thing "enough" because you can't define what "enough" actually means.
For me "enough" is when the allocated VRAM is 50% of the total available, so the graphics card operates at very far from its internal bottlenecks.

For me, "enough" is when the only smoothness competition for the frametime graph is my brain.

And, of course, frametime never exceeds 15 ms. Being higher than that is suboptimal.

 

[N/A]

I am not talking in watt per frame but total power consumption here because 4W per frame and you run 200 frames per second is 800 (Yeah I know it's not how you calculate this but still).

Yes you are talking about the not that new performance to watt card at 150W, a pretty arbitrary number. I would say that 200W is that number for me and 4080 or derivatives can qualify for that.

 

[Vayra86]

Here I disagree. The performance simply improves when you have more VRAM. There is no such thing "enough" because you can't define what "enough" actually means.
For me "enough" is when the allocated VRAM is 50% of the total available, so the graphics card operates at very far from its internal bottlenecks.

You do you, but there is no impact on performance the way you describe it here. You cán define what enough means: having enough VRAM to allow games to use all the allocated VRAM they want to have. Those are hard numbers. Beyond that, what you need isn't capacity, but bandwidth.

 

[AusWolf]

You do you, but there is no impact on performance the way you describe it here. You cán define what enough means: having enough VRAM to allow games to use all the allocated VRAM they want to have. Those are hard numbers. Beyond that, what you need isn't capacity, but bandwidth.

I would argue even with that. When the game "uses" more, that is, some gets spilled over to system memory, your gameplay experience can still be smooth, depending on how the game handles it. I had this argument related to RE:Village when I was still using a 2070. The game ate up all the 8 GB VRAM, but it kept a steady 60 FPS with no hitches. How much VRAM you need is a tricky question, and going strictly by VRAM usage in GPU-Z can be deceptive.

 

[freeagent]

The game ate up all the 8 GB VRAM, but it kept a steady 60 FPS with no hitches.

Yup those 8GB cards get no love.. but I respect them

 

[ViperXTR]

I remember even way back in RE7, released in 2017 and my GXT 1070 8GB is just 1 year old, i was surprised it was already allocating 8GB even on 1080p that time.

 

[Vayra86]

I would argue even with that. When the game "uses" more, that is, some gets spilled over to system memory, your gameplay experience can still be smooth, depending on how the game handles it. I had this argument related to RE:Village when I was still using a 2070. The game ate up all the 8 GB VRAM, but it kept a steady 60 FPS with no hitches. How much VRAM you need is a tricky question, and going strictly by VRAM usage in GPU-Z can be deceptive.

Its tricky, but in a general sense it is always better and optimal to be able to fit the entire allocation in VRAM. Its certainly NOT better to be unable to do so. The subject was 'no compromise' on smoothness and experience; 8GB is however a compromise in 2023 as multiple games readily exceed that limit in allocation. No hitching might be true but you can still get reduced IQ alongside of that, for example. Bandwidth is another factor that is overlooked here, in your post as well. It is the combination of both that will ultimately determine if a lower capacity is sufficient, or even a very high capacity like 16GB on a 4060ti.

VRAM usage isn't deceptive at all. You either have enough, or you will be compromising one way or another: by slightly lower FPS, higher frametimes/variance, by texture/LOD pop in being slightly more pronounced, etc etc etc. There is no need to overcomplicate this. The only reason cards can get by with lower amounts is because the driver can handle it well - and that's entirely down to a per-game implementation/combo with the game logic and the driver/card you have. Its not proof you have sufficient VRAM for no compromise experiences.

The whole principle of RAM and VRAM is extremely simple. You either have enough, or you have too little, and having too much is of no measureable benefit whatsoever. If you want overkill RAM/VRAM, increase the bandwidth/transfer speed/lower the latency, not the capacity.

 

[Mussels]

Yesterday I saw this video Bryan from Tech Yes City made on the Zotac RTX 4070 Spider-Verse undervolting it to 130w without much performance drop

Since electricity prices are on the raise here I was wondering if this would be the RTX 4070 would be the best 1440p option at ~150watt max?

Just look at TPU's latest GPU review at any given time, and you'll have better details than a video interpreting the data for you

ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Dual OC Review - Efficiency & Clock Speeds | TechPowerUp

Is the 4070 the most efficient? No but it's one of the best.
This is where things like the 30 series GPU and their utterly shite stock voltages come into play, undervolt curves change them drastically - while the 40 series was somewhat better tuned from the start

 

[ARF]

Its tricky, but in a general sense it is always better and optimal to be able to fit the entire allocation in VRAM. Its certainly NOT better to be unable to do so. The subject was 'no compromise' on smoothness and experience; 8GB is however a compromise in 2023 as multiple games readily exceed that limit in allocation. No hitching might be true but you can still get reduced IQ alongside of that, for example. Bandwidth is another factor that is overlooked here, in your post as well. It is the combination of both that will ultimately determine if a lower capacity is sufficient, or even a very high capacity like 16GB on a 4060ti.

VRAM usage isn't deceptive at all. You either have enough, or you will be compromising one way or another: by slightly lower FPS, higher frametimes/variance, by texture/LOD pop in being slightly more pronounced, etc etc etc. There is no need to overcomplicate this. The only reason cards can get by with lower amounts is because the driver can handle it well - and that's entirely down to a per-game implementation/combo with the game logic and the driver/card you have. Its not proof you have sufficient VRAM for no compromise experiences.

The whole principle of RAM and VRAM is extremely simple. You either have enough, or you have too little, and having too much is of no measureable benefit whatsoever. If you want overkill RAM/VRAM, increase the bandwidth/transfer speed/lower the latency, not the capacity.

My observation is that when the allocated RAM is around 90-95% of the total amount, you get severe performance drop.
That software can't correctly measure the amount that's enough or needed.
You don't know how VRAM works - it asks for more than the total available but it can't use, so it stops at lower than the 100% limit, and you get a wrong impression that the allocated is less than the total. When it's not
It's masked.

 

[Vayra86]

My observation is that when the allocated RAM is around 90-95% of the total amount, you get severe performance drop.
That software can't correctly measure the amount that's enough or needed.
You don't know how VRAM works - it asks for more than the total available but it can't use, so it stops at lower than the 100% limit, and you get a wrong impression that the allocated is less than the total. When it's not
It's masked.

One post ago it was 50% for your personal tastes. Which is it? There's a 45% gap there which is obviously crucial. Also this doesn't invalidate what I've said about VRAM, it more or less supports it. 95% is practically 'full' and you could then indeed do with more capacity.

 

[ARF]

One post ago it was 50% for your personal tastes. Which is it? There's a 45% gap there which is obviously crucial.

Yes, when obviously 90-95% is risky, then how much is "good"? 10%? 20%? 50% all will serve well. You don't need to go out of the VRAM and begin to call the system memory or even worse - the SSD/HDD, then it becomes stutter fest.

 

[Vayra86]

Yes, when obviously 90-95% is risky, then how much is "good"? 10%? 20%? 50% all will serve well. You don't need to go out of the VRAM and begin to call the system memory or even worse - the SSD/HDD, then it becomes stutter fest.

As described earlier... the VRAM a game wants to allocate is measureable, its not 'masked', its only masked if you have a GPU that hasn't got the full capacity to store everything. Our friendly neighbourhood W1zzard measures it in every game performance review. You don't need to live in uncertainty about what's enough, and you certainly don't need to overkill capacity by a factor 2. Your questions have simple answers.

 

[ARF]

As described earlier... the VRAM a game wants to allocate is measureable, its not 'masked', its only masked if you have a GPU that hasn't got the full capacity to store everything. Our friendly neighbourhood W1zzard measures it in every game performance review.

What I am saying is that along the VRAM allocation, you must measure the system memory activity and SSD activity, in order to track how much transfers go here and there.

 

[Vayra86]

What I am saying is that along the VRAM allocation, you must measure the system memory activity and SSD activity, in order to track how much transfers go here and there.

I'm saying that's nonsense, measuring more doesn't make your game smoother. You just measure frametimes to measure smoothness, again, its very simple. Diving deep into numbers you barely understand doesn't make your case in any possible way.

If there is system memory activity or SSD activity despite sufficient VRAM, even MORE VRAM doesn't change that either, why would it? You're also brutally mixing up pipeline activity because of VRAM requirements versus activity from game logic and overall system performance. Frankly, it doesn't make the least bit of sense. Just admit 50% overcapacity on VRAM is absolute bullshit and pulled out of your arse logic, and we're done

 

[Shou Miko]

Just look at TPU's latest GPU review at any given time, and you'll have better details than a video interpreting the data for you

ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Dual OC Review - Efficiency & Clock Speeds | TechPowerUp

View attachment 311984


Is the 4070 the most efficient? No but it's one of the best.
This is where things like the 30 series GPU and their utterly shite stock voltages come into play, undervolt curves change them drastically - while the 40 series was somewhat better tuned from the start

You are right @Mussels and I respect your answer and the reviews that @W1zzard makes here on TPU which he would instead of overclocking do undervolting could be interesting to see across all the samples that he tests.

Correct the RTX 30 series was a big mess with power, and what I said before when the general lines are a TDP of 200W as default but they can be easily tuned for 130W and maybe in worse case 150W why do manufactures make OC cards and not UV cards because it's not like the OC versions are like 15, 25 or 50% more performance and en most cases on newer cards are we like 5% on a OC variant?

 

[AusWolf]

Its tricky, but in a general sense it is always better and optimal to be able to fit the entire allocation in VRAM. Its certainly NOT better to be unable to do so. The subject was 'no compromise' on smoothness and experience; 8GB is however a compromise in 2023 as multiple games readily exceed that limit in allocation. No hitching might be true but you can still get reduced IQ alongside of that, for example. Bandwidth is another factor that is overlooked here, in your post as well. It is the combination of both that will ultimately determine if a lower capacity is sufficient, or even a very high capacity like 16GB on a 4060ti.

VRAM usage isn't deceptive at all. You either have enough, or you will be compromising one way or another: by slightly lower FPS, higher frametimes/variance, by texture/LOD pop in being slightly more pronounced, etc etc etc. There is no need to overcomplicate this. The only reason cards can get by with lower amounts is because the driver can handle it well - and that's entirely down to a per-game implementation/combo with the game logic and the driver/card you have. Its not proof you have sufficient VRAM for no compromise experiences.

The whole principle of RAM and VRAM is extremely simple. You either have enough, or you have too little, and having too much is of no measureable benefit whatsoever. If you want overkill RAM/VRAM, increase the bandwidth/transfer speed/lower the latency, not the capacity.

It's proof that you have enough for the game you're playing. More is always better, but PC hardware needs to be fit for purpose, first and foremost. If your purpose is to play 2-3 year old games, then 8 GB is fine. If your purpose is to play the latest games in the next 5 or so years, then probably not.

What I am saying is that along the VRAM allocation, you must measure the system memory activity and SSD activity, in order to track how much transfers go here and there.

I don't care how much memory activity my PC is doing if my frame rate is stable.

 

[Frick]

Man, tough crowd around here. I figured we all like the same things, I don’t understand why you guys are so hostile? I was never offensive to anyone, just excited about finding good deals and trying out new stuff. If I don’t like a part that I have or want to try something else, I just go and sell whatever it is that I’m replacing. I will find a deal so it isn’t a rough as if I bought it at MSRP. Everyone has a different thing they do. I go back and forth with car stuff and computers. It’s fun to mess around with that stuff to me.

I have down time at work here and there so I look around for good deals sometimes. It takes no time to check Newegg or Best Buy lol. Again, part of my hobby. I’m not expecting a congrats, I was saying that I would post some results on a comparison of the cards as something fun to do. Kinda like what a lot of people do here on the forums.

Fair enough. I hadn't slept for many hours when I wrote that. And that comment about "smart shopping" really did something to me (as that implies you are a smarter shopper than others, but the list of the various graphics cards you have suggests that you simply have more money than others).

 

[boomstik360]

Fair enough. I hadn't slept for many hours when I wrote that. And that comment about "smart shopping" really did something to me (as that implies you are a smarter shopper than others, but the list of the various graphics cards you have suggests that you simply have more money than others).

It’s all good, I understand things can get spicy when sleep is deprived! My sense of humor is rather different and just meant it as a “funny haha” type of thing so my bad for sure. Definitely not trying to be offensive or degrading to everyone. Maybe “obsessive” or “compulsive” shopper would be better words than “smart” since clearly it’s not smart to do what I do!!

 

[boomstik360]

It's only possible if they commit to massive artificial deficite. Demand is at its lowest ever, especially for AMD, especially in 400 to 600 USD range, especially outside Western Europe. Most peeps are now buying used RX 6800 XT for $300 and call it a day. $200 premium for it being with a number 7 and BNIB... Not everyone's vibe.

Well, all but 3 cards are out of stock. Many were gone early this morning. Looks like everything will be sold out by the end of the day after all!

 

[Macro Device]

Well, all but 3 cards are out of stock. Many were gone early this morning. Looks like everything will be sold out by the end of the day after all!

Isn't the day 1 always like that?

 

[boomstik360]

Isn't the day 1 always like that?

You seemed to have insinuated that it wouldn’t happen in that post I quoted??? Lol

 

[Macro Device]

You seemed to have insinuated that it wouldn’t happen in that post I quoted??? Lol

I was thinking of September in general, not the particular 6th of September. Sorry for that shortening. I meant to say I don't see how they run outta stock before October. Restocks do happen and will happen with these two cards as well.